Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Audacity of Liberal Hypocrisy

The Audacity of Liberal Hypocrisy

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I owe Ann Coulter a public apology. For the past couple of years I’ve been saying she’s a little too over the top; snarky, nasty, and downright mean to liberals and Democrats. Guess what? She’s right. You can’t be nice to them. We’ve tried that. Liberals and Democrats (the same thing) take anything nice and decent a person does and twist and turn it into something perverse, filthy and downright ugly.

I’m a little slow on the uptake. For that I humbly apologize. From now on I will not make the mistake of assuming ( ass – you – me) (ass as in Democratic Jackass Donkey) that there is anything remotely resembling that old milk of human kindness buried deep within the recesses of that black void of a soul that Democrats and liberals do not possess.

I know the rant is a little over the top, but I’ve reached the end of my tolerance, and I’m known to be an extremely tolerant person.

The final straw came when I saw the following line from a lovely columnist with Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi. He said of Rush Limbaugh, “…he's abrasive, he's divisive, he's…a fat, pill-popping idiot…”

Try this: Barack Obama is a brainless, air-head, coke-snorting (once upon a time) pathological narcissist who is the most incompetent President we’ve had the misfortune to experience in our nation’s history. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a statesman.

There.

It’s not much fun, is it?

I really don’t give a rip if I defend Rush Limbaugh or not. That’s not the object of this specific rant and rave. It’s all about the fact that activist liberals are the nastiest folks I have had the misfortune of encountering. Now, watch the comments for this piece. They will cry. They will protest, and they will say all sorts of nasty things about your humble correspondent, AS IF I CARE what they say.

I am what you call a normal (shut up), average Republican who’s not too conservative and not really moderate. Contrary to all the vile things you precious little liberals have said over the past couple of years, I’m basically a nice person. I don’t deliberately go around hurting people and saying nasty things about people. For the past eight years I’ve put up with all the vile, ugly, deceitful, prevaricating, filthy, perverse, and completely false things liberals and Democrats have said about George W. Bush.

Why?

We’re Republicans. We’re allegedly nice people. We don’t retaliate.

As far as I’m concerned, all that’s in the past. This is one “average” Republican who is going to start fighting back and will no longer take prisoners. It’s over. It’s done. Stick a fork in it. I’m fighting back. And I hope my fellow Republicans and conservatives will join me.

I want Barack Obama to fail. I want his socialist policies to fail. As far as I’m concerned, he’s an international embarrassment the scale of which this country has ever known. As far as I’m concerned, any idiot who voted for him should have their head examined and forever lose their right to vote until they can pass some sort of sanity test.

I know, I know — there ain't no Sanity Claus.

You liberals should know a good "Marxism" when you see one. Wait, I forgot, liberals and Democrats don't have a sense of humor unless they're denigrating a good Republican. Gotta love that Tina Fey, right? (Wrong!)

Now, before you start crying the crocodile tears of the good liberal, remember when? Remember all the nasty things you said about George W. Bush? In fact, way back on the 9th of August, 2006 51% of all you adorable little liberal Democrats said you wanted George W. Bush to fail.

I wonder if you understand the Queen’s English, or are you as busy insulting our closest ally as was that pathetic imitation of a President? Half of all Democrats wanted George W. Bush to fail. Deal with it. Don’t get too hot and bothered, I will bet my toy poodle, Ronald Rumsfeld Reagan Reidhead that you were part of that 51%.

If the USS Incompetent was simply going to be a half-way decent “liberal” who was not determined to destroy our economy and remake the nation in the image of Stalin, Marx, Castro, Chavez, etc. I would not be as upset. But, he’s destroying the finest nation the world has ever known. The patriot in me is a little annoyed, to say the least.

Sure, I know liberals were good and mad at George W. Bush for fighting the War on Terror and protecting their right to make jackasses out of themselves. We all have a right to disagree. I constantly disagreed with Bill Clinton, but I did not make a fool out of myself the way liberals do with anyone they consider a “conservative threat”

Enter Sarah Palin, stage right. Watch Democrats and liberals attempt to destroy her reputation. Don’t you ever get tired of being vile, nasty, and cruel?

Deal with it.

You might also want to deal with the fact that this pathetic attack on Rush Limbaugh is nothing but the same song, new verse of the typical liberal Democratic attack. We’ve seen it with Sarah Palin. We’re seeing it with Michael Steele, and we’re starting to see it with Bobby Jindal.

I sure wish Republicans were bright enough and nasty enough to do the same thing to liberals and Democrats.

Let’s see what I can do:

  • Barack Obama is in over his head.
  • He’s incompetent (wait, I’ve said that).
  • He’s making a mockery of our foreign policy.
  • He’s spent more money in a month than every president – combined – in history.
  • He’s never met a lie he doesn’t like.
  • He doesn’t know how to tell the truth.
  • He can’t speak in public without a Teleprompter.

Any one of these – take one – just pick an issue, any one will do – would be enough to sink the career of a Republican. But, the USS Incompetent is protected by the media, his staff, and his adoring masses of supporters, none of whom know how to make an individual decision. They can’t even go to the bathroom without a corporate Twitter from David Axelrod.

How am I doing? Are you mad? Do you feel insulted?

Good.

Now you know how we’ve felt these past eight years.

Do you know how abjectly pathetic Barack Obama is? Okay, this is fun. I have all this pent up anger over the way you people have treated George W. Bush and then Sarah Palin. This is like therapy.

There are some international writers who are already contemplating how long it will take for members of the USS Incompetent's own party to figure out he’s destroying them and force his resignation. I say “destroying them” because I no longer think there is a Democrat alive who puts his/her country ahead of his/her personal ambition and voracious demands for personal power and graft.

By golly, this is fun. I should have tried it sooner. No wonder Ann Coulter has such a blast.

Stay tuned.

P. S. Now I know why you guys are so nasty. It's just plain fun!

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    “Do you feel insulted?”

    Considering the source? Not at all. Knock yourself out. Have a good time. I do hope you feel better, even if your rant is all meaningless drivel.

    B

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    SJ Reidhead is known for her rants. “Ranthead” would be much more suitable for her pen name.

  • JohnD

    Here’s another clue for you: They’re not liberals, they’re Leftists.

    When it comes to Leftists, never assess as stupidity that which can be explained by malice (update of quote attributed to Napolean).

    Liberalism of the Founding, Yes. Leftism, Nyet.

  • Cindy

    George W. Bush should should have been hung.

    If he wanted to find a WMD, all he had to do was look in the mirror.

    SJ: I am really nice person, everyone tells me so, you fucking bastards.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Now, watch the comments for this piece. They will cry. They will protest, and they will say all sorts of nasty things about your humble correspondent.”

    You’re deluding yourself, Ms Reidhead. Most of your writings doesn’t deserve a response. You should work on your frustrations, whatever they are. Then you might discover there is a cooler, more rational you buried somewhere beneath.

    Good luck!

  • Clavos

    When one doesn’t like the message, killing the messenger is always the most popular response.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Wow, this is a lot to swallow. (No punch lines, Nalle.) I’m gonna go out on a limb here. The problem is Rush and Anne do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT speak for the entire Republican cause. As a matter of fact that are extremists on the Right who claim to be Conservative Republicans but what they are is baseless media whores who stir up the dim-witted base that celebrates them.

    A true Conservative Republican is not heartless. A true Conservative Republican does believe in less government and that includes the right of two people, regardless of gender, to marry. A true Conservative Republican obviously would welcome the chance to work in tandem with Barack Obama. The fringes would have you believe that the President is some wild spending liberal who is going to undo the 8 years of Bushite rule. Well, a true Conservative Republican would welcome the chance to take back the party away from the Far Right and most of all from Conservative Christians who are nothing more than hot air-filled windbags who have more in common with the Taliban than with the Constitution.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The thing with political insults is that when they come from your own side you’re far more likely to see them as containing an element of truth rather than being gratuitously nasty. That’s why I don’t buy SJ’s protestations that she thinks Ann Coulter is over the top.

    If she truly believes the Right has been unremittingly nice up until now, I need only point to some of the ripe brown poop that is hurled with monotonous frequency – much of it on this very website – by right-wingers at some of their favourite targets: Barack Obama, Clintons B and H, Ted Kennedy, [insert name of Hollywood star here], Harry Reid, the ‘liberal media’, and of course the Antichrist herself, Nancy Pelosi.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    JohnD,

    I see no problem with the usage of “Liberal” in the article. Thomas Jefferson and a bunch of other old, dead males wouldn’t appreciate it, but they don’t know anything because (leaving aside the minor point that they and all that they stood for are dead) the meaning of the word has been greatly transformed in recent years. On April Fools day of last year, I wrote article and concluded, with some regret, that the word Liberal should be retired. Alas, that has not happened. So, as a public service, I felt obligated to provide a new definition. Here is the modern definition. As the comments following it make clear, it is an accurate definition, even if I say so myself.

    Dan(Miller)

  • Cindy

    When one doesn’t like the message, killing the messenger is always the most popular response.

    Yeah, but, what if one just doesn’t like the messenger? lol

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    She might be likable once you get to know her. You’re only seeing her mean, Internet side.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    …and of course the Antichrist herself, Nancy Pelosi.

    If I were the AntiChrist I would be insulted. The Madame Shrieker of the House is the largest political whore seen in Washington since that pool party in the Kennedy White House back in ’62.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    SJ seems to conveniently ignore the constant vitupritive nature of the rants promulgated by the likes of Coulter, Rush, Hannity and many others for years. Conservative talk radio far outdates the Bush years. Rush and the rest are just what Silas says, media whores.

    Rush now fancies himself as some kind of icon who brandishes his newly realized power against anyone amongst the right who has the temerity to speak ill of him. Even worse, are those who let slip something less than flattering about that tub of guts, and then quickly and abjectly apologize, throwing themselves at his feet for mercy. It’s sickening.

    As I’ve said before, Bush and company earned the wrath they received. And, SJ, by 2006 it wasn’t a question of “wanting” Bush to fail. That ship had sailed long before.

    B

  • pablo

    Gonna take your marbles and go home now Reidhead? Awwww

  • Clavos

    She might be likable once you get to know her.

    I find her quite likable, and don’t know her at all (except through her writing here on BC).

    Chacun à son goüt…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    How can SJ “conveniently forget,” B-man, while she’s a ranter herself? It’s physical impossibility.

  • Clavos

    …goût…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    “Goüt”? Is that Turkish?

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    I was gonna say… :}

  • Clavos

    B-tone,

    Fair enough.

    vituperative

  • Clavos

    Doc,

    Actually, it’s from a rare dialect of Lower Slobbovian, spoken only in a small area of the Hitthewrongkey Mountains there.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Slobbovian, eh? I thought it was Dutch for ‘gay’.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    SJ,

    I enjoyed reading your rant. It was actually funny. This stuff you call insulting is kinda mild compared to what I’m used to reading here in Israel. By Israeli standards, you are not vituperative at all – in fact, you sound as if you are just getting your engines going.

    However, my dear, what your fellow Americans call the vituperative hate-filled bitching filled America’s airwaves while Obama was still running around with his Pakistani friends in the Middle East and South Asia. And it started with conservative talk-radio. It took a long time for the other side of the aisle to even get going. Al Franken, the senatorial hopeful from Minnesota trying to claim his seat, tried to rush Limbaugh from the left, and failed utterly. NPR has finally mastered the art, and has done it by sounding edumacated – more edumacated than the so-called stupid fools on the conservative side of the aisle.

    And do you know what is so funny and entertaining about it all? Both aisles are being sideswiped by History and “conservatives” are being forced to implement socialism in a failed free market economy. In the mean-time all you guys do is scream at each other!

    I suggest, madame, that it is time for reflection rather than vituperative screaming. Leave the hatred and vituperativeness to us Israelis, who are expert at it….

  • http://www.joannehuspek.wordpress.com/ Joanne Huspek

    Wow. Could you tell us how you really feel? :-)

    I actually enjoyed your rant too. This is BLOG Critics. Blogger rant; that’s the nature of the beast. Most long-time bloggers grow a thick skin. Bloggers are not journalists, so there’s a certain creative license you can use while exposing your thoughts.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Why not just say then fuck, screw it all, and all the other cuss words?

