Archive for the ‘Blogging Matters’ Category
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/19
Posted by DNW on 2014/08/19
I’ve taken a backward glance at a number of the posts I have put up in recent months, and noticed what has become a recurring theme for me: the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the everyday left and its mouthpieces.
I also notice that in choosing the most plainspoken and idiomatic terms available, I have repeatedly labeled their condition “stupidity”.
Now, this “Dishonest stupidity of everyday Progressives” business, is not a theme I have intentionally chosen to harp on. It is simply the result of watching what everyday progressives do, of listening carefully (and dispassionately above all else) to what they themselves say, and of then evaluating the narrative they are putting forth for (presumably) our consumption, for its logical coherence, evidence of intellectual integrity, and overall sense.
It is startling to reflect that in the process of reviewing so many different progressives’ work for intellectual coherence and truth value, I have been inexorably led to the same end-point; a place wherein I was confronted with the obvious: that progressives habitually lie, are untroubled by their lying and duplicity, and that they are not even very clever in doing it.
Katie Halper, John The Liberal, Benjamin Crump, progressives big and small, public and not so public, they are all essentially the same ends-justify-the-means types who live in a world of moral convenience: one which they ultimately strive to order for their emotional comfort and satisfaction.
Ann Coulter sometime ago commented that despite the progressive’s constant talk of intelligence as if it were a cardinal if not the supreme, moral virtue, they seem to be quite deficient when it comes to exercising it themselves or in applying that intelligence standard to members of their political client class.
And perhaps that is the key, and why I placed the word “presumably” in parentheses when I said above that progressives were speaking for “our consumption”. They really are not. The progressives are not trying to convince us. Instead, as David Horowitz had made himself blue in the face pointing out, their rhetoric is not designed to convince us of the validity of their reasoning, so much as to wage social war upon us by manipulating emotionally immature, and mentally limited third parties.
Knowing their own herd then, given who they themselves are, what they value, and who it is that aligns with them, they know that they need not be careful, accurate, or truthful; and that emotion and sarcasm serve their ends better than reason.
As their chosen audience has presumptively little or nothing in the way of critical faculties or genuine knowledge, they need not trouble themselves too much when it comes to arousing them.
“Stupid”, may not be the most artful word to describe the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of political progressives. But apart from terms such as “nihilist”, “self-serving hypocrite”, or “evil”, it seems upon consideration, to be the most accurate.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/17
DNW has been regaling us with the absurdity that is the Loony Left as represented by one John the Liberal, who runs American Liberal Times. Well, the clown who unfortunately shares my first name wrote an article blasting Voter ID (which is supported by a majority of each segment of each spectrum) and simultaneously calling for mandatory voting. I responded. I expected to get a message saying my comment is in moderation. I did not get that message. Instead, I got a response from the site that suggested my comment went directly into the spam filter. That response was a refreshing of the direct page without even the hint that I commented at all. Good job, DNW. Not only did you get yourself banned from the illogical, deceitful, dishonorable site, but you also got this site, which is based on Honor, banned from it. That does, indeed, show the depth of depravity, the complete inability to hear the truth, the total disregard for Honorable debate “John the Liberal” has.
Knowing there might be an issue with commenting there, I had the forethought to save what I wrote before hitting the submit button. And here it is.
You say “feel free to comment” when you actually mean “comment when and if your opinion matches my own completely off-balance opinion”. I know this to be the case because an author on my blog has attempted to enter into an intellectual and logical debate with you. What did he get in return? “La la la la la I can’t hear you.” And a “you’re not welcome” sign.
You’re not interested in the truth. While I do know Leftists who are, indeed, interested in honest debate; aphrael (the “married” homosexual Leftist at Patterico’s Pontifications) and Jeff (the Left-wing Jewish heterosexual who is down for the cause of homosexual “marriage” (something every true Christian is foursquare against) at Opinions Nobody Asked For) are two such examples, you, however are not in that crowd. I have strong respect for both aphrael and Jeff, despite their being wrong on just about every issue. They, at least, try to debate honestly. You should give it a try yourself.
The only thing that seems to happen is that the voter ID laws become ever increasingly demanding
Prove it. You won’t because you can’t. It’s just a sham you on the Left push in your efforts to make enforcement of eligibility requirements as difficult as possible. You need the fraudulent votes. You need the politicians’ lies. Without both, you lose lots of elections you’re currently winning.
You claim vote fraud is rare. The way you write suggests it’s virtually unheard of. The only reason it would be unheard of is due to the fact mainstream media works so hard to hide it. Vote fraud is hardly rare. I have personally compiled a small sampling of massive voter fraud and voter registration fraud. And it inevitably points to your side of the political spectrum. The side that has the absolute belief that there are no absolutes. (Talk about an intellectually and logically untenable position…)
While it is difficult to ascertain the depths of the vote fraud and voter registration fraud perpetrated by Democrats and Leftists, my proven documentation of Democrat officials engaging in both destroys your claims. As does the 120 percent voter registration in Indianapolis. 120 percent. When even 100 percent is statistically impossible without fraud. And the over 100 percent vote in Florida, used to unseat a black man from office because he didn’t toe the Democrat plantation line.
