Right and Wrong

Jules Lester wrote this in 1968. As you will read, nothing has changed: liberals will always reject the radical changes required to make things better.

This entry was posted in Blog on by .

About Ted Rall

Ted Rall is the political cartoonist at ANewDomain.net, editor-in-chief of SkewedNews.net, a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is the author of the biography "Trump," to be published in July 2016.

13 thoughts on “Right and Wrong

  1. “A cop can be trusted to act like a cop.”

    Republicans are rarely an object of my verbal scorn. Why should one attempt to call attention to that which is already unavoidably apparent, and apparently being ignored?

    What can more words make more apparent than that which screams out for notice but remains unremarked upon by those who persistently choose not to see?

    Why call attention to the nature of Republicans when that calling would serve only as misdirection from the Democrats own normalizing and abetting of Republican crimes?

    Will Democrats really oppose Republicans now, finally, after allowing the theft of a Supreme Court nomination from their own president while the whole world watched? This, from a party that once (Once, assuming they will not use that sales pitch again) ran on the importance of the president being a Democrat in order to obtain that prize alone.

    Note the tone of moral outrage directed at Republicans as they follow the well worn path Democrats have broken toward the prosecution of whistle blowers and other First Amendment practitioners in collusion with the also gutless liberal media.

    “A liberal can be trusted to act like a liberal, which means that he can’t be trusted.”

  2. “the opressed can do no wrong and the oppressor can do no right”

    To the trash heap the Jules Lesters go.

  3. 1968. I wonder what he would have written 20-odd years later when the Baby Boomers were at the peak of theory noxious powers and NIMBYing themselves into a froth as they raped the future generations to feather their feathernests even more than they’d already been feathered. Probably he would have just vomited on the blank pages in disgust.
    Lately, people keep mentioning items to read. I’m having a good time expanding my knowledge base.

    • «I wonder what he would have written 20-odd years later when the Baby Boomers were at the peak of theory noxious powers and NIMBYing themselves into a froth as they raped the future generations to feather their feathernests even more than they’d already been feathered.» I’m not that familiar with Professor Lester’s works, Alex, but from what I have read, I very much doubt that he would have allowed himself to be suckered into believing that the most important conflict in the US was a generational one….


    • The most selfish and destructive thing the Boomers did was to have children. At the end of The Boom, there were around three and a quarter billion people on earth, certainly more than we need – but sustainable.

      We’re now over 7.5 billion – and if you do the math, you’ll see that there are more newbies than oldies. Overpopulation is the root cause of global warming and most of our other woes, so if we’re going to cast blame based on birthdate – then the X’s, Y’s, Millennials, et al carry far more of that blame than the Boomers.

      🙂 😀 😉

  4. I haven’t read the entire book, but what’s posted doesn’t tell us what is ‘necessary’

    Armed revolution? The oppressed can do no wrong … so I assume that includes starting a war in which innocents die. Personally, I think that innocents dying is wrong. They will never see any benefit from the revolution, and we’ll never know whether they thought their death was worth it.

    Perhaps it will come to that, the French and American revolutions did move the ball down the field. But innocents did die along the way. As we are constantly reminded, some of the American Revolutionaries were oppressors themselves – which puts them in the ackward position of doing no wrong while simultaneously doing no right.

    The “conservatives” talk about Good And Evil – strictly demarcated, irrefutable and everlasting Black v. White, literally inscribed in stone. Liberals are (theoretically) more able to see shades of grey.

    • ‘pon consideration, I think I can make my point a little more succinctly.

      “The oppressed can do no wrong” is suspiciously close to “the end justifies the means.” Every war crime, genocide and atrocity in history was committed by someone who believed that to be true. But it is not the call of the revolutionary, it is the call of the fanatic.

      Ask yourself whether you are truly willing to die so that I can have some more freedom. How about your mother, wife, girlfriend, daughter or sister? Gang rape happens in wartime, quite often perpetrated by both sides.

      Sometimes it is indeed necessary to pick up the sword, but one should not do so without carefully considering the consequences beforehand.

      • @ CH

        In your own words: “The oppressed can do no wrong” is suspiciously close to “the end justifies the means.”

        It’s typical that a conservative Democrat like yourself would call attention to the concept of “ends justifying means” when your given reason for a opposing a passionate opposition to a WRONG END is the possibility of emerging violence, and this possibility is used to justify the continuation of the WRONG of conserving the status quo, when simply doing the RIGHT thing might moot even the thought of a use of a violent option (which you, as a Liberal, introduced into the conversation).

        Liberals used a WRONG and devious MEANS to make sure that the WRONG END of obstructing the Bernie Sanders campaign for president, and thereby foreclosing its RIGHT END of OPPRESION relief.

        Then Liberals used the WRONG and devious MEANS of the Russia-gate hoax in their feckless attempt at achieving the WRONG END of bringing their own ascension, albeit under the false cover of the RIGHT END of disempowering Trump.

        The first goal of Liberals is to make sure the status quo of there being “NO ALTERNATIVES to the weak and feckless Democratic Party” is CONSERVED, thus making sure that the Democrats’ preferred candidates are the ONLY, but feckless, viable alternative candidates to Republican Party candidates.

        Cui bono?

      • @Glenn, Everyone who disagrees with you is a conservative democrat. Wow, what are the odds?

        So I take it you are willing to die for my freedom. Thank you. Mount your horses, draw your swords, cross the Rubicon, storm the barricades, and engage the enemy! (I’m behind you all the way …)

        Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
        Go ahead and cheat a friend,
        Do it in the name of heaven,
        You can justify it in the end.

        There won’t be any trumpets blowing
        Come the judgment day,
        On the bloody morning after
        One tin soldier rides away.

        oh, hell, now I gotta go spin up my Billy Jack DVD.

      • @CH

        Contrary to your over-inflated estimation of the validity of your own opinion, you are not “Everyone”.

        Do you still hold on to the hope that the Trump-Putin collusion will be proven true?

        You know that EVERYONE doesn’t still believe in this hoax, and instead of Trump’s downfall, the revelation of the falseness of the Democrats’ hoax may be what will get Trump reelected.

        Good work, dupes.

      • uhhh, Glenn – just a word of friendly advice. If you’re going to hit the ‘reply’ button, it’s customary to write something that actually has some small shred of relevance to the comment.