    If verbal ejaculation is your idea of blogging, go for it, but I wouldn’t encourage SJ if you even halfway consider yourself her fried.

    She’s got serious problems to resolve – in the bedroom.

  • Clavos

    Just what we need — an amateur psychologist…

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, do you have another hypothesis for her raving and ranting. At least Limbaugh gets paid for it, and handsomely. So unless she’s just vying for attention, what else is there?

    Mind you, I didn’t call her FemoNazi.

  • Cindy

    It’s a rant for Pete’s sake. A rant is supposed to be snarky.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A ranting, raging female. I buy that. Must feel good to the soul.

  • Clavos

    Feminazi

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    Try going to SJ’s site listed at her URL before you try the amateur psychiatry. She tries to keep her language clean because she is also a believer, and sticks to her beliefs. Her beliefs differ from mine, but she sticks to them anyway.

    Your kind of comments reflect the crap I see from secular Israelis who have no respect at all for people who are either religious or who stick to some belief system….

    The mere fact that she is pissed off at what she views to be contemptuous treatment at the hands of “liberals” doesn’t mean she needs sexual satisfaction. It means she is pissed off. Whether her anger is justified or not is a separate issue, one that is not my problem.

    Get it straight, Roger. I’m not defending SJ’s views or her beliefs. But she deserves to be respected for both, just like I deserve to be respected for my views and my beliefs.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Cindy, did you ever think that your detractors are the ones that need Midol?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    What Ruvy said.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I respect you, Ruvy. We may not agree on all but we certainly have a great time debating it.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Clav,

    touche’

    B :-]

  • Glenn Contrarian

    SJ –

    A wise person once said that one only expects of others what he would do himself.

    Seeing the language in your rant, it’s pretty obvious why you’re absolutely sure that liberals are so…ugly-minded. You’re only accusing us of what you so often do yourself.

    Tell you what – find just one insult I’ve posted – even just ONE insult. Can you? I don’t think so.

    THEN try to hold yourself to the same standard. Can you? I don’t think you can…but perhaps you’ll prove me wrong.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Roger,

    You haven’t read many of my comments, have you?
    I have no problem with cussin. I recently got railed for my scatological references. No doubt I overdue it from time to time, but truth be told, there are times when keeping to the high road just doesn’t feel as good. Sometimes rolling around in the muck has an ironically cleansing effect.

    And, needless to say, what a lot of people are doing in politics and business far outdistances any number of ‘shits’ and ‘fucks’ in their obscenity.

    B

  • Clavos

    Fuckin’ A, B-Tone

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    A, B, C right through the fornicating Z, B.

  • Cindy

    Are You Fucking Kidding Me!?

    What kind of language is that to use? Don’t you people have any couth?

    Oh, BTW, happy motherfucking Tuesday.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    And same to ya, Cindy!

    Dan(*$&^%*A#’n Miller)

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    You know what? I missed wishing all those with Canadian ties – happy friggin Commonwealth Day (yesterday.) Hope none of you overdid it. Hey, and today is the “Purim” moon. Fuck those cocksucking Persians, eh Ruvy?

    It’s amazing what one can learn by reading a cheap calendar.

    BTW – Is it wrong to say “Canucks?”

    B

  • Cindy

    And now a word, on privilege, from my favorite blogger (who decided to change his name, on account of the U.S. becoming a Socialist country and all),

    Comrade PhysioProf

    “Explanations” Of Under-Representation By Privileged Assholes

    Now personally, whenever I hear a privileged asshole explain that the reason why the non-privileged aren’t equally represented in some endeavor is due to “genetics” or “lack of interest” or some other cockamamie essentialist bullshit he pulled right the fuck out of his ass, I tend to be pretty fucking skeptical! It’s just a little bit too convenient to just be a coincidence that dispassionate consideration of the scientific evidence on the ground leads right the fuck to maintenance of the privilege status quo, you know what I’m saying?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I rather enjoyed SJ’s rant. You’ve got to look at in terms of ranting, and in the context of other rants (maybe we need a category for rants) and in that context it’s quite enjoyable.

    Dave

  • STM

    Well whaddya know … Canadians have Commonwealth Day too. I thought it was just us Down Under.

    The Empire lives on (and a bloody good thing too!).

  • Clavos

    Hey, watch your language, Stan! This is a family blog.

  • STM

    Lol. Speaking of bonds of Empire, how’s the titfer, Clav?? Still got it?

    And, more seriously, how’s your missus??

  • Clavos

    Have I still got it??

    Stan, it’s one of my proudest possessions; the story of how I came by it is one of my favorite tales with which I regale visitors! (You have to agree, it’s a hell of a fine, heartwarming story, eh mate?). Most Seppos are somewhat confused by my calling it my titfer, fair dinkum..

    The ol’ Trouble & Strife is home once again, after a month-long vacation in the ICU. She’s regained her sense of humor and her sense of sarcasm, so I s’pose she’s doing alright, thanks.

    How’re you and your family doing?

  • STM

    All good, but the looming recession (we’re not in one yet) is starting to bite.

    They are talking more job cuts at my place, and they’ve already lost quite a few, although most of them have been voluntart redundancies – which are quite generous in Oz because of the industrial-relations laws.

    Most people are walking out with at least a year’s pay, plus a one-off payment and some extras. They don’t tax it much either. One of my mates got $150,000. But still – he’s pretty sad, and it doesn’t replace losing a job.

    My daughter is playing-up deluxe at the moment. The cops have been involved and she now has to go to court next week, although she’ll be dealt with as a juvenile in the Children’s Court so she won’t have a record.

    But, mate, that one’s a struggle …

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    “We’re Republicans. We’re allegedly nice people. We don’t retaliate.”

    You are in the wilderness mumbling some kind of tribute to your mentors, if you are sincere. If not sincere, you are a cultist.

    This is your time. The GOP needs new thought. Step up. Do the correct thing. Do some homework.

    The party needs you. What if you found out that Rush was a pansy plant to jerk you so hard that you develop callouses on various body parts other than your brain?

    I hope this helps.

    Tommy

  • http://loftypremise.blogspot.com/ Tommy Mack

    Sorry about the Rush bit.

    Party on.

    Tommy

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    BTW – Is it wrong to say “Canucks?”

    Actually I was more concerned as to how you referenced the Persians. All this time I thought it was the French that did that sort of thing.

  • STM

    The French? Did someone here suggest they were perfidious, perfumed, bouffant-headed nancy boys?

    Shame …

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Perhaps I did suggest that point about French boys. However it would be unfair for me to indict an entire nationality for producing men who are more sexually ambiguous than a Madonna rally on Castro Street. But back to the audacity of Liberal hypocrisy. I think it’s fair to say that hypocrisy on the fringes of both sides of the asile is at full tilt these days which worries me.

    I believe that the majority of Americans are middle of the road, preferring a political prescription whereby our political leaders take the best offered by both sides of the argument. There’s something to be said for moving this country more to the center where we can all live in peaceful coexistence. Giving broad rights to Unions to organize and freeing up the process for the unionization of public sector employees is a very dangerous road to travel. Barack Obama, by virtue of the pundits he has assembled, is pandering to the very groups who expected a great payoff for delivering him to the White House. My heart goes out to him because I find him a man who really is driven to do the right thing and is learning all too quickly that the very people who assisted in his ascendancy to the Oval Office will be the very people who contribute to his ultimate failure. However, I continue to believe that Barack Obama is a practical man who can rise above those unspoken commitments and make his case to the American people that political reality is such that we must build bridges of dialog that lead to reasonable concessions from all sides in favor of a strengthened economy.

    One must wonder if thee crossroads prophesied about the end of days have arrived. As a species we have an obligation to change our course — not only in the United States but on a global scale. I think those fat, lazy Americans I have spoken of are beginning to see my point. We can achieve a consensus. We can achieve a new political paradigm which placed the interests of the electorate above those of individual special interest groups. And insofar as the unionization of public sector employees are concerned, we must demand from our government negotiators agreements that apply many of the same standards used in the private sector. There are many in public service today who have served under the notion that being a public servant is an honor not a privilege afforded to a select few of the politically connected.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Do you feel insulted?”

    Insulted, no. Embarrassed that it’s on a site I contribute to, yes. The name might be BLOGcritics, but it strives to be an online magazine. Content like this getting published is why some people don’t realize that. No doubt the dog who blogs is now confused about why he got rejected after reading this. The only bright spot is the bar couldn’t be set any lower for what is acceptable to be published here.

  • Arch Conservative

    It took under two months for Barry to add about half of what Bush added to the deficit in eight years. The stock market is tanking, retirement funds have been decimated, we’re losing jobs daily by the thousand………

    At what point do we admit that while it’s not Barry’s fault, he and his comrades in Congress are not doing anything at all to make it better but rather everything they’re doing is making it worse?

    At do the majority of idiots in America wake and realize the obvious which is either :

    A. Barry is well intentioned but in way over his head and cannot possible be relied upon to do anything that will benefit the economy

    b. Barry is indeed the Marxist many claim he is who is only more than happy to watch the economy tank as that means he can scare the public into suckling more off big brother’s teat

    Either way, the actions of Barry, Pelosi and company are going to ruin millions of American lives over the next few years. You think life was bad under W? Come talk to me in late 2011 and then we’lll talk about economics, messiahs and who ought to be impeached…….

  • Jordan Richardson

    Americans aren’t known for being a patient bunch, are they?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Americans aren’t known for being a patient bunch, are they?

    After working in a fast food restaurant where speed of service was supposed to be 180 seconds or less, I can tell you that Americans have been infantilized by their own mass culture.

    But that does not take away from Bing’s points.

    FDR, facing similar problems, had the advantage of working with a currency that was not hopelessly corrupted by the high level of indebtedness of the country. While that did not allow him to pull the States out of the Depression entirely – it was massive weapons production in 1939-40 that ended the Depression – it allowed him to spend and spend where necessary.

    At some point Obama has to answer to his Saudi and Chinese masters for his actions. And unless the price of oil goes up considerably, these masters will be pulling on his leash pretty tightly.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    But Jordan, the killer in all this is that it is irrelevant which man would have been elected president in the States. McCain would have the same leash of indebtedness around his balls as does Obama and would face the same limitations.

    That is what makes this particular rant so entertaining. It was and is irrelevant which party got into power in the States. Either way, History still is sideswiping the States, knocking off its economy as though it were a fat duck in a pond. So all this screaming is irrelevant to the issue of America’s national survival. All the finger pointing is irrelevant to the issue of America’s finances. American leaders, assuming they are people of good will (an assumption I do not make) need to put their damned egos aside to solve problems which are probably beyond them…..

  • http://physioprof.wordpress.com Comrade PhysioProf

    And now a word, on privilege, from my favorite blogger (who decided to change his name, on account of the U.S. becoming a Socialist country and all),

    Comrade PhysioProf

    Thanks for the fucking link, Cindy. Is this blog supposed to be satire, or is it for realz?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m shocked, but I actually couldn’t agree more.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    There were a couple of useful nuggets in this opinion piece.

    The key point appears at the beginning of the second paragraph: “I’m a little slow on the uptake.”

    Which was nicely proven in paras four and five:

    He said of Rush Limbaugh, “…he’s abrasive, he’s divisive, he’s…a fat, pill-popping idiot…”

    Try this: Barack Obama is a brainless, air-head, coke-snorting (once upon a time) pathological narcissist who is the most incompetent President we’ve had the misfortune to experience in our nation’s history. He makes Jimmy Carter look like a statesman.

    Clearly the author, a “committed” Republican, is confusing a description of reality with her unproven characterization of the current US President.

    That this is done in the context of an article that starts off criticising Democratic supporters as people that “take anything nice and decent a person does and twist and turn it into something perverse, filthy and downright ugly” just reveals the disconnect with reality this person’s views are delivering.

    The clincher in the perverted logic that infuses this article is that she also equates liberals and Democrats, which is also clearly not supported by the facts on the ground.

    I’ve nothing against articles criticising anybody in the public eye, but this one is just full of the poison the author projects on to others rather than a contribution to political debate.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Canadians have Commonwealth Day too.