But your suggestion of making voting mandatory does two things I want to point out here.
1) It proves you on the Left are not at all about independence. You are not at all about individual freedom. You are about control of the people. You are fascist at the core. (That’s what mandatory voting is: Fascism. So, own it or be dishonorable and run from it.)
2) It proves you need the wholly uninformed to vote for your emotionalist scare arguments because, when it’s only the informed who vote, you lose cataclysmically. You cannot win when the people are truly informed and involved. It is impossible. Therefore, the more uninformed the people who vote, the better it is for your totalitarian side. This is proven by the results of “low voter turnout” votes. Those who “don’t get into politics”, in other words, those uninformed types, are more likely to not vote in low voter turnout elections. And low voter turnout elections tend to tilt far to the Right. Thus your need for the uninformed, uneducated, non-critical-thinking masses to be “forced” to vote.
Quite frankly, I would be happy if those who did not pay Federal taxes in the previous year or two were not permitted to vote on any issue that raised taxes on those who actually do pay taxes. Why should the leeches of society get to vote on how much they can leech off those who are forced to lend their arms for the blood-sucking? But my position would be clearly unconstitutional, so I do not advocate for it. Your position, which you are strongly advocating for, is equally unconstitutional.
But since when did the Constitution ever get in the way of you on the far Left?
Here, you can find other articles on this site that concerns voter fraud, voter registration fraud, and the like.
Posted in Blogging Matters, Constitution, Constitution Shredded, Elections, Law, Liberal, Over-regulation, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Vote Fraud | Tagged: American Liberal Times, fascism, Unconstitutional Democrats, vote fraud, voter registration fraud | 4 Comments »
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/08/15
I am at this moment in a hotel room, getting ready to head off to the airport for my three week overseas trip. But just getting here was an ordeal and a half. The company I am contracted to has known I needed to be in Salt Lake City by the 13th or 14th so I can catch my flight on the 15th for 2 months. And I kept training students right up to the end (a break in training of 45 days or more means I would have to go through the 4-day training class all over again). My last student found my truck in the shop 5 times in 5 weeks, one of those times being his fault. I had nox sensor issues more than once, a clutch replaced, a fuel pump replaced, a cylinder liner replaced, and a brand new 1200 dollar super-single drive tire replaced with another brand new 1200 dollar tire (his fault).
On August 6, I was in California. I delivered a load to Carson, then went over to Colton to pick up my next load, headed to Shelbyville, Tennessee. The load was to pick up between 10am and 11pm on the 6th, so I arrived at 5am and waited. And waited. And waited some more. It wasn’t ready at 10am like it was supposed to be, then at 1pm I was informed a stop in Ochelaka, Oklahoma was added. It was finally ready to go at 7pm.
The delivery times of 3am on the 8th for OK and 3am on the 9th for TN got changed. New delivery times were 630am on the 9th and 3am on the 10th. And I got time to go into the shop at the Petro to get my drive tire replaced. My student had dropped a trailer and pulled out from under it, like is done 120 times a year. Only he didn’t lower the landing gear far enough, and he pulled out real fast without stopping midway to assure things were good. The trailer dropped down onto the drive tire, and since he was pulling out too fast, the truck came right out, shredding the tread on one 1200 dollar super-single drive tire. All the way around the tire.
I got load assignments to pick up a load on the morning of the 10th to deliver to Haverhill, Massachusetts the morning of the 11th and pick up a load in the Boston area 3pm on the 11th to be delivered to Ogden, UT on the 13th.
After delivering in OK, my Shelbyville delivery time for the 10th got changed to 720am, meaning I would be late to pick up in Murfreesboro, late to deliver to Haverhill, late to pick up in the Boston area. So I go pick up my load in Murfreesboro. And lo and behold, the yard jockey had backed the trailer up too far. He pushed the trailer tires against a large concrete back-stop, pinning the mudflap between the back-stop and the tire. And when he dropped the trailer, he tore off the mudflap and bent the bracket. I was going to have to go out-of-route to Nashville to get the damage repaired. But first, it being a heavy load, I had to get the truck scaled out. And there was a long line inside the truckstop waiting for the scale ticket. And then the scale ticket. 30,000 on the drives and 36,600 on the trailer. 34,000 maximum. So back out, stretch the trailer tandems as long as legally possible. Rescale. 32,000 on the drives, 34,600 on the trailer. Overweight. Back to the shipper to rework the load. Over an hour lost at the truckstop. Two hours lost at the shipper. Then back to the truckstop to scale it out, and it’s legal this time.
