conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What could be a title for a book about Sunday, Telegraph, Spectator with the genre: Humor & Entertainment, Humor?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: A title for this book could be 'How to Be Right'
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the first five paragraphs for this book.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: How to Be Right
  Success relies on absolute truths, supply and demand, work and reward, achievement, not identity. As the old saying goes, it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. Conservatives catch mice. Liberals apologize to them. And want you to buy them cheese so they don't have to chase mice.
  It's interesting that people who participate in professions that require conservative values are often so very liberal. Here are three examples of such types, and how to expose their inner right-winger. Chances are they will never think of themselves as liberals, ever again. (Or at least they will hate you and go away.)
  You'd think all of them are liberals, but surprisingly it's only the successful egomaniacs who can afford to be. The musicians who last the longest operate a business dependent on incredibly stringent conservative principles. If you hire a backup band, for example, they must show up on time to practice. They must be disciplined enough to understand that perfection requires attention to detail and have a basic understanding of economics to justify a grueling tour schedule (even Mick Jagger went to the London School of Economics. It's true—"Satisfaction" was about the joy of capital gains). When you go see your favorite metal band, you can bet that the whole tour is mapped out not as some hippy-dippy road trip, but as a meticulously planned endeavor to wring every penny of profit out of it. Smart musicians are often the most conservative people on the planet. Someone had to pay for the gas, the guitar strings, and the antibiotics.
  Following recipes is the opposite of liberalism, where demanding excellence (that requires objective measures) is seen as hurtful.
  There are no progressives in locker rooms. There are no liberals on playing fields. The goal is to score, to beat your opponents, to defeat them. Not just degrade them, but demolish them. You want to crush the adversary. That's about as conservative as you can possibly get. And about as lovey-dovey as a head on a stick. Is there a sport that is progressive in philosophy? Yes. It's called tag. Liberalism is tag in which the successful are always "it."
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Delete the last sentence.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: How to Be Right
  Success relies on absolute truths, supply and demand, work and reward, achievement, not identity. As the old saying goes, it doesn't matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice. Conservatives catch mice. Liberals apologize to them. And want you to buy them cheese so they don't have to chase mice.
  It's interesting that people who participate in professions that require conservative values are often so very liberal. Here are three examples of such types, and how to expose their inner right-winger. Chances are they will never think of themselves as liberals, ever again. (Or at least they will hate you and go away.)
  You'd think all of them are liberals, but surprisingly it's only the successful egomaniacs who can afford to be. The musicians who last the longest operate a business dependent on incredibly stringent conservative principles. If you hire a backup band, for example, they must show up on time to practice. They must be disciplined enough to understand that perfection requires attention to detail and have a basic understanding of economics to justify a grueling tour schedule (even Mick Jagger went to the London School of Economics. It's true—"Satisfaction" was about the joy of capital gains). When you go see your favorite metal band, you can bet that the whole tour is mapped out not as some hippy-dippy road trip, but as a meticulously planned endeavor to wring every penny of profit out of it. Smart musicians are often the most conservative people on the planet. Someone had to pay for the gas, the guitar strings, and the antibiotics.
  Following recipes is the opposite of liberalism, where demanding excellence (that requires objective measures) is seen as hurtful.
  There are no progressives in locker rooms. There are no liberals on playing fields. The goal is to score, to beat your opponents, to defeat them. Not just degrade them, but demolish them. You want to crush the adversary. That's about as conservative as you can possibly get. And about as lovey-dovey as a head on a stick. Is there a sport that is progressive in philosophy? Yes. It's called tag. Liberalism is tag in which the successful are always "it.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me five more paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Perhaps, in the near future, there will be recycling bins located next to the traditional boxes, marked "Paper" and "Glass." We'd likely label it "medical waste," but "victims" would save time and ink.
  If dismemberment of a fetus is a right, then so is a right that I possess, allowing me to dissect my uncle after he passed away, too. His skull would make a great paperweight.
  Point Three: If this baby butchering is perfectly normal activity, why the need for euphemism? Listening to apologists refer to the slicing of dead babies as "fetal research" reveals how evil can only operate under the protective umbrellas of euphemism. What if we experimented on the corpses of death-row dwellers? We'd call it "inmate research," and we'd be vilified. It's an argument one could use on the "research" done on concentration camp victims. And perhaps, in this day and age, we would.
  Point Four: Much of the media accused the group behind these gotcha videos of selectively editing them to make PP appear worse than they really are. Fact is, the videos were made available, in full, online, the moment they were released. But the real point is this: You can always tell something about someone's choice of outrage. When the media is more upset about the splicing of film than the splicing of babies, it reveals that their reservoir of compassion is as empty as their platitudes about choice. I'd tell them to go to hell, but they're already in it.
  Unless you're the beneficiary of media welfare (any leftist with a microphone) you will always be expected to back up the point you're making with examples. Having one example is okay, but no great shakes. Having two examples only illustrates that you have one, plus another one. But having three? That means there are many more! I have no idea why. But it works.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Delete the first sentence.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: " We'd likely label it "medical waste," but "victims" would save time and ink.
  If dismemberment of a fetus is a right, then so is a right that I possess, allowing me to dissect my uncle after he passed away, too. His skull would make a great paperweight.
  Point Three: If this baby butchering is perfectly normal activity, why the need for euphemism? Listening to apologists refer to the slicing of dead babies as "fetal research" reveals how evil can only operate under the protective umbrellas of euphemism. What if we experimented on the corpses of death-row dwellers? We'd call it "inmate research," and we'd be vilified. It's an argument one could use on the "research" done on concentration camp victims. And perhaps, in this day and age, we would.
  Point Four: Much of the media accused the group behind these gotcha videos of selectively editing them to make PP appear worse than they really are. Fact is, the videos were made available, in full, online, the moment they were released. But the real point is this: You can always tell something about someone's choice of outrage. When the media is more upset about the splicing of film than the splicing of babies, it reveals that their reservoir of compassion is as empty as their platitudes about choice. I'd tell them to go to hell, but they're already in it.
  Unless you're the beneficiary of media welfare (any leftist with a microphone) you will always be expected to back up the point you're making with examples. Having one example is okay, but no great shakes. Having two examples only illustrates that you have one, plus another one. But having three? That means there are many more! I have no idea why. But it works.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the last three paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: But for the sake of civility and kinship on a crowded planet, it's not such a bad thing to smile when you score, and to smile when you don't. And every now and then, buy a round for your opponents, just so they know you're human, much like them. Assuming you're human, that is.
  That way, even if you don't win the arguments or convert the opposition, we'll all have a much better shot at enjoying the game. A game that, for all of us, is far too short, and goes by far too quickly.
  I must also express gratitude to the people who read and shaped this manuscript. My deep thanks go to my editor, Mary Choteborsky; my agent, Jay Mandel; and my manager, Aric Webb. Paul Mauro—thanks for the initial read and thoughts. Denis Boyles—the stern guidance and extra jokes. Dana Perino—the dog pictures (and the camaraderie).