    We do? Neat!

    BTW – Is it wrong to say “Canucks?”

    Nope.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Food for thought. Canadians and Mexicans are Americans, too. And we in the Colonies better get over it.

  • Arch Conservative

    “I can tell you that Americans have been infantilized by their own mass culture.”

    You’ll get no argument from me on that one Ruvy.

    With each passing day we’re becoming a society that potrays the successful and capable as ruthless, callous and ammoral which necessitates that they be penalized and sometimes villified all the while while portraying those who havne’t quite made it as victims of the aformenetioned party and society in general.

    To be sure….there are 350 million people in this nation…..most of them are actually legal citizens and no black and white rule/s can be applied to all of us but in general when we seek to penalize and punish those who have stepped up to the plate and had a very good at bat of their own accord while mollycoddling and subsidizing the lazy, apathetic, and foolish, we seek to destroy what it is that once made America great. Many liberals/leftists idolize FDR but there can be no doubt that if he were alive today to witness some of the tripe that comes from the far left he’d be instantly physically ill.

    For the most part it is the radical left in America that is responsible for the infantilization of our society that Ruvy speaks of. they seek to create a culture of complete and utter moral relativity where no behvaior or act, no matter how egregious, cannot be excused and rationalized. They have been very successful at indoctrinating the population into this morass of moral relativism. But all is not completely lost. Not yet anyway.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Bing writeth,

    For the most part it is the radical left in America that is responsible for the infantilization of our society that Ruvy speaks of.

    Uhh, no, that is not the truth, tovarishch. The folks on Madison Avenue created advertising, and the folks on Madison Avenue created the ad campaigns that accomplished this infantilization. And the bottom line was not ideological purity; the bottom line was increasing the number of customers, and thus increasing the number of sales, and increasing the amount of money in the pockets of the owners of the restaurants.

    Now, lots of folks working in Madison Avenue went to high schools like the one I went to, and lots might have been lefties in their own politics. But the clients were not and the desire to make a bundle of cash has no ideological claimant.

    I, syndicalist that I am, like wrapped bundles of 200 shekel notes, wrapped 100 to a bundle (NIS 20,000), just as much as any American capitalist likes bundles of $100 notes, wrapped 100 to a bundle ($10,000). In fact, I could be made very happy with the sight of 100 bundles of 200 shekel notes – (NIS 2,000 000 – about $440,000). But truth be told, because I trust neither the New Israeli Shekel nor the Dollar to hold their value, I would prefer 1,000 gold coins of 1 troy ounce each. At the present market value, that is about $900,000.

    Don’t blame the lefties in the States for the greed of big business, Bing. Put the blame where it belongs. The lefties have a whole ‘nuther set of sins to answer for….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Ruvy, #31:

    Your comparisons are not quite fair. The very problem with pieces such as by SJ is that they don’t rise above verbal ejaculation. Whatever beliefs may or may not have prompted them, those belief are not articulated. So why I pay fucking attention to a primal scream – or even bother, as you suggested, to visit her personal website. But I do know where you and lot of Israelis are coming from, and no I do not disrespect your beliefs, which you have no problem expressing. In SJ’s case is zilch, nada.

    So yes, my reference to whatever frustrations she experiences (by connecting it to her bedroom problems) of course was unfair and not substantiated in fact. But if she chooses to produce this kind of garbage writing (in my opinion), so can I give her a piece of my mind.

    And just think – even if I had even partly hit it, it might be all to the good and make her reflect somewhat. So I have no fucking apologies to make, neither to you, to her, nor to anyone.

    Verstehen Sie?

  • Arch Conservative

    You’re right Ruvy….. greed has a large part to play in it too ruvy.

    It’s the American dream on steroids as we’re all trying to outdo each other with the square footage of our homes, the model of cars we drive and/or the amount of material possessions we’ve accumulated.

    But then again it’s not the wall street advertsiing firms that are saying we shouldn’t be keeping score in tball or giving grades in school because it makes soem of the kids “feel bad.” It’s not the fat cats makings tv commercials trying to sell products that are saying that it’s perfectly normal for a 36 year old to still be living at home.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “It’s the American dream on steroids as we’re all trying to outdo each other with the square footage of our homes, the model of cars we drive and/or the amount of material possessions we’ve accumulated.”

    Now, this is a voice of reason, Archie. I’m pleasantly surprised.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    My opinion of this article is reflected in Chris Rose’s comment a bit up-thread,

    I’ve nothing against articles criticising anybody in the public eye, but this one is just full of the poison the author projects on to others rather than a contribution to political debate.

    Having said that, SJ still deserves respect that you choose not to give her. Her point of view is pretty clear from her website, where she talks of prayer, Christianity, and the rest. She is a Christian conservative lashing out against those she perceives as her enemies. These are not sexual problems, they are political points of view arising from a religious belief. That she feels herself wronged is the reason she writes.

    Whether you agree with her particular views or not, their source is evident from even a brief scanning of her web-site and the things she chooses to cover there. She is more articulate with those view at her website than I am with mine at my website, though I do admit that my views have been evolving with time.

    It appears that you dismiss SJ’s religious orientation as though it is mere furniture against a wall. Perhaps this is because you were raised in a Christian country and so much of this, if it is not important to you, does actually appear as nothing more than furniture on the wall, much like a cross might be in a British or Canadian hospital.

    Think about it, Roger….

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I wasn’t aware of SJ’s Christian orientation, number one – so I’m not dismissing anything I am neither aware of nor what she failed to communicate in the first place. And I shouldn’t have to go to the person’s website in order to get a drift what they’re saying and writing on BC – because these pieces should be standing on their own. She should state straight out: “I’m a bloody Christian and all the rest of you, scumbags, are just no good fornicators.” Well, she didn’t. I will, however, in the interest of fairness look up Rose’s comment and give it some thought.

    Having said that, I must add that ranting is not my style, though I may understand the reason(s) why people do it. Besides, she’s not exactly involved in the fight of her life – like you and the Israelis do. So to compare your indignation and sense of anger with hers is difficult to swallow. But as I said, I’ll give it a try.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A”nd so much of this, if it is not important to you, does actually appear as nothing more than furniture on the wall, much like a cross might be in a British or Canadian hospital.”

    Very well put, Ruvy. I think you should however, give me a little bit more credit than that. I am aware of the extent to which beliefs are an integral part in many person’s lives (I myself regard “faith” as very important). But you also must admit that those who hold their beliefs do not do themselves the greatest service by acts of obnoxiousness (like burning abortion clinics, e.g., and other such acts) – especially when not in life-threatening situation.

    It isn’t exactly like the world is going to cave in for SJ, her being dragged to a concentration camp, or the Huguenots massacre. These people must accept the fact that we’re living in a diverse society where many people’s values are different from our own – all of this calls for not just religious but human tolerance. But SJ, it seem, wants to set the world back 300 years. Had she ever heard of the Enlightenment?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Well, Roger, I did get you to think, and that was my goal.

    A lot of this kind of ranting might have been appropriate in a more prosperous time, but in my opinion, it is time for reflection and finding ways to get beyond differences and egos, and the kind of mild vituperation this article engages in is not helpful.

    Somehow, I do not imagine that the article’s author would give approbation to burning abortion clinics, even if she herself is against abortion or its legalization in America. I could be wrong, and do not pretend to know her mind, though.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not a faithless person, Ruvy, although my kind of religion is not readily classifiable. Gosh, I’ve been to a Theological Seminary (Seventh Day Adventist) for two years – read the scriptures in Hebrew, Classical Greek and Koine, and Latin. And I could recommend to SJ some texts (like St. Augustine’s Confessions or Paul’s letters to the Corinthians) to alleviate her angst. But she had better stay away from Kierkegaard.

  • http://thirdworldcounty.us David

    I have just a few bones to pick with this lil rant, but I’ll limit myself to two:

    1. You call that a rant? *sheesh* OK, so she was spot on with comments about The One’s incompetence, lying and narcissistic personality disorder (she did say that didn’t she? Well, as any p-sych with more than two active brain cells can easily see, she ought to have *heh*), but she said such things so kindly, gently. *feh*

    2. “Sure, I know liberals were good and mad at George W. Bush for fighting the War on Terror… ”

    Heck, I’m royally pissed off with him on that one, myself, and I’m about as conservative as the Founders. (Oh, historically illiterate boobs think the Founders were liberals–and they were–but they forget, as Edmund Burke when speaking before the British Parliament in March of 1775 did not, that the “liberal” principles they espoused were long a political tradition in English history, principles the colonists saw themselves as attempting to _conserve_, hence, they were genuine conservatives, completely unlike the “conservatives-in-convenience-only” we mostly have today.)

    Why would I be pissed off at GWB for the “War on Terror”? Two very good reasons:

    1. He wasn’t at all serious about it. If he had been the Saudis would be one with Ozymandias, our borders would be SEALED to all but legal immigrants and visitors with valid visas, and the TSA wouldn’t be a job haven for fast-food-flinging failures who epitomize Shaw’s comment about stupid men doing their duty (through the lines of a character in Anthony and Cleopatra, IIRC). As it stands, GWB proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his “seriousness” about what he and his ilk termed the “War on Terror” was doubtful at best.

    2. “War on Terror”–what an asinine construction! Making war on an emotion! What! Is Homeland Security going to come hold “evwy widdew kiddie’s” hand when they become terrified of the bogeyman under the bed? *feh* A “war” on _terrorism_ makes some sort of sense, even the continuation of Gulf War I because of Saddam’s violation of the cease fire agreement makes some sort of legal sense (though the prosecution of the peace after the initial resumption of conflict was asininity squared, as anyone who didn’t have his head firmly up his own fundament could plainly see), but “War on Terror”? Stupidity cubed.

    Still, SJ, for an initial stab at a rant by one who is usually so gentle, it wasn’t bad. Stock up on vitriol for your next attempt though. And get some english on those punches, girl! Really follow through! You want to punch THROUGH your target! But forget about having a leftist understand anything. Just like far rightists, they all check their brain (supposing they have one) at the door when they join the club.

    And a wee thought for those who have no idea how meaningless the terms “conservative” and “liberal” are when used by historical illiterates (90% of Western society nowadays and 99.9%+ of politicians *spit*) from a 19th century American theologian who saw the way the wind was blowing then:

    “Conservatism’s history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It tends to risk nothing serious for the sake of truth.”–R.L. Dabney

    Such was not the conservatism of the Founders who sought the _preservation_ and _restoration_ of long-established rights (the very soul of conservatism). Such ought to be the conservatism of those who wish to combat the encroachment of the left on traditional rights of free (political and religious) speech and practice, self-defense, personal property, individual liberty _and_ its attendant responsibility among all the host of individual (liberally-recognized, at the time, though not by so-called “liberals” today) rights the Founders sought to (conserve) preserve and defend.

    *feh* A pox on the historically illiterate left AND right.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Very eloquent, Dave. But let there be some content, too. And yes, she should spice it up just for the heck of it. But writing a piece should be beyond mere expression of emotions – don’t you think? That’s what my critique was about. It didn’t go much beyond that.

  • Cindy

    #60 Comrade PhysioProf,

    Thanks for the fucking link, Cindy. Is this blog supposed to be satire, or is it for real?

    No fucking problem. I love your blog. As far as I know it’s for real, unless it’s marked satire.

    It’s difficult to tell at times.

    Have a wonderful fucking day, Comrade!

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Silas,

    Regarding your #52. Purim marks the deliverance of the Jewish people from annihilation at the hands of the Persian Empire in the 6th century BCE thanks at least in part to good ole Queen Esther who foiled the evil plot hatched by the king’s Visier, Haman. :)

    B

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    B-man,

    You’ve got to get a hold of One Night with the King. It made quite an impression and made me read the whole book of Esther. Tremendous story. Ruvy might know about historical accuracy – i.e., whether it was really Xerxes who was the Persian king at the time just prior to the war with Greece (Salamis and Platea) – but it’s food for thought. The King James’s translation of the king’s name is a little off, but it’s close enough to believe it was Xerxes.

  • STM

    Silas: “And we in the Colonies better get over it.”