So next we go to the TA to get the mudflap hanger straightened and a new mudflap installed. 40 miles out of route, and 3 hours wait time. And we’re finally ready to roll on to Haverhill, MA. Shortly after leaving Nashville on I-40, a man with white hair and a short-cropped white beard walked toward the highway so my student moved into the left lane and slowed down. The man continued walking out onto the 70 mph highway, and then he really did it. He threw something that looked like a brick at my windshield! He missed, hitting my mirror mount and barely hitting the lower seal around the passenger mirror.
Instead of delivering in Haverhill at 4am on the 11th, it looked like a 5pm delivery. My load out of Boston to Ogden got pulled off me. Now, I had a delivery in Northeast Massachusetts for the evening of the 11th with nothing getting to Utah. And a flight and hotel room I already paid for on the line. But my Dispatch Manager pulled through. I had an 11pm pick up in Middletown, Connecticut to be delivered to Salt Lake City 11pm on the 13th.
So, we get stuck behind a crash on I-78 on the Pennsylvania/New Jersey border. Then we get stuck behind a crash on I-287 in New York. Then we get stuck in a 7 mile back-up behind a crash on I-95 in Connecticut. Then we get stuck in a back-up on I-290 in Massachusetts. We finally get delivered in Haverhill at 930pm, when it was supposed to be delivered at 4am. Now, off to the Connecticut pick-up. And… we get stuck in an hour-long back-up on I-90 in Massachusetts. And a midnight pick-up. Other than unseasonable cold and unusual rain where it doesn’t normally in the summer, the trip to Salt Lake City was uneventful. Finally, I could relax.
There’s still time for something else to be screwed up since I am not on the plane yet…
Posted by DNW on 2014/08/14
A little while ago I posted on my failed project to enter into a constructive dialog with a liberal … any liberal at all. The latest case being, one John The Liberal, the proprietor of the “American Liberal Times” blog.
That was then.
Today, my morbid curiosity got the best of me and I returned to glance at his blog once again. Like a gruesome accident, it’s hard to look at, and equally hard to look away from.
Well, despite his occasional references to his advancing age, his daily torrent of senescent vitriol seems completely undiminished. The single minded, monomaniacal obsessiveness of it all would astonish me if I had not seen it all before with other elderly liberals.
What remains shocking however, is the near total mental disconnect of these people from reality. In particular, this guy’s worldview must have been formed on another planet entirely.
Just a couple of amazing examples will be provided. Amazing in their brazen intellectual lunacy. Amazing in their psychological autism, and in the obvious inability of the author to self-audit or pay any attention to facts at all.
And bear in mind that for what little it is worth, this fellow regularly purports to be a Christian, if a proudly liberal one, whose God is “love”.
At any rate, introducing just a little more of John The Liberal. (Try not to laugh at the hat.)
John The Liberal has a few observations and rhetorical-style questions.
We will – as a pure exercise as he will likely never read this – try to help him (or those like him) understand the real world better, and more accurately, through listing his remarks as “questions” and “comments”, and then proposing our “answers”.
1, Question from John:
“It seems that some “Christians” . . . ( I have no reason to doubt they are Christians . . . I am not their judge and jury . . . That is God’s Business) . . . some Christians seems to be Hell-bent ( pardon the unintended pun) on getting themselves into trouble by trying to export their belief system to foreign cultures . . . did you ever notice?”
Yes we have. This is probably due to the fact that it is a critical and essential part of their faith according to its very Founder. Sometimes it is referred to as “The Great Commission” . You have repeatedly referred to your own religious faith in terms which would lead one to assume that it had, or once had, something to do with Christianity as well. So perhaps you heard of the command to evangelize at one time.
Matthew Chapter 28
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, [even] unto the end of the world.
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.
But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God
And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?”
It should also be noted that Church history records that all the original apostles did in fact “get into trouble” exporting their faith to foreign cultures; with only one apostle even surviving the commission: albeit in exile. The plain fact is that the faith was at one time foreign to all cultures; even the culture of its homeland.
So yes, John. Many people have noticed.
2, Comment from John:
“I am one of those “Liberal Freaks” who firmly believes that if some pew-jumper church starts preaching politics from the pulpit it should lost its tax-exempt status . . . period . . . end of story. Why should they rake in millions of tax-free dollars for their big wig preachers to live high on the hog on and be able to shove their politics down their parishioners’ throats at the same time?
It has nothing to do with “freedum of ree-ligiun” at all.
It has to do with trying to mix politics and religion – – and that is something that simply cannot work out in the long run. …
I’m all in favor of the government taxing the Living Hell out of any church that makes itself a virtual headquarters of some political party.
Share this:callous! I didn’t mean for it to sound that way but I think it has to be asked.)
Answer: Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United
3, An “observation” from John The Liberal of American Liberal Times:
“When tyranny comes to a nation it always comes wrapped in a flag and carrying a gun and a Bible.”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/25
you were a lousy teacher and you totes deserve your bad karma. hope you bankrupt soon.
That was attempted to be put up on my Good News And Bad News article.
The bad news is I’m not a professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, or at Wyoming. You see, I died in 1712.
The good news is I’m one undead individual with enough brain power left not to vote Democrat.
Let’s see how many remember this:
“Will the real John Hitchcock please stand up?”
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/07/20
The good news is for TBD’s readers. The bad news is for me.
The good news is I’ve been able to write more involved articles to the benefit of the readers here. It’s something that I actually desire to do and enjoy doing, but it’s because of the bad news that this good news has occurred.
The past Thursday, Friday, Saturday, I was in Salt Lake City, spending over 3000 dollars fixing and maintaining my truck. When I only had a 2100 dollar maintenance account (fed continually from revenue from each of my trips).
Then my student and I went to Idaho to pick up a load, travelled to a suburban area of Chicago, then off toward the Los Angeles megaplex. But on the way there, the truck died in Frisco, CO. Coolant decided to go into a white steam-smoke and also into the oil. The cost of that? Besides spending Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday morning in a hotel in Denver, where hotels are booked (vacation plus legal marijuana) at about 100 dollars a night, there’s the 8000 dollar repair bill. While my maintenance account is completely depleted.
I suspect it will take about 6 months to recover. It would be faster, but from 15 August to 10 September, I’ll be vacationing overseas (travel and lodging already paid for), so my revenue will be seriously affected.
Again, good news in that my readers get more than the “reblog” type articles. Bad news in that in a period of 1 week, I have incurred over 11,000 dollars in maintenance costs plus lodging costs, with next to no revenue to show for it. And if my truck sits still for 1 week, I still have 800 dollars in expenses.
Posted by DNW on 2014/06/19
This blog might be said to be semi-inactive, receiving only modest attention from its authors as we ruminate on subjects of peculiar interest to ourselves, rather than busying ourselves trying to feed the day-to-day social frenzy.
Not infrequently though, an outsider drops by. Surprisingly, a number of them leave off a blogging “like” icon without ever commenting.
The other day, John, of the American Liberal Times, a personal blog of his, and one which is, shall we say, intensely opinionated, stopped in to read my remarks on the AOL Huffington Post.
That post concerned their Facebook channeling of any commentary on their news articles. This action was supposedly intended to enhance civility, thoughtfulness, and community, by eliminating the option of an even thinly veiled anonymity.
The policy obviously failed in accomplishing the first two supposed aims, but succeeded in ending the use of screen names or e-mail names as commenting identities. Whether it “enhanced community” as a result of eliminating the comments of conservatives who preferred not to take the first step in making their home addresses available to politically correct activists and picketers, is probably a matter of opinion.
The Huffington Post’s action certainly does seem to have cleansed the comment section of much conservative opinion, even if it did nothing to elevate the tone or improve the quality of the comments. Whether that constitutes an improvement in “the community” is as I just stated probably a matter of opinion.
Now, John of the American Liberal Times, remarked that he agreed – sort of – with the thrust of our post. At least he agreed that it was unwise to hand out much personal information on the Internet. And he also left us a link to his own site.
So I visited him; and just in time to see him posting notice that he was turning over a new leaf himself “tonewise”, and that he had thought better of his former practice of giving free rein to invective and vitriol.
I commended him for this, and left some other remarks.
John was gracious and profuse in his thanks for my visit, and by way of leaving comments on my comments, precipitated something of an exchange.
Throughout it all John was reserved, moderate, and polite; always thanking me for my visits and contribution.
After concluding our series of exchanges, I then decided to go back and take a look at where it had all led us. And I am afraid that the results have pretty much matched past patterns of such exchanges; especially the pattern that seemed to develop in my exchanges with Perry, a significant difference being that John had not descended to the level of making personal accusations of treason, or hardheartedness, or that of libertarians’ having a genetic tendency toward Neanderthal-like behavior.
But what was virtually identical was the manner in which the exchanges “evolved”. Those who recall my observations regarding the lack of an “on point” quality in my exchanges with Perry or the Iowa Libs, and how the logic of the arguments as developed in the thread were consistently sidestepped will … well you can take a look if you are interested, and judge for yourself.
Unfortunately, it may be that we are ultimately fated to largely talk past one another.
Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/06/05
There’s a saying: “You can’t go home again.” Yorkshire wrote about the emotionalist without convictions from the Old Country who found she couldn’t go home again. The resident fifty-dollar-wordsmith (he’s very good with his fifty dollar words) wrote about how the emotionalist emotionalizer tried to rationalize her rationalizations (I’ll leave the big words to the one who is so good with them, heh). Well, my daughter went home again, after 5.5 years in the Army and 15 months in Iraq. And she agrees, you can never really go home again. Everything has changed. Or, like she said, it’s not that everything has changed necessarily, especially in hick-town fly-over country. Sometimes everything has, indeed, changed. Sometimes, it’s that nothing has changed, except for the one who is trying to return. In my daughter’s case, she had changed dramatically and she returned to find everyone she knew from home to be in their same ruts. Floyd still sat in front of the barber shop with next to no customers. Barney still kept his lone bullet in his shirt pocket. Otis was still a drunk. But Laura… Laura had life experiences that forced her to be a different person and made her Rockwell portrait of our hometown completely out of place with reality.
I’m home again. More accurately, I’m in my daughter’s house, having no home of my own. I pay her rent to be able to claim this as my home. But don’t feel too bad for me. I live in my truck. And I’m satisfied with that, for now. See, I have a plan, and that plan requires me to be on the road as much as is possible.
Since March 15, 2013, I had spent a total of 62 hours in my hometown: 30 hours once, 20 hours another time, and 12 hours the third time home. That is, until yesterday. I’m spending yesterday, today, tomorrow at home, leaving out Saturday morning. And I’m really only home now in order to complete an application for a US Passport. I’m just extending my stay, and losing money while doing it.
It costs me about 800 dollars a week to keep up with my truck, if I don’t turn the key to the ignition. So, it’s best that I keep my truck rolling. And my plans of owning a fleet and semi-retiring early require that I keep rolling and maximizing my earnings potential. And that’s what I have been doing.
I leased my truck on June 1, 2013. Since then, I have traveled just over 260,000 miles in my truck and purchased just under 34,000 gallons of fuel, all while training tomorrow’s truck drivers today. I voluntarily stayed on the road for Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Easter, Memorial Day, etc, etc. More miles, longer trips, quicker re-loads mean maximized profitability. And means a better opportunity to quit driving altogether more quickly, which is my ultimate goal: I sit at the house and let other drivers make me money. How anti-socialist of me. How American Dream of me. How “corporate shill” (something some clown socialist on Hot Air called me) of this “corporate owner”.
Truth be told, I’m one of the laziest people you will ever meet. And constantly running, constantly rolling, never going home is the ultimate in lazy. It means I can sooner quit working and still living the good life.
But yeah, this retirement community masquerading as a small city is more undesirable that I’ve been gone so much and so long. It feels dreary, too tightly squeezed (after driving across west Texas, west Nebraska, Wyoming, etc), too je ne sais quoi. I spent over 44 years in this town, but it doesn’t feel like home.
It may be emotionalist, and I’m much more into logical than emotionalist, but there it is. I came back, but I’m not home. It just doesn’t have the home feel. The cab and sleeper of my truck has more of a home feel than this place.
Posted by DNW on 2014/04/10
I was thinking the other day – not too deeply – about the entire concept of narrative, and how it has so often come to replace reasoning, and how deceptively difficult trying to construct a really accurate narrative can be. Maybe that is why those who seem to do it most, also seem to be the least concerned with literal accuracy.
It’s one thing to engage in the geometric arrangement of premisses and conclusions employing technical language, once you learn the discipline.
It’s quite another to try and manage a truthful recounting of human events (as historians well know) when so many different aspects to the “story” must be dealt with in a manner consistent with the overall tenor of the presentation.
This was personally highlighted for me just the other evening where in what was an exercise in the main, I attempted a descriptive recounting of a commenting foray I made on The Atlantic.
I found that certain passages, no matter how I reworked them just didn’t come out right. I finally realized the next day that I was trying to conflate, I was inappropriately mixing, my post hoc psychological attitudes of overall amusement into what was, and was meant to be an accurate factual description.
This came to me when I reread a particularly jarring passage wherein I had jestingly (after some initial skepticism about its fit) used the term “gambit” in what was intended to be a light way; but which was totally at odds with the more distanced tone of the overall presentation. The experience of rereading what I wrote was like having cold water dumped down my back. I knew what I meant but it could not be read right. Yet, no matter how I tried to rework the reference, it didn’t lend itself to the intended interpretation. Even rewriting the reference entirely didn’t make it any better.
And the reason I finally discovered, was not only found in the in-congruence of seeing a light-facetious use, blended with a desultory overall mood, but also because I was trying to fit my flippant psychological attitude post-event, to a more straightforward and prosaic truth.
This back projection or retrofitting of intentions (or events) in order to match a planned narrative or current feeling, is perhaps most familiar to us from some infamous politically staked, but clearly anachronistic or impossible claims: Hillary Clinton’s assertion that she was named after Edmund Hillary, for example; or her husband Bill’s “burning church” memories. Or John Kerry’s ‘Christmas in Cambodia’ for that matter.