    That’s what I like to see, Silas … putting it all in perspective :)

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    To be honest, I have only a relatively superficial knowledge of ancient history. I just completed reading a history of the ancient world – rather an overview, not particularly detailed. It ran from the early civilizations in Mesopotamia through the fall of Rome in about 900 pages. Coming away from it, I wonder if people did anything but lay siege against each other.

    In this day and age they say that the most dangerous jobs are working at a convenience store, driving a cab or crab fishing. But back in the good ole days there was no more perilous job than being a king or by whatever name, the leader of any identifiable group. And leaders hardly found any comfort or safe haven with their families which were most often the source of their downfall.

    According to Wikipedia Esther’s husband and king was Ahasuerus. But, as you’ve read from the source, you may know better. As I recall from my reading, Xerxes was quite a dude – an all around fun guy.

    B

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    BTW – It’s truly been a banner day for the gun lobby.

    B

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Ahasuerus” = “Xerxes”: transliteration.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    #43 & #60:

    “Here’s the fucking deal: If you are arguing from a position of privilege that the existence of under-representation of the non-privileged is not a consequence of your privilege, the motherfucking burden of proof is on you to prove it. Pulling speculative shit out of your ass that happens to reinforce the status quo, while at the same time shifting the burden of proof to the non-privileged and setting an absurd standard for satisfaction of that burden does not hold any fucking water.”

    I don’t see anything wrong with the above.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger,

    Ruvy might know about historical accuracy – i.e., whether it was really Xerxes who was the Persian king at the time just prior to the war with Greece (Salamis and Platea) – but it’s food for thought.

    I’m staying away from this dispute. Even Jewish authorities are not clear as to the identity of AHashvérosh, the Persian king in the Scroll of Esther. Some way it is Xerxes, some Artaxerxes, and given that far wiser men than I are in the dark, I will not pretend to know better than they.

    HOWEVER

    The Scroll of Esther has some interesting features to it, that indicate the nature of prophecy, and how it can be hidden in a text.

    As Baritone indicates, the Jewish girl Hadassa, named Esther (Ishtar) in the Persian court, manages to get Haman the Agagite killed by rousing the king’s sympathies, and Haman begging at her feet, manages to rouse the king’s jealousy as well. Haman and his ten sons are ordered hung on the very gallows he had constructed to hang Mordekhai, Esther’s uncle and “protector”.

    The ten sons are listed in the Scroll, and in the list are three letters that are smaller than the others, and one that is larger immediately after the list.

    But events do not flow exactly as the king orders. Let’s look at the text of the scroll.

    In Shushan the capital the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men.
    And
    [they killed] Parshandata
    and
    Dalfon
    and
    Aspata,
    and
    Porata
    and
    Adalya
    and
    Aridata
    and
    Parmashta
    and
    Arisai
    and
    Aridai
    and
    Vaizata,
    the ten sons of Haman, son of Hamdata, persecutor of the Jews, but they took none of the spoils. That day, the number of killed persons in Shushan the capital was relayed to the king. “The king said to Queen Esther, “In Shushan the capital, the Jews killed and destroyed five hundred men and the ten sons of Haman; what have they done in the other provinces of the King? What is your plea? It will be granted you. What is your additional request? It will be fulfilled.” Esther replied, “If it please the King, let the Jews of Shushan be allowed to do tomorrow what was lawful today, and let the ten sons of Haman be hanged on the gallows.” The king ordered this done, and the law was proclaimed in Shushan, and the ten sons of Haman were hanged.
    [Esther 9:6-14]

    Note this. First Haman and his sons are killed, and then the King asks Esther what is her additional request? And her request is that dead men be hung?

    Some problems arose that caused the sages reading the text to pull at their beards in puzzlement. First, why does a queen ask that dead men be hung? Second, what is the meaning of the three small letters and the large one? Why are they so in the text? Finally, in this whole interchange, the name AHashverosh (the Persian king) is not mentioned at all. The sages concluded that Esther was asking for some promise in the future.

    The answer appears to have come in the year 1946, long after Esther and her descendants had been buried. The three Hebrew letters in the list of the names of Haman’s sons were tav, shin, zayin, letters which have the numeric value of 707 when used as numbers. The enlarged letter was a vav which has the numerical value of 6 when used as a number.

    In the spring of 1946, 11 men were bound over for trial in Nürnberg, Germany, 11 leaders of the Nazi movement. One of these men, committed suicide during the proceedings. The remaining 10 were sentenced to die by hanging. Appeals took the execution date to October 1946, and the execution was set for a day that fell on the Jewish holiday of hoshaná rabá, the day that G-d’s judgments for the following year begin to take place, according to our sages. The year was 5707, a year in the sixth millennium of the rabbinic calendar.

    Ten “sons” of Hitler, a modern man who nearly succeeded at what Haman sought to do 2,500 years earlier, were going to be hung. But the connection would not have been clear had not the ninth of the men to be hung, Julius Streicher, struggled with his guards as they attempted to walk him to the gallows. “Today I go to meet my G-d,” he screamed Purimspiel 1946!”

    A Purimspiel is Yiddish (and German) for a satirical play presented during Purim celebrations. Nu? Why does this Nazi refer to this during the moment of his hanging?

    Nazis knew about Purim, the joyous Jewish holiday, and would often schedule torture and extra executions during Purim to drive the morale of Jews down lower as they suffered in concentration camps. So, this Streicher fellow could well have been imagining Jews dancing for joy as he and his comrades died.

    Yet, 10 “sons” of a successful “Haman” were hung that day. Jewish tradition says that Haman had a daughter who committed suicide after an event that embarrassed her father tremendously took place in Shushan. Does this reflect the Nazi who committed suicide rather than die at the gallows? Who knows?

    The way this is all arranged is just tempting enough to say that this is not coincidence at all – just as our sages point out that while an event occurred that saved Jews in Persia, this is the only book of the Hebrew Bible where the name of G=-d is not mentioned at all….

    A hidden clue to the future in a scroll filled with hidden references to the Almighty and His power.

  • Cindy

    Ah, the end of Comrade Physioprof’s blog post. Makes perfect sense to me. He’s got everything–even great recipes.

    (I can imagine this professor’s students like their science classes.)

    Recipe War Week #3: First Fucking Fish Course

    This week’s recipe is Miso-Glazed Black Cod with Cold Somen Noodles. It is distinguished by how motherfucking quick and easy it is to prepare something so delicious.

  • Cindy

    #86 Re you Roger @ #84

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I know. What’s his real name since you said he changed it?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Ruvy,

    That would be a heck of a prophesy. It looks like they were writing in code.

  • Rob Daugherty

    The problem with insults is that too often they are just that, an insult. It’s a name, an adjective, something that doesn’t really move an argument one way or another.

    The difference between Rush (and many other conservative talk show hosts) is that their insults are most every time backed by some sort of historical or current fact that is and can be verified.

    In other words, here is a useless statement: Barack Obama is abjectly pathetic. You can’t provide unbiased research proving someone is pathetic.

    But were you to insult Obama’s stimulus plan and provide the historical basis that every single time throughout history that government has INCREASED spending in such a dramatic scale, the economy has gotten worse, THEN you have an insult with teeth. THIS is why liberals hate Rush and Ann Coulter so much. Most everything (not all, most) they say is actually true. And that is why you never see people actually counter Rush and Ann with a reasoned argument. They’re responses are basically… well… pathetic.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Roger RE your #83

    I see.

    B

  • Baronius

    Rob, good comment.

    I’m having a different reaction than SJ to all of this. I remember how miserable the Left was during the past 8 years, and I’m determined not to end up like them. I hope that we’ll win some converts by being better people than the Left, but that’s not why I’m doing it. I just want to have a cleaner soul than the anti-Bush crowd.

    It’s healthier to shine a light on the behaviour of the Left, like the way SJ reminds us about the reaction to Palin. People start to notice when one side is worse than the other. All the current attention on Limbaugh should have a payoff for the Right, because people might listen and discover that Rush is smart, decent, and funny.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    THIS is why liberals hate Rush and Ann Coulter so much.

    I respectfully disagree. While liberal on social issues I am conservative on the side of government and fiscal responsibility. I hate Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter because they perpetuate the continuing stupidity of back woods Christian Conservatives who would rather blindly follow the bastardized writings mandated by a homosexual despot than to heed the underlying message of Christ which is buried under the bullshit in their so-called Bible.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t hate either of them, Silas. But it’s rather unfortunate, I’d say, that they seem to have such a following. They seem to appeal to the worst instincts in us, not the best. High-minded they’re definitely not – rather puny little women and men and in the larger scheme of things, inconsequential. They’ll go down in history as demagogues, nothing else. Not the kind of epitaph I’d want on my grave.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I take comfort in the fact that neither have reproduced (to my knowledge) and in all likelihood unless Ms. Coulter has a drunken night with Bill Maher sans condom or Mr. Limbaugh donates his sperm to Octomom, neither are likely to propagate their respective species.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That’s cruel. Seriously though, I think the kind of conservatism they espouse is on the way out. I don’t think the Christian Right has much of a future either. The new generation, the young, are leaving their home towns never to return.

    I happen to live (temporarily) in Christian county, KY, and I can see the intensity of Christian broadcasting on the radios. Personally, I happen to think is a last ditch effort. That’s why they’re so intense and militant. The final stance.

  • Baronius

    Silas, you do see the irony of your comments on a thread about hatred, right?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Indeed I see the irony. I also see that once again I am less ironic and more moronic. Go figure.

  • Cindy

    I hate them. They are evil.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I hate evil. I hate organized religion. Organized religion is evil.

  • Clavos

    Silas,

    Who’s the “homosexual despot” (#93)?

    I think I missed something…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Ted Haggard?

    (or whatever his name is)

  • Baronius

    Cindy, who “them”?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    She’s referring to Limbaugh and Coulter.

  • Baronius

    The Homosexual Despot was the original name of a chain of retail construction stores. Most business schools agree that the name change was a good idea.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Apparently, they don’t even show up in the google search.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    I have listened to a few of Limbaughs programs – cover to cover and have read – also cover to cover – Coulter’s “Godless – The Church of Liberalism.”

    Contrary to Baronius’ assertions, I find neither of them smart, decent nor funny.

    It’s not simply the ideology. It’s the low road they take to lambast the left. Neither of them are speaking tongue in cheek. They are in earnest.

    Right wingers are aghast that we lefties could or would attack their icons. They believe we were unjust in our barrage against GWB, Cheney and the rest. But again, Rush, Little Miss Annie and several others have been hitting the Dems and the left below the belt since before Clinton took office. Right wing radio and now books have become a cottage industry in and of themselves.

    Coulter, Limbaugh and many others have made a relative mountain of odious statements and attacks on individuals and the left in general over the years, that what little has been thrown against the right is but a veritable mole hill.

    In SJs rant above, she rails on about how terrible and low Obama and those who voted for him are, yet she failed to cite even one substantive instance to support her charges. She just threw it all out there like a scatter gun.

    And Bar: Conservatives are inherently no better than Liberals. Right wingers are no more moral nor more ethical than left wingers. Republicans stand on no higher ground than do Democrats. That you believe otherwise is a construct, a conceit that you have nurtured in your own mind. It’s a presumption without any basis, which frankly I find offensive.

    Virtually all of you righties who have commented here blandly utter broad charges belittling those on the left in the erroneous belief that you are the natural “chosen” ones. Your high mindedness has tumbled from its pedestal in your ivory tower down into the scatological depths.

    B

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But Ruvy’s got an explanation, B-man. SJ’s a conservative Christian and she’s reacting against what she views as an erosion of our moral values. Hence her rants are justified. I don’t buy it.

    On a personal note, I try to abstain from such terms as “lefties” or “rightie” because they’re diminutive and therefore disparaging. I’d rather take the high road. There are plenty enough differences between us and them. Why add fuel to the fire?

  • Clavos

    Why add fuel to the fire?

    Because it annoys those being burned?

  • Tony

    This was a comedy piece right? I love how Republicans are taking out their embarrassment over calling “W” one of their own by grabbing every opportunity to rip the liberals.

    All this bickering while American citizens are being booted out into the streets; having their businesses and homes taken from them.

    If it wasn’t so heartbreaking to see what is happening to the hard working people in this country I would say America deserves this electing and than keeping a clown in office for eight years.

    And just a note, I hate liberal economics, but for all you who are inevitably going to try to pass the blame for this crisis onto Obama; read an economics text book, understand how long it takes for economic policies to truly affect the market, and then bow your head in shame. In the same way Clinton road the wave of 42nd’s economic policy, Obama will suffer at the hands of Bush’s.

    Clinton started us down this path (along with Greenspan and the fed manipulating interest rates in our “free market” — oxymoron anyone?) and then Bush blasted it out of control with his ineptitude and decidedly non-conservative economic policy. As John McCain said, he spends like a “drunken sailor.”

    Wake up people. Its not a single party that let us down, it’s our entire government. A bunch of criminals more concerned with their investments in AIG (62 billion in a quarter, seriously?) than what happens to American homeowners or small business owners.

  • Tony

    *typo, meant to write 41, as in the Bush who wasn’t a moron.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I hardly get annoyed, Clav, by a cheap shot because I recognize it for what it is. In case you didn’t get my meaning, which I doubt, it doesn’t add to the quality of the conversation. If you don’t care, fine with me.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    As to referring to “lefties” and “righties” it gets difficult deciding just what term(s) to use. If one uses “liberal” or “conservative” it is likely that someone will delve into the history (as someone did on this thread, I believe, of just what or who are truly conservatives and what or who are truly liberals. Then Dave or somebody throws out the terms “progressive” and “libertarian.” I feel if I use both “lefty” AND “righty” that they are, in effect, equal opportunity diminutions. :%}

    Also, I agree. I don’t buy into SJ’s righteous indignation coming from her faith. That’s just bull pucky. That she is an anal retentive “righty” is apparent. Religous ideology has nothing to do with it.

    B

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Roger, I didn’t see Baritone attacking me in his comment. I’m a left-winger, not a right-winger, I did not defend this rant, I only traced SJ’s source of her anger, and defended her legitimate right to have the views she does. And, in case anyone has forgotten, I supported Obama for president – particularly after I heard Sarah Palin utter support for a “Two-State” solution (the re-partition of this country, and granting a second Arab state in Mandate Palestine).

    If you remember, I counseled against such articles and divisiveness in the American polity in the face of an economic disaster.

    Let me remind you….

    However, my dear, what your fellow Americans call the vituperative hate-filled bitching filled America’s airwaves while Obama was still running around with his Pakistani friends in the Middle East and South Asia. And it started with conservative talk-radio. It took a long time for the other side of the aisle to even get going. Al Franken, the senatorial hopeful from Minnesota trying to claim his seat, tried to rush Limbaugh from the left, and failed utterly. NPR has finally mastered the art, and has done it by sounding edumacated – more edumacated than the so-called stupid fools on the conservative side of the aisle.

    And do you know what is so funny and entertaining about it all? Both aisles are being sideswiped by History and “conservatives” are being forced to implement socialism in a failed free market economy. In the mean-time all you guys do is scream at each other!

    I suggest, madame, that it is time for reflection rather than vituperative screaming.

  • Clavos

    an anal retentive “righty”

    Isn’t that a tautology?

  • Baronius

    Bar, you raise a lot of points. First, let me say that I don’t believe that conservatism makes a person better, or that conservatives are the chosen ones. I believe that conservatives are better human beings than liberals the same way I believe that Seattle is more rainy than Phoenix: it’s not a principle, but you’d have to be crazy not to notice it.

    There’s a world of difference between Limbaugh and Coulter. Limbaugh is smart, decent, and funny. Ann is usually smart and funny.

    Limbaugh is to conservatives what George Carlin was to earlier liberals, and Jon Stewart is to contemporary liberals. He’s the guy who doesn’t claim to be fair, but makes you say, “wow, it’s not only ok to believe that, it’s intelligent to as well”.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “an anal retentive ‘righty’

    Isn’t that a tautology?”

    Wow, Clavos, are you coming around? Say it ain’t so?

  • Cindy

    Study finds Conservatism to be a Neurosis

    A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in “fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity”.

    As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report’s four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

    All of them “preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality”.

    The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case. The telltale signs are his preference for moral certainty and frequently expressed dislike of nuance.

    “This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes,” the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.

  • Clavos

    Wow, Clavos, are you coming around? Say it ain’t so?

    OK.

    It ain’t so.

  • Baronius

    Cool – Clavos, say “echo”.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain


    Who’s the “homosexual despot” (#93)?

    King James of the Bible version. It never ceases to amaze me that fundaMENTAList Christians refer to the King James version as the true Gospel. It just makes me so giddy that I pee my pants.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    George W. Bush should should have been hung. According to several women who knew him at Yale, he is.

  • Clavos

    Clavos, say “echo”.

    Echo.

    woof, arf, arf — grrrr

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Baronius,

    What!!!??? Are you pulling my leg?

    “I believe that conservatives are better human beings than liberals the same way I believe that Seattle is more rainy than Phoenix: it’s not a principle, but you’d have to be crazy not to notice it.”

    I think you are right about the Seattle/Phoenix rain thing, but the rest? I guess I must be crazy. I don’t have even the slightest idea what you are talking about.

    Amongst the loyal opposition, you have consistently been one of the more sane and reasoned commenters here at BC. But, you ran this notion out here a while back on another thread. I believe I challenged you on it then, but let it drop.

    Explain yourself, if you are so inclined. By what criteria have you come to conclude that conservatives are “better” people than liberals. Frankly, this, coming from you in particular, defies reason. Given some thought, it’s really an outrageous claim.

    B

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Study finds Conservatism to be a Neurosis Well, now that I have been classified as neurotic I wonder if I have the health insurance to cover the visits?

  • Clavos

    Don’t bother, Silas, the psychologists are more neurotic than we are…

    (yet most of ’em aren’t even conservative)

  • STM

    This picture of James I goes some way to confirming Silas’s view regarding the monarch’s sexuality, although since being gay should not be regarded as anything out of the ordinary, I prefer to believe that he was in fact French.

    However, the Gay Mardi Gras was on in Sydney over the weekend and some of the costumes on display during the Oxford St parade, especially those with feathers, certainly seem to have been influenced by James’s dress sense.

    Which begs the question: did they have spangly silver cowboy hats and fluffy undies in the 17th century, or did that stuff come a bit later from our American cousins?

  • Cindy

    Silas,

    lol. I put that “study” there to cause trouble. Thanks for making my effort meaningful. :-)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in “fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity.”

    I like this part, especially the “intolerance of ambiguity” part. I suggested this to Dave, BTW – namely, that most of his “problems” stem from not being able to tolerate uncertainty (as well as others might). Interestingly, he didn’t deny it, although his response was something like “everyone has that problem more or less, and to the same degree.” I doubt that, however.

    But then again, I’m only setting myself up for good ole Clavos here for engaging in “amateur psychology.” Well, so be it!

  • Cindy

    Roger,

    Really, I know nothing about that study. It could be nothing but 4 liberal psychs putting their opinion with the word “study”.

  • Cindy

    I thought I might cause a little trouble is all.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Conservatives = Black & White
    Moderates = Black, White and Grays
    Liberals = The Full Spectrum

    B (:%}

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t either, and I’m skeptical because it is billed as “government study.” But the idea makes sense.

    So let me again go out on a limb here and take the phrase from the Republican playbook: “VULGAR conservatism (such as one that’s being espoused by the many voices here) is a form of mental disorder.”

    I think it’s superior to the Limbaugh/Coulter definition if only by virtue of my qualification.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Which begs the question: did they have spangly silver cowboy hats and fluffy undies in the 17th century, or did that stuff come a bit later from our American cousins?

    The fluffy undies came along with the advent of Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Remember? The Angel Moroni came down in this spectacular gold lamé ensemble and then Mitt Romney was born.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You seem to be obsessed with the idea, Silas. What goes? The painting of James I (STM’s link) could well represent the highest in the French fashion – effeminate perhaps but not necessarily gay.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Well, James I fashions didn’t define his sexuality. Men wore poufy things back then. I am obsessed about the Mormon aspect, however. And that obsession is reciprocal to that organization’s systematic attack on the gay community and their success with Prop 8. I hold that sect of Christianity in the same low regard as I hold the Taliban. I think they’re dangerous and would circumvent any Church doctrine just to gain political clout and financial power. Anybody bother to ask how Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital is doing these days? Roger, I apologize if I seem obsessed but the lessons of history are clear and until the government gets out of my bedroom once and for all the Mormon heresy is fair game.

  • Cindy

    Mitt Romney is evil.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I didn’t mean that much by “obsessed,” just fielding the question. Well, Mormons have always been cohesive as a group. (One good story you should read is one of the first by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Country of the Saints (brief quotation follows):

    “The second half of the story is called The Country of the Saints and jumps to the United States of America and the Mormon community, and incorporating a depiction of the Danites, including an appearance by Brigham Young in a somewhat villainous context.”

    I didn’t know, however, that the Mormons were that political (having problem all their own with respect to bigamy, etc). So I guess it’s a good thing that Romney’s candidacy had folded.

  • The Obnoxious American

    “Mitt Romney is evil.”

    Typical ignorant ad hominem attack from the left. At least when I criticize Obama, I do so with respect for the person. The left really needs to learn to stop enhancing their attacks on the right with ad hominems and tin foil hattery.

    The right complains about policies, the left complains that Rush is the leader of the party (which is just sillyness on it’s face). Just quit it already, if you don’t like what Romney’s done, say so, and say why.

  • Cindy

    O.A.,

    I understand you believe in your own superiority. When I criticize Obama I do so with respect for the person also. That is because he is human. Mitt Romney is depraved.

    I’m not in your war of right vs left. I just call them as I see them.

    Let me say that I completely agree with what John McCain said here to Mitt Romney.

    I wonder if a false dilemma is as ignorant a fallacy as an ad hominem argument. For that matter, I wonder if calling people who make a statement of opinion “ignorant” isn’t just an ad hominem attack in itself.

    BTW, you may wish to explore the idea of whether simply making a statement of opinion (regardless of its negative content), in and of itself–and not as a response to discount some assertion, constitutes an ad hominem argument.

    Thinking: It may help stretch that narrow mind of yours.

  • STM

    Silas: “Well, James I fashions didn’t define his sexuality.”

    With hindsight, it’s the hands on the hips that are a dead giveaway rather than the cut-off section of boa sticking out of his hat … there’s no hint as to what the eyebrows are doing in the portrait, but the stance is perhaps a 17th century version of feigned surprise, as in that classic: “the teapot”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    ” it’s the hands on the hips that are a dead giveaway”

    I do that, too, STM, and I can assure you that – though I have experimented – who hadn’t? – I’m definitely not. Love women too much.

    It’s just a peacocky thing, with me at least.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t think I need to add that some men are more vain than women.

  • Cindy

    As for Mitt Romney’s depravity. It is apparent to any sane person. But, if you want an example, here you go:

    Romney, Torture, and Teens
    The former governor’s connections to abusive “tough love” camps

    The suit alleges that teens were locked in outdoor dog cages, exercised to exhaustion, deprived of food and sleep, exposed to extreme temperatures without adequate clothing or water, severely beaten, emotionally brutalized, and sexually abused and humiliated. Some were even made to eat their own vomit.

    Being involved with people who run teen gulags that torture children qualifies as depraved in my book. But of course there are unlimited examples. All one has to do is listen to almost any opinion Romney has.

    Some of the self-taught child torturers, one of whom was involved in the Romney campaign and was Romney’s biggest supporter.

    Here’s the guy who was Romney national finance co-chair.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s interesting, though. His father, George Romney, ex-governor of Michigan and once a presidential hopeful, seemed to have quite a good reputation – even among the Democrats. Why would the son fall far from the tree. Sign of the times?

  • Cindy

    But the idea makes sense.

    So let me again go out on a limb here and take the phrase from the Republican playbook: “VULGAR conservatism (such as one that’s being espoused by the many voices here) is a form of mental disorder.”

    Maybe it is some believers in social conservatism.

    This bent of thinking seems to contain a lot of very troubled individuals. Which is why I find it difficult to take Baronius seriously when he makes the claim that:

    “…conservatives are better human beings than liberals…it’s not a principle, but you’d have to be crazy not to notice it.”