The obvious trouble involved in these instances of handling timelines, seems to be a particular problem for political liberals. Whether the timeline trouble they experience is a matter of demonstrable facts tripping up deliberate fabrications, or the result of a genuine psychological difficulty progressives have in grasping cause and effect, antecedent and consequent, prior and subsequent, in the face of their driving need for constructing a self-justifying narrative with broad social impact, is a question I cannot personally answer.
What I can say from recent experience is, that constructing a readable narrative, one that is anything more than a chronicle, that is to say anything more than a chronological checklist of noticed events, is a rather tricky proposition; and requires care on a number of levels.
Posted by DNW on 2014/03/20
Sometimes a rat fight can be rather amusing. Just try not to let them know you’re watching, much less laughing.
Now I admit that I’ve inadvertently ruffled rat fur in the past. I did it on another blog by making – years after the fact – what were by any rational standards temperate and measured remarks about the object lessons available from that infamous Greensboro, North Carolina gunfight which took place between Neo-Nazi’s looking for revenge and self-professed Maoist revolutionary types trolling for a second-round public confrontation with them.
There were those among that blog’s readers who were especially outraged that I looked askance at the speechifying activities of one of the ideology drunk Maoist participants; as her husband lay on the ground with the top of his head shot off.
Quivering with indignation they fumed – or pretended to fume – that I was dancing in the blood of fellow Americans. That’s “fellow” and “Americans” in quotes of course, since we are talking here about Nazi-types on the one hand, and totalitarian disciples of a mass murdering Marxist dictator on the other. Listening to self-described leftists wave the American flag over the bodies of its enemies while hysterically shouting about human decency was pretty much worth the price of admission alone.
Anyway, those who are unfamiliar with that particular historical event – the gunfight not the years later blog eruption – can research it all for themselves, or make a beginning by clicking on this link.
However the rat fight I have in mind here, is not between two species of rat, but a more all in the lefty-family type of brawl. And thus far there have been no known fatalities, though there has been the usual obscene speechifying.
Will rat blood be shed by rat? I doubt it. We can probably rest easy on that point.
Gee … what more can one reasonably say?
Posted by DNW on 2013/10/12
Most will have noticed that the founder and owner of this blog has been absent for awhile now, and that a couple of us, his blog associates that is, have filled in with a posting here or there.
Not with the deeply researched, time consuming, political data point blogging that he tended to engage in, but with somewhat more abstract or even frivolous posts.
I’m pleased to say that in some cases our new postings have generated almost half the interest his old postings on “clouds” still clock up.
Ahem, well …
But, like a number of conservatives I know, his long-term personal unselfishness was getting in the way of his realizing his own ambitions.
That’s a challenge of course, which liberals seldom face. Their trick is to have others labor to do good, while skimming the proceeds as directors, thus fattening their wallets while simultaneously lightening their pseudo-consciences.
The reason for his recent absence is that our conservative friend decided that it was long overdue for him to grant himself some well justified “me time” in a serious economic sense.
He decided to return to the trucking business for awhile. This is a project which in order for him to reach his goals would obviously require a single-mindedness and dedication which would leave little time for blogging efforts; especially in the manner he was operating.
The upshot is that John has now reported back that he’s been a busy entrepreneur these last several months, taking names and kicking … uh tires … and making real progress in building up his trucking business. He and his trainees, have logged an astonishing number of miles, and it seems as though he’s not far from making some additional capital expenditures which will expand his once fledgling enterprise significantly.
We might soon have a gen-u-wine tycoon on our hands.
” John Hitchcock
Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 17:22
Congratulations John, and keep up the good work. Success and economic power in others is the one thing, unfortunately, that grasping liberals respect; or better said, FEAR.
Posted by DNW on 2013/10/07
A Troll has demanded an explanation.
We all know what trolls are. They generally speaking are attention seeking, manipulative neurotics, sometimes ideologically committed, and presumably found on the Internet.
But they actually existed before the advent of the Internet, and one still runs into them in real as opposed to “virtual” life.
Out in the real world they are usually given labels such as, interfering users, jealous schemers, spiteful meddlers, annoying crackpots, social nuisances, or the like.
On rare occasions, their relentless emotional needs and the drive to satisfy them, lead the Troll into positions of considerable political power or social influence. Once there, their amoral-ism and boundary-less will-to-power-over-others, is likely to wreak more havoc and human damage than they ever could hope to achieve while their noxious influence was confined to some local neighborhood.
Trolls, whether encountered in real life or in a virtual, all share a number of what are by now familiar ploys or gambits which they use in the hope these manipulation techniques will bring them what they want.
This includes the presumption of a right of affiliation, as the context for delivering their casual insults; charges of hypocrisy, or double standards (unfair discrimination) when they are called out; displays of indignation; feigned victim-hood; attempts to intimidate those who resist; and the very common Troll technique of leveraging the moral generosity of the principled man back against him.
Verbally, they engage in equivocation, deceit, constant redirection, and/or any other behavior which will protract and obscure rather than clarify and resolve a specific question.
Clearing the question away, is not their intention.
Their focus is always on maintaining contact with the other as “provider”.
For what they seek is not the freedom to access the material world in order to extract what they want from it, but the social privilege of accessing other persons – made compliant one way or another – in order satisfy their urges.
The difference the Internet makes in their game is that it constitutes an electronic barrier between the Troll Personality and the targets of their attention. Blogs don’t serve liquor, they are private, open to limited participation by invitation – generally by default at first – only, and not subject to government regulation. At least not yet.
Nonetheless, a view of Internet practices makes clear that the Internet troll and the modern liberal, (read collectivist) in their insatiable hunger for a piece of the lives of others are essentially one and the same. The Internet troll and the Modern Liberal being merely two manifestations of the same general species, observed while operating in different environments.
What individual trolls sometimes achieved in their neighborhoods, and what the Troll Party has now managed in politics through insinuating itself into the administration of our Federal Government, the Troll Horde now wish to complete by ensuring that they may intrude themselves into every human interchange or transaction that piques their interest or excites their avarice: And to do so on their own terms, and in a way that gives them appropriatve control, be the realm virtual or real, social or political.
This is not to say that a Troll might not be telling the truth about its own views. That is to say it, or they, may be accurately describing their own states of mind when they say that it is wrong to cut them out of your intellectual life, because, say for instance the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Government of the United States, prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”.
They may in fact be so mentally twisted by their needs and their lack of inhibitions in satisfying them, that the techniques I described above have become their unconscious nature. Practice of deceit and manipulation became second nature, second nature became first nature. Eventually nothing is left but a Troll nature where a man’s nature once stood.
Let’s take the specific example of a complaint over the stifling of “free speech”, as our illustrative paradigm.
In a recent accusation over his expulsion from this blog, Mr. Perry Hood has written:
“Regarding free speech, must I remind you that blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control? Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand. Have anything I’ve written constitute a personal threat made to any of you? Of course not. So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me? I would really like to know.And then, again, there is DNW, who by virtue of his hidden identity, forthrightly reveals mine. Don’t lecture me about values, DNW!”
Let’s look at some of the elements above.
Mr. Hood says, “ Regarding free speech … blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control.”
We notice here that:
1. He now entirely sidesteps the Constitutional issue upon which he had been generally hanging his claims. He must abandon it, since there is no issue of Congress making a law abridging his freedom of speech, when someone in the neighborhood kicks him off their front porch.
2. He attempts to redraw his accusation in terms of control of the Internet.
3. But no one is trying to control his access to the Internet.
4. He introduces the idea of ownership, (of the Internet) in order to refute it.
5. But no one has claimed private ownership of the Internet.
6. He attempts to stake a public claim to blogs which are private, by saying that they are found on the Internet which is not privately owned.
7. But by this il-logic he might as well argue that he may ride in your car because you drive it on the highway, or live in your house because it is on a public street, or molest your children because they attend a public school.
Mr Hood then goes on to say, “Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand.”, speciously implying as I mentioned earlier regarding the Troll mind-set, a “ presumption of a right of affiliation as the context for delivering the casual insult”. In other words, his Constitutional gambit bankrupt, his Internet framing proven irrelevant, he must now “presume” a right of affiliation and access where none is in evidence.
Mr. Hood goes on to ask, “ Have anything I’ve written constitute [sic] a personal threat made to any of you?”; while assuming that the obvious answer is, as he tells it, “ Of course not.”
However, because we have had long experiences with Mr. Hood on the Common Sense Political Thought blog, as well as on the First Street Journal blog, we immediately notice that what he says is not true. Which is why he was on thin ice before he was ever granted an exemption and allowed to make any comments here in the first place.
Mr. Hood has, as we all know, had his privilege of participation on the blogs above mentioned and numerous other blogs repeatedly suspended or banned for just that kind of behavior: personal threats.
What apparently grieves Mr. Hood, is that after calling us traitors, and refusing to intellectually justify the supposed moral claims he lays against others as a pretext for calling them treasonous, he was not afforded the 20 or so warnings and advisories, and “second chances”, which he usually gets.
He was given two. Which was two more than the number to which he was entitled.
But when a man labels you as treasonous for resisting his attempts to appropriate the lives of yourself and your family, and then doubles down when called on it, what point is there in further talk?
The Internet is wide open to Mr. Hood. Let him build himself a cozy fire with the means already given to him by someone else, and attract who he can with the wafting aroma of his roasting cant, envy, and malice.
If any do drop by, he is welcome to their company, and to their intellectual and emotional companionship.
Oh, I almost forgot. The Troll asks, “So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me? I would really like to know”
The answer to the question, though revulsion rather than fear is the right idea, involves having any portion of your life repeatedly wasted on a project which you know from long experience is pointless and foolish before you embark upon it: that is to say, the project of repeatedly attempting to reason with an entity which has deconstructed itself into a sometimes wheedling, sometimes demanding, sometimes threatening appetite, but never right-reasoning man.
Does that answer the question?
Perry, you called your own shots. You made yourself into what you now are. You showed us what you are through demonstration, and told us through affirmation.
What is there that is left to say?
Posted by Foxfier on 2013/02/07
I’m fairly sure that anyone here is sufficiently ”plugged in” to current politics enough to have heard about House member Gabby Gifford’s recent plea for further gun restrictions. I’m not sure what your local media is like, but there’s a fair chance that there was even a mention of Sarah Palin or at least some sort of “incitement” behind that shooter’s attack. Given the body count, it’s not too surprising.
Also recently mentioned, though only in passing, is that the guy who shot up the Family Research Council in DC. Honestly, my main memory of that was being on a family trip and wondering why the heck somebody targeting based on “anti-gay bias” would have bags of Chick-fil-A. I can remember a few commentators suggesting that it was some sort of cartoonish attempt at “blending in”– an indication of just how crazy his view of those who disagree is or was. “Hey, Chick-fil-a is ‘anti-gay’ the same way that the FRC is– they don’t support redefining marriage to fit current pop culture appeals. The Family Research Council even denies a man and woman are functionally identical to two guys or two gals, of all the nerve! They’ll never notice me coming in and killing people if I have suitable fast food bags!” Not someone to take too seriously, even if he <I>did</i> have a gun.
I vaguely remember reading a blog about him choosing the target from the Southern Poverty Law Center, but I think that was from a site that collects examples of the SPLC faking and inflating “hate” for fundraising purposes. As I said, it didn’t stick in my mind, and I already don’t trust the SPLC. I assumed that they’d mentioned the FRC as being against homosexual marriage and the guy had gone from there.
Mostly, the “Giffords shooting” (the six dead victims get less press, since it seems likely she was the focus– if only because her public meeting gave that scum a crowd) sticks in one’s mind so much more because of the horrible range of people killed; from the little girl that was a 9/11 baby and the retired grandparent-types to the federal Judge and the first staffer to die in the line of duty, there was someone incredibly relatable to for everyone. Nobody died in the FRC attack, and Leonardo Johnson was able to overcome the shooter even after being shot in the arm. No fuss about heroism there, so it must have not been that bad of a shot, or it would’ve hit the news, right? (An aside: You might notice that I don’t name the murderers or attempted murderers. I don’t want to give them that level of recognition. The victims or heroes, though, are a different matter, and it took quite a bit of digging to find Mr. Johnson’s name wasn’t “A. Security Guard.”)
After today, I’m rather disabused of the notion that the Giffords attack was anything but more successful and more hyped: the attempted murderer bought the Chick-fil-A sandwiches to rub in the faces of his dying victims.
Insult to injury. Fatal injury. Not as cartoonish, now.
If not for Mollie Hemmingway’s post over at Ricochet, I wouldn’t have even thought about media bias. I’m Catholic– if that doesn’t make you realize how much the media screws up, what on earth will? It would be easier to find stories about the Church where reporters got it right than where they didn’t. I’m sure other traditional religion followers, or even folks who simply are part of uncommon fandoms or do something as “strange” as know more about a gun than what end the bullet comes out can relate…. The news screws things up, a lot.
I’m guessing folks will remember the “Blame Sarah Palin Because Her Website Had A Map With Gifford’s Area In A Target” to-do? If not, Mollie goes over it, with links. Although I want you to go read it, the short version is: even though Mrs. Palin didn’t say anything vaguely like ”go shoot this bad woman,” and there was no evidence that the Gifford’s shooter had even seen the map or Palin’s facebook page, it was worrying because it might affect an effect on “troubled” people.
Turns out that the FRC was ”mentioned” on the SPLC site– it was on a “hate map.” That’s where the thank-God ineffective attempted murderer got his target. From a hate map. They’re hateful, you see– so it’s good to target them.
Target a house seat: dangerous.
Make a “hate map” of those who oppose you politically on an issue: not worth mentioning. In fact, noticing that the attacker specifically stated he chose the target because of that “hate map” means that you are picking a fight.
As Mollie writes in response to a quote about that little detail “reigniting the culture wars that erupted around the shooting:”
Excuse me? What is that supposed to mean? I mean, you have an actual shooting in the culture war – an actual shooting – and you dismiss this aspect of the story as a “detail” that is “sure to reignite the culture wars”? The gall. The chutzpah. The …. hypocrisy of our media. The story doesn’t mention, by the way, that the shooter had a list with other groups whose names he got from the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Cherry on top: a guy goes in to kill people he hates, and has a list of other targets that he hates, and intends to assault the dying further with a symbol of yet another group he hates… and the SPLC doesn’t include that as a “hate incident.”