    I would have to keep my eyes shut not to notice the relationship to being an extreme social conservative that appears when examining those who are found to be torture-proponents, closet pedophiles and child abusers, and have developed gulag programs like the ones I posted above.

    After all, where would one expect these people to rest on a political spectrum. Extreme social conservatism is an authoritarian position. So, there are a lot of whackos found there.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I believe he (B) meant it. On what basis, I have no idea.

    A “compassionate conservative” is another oxymoron. More like a joke.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Cindy,

    It’s not about superiority or anything else you are trying to lay at my feet. It’s about not being completely idiotic in the way you carry yourself.

    Make your claims about “the other,” make a reasoned argument, but when you start throwing out the “this one is evil, that one is hitler, the other is darth vader” you just sound like a total fool, and you are acting like one too.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Compassionate conservatism isn’t an oxymoron or a joke, it’s just redundant. Conservatism is way more compassionate to humankind than any of the lefts government medicine to cure all of our ills.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I do that, too, STM, and I can assure you that – though I have experimented – who hadn’t?

    Roger I admire your courage in admitting to at least ‘experimenting’ — get ready for an Ultra Right backlash. Most on the Far Right would never admit to experimentation though I know many who have. Ask Larry Craig of Idaho. When asked in an airport men’s room, “where are you from, daddy?” He replied, “Idaho.” To which the gay boy being cruised responded, “Judging from the dust on your knees, Grandpa, I know you’re a ho — but where are you from?”

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You out of your f … mind. You just peruse any writings and or comments by these “so-called” voices on this site and you tell me where is the compassion. I certainly don’t see any of it in your writing. I’d like to see the examples. How you produce such as we can discuss them at length. And this is a challenge.

  • Cindy

    Boo…hoo…hoo…O.A. is making ad hominem attacks against me!

    …when you start throwing out the “this one is evil, that one is hitler, the other is darth vader” you just sound like a total fool, and you are acting like one too.

    Oh wait. O.A. thinks I’m a fool? Oh, that’s alright then. Nevermind.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    I love you, Cindy. Even if I am a poofter.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    They’re all the same at bottom – some are more like sheep in wolf’s clothing, trying to woe you and put wool over your eyes with soft speech, a show of politeness and mild manners; others, like H&C more brazen (and I respect those more than the snakes). But it’s all the same – degenerate scum. The scourge of the earth.
    So there! How’s that for some liberal vitriol. Put it in your pipe and smoke it.

  • Cindy

    Wait! O.A.!

    As soon as you launched your ad hominem attack against me, it meant you have no real argument against mine right? Isn’t that what you always say? It actually just proved I’m right! How easy that was. Thanks O.A. You are a real swift thinker there. I have to use your method for arguing more often.

    (Silas<—smooch)

  • Cindy

    sheep in wolf’s clothing

    I love that!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m going to have my head chopped off for #154, but no matter. It feels good just for once to unleash (if only to know what it feels like to be like ’em).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think SJ should take a lesson here. If you’re going to rave and rant, you might as well go for it, for only the sky is the limit.

    Are you listening, SJ?

  • http://thirdworldcounty.us David

    Silas Kain:

    Who’s the ‘homosexual despot’ (#93)?

    “King James of the Bible version. It never ceases to amaze me that fundaMENTAList Christians refer to the King James version as the true Gospel. It just makes me so giddy that I pee my pants.”

    As familiar as I am with the phenomenon, such obdurate historical illiteracy never ceases to amaze me.

    When “Silas Kain” actually does his homework, I’d be willing to discuss the subject of biblical texts with him. Until then, I’d get more intelligent conversation from my son’s dogs.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Oh Lord, those poor puppies. Will someone puh-leeze call the ASPCA! In the meantime, keep reading the King James version it lends to your credibility.

  • Cindy

    I’d get more intelligent conversation from my son’s dogs.

    He’s not kidding about that. They’re likely the only ones who will carry on a conversation with him.

  • http://thirdworldcounty.us David

    throwing the B.S. flag at Cindy:

    “…Extreme social conservatism is an authoritarian position. So, there are a lot of whackos found there.”

    Oh, like the “Extreme social conservatism” of the Founder? (Historical fact is hard to deny, but you can do it Cindy! I know you can!)

    Do you have even the slightest concept of what the individual liberties genuine conservatists feel compelled to fight to preserve?

    If you were really serious about pointing out “when examining those who are found to be torture-proponents, closet pedophiles and child abusers, and have developed gulag programs” you would have to include the major proponents and practitioners of those despicable behaviors: “pedophiles and child abusers”–NAMBLA and their ilk supported by the ACLU, both members of the faux liberal cabal. And “gulag programs”? Hello! It was the most rigorous of “progressive” regimes, the darling of so-called liberals for decades, that GAVE US THE TERM “gulag” as we know it today, and so-called “progressive” or “liberal” regimes around the world today are the most “progressive” practitioners of gulag management of society.

    Hypocrite.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    David, are you upset at Silas’s suggestion that the King James is not the true Gospel, or his suggestion that fundamentalist Christians think it is?

    In my own experience, most fundamentalist(-tending) Christians I know don’t use the King James. It’s their loss.

    However, it is in literary terms probably the best (albeit wildly inaccurate in places) English translation of the Bible, and it’s almost invariably the version quoted by authors, film-makers, politicians and anyone who wants to sound important or make a weighty, theologically-backed point.

    And for one reason: it reads and sounds fantastic. The King James is, quite simply, great English, on a par with Shakespeare and Milton. Small wonder that it’s still considered by many to be the definitive version.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Do you have even the slightest concept of what the individual liberties genuine conservatists feel compelled to fight to preserve?

    You may have hit it right on by using the word “genuine.” I submit there aren’t too many voices like that on BC, and that’s the first point. We’re dealing, for the most part, with a bastardized version.

    Which brings me to the second. Try as you may, it’s kind of hard arguing for “individual liberties of the Founder(s)” amidst the widespread practice of slavery. So I suggest you amend your definition somewhat if you want to discuss the subject matter seriously.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    “pedophiles and child abusers”–NAMBLA and their ilk supported by the ACLU, both members of the faux liberal cabal.

    Their “ilk”???? David, grow a pair and tell me one thing. Do you put all gays into that “ilk” category? Are you so sexually insecure that you find it necessary to attack anyone who does not swallow your dogma? I love how those on the far Right who wear the banner of Christ love to throw around ‘pedophile’, ‘NAMBLA’, and ‘ACLU’ like they are the norm for us who are ‘tainted’. The bottom line is that most so-called pedophiles come from religiously-conservative homes. And they are NOT gay, they are PEDOPHILES. They share NO commonality with me.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I had no idea he was a rabid fundamentalist in addition to being a “genuine conservative.” Now it makes sense.

    Come on, Dave. Tell us some more.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Dread, granted the King James is beautiful prose especially from the linguistic view. That being said have you read any translations of the Coptic Gospels? Or have you ever read some of the translated Armenian Church writings? Researchers at Oxford have learned in the last ten years that much of the translations coming out of the Armenian Church writings are in fact closer to the original Greek texts than that of James I. Which again makes me wonder just how much politics played into the King James version.

    While it may be surprising to most I did, in fact, spend a good part of my life studying Gospel, the Christian Church and history. Those who know Poland’s history are well acquainted with the role the Mother Church played in Polish life. The legends of the Black Madonna at Jasna Gora come to mind because I can remember a time not too long ago when that portrait of the Blessed Mother was frowned upon because the Blessed Mother was “dark”. Yes, White Christian America, Jesus had olive colored skin. He looked more like Osama bin Laden than you. Get over it.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Consider this. At the time that the honored King James Version was translated and compiled to a grossly edited book form, a mere four hundred years or so ago in 1611, the all-knowing and most holy church considered it a “fact” that the sun and all of the stars and planets rotated around the Earth in a sort of Tychonic system.

    The almighty and even more all-knowing holy father in Rome was so convinced of this, that just four years after King James released his “version,” poor Galileo (1564-1642) with all of his ingenuity and intellect was nearly condemned and entombed in 1616 for heresy by the learned and sacred Pope for merely suggesting that the Earth wasn’t God’s intended center of the universe – a “fact” backed up by a religion that only after more than three hundred and fifty years of careful consideration, has finally and just recently admitted that it was wrong about the long-dead astronomer.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But really, guys. Most of the Bible translations are mistranslations. You’ve got to read the scriptures in the original languages – Hebrew/Aramaic/Syriac, not to mention Septuagint and Vulgate (for Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament), and Koine. Biblical scholarship is a lifelong preoccupation.

    So my simple question is: What hangs on this?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The Coptic Gospels? I believe I may have perused them, years ago when I worked in a reference library. We had all kinds of peculiar things like that stuffed away in the archives.

    Yes, my appreciation of the King James is purely as a piece of literature. I’m aware that the authors/editors often went for style over accuracy in the translation.

    The cathedral in Cusco, Peru has a black Christ. He didn’t start out that way: he was brought (from Spain) as a standard-issue white Christ, but centuries of candle-burning underneath him gave him a decidedly swarthy appearance. Abortive attempts were made to clean him, but they caused even more damage, so he was left alone after that. It doesn’t bother anyone: the inhabitants of Cusco are mostly Quechua, so he doesn’t look all that different to them anyway. In fact, he’s the city’s patron saint, held to be possessed of all kinds of miraculous powers including the proven(!?) ability to stop earthquakes.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    These days, Roger, I find the writings of the Dalai Lama to be more spiritually fulfilling than any version of the Old or New Testaments. I highly recommend the sci-fi movie “The Man From Earth“, while there’s mostly dialog and it is fiction, the underlying message is appropriate to this conversation.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Silas. I’m a philosopher by training and by predisposition – which isn’t to say I am not spiritual. So I tend to find my own answers. But the original Buddhist text, the Gita, has a lot to recommend itself if one cares for a departure from Western ideas of transcendentalism and thinking. Besides, it’s great literature, as Doc surely must know and appreciate.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

    Albert Einstein

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Great quote, Jet. But bear in mind (which you know of course): it’s not a fundamentalist here who is speaking. It’s religion in the higher, enlightened sense, no?

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    And religion in the wrong hands is oppression.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Regarding Gita,Strindberg had a delightful play – “A Dream Play.” It’s a must-read for any lover of literature.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s like a Midsummer Night’s Dream – fantastic but even more spiritual

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t blame religion, Silas. It’s people. I’m afraid there’ll always be some who will use whatever’s there for their own ends. So religion gets all the wrong wrap for being a pretext.

    Take religion away, and those same people will find another means of trying to enslave others.

  • Cindy

    David,

    What founder? Founder of what?

    Do you have even the slightest concept of what the individual liberties genuine conservatists feel compelled to fight to preserve?

    Yes, I’ve talked to reasonable conservatives. And though I disagree with their positions on how best to promote individual liberty, I don’t find them insane people.

    I see you don’t distinguish between people who actually sexually and physically assault children and people who defend the right to free speech even for those they might despise.

    ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations

    NEW YORK–In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It may well be David himself is guilty of the crime, which is why, perhaps, he can’t make the proper distinction.

    Come on, David! Say it ain’t so!

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Roger, you’ve never been oppressed by religion.

    Religious leaders who brand a sex criminal a pervert, therefore “they’re” all perverts

    Entertainment industries that portray gays as swishy, limp-wristed faggots, sexual recruiters and child molesters, therefore “they’re” all that way.

    I love this website, because nearly everyone here (with a few exceptsion) accepts that I’m no different than any other man, with the exception of whom I sleep with… but since I’m open and honest about it with people that I trust, those who have never met me personally, think that I’m limp-wristed, and speak with a lisp, or at least hold that image in the back of their/your mind.

    It’s the furthest thing from the truth.

    If we were out on the street in public sometime, and I turned to you and pointed out a man I’d never met and commented “He’s gay”, wouldn’t you automatically look for a funny walk, an overexpressive hand, and a giggle towards his friends even if it weren’t there?… Because it’s what you were taught from childhood or society to expect, but not what you actually see.

    It’s like World War II Germany, pointing out someone as a Jew could get them killed on the evidence of your word alone.

    A C H A L L E N G E T O E V E R Y O N E

    The only way you could understand what I’m trying to explain, is to tell a friend that you’re secretly gay and watch his reaction, let it go for only half an hour (if you can-or he didn’t get up and leave quickly for fear of being seen with you) and then tell him it was just an experiment that a friend asked you to try.

    See which is harder to understand, your friend believing your confession, or him not believing the later denial.

    We live with that 24/7, can you imagine what that’s like?

  • Cindy

    Re #173

    Einstein seems to be equating “religion” or “religiousness” with the striving for rational knowledge. That quote surprised me Jet, as I know Einstein to have been an agnostic who did not believe in a god, but believed in the order of the universe.

    From the same essay as Jet’s quote:

    Religion and Science

    The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re right, Jet. I haven’t.
    Don’t forget, though. I lived in the Bay Area for the past thirty years or so, so no – we don’t have those kinds of attitudes and preconceptions there.
    Where in the hell did you grow up?

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Pittsburgh PA, and later Barberton OH.

    the era of Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and Ronald Reagan. A time when AIDS was commonly referred to as “The gay cancer”.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    A working-class town, plenty of Poles, I’m ashamed to say.

    Well, maybe it’s a good thing hard times are coming. So they’ll either straighten out or fall deeper into the pits of hell.

  • Cindy

    Roger,

    Take religion away, and those same people will find another means of trying to enslave others.

    But, just because one can use a number of means, does it necessarily follow that any of those means are merely pretexts?

    As commonly practiced, organized religion is an authoritarian proposition as I see it. Am I misunderstanding something?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not taking about “organized religion,” only about religion as an aspect of a person’s life.
    Once it’s organized, it’s authoritarian.

  • Baronius

    Bar – I suspect that you’re tone-deaf to the intolerance of the very very tolerant. When Cindy or Silas declare someone to be evil or mentally disturbed, the fact that they’re doing so out of tolerance may mitigate it in your opinion. Maybe it’s mitigated a little in my eyes, too. But it’s not right.

    Half of recent BC conversations (a higher percentage on other sites) are as follows:

    R: “Obama’s wrong.”
    L: “Give him a chance.”
    R: “You didn’t give Bush a chance.”
    L: “Bush was evil.”

  • Cindy

    ‘Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous…If a man really wanted to make a million dollars, the best way to do it would be start his own religion.’–L. Ron Hubbard

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “the fact that they’re doing so out of tolerance may mitigate it in your opinion”

    Mistake number one. They’re not doing it out of tolerance and they’d be hypocrites were they to say so. They’re doing it because they sincerely believe it – that “evil” isn’t necessarily a great sin. It may well be a very small sin with very significant consequences – like, for example, being negative rather than positive, on the corrupting side rather than uplifting, trying to discourage rather than encourage, and things of that sort. Do you get my drift? So your characterization, therefore, of Cindy, Silas, et al, as though they were doing it out of “tolerance” is already disingenuous because you don’t really mean it. And you’re doing it for no other reason than to get a hook – so that you might openly criticize the liberal’s idea of “tolerance.”

    Point number two: I wouldn’t say Bush was evil, and if Cindy and Silas, et al, did, I apologize for that. But insofar as “chance” is concerned, Bush had eight full years to prove his mettle. So you tell me now whether this comparison, with Obama, that is, holds water.

  • Cindy

    Baronius,

    Do you believe people can be evil? If so, what would constitute an evil person in your opinion?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Read comment above: “evil” comes in a variety of forms, shapes, and sizes. You don’t have to be a Hitler.

  • Cindy

    Roger,

    Good point in the first paragraph.

    However, in my opinion Bush is evil. No need to apologize for me there. When someone is involved in causing unnecessary and unwarranted death and torture to others, when they lie in ways that cover their culpability and assist them in carrying out mass murder, thane I think they are evil.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’d like to believe, Cindy, that he believed in what he was doing, War on Terror and all that crap. People will do all kinds of crazy things when they’re beholden to an idea – especially when they’re not well-formed. A statesman he definitely was not. So under the circumstances, I’d rather give him the benefit of the doubt – call him stupid, moronic, definitely not a presidential material, any of the above – instead of ascribing evil to his heart.

    One never knows about such things – a person’s heart. I cannot therefore judge him in that respect.

  • Cindy

    Roger,

    It would be difficult for me to make one single definition of what I considered evil. But, what I am talking about is “great sin” if that is the term to be used. I am talking about when a person uses authority to harm another person or believes in and promotes ideas that would result in that harm. Or when a person becomes so out of touch with the humanity of others that they can accept when people do these things. That might be a close definition of evil as I am using it to describe Romney, Bush, et al.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You Are on the right track there, whether you realize it or not.

    My favorite (and thus far unsurpassed) definition of evil: Arbitrary use of power.

    I happen to think it covers all instances and manner of abuses, large and small.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Indiscriminate” is another word.

  • Cindy

    “People will do all kinds of crazy things when they’re beholden to an idea…”

    Here is how I would change that.

    People will do all kinds of evil things when they’ve been indoctrinated with crazy ideas.

    Explaining a political opponent’s behavior by saying they are “stupid” is reactionary imo, and dangerous as well. Bush is not stupid.

    For me, it doesn’t matter what his “intention” was. he had plenty of years to show any humanity at all. He did not earn the benefit of any doubt.

    The people who flew planes into two buildings in NYC thought they were doing what they had to do also. It’s not likely I’ll be giving them any benefit of the doubt either.

  • Cindy

    Roger,

    You Are on the right track there, whether you realize it or not.

    I am saying this in all calmness. Do you find it at all condescending to make a comment like that?

    I understand and might agree with the rest of what you said. I tend to change my mind a lot about exactly what I think.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m gonna fix me a little hot-dog dinner and watch, for the umpteenth time, the “Elizabeth” movie – the original (1998 version) and the follow up, “The Golden Age,” or “Woman, Warrior, Queen.”

    She was a helluva person. I wish I could could have lived in that age.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Not too many years ago, an esteemed prophetess in New England is said to have told her flock that at 10:00 am on Friday next, she would walk on the waters of a nearby lake. On the appointed day and at the appointed time, she appeared at the lake shore, dressed in her flowing prophetess robes, and asked the assembled masses if they truly believed that she could walk on water. With one loud voice, they announced, “Yes! We Believe! Yes, You Can!”

    The prophetess then said, “In that event, there is no need for me to do so,” and went home. Her adoring followers also went home, much impressed with her abilities.

    This metaphor can, of course, be taken in many different ways and applied to one’s perceptions of current reality. I am concerned that many of President Obama’s more enthusiastic supporters accept his protestations of ability to do the practically impossible, and are much edified even though he doesn’t, because they believe, even more strongly, that he can and will. Firmly held beliefs are difficult to dislodge, be they religious or secular.

    As to “evil,” what about President Truman, who ordered the Atomic Bomb to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What about PM Churchill, who declined to mount a vigorous defense of Coventry and allowed the Germans to bomb it to smithereens? President Truman did what he thought necessary to end WWII, with far less loss of life than the alternative, a land invasion of Japan, would have produced. PM Churchill was forced to decide between letting Germany know that its most secret codes had been cracked (thereby endangering far more people than lived in Coventry) and sacrificing Coventry. I think they both made the best decisions possible in the circumstances. Were they evil?

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    As I said, I’d like to believe he ended up in the White House not by his own intelligence but other means. He has always had his handlers. Some will say it was a Dick Cheney presidency. So as far as I am concerned, there’s nothing at stake how one cares to characterize Bush, Many people don’t give a shit about humanity – not necessarily because they’re evil. They’re just thoughtless.

    As to your other comment – no, there was no condescending there. It was just a way of impressing the point – not to you but to all concerned. A matter of literary style/expression, for the common good.

    There’s a larger audience to consider, and I’m always mindful of that.

  • Clavos

    I’m looking forward to the answers you get on that one, Dan(Miller).

  • The Obnoxious American

    It’s rather entertaining to hear you lefties try and describe evil, and of course you are way off the mark in your definition. But I will come back to that.

    Calling Bush evil was an ad hominem attack. My refering to your behavior on the other hand was not ad hominem, it was an observation. See, just because you disagree with someone’s view does not make that person evil. While I have disagreements with Obama’s policy decisions, I know at his core he intends to try and do what he thinks is the right thing for America. I think Obama is wrong, I think he may be naieve, and I know he is inexperienced. But just because I think the fallout of his decisions will be incredibly negative, that doesn’t make him evil, just like your disagreeing with Bush doesn’t make Bush evil either.

    Here’s the definition of ad hominem from wikipedia:

    “An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.”

    I am not arguing against your point (you didn’t even have a point or a fact to argue, just an ad hominem assertion) by saying you are idiotic, I am merely observing that your behavior was idiotic, hence, not an ad hominem. Yet, your attack on Bush’s policies, by dismissing him as “evil” IS ad hominem.

    If everyone who does not agree with you is evil, then madam, you are the ideologue and yes, your behavior is idiotic. There is a difference between having opposing views and equating your opponents as evil.

    For your and Roger’s edification, here are some real examples of evil. Try to read and understand this, and be more precise with the words you use, because they have meaning. If we use the word evil carelessly, then it ceases to have meaning, and that in and of itself is evil.

    Hitler was evil, he preached hatred and death. Mugabe is evil, practicing genocide. The KKK is evil as thier whole presence is predicated on intolerance. Many more examples of true evil.

    To put Bush in that class because you think he is misguided is a disservice to this country, just like if I did the same thing to Obama, which I wouldn’t. Try to learn from this (I know you wont) and keep it above board please.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To bring in Truman or Churchill, when both England and the U.S. were involved in a war of survival or the war to liberate Europe and the rest of the world from the Nazi menace, and to compare the two to U.S. action in Iraq – 9/11 notwithstanding – is an epitome of hypocrisy, rhetoric, and the worst kind of demagoguery. But it’s only indicative of the kind of deranged mind you have been exhibiting of late. Perhaps you should return to legal practice, however menial, so you’d stop polluting this site with your unseemly comments which (no doubt) you must view as pearls of wisdom.

    I, for one, never called anyone evil – not Bush, not Cheney, not Obama. It’s for God to judge. So your remarks, unless they’re directed at anyone in particular, are directed at no one – unless you care or have balls enough to name the intended target. So who is the target of your displeasure, Mr. Miller? Would you care to identify any such rather than try to pretend how erudite and cultured you are?

    I apologize for this, less than civil, response, but you deserve it. Since no one else here will, I might as well call your bluff.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not a lefty, OA – and if you insist on putting fucking labels on me, I’ll reciprocate and much worse. So don’t be edifying me. Read, rather, my own comments before you jump to goddamn conclusions. And don’t group me with anyone else.
    Verstehen!

  • The Obnoxious American

    “To bring in Truman or Churchill, when both England and the U.S. were involved in a war of survival or the war to liberate Europe and the rest of the world from the Nazi menace, and to compare the two to U.S. action in Iraq – 9/11 notwithstanding – is an epitome of hypocrisy, rhetoric, and the worst kind of demagoguery. “

    To suggest that the War on Terror has no parallels to our country’s war with the Nazi’s and their alies is what is hypocritical. Perhaps you could make a case that our invasion of Iraq was an overreach, or an overreaction, but plenty have made that same case regarding dropping nukes on Japan.

    Bottom line, both were done in a struggle between good and evil, between a decision that would cost some lives or the lack of a decision that might have cost even more lives. At least back then, most Americans realized what team they were on, and stuck with it. These days, it’s only fashionable to support contentious policy if the pol is a democrat. Otherwise, it’s all evil.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re entitled to your opinion, as long as you are aware there are other opinions.

    Is there anything else you’d like to contribute to this discussion?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Here’s another example of evil – Bernie Madoff.

    Is there anything else you’d like to contribute to this discussion?

    Depending on where this discussion goes, most certainly. How about you?

    And apologies for suggesting you are a lefty, I didn’t mean to touch any nerves. However, you seem to side with Obama on many things (perhaps I am wrong about that, and if so, apologies). I’m center, to the right. And I can’t possibly support much of Obama’s policies thus far. I don’t how someone could support what Obama has forwarded thus far and be described as anything other than a leftist.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You have no fucking idea who I side with. You haven’t read none of my pieces on BC, and even if you had, you did not make one fucking comment. That’s enough for me to discount any impression you may or may not have of my views. You’re simply not entitled.
    Do you understand my point?

  • Baronius

    Roger, the orange pot is decaf. I think the waitress filled your cup from the black pot.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    OA, describing yourself as “center, to the right” reveals a notable lack of self-awareness.

    You have never written a centrist thing on Blogcritics. Maybe you keep all your precious centrism to yourself, and are only willing to share with us your remarkably narrow, stubborn, unreasoning right-wing vision.

    Obama is pretty close to the political center of the country at the moment. This may make you uncomfortable, but it’s true. There is very little radical or extreme about him.

    Maybe your definitions need updating. I know: fat chance.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Roger,

    I’ve read your comments which should be enough. And I do think I read one of your articles, and may have posted to it. Understand that I restrict how much I post, because I can get obsessed, and then wind up spending so much time posting that I never write an article. But this is neither here nor there.

    As Baronius suggests, ease up. Being tough in a chatroom isn’t impressive. Moreover, this is a discussion, which means I can reply to your posts and vice versa. And I am going off of the things you’ve been posting. If I pegged you wrong, then correct me. But I’ve already apologized IF that was the case, and I won’t do it again. If you don’t want the likes of me responding to your posts, then go start a private discussion group somewhere. I get all sorts of stuff thrown in my direction without flipping out. Try that on for yourself, you may like it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    No, Bar – I’m drinking Jim Beam, 7-years old. Almost as good as Johnny Walker Black, except less expensive. I’m sorry if I’m offending, but I had decided, just for once, to try the liberal vitriol, after the best example of what we’ve seen here, from some, on the other side. And it feels good for a change.

    It’s just for today, don’t you worry. Come
    tomorrow, I assure you the more rational side will take over.

    Peace

  • Baronius

    My definition of evil is an action contrary to God’s will, which is most simply stated in the commandments to love God and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. I’m prepared to judge particular actions, but there’s no way I’d label an individual as evil. I’m not capable of knowing another person so fully, and anyway if that label were tossed around I’d be as appropriate a recipient as anyone.

    That said, I think a general pattern emerges that conservatives blame themselves when they lose elections, and liberals blame conservatives. Conservatives are more bipartisan and democratic when they’re in power; liberals are more authoritarian. Individual cases differ, but liberals just tend to be nastier and less respectful.

    The next four years will test that theory, and SJ’s comments scare me a little.

  • The Obnoxious American

    “Obama is pretty close to the political center of the country at the moment. “

    Handyguy, this represents a lack of Obama awareness on your part.

    Obama isn’t center. The country didn’t “move left.” Obama ran a centrist campaign. Virtually every single person I know who voted for him did so because they thought he wouldn’t enact a full on liberal ideology. That is why so many are claiming bait and switch. You can disagree, but you can’t change Obama’s own comments during the election which are right now at odds with the very policies he is forwarding.

    Obama won 53% of the vote, not 73%. And a sizeable portion of that 53% are indies who tend to lean right but were fed up with 8 years of Bush. Being fed up with Bush doesn’t automaticaly equal support for wealth redistribution, socialism, or euro foriegn policy.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Not quite correct, Bar. I apologize for being philosophical here, but one must distinguish between an act (like breaking a commandment) and the heart.

    Any thoughts?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Thanks, Roger

    I do appreciate your kind concern for my well being and happiness, and your much needed advice toward that end. Alas, I am too far gone to heed it.

    Dan(Miller)

    stumbles into remedial psychology class in a sincere attempt to understand the true meaning of the gentleman’s comments

  • Clavos

    Obama is pretty close to the political center of the country at the moment.

    That is the most ridiculous statement I’ve read on this site in many a moon.

    Bam is the most left wing individual to sit in the oval office in decades.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Roger,

    wasn’t that exactly my point? Thus it would be wrong to call Bush or Obama evil.

    Yet those that I called evil, you knew the content of their hearts. There is no question that Madoff knew what he ws doing. That hitler knew what he was doing. Etc etc. It’s beginning to sound like you are (GASP) agreeing with me!

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    You say po-tay-to, I say po-tah-to. Your assertions are just that, and difficult to prove or disprove.

    The fact that the president’s favorability rating is still 7-8 points higher than his election percentage indicates possibly a smaller amount of anger and disappointment than your non-scientific sample of ‘independents.’ [Independent, like yourself?]

    And I believe his policies are direct extensions of his campaign speeches. No contradiction at all, except in your [100% biased] perception.

    You will never say one favorable thing about him. This is no longer news, or the least bit interesting.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I never called Bush evil, OA. I wouldn’t presume. And as regards those who did, I cautioned against it.

    Dan – believe it or not, my vitriolic response was a kind of concern, to shake you up, whatever. I hold no real animosity. It’s just that as your style is one thing, my style – at least with respect to you – has got to be another thing entirely.

  • The Obnoxious American

    The lack of evidence is not evidence. Obama has not done anything I agree with and judging by his drop in the polls, my view isn’t unique. That his approval in polls is 7 points higher than election results just proves that most Americans don’t care about politics, a fact that has always been true. Plus, people are reluctant to admit they were wrong. And they want to give him a chance. So do I actually, but every day I wake up, it’s yet another issue.

    Keep denying it. Thankfully, denial is the first stage of grief.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    He’s further left than you, Clavos, or Baronius or OA. This is not, however, a very meaningful measure.

    I’m not claiming he’s not a liberal. Just that he isn’t the radical you’re fond of pretending he is.

    His foreign policy has been utterly moderate so far, with the very happy exceptions of torture and Guantanamo.

    His big-spending policies are mostly in response to a crisis, and are based on advice from very smart mainstream advisors. If you think Paul Volcker is a radical leftist, you are welcome to your silly opinion.

    And the initiatives on health care, education and energy were all there in the campaign, and are based on solid principle and substantive thought — ‘radical lefty’ only if you’re viewing them from a point very far to the right.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    If I offend anyone with my ‘hatred’ rants I am sorry. I tend to get very passionate about a select group of things because I’ve always been one who roots for the underdog and perhaps my own warped sense of justice. There are times these days when I find myself questioning my own wisdom in my rabid support of Ronald Reagan in the 80’s. But to wallow in the past does not solve the problems at present.

    I’m tired of liberal vs. conservative; Democrat vs. Republican. The basic truth is that the moment a good ol’ boy (girl) from the neighborhood goes to Washington it just doesn’t matter. Life inside the Beltway is surreal. There’s a different set of standards and a complete disconnect from the reality of day-to-day life from rural areas to the hearts of the cities. We as a people have been lazy, blindly allowing our government to propagate the system into the mess that exists. I believe Barack Obama entered into this race with noble intentions. I continue to believe that Barack Obama is trying to do the right thing by everyone and is faced with the same roadblock every executive encounters.

    The state of our nation is not all George W. Bush’s fault. I’d venture to say that even the most rabid of liberals would agree. Bush had a Congress which is equally responsible. There’s no doubt that the political divide ratio may have been different but nevertheless Democrat legislators are equally guilty, period. If we as a people really want to see Barack Obama succeed we need to take things a step further politically. This means a wholesale reconfiguration of Congress. If a member of the House has been there 4 or more terms, it’s time for them to go. If a Senator has been there three terms, it’s time to go. By sending shock waves through the halls of Congress, Barack Obama could very well succeed and save this nation.

    Like it or not, fellow United States-ians, Barack Obama’s success is our success. He faces the most severe political crisis this nation has experienced since 1861. Barack Obama IS our Abraham Lincoln. Deal with it.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Bam is the most left wing individual to sit in the oval office in decades.

    Bam Margera won the election???

    [picks up alarm clock, peers at it, holds it up to ear]

    How long was I asleep?!?!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/dan_miller Dan(Miller)

    Roger,

    Dear me. I didn’t know you cared. As soon as I finish remedial psychology -101, I shall get back to you. Since I am a very slow learner, it may take a while. I shall certainly Rush hurry, so do be patient.

    Dan(Miller)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Whatever, Dan. Whatever suits you.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Bam Morgera would have done a better job than GWB.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    OA – re #213:

    Your comment is noted. No, my comments on any of the threads are not enough. Lots of people here go out on a limb and say stupid or less than judicious things by way of comments: lots of reasons, how you feel at the moment, the mood you’re in, just to be contrary, you name it. And I am no exception. So no – you don’t know where I am coming from unless you read posted pieces.

    Threads are cheap. And those who never post – notice, because it may be a kind of trend – tend to be least responsible.

  • Cindy

    O.A.

    It’s rather entertaining to hear you lefties try and describe evil, and of course you are way off the mark in your definition.

    How can one be way off the mark on what is a personal belief? (Put another way, how can someone who thinks they can be “correct” about such a thing be a reasonable person?)

    Calling Bush evil was an ad hominem attack. My referring to your behavior on the other hand was not ad hominem, it was an observation.

    That makes no sense. Oh wait. I see. Your opinion is an observation, mine is just idiotic. Yes, I am getting the gist of this laughable laudable way of “thinking”.

    See, just because you disagree with someone’s view does not make that person evil.

    I defined evil as someone I disagree with? Ah, this must be the part where you ignore what the other person says and twist it so you can carry on arguing and still make sense to yourself (if not to anyone rational).

    While your method of arguing is very interesting, and some of it is fun, I think I’ll stop before getting too acquainted with the part that apparently addles one’s brain.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “How can one be way off the mark on what is a personal belief?”

    That’s an interesting question you’re posing here, Cindy, along with “how can someone who thinks they can be ‘correct’ about such a thing be a reasonable person?”

    Something to think about.

  • Baronius

    Cindy, for a lot of us, calling someone evil is a big deal. It’s not something we’d throw around lightly. Many (most?) people consider good and evil to be meaningful terms, not just matters of personal opinion. “Evil” is a pretty strong term to use, especially if you don’t believe in it. If you mean that you don’t agree with Limbaugh, then say that. Don’t say that he’s evil.

  • Cindy

    Bar,

    Cindy, for a lot of us, calling someone evil is a big deal. It’s not something we’d throw around lightly.

    I’m not sure what the source of your presumptions are other than you don’t see evil in the people that I do. In fact, I even equated my idea of evil in the context I used it to great sin.

    Many (most?) people consider good and evil to be meaningful terms, not just matters of personal opinion.

    Where do they derive their meaning from if not someone’s opinion? I consider evil to be a very meaningful term. In the end, what an individual person considers evil will be opinion, a meaningful opinion, but still, an opinion.

    “Evil” is a pretty strong term to use, especially if you don’t believe in it.

    Again, I’m puzzled. I don’t believe in it? Why would you say that?

    If you mean that you don’t agree with Limbaugh, then say that. Don’t say that he’s evil.

    It’s not merely that I don’t agree with him. I don’t agree with a lot of people, whom I don’t consider evil. I think Rush Limbaugh is evil because he promotes evil ideas. Ideas that if implemented would cause harm to people.

    I take causing harm to people very seriously. I’m sorry more people don’t. But I can’t help that people are anesthetized to the reality that every human being is just like them–with the same desire for life and love and happiness–and each deserves the same consideration and value they give themselves, their mother, or their child.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “I think Rush Limbaugh is evil because he promotes evil ideas. Ideas that if implemented would cause harm to people.”

    You’ve got to grant her that, if that’s what she believes about Limbaugh. Of course, it’s somewhat circular, because it hinges on what counts as “evil ideas,” so you might try to nail Cindy on that. But I’m certain, she’ll be prepared to answer that question as well.

  • Cindy

    “I think Rush Limbaugh is evil because he promotes evil ideas. Ideas that if implemented would cause harm to people.”

    perhaps it would be clearer if I put it like this:

    Evil ideas: Ideas that if implemented would cause harm to people.

  • Baronius

    A couple of points of clarification:

    – I’m making a distinction between labelling actions evil and labelling people evil. Tim Geithner cheated on his taxes; that’s an evil action. I don’t know that Geithner is an evil man. There’s a principle in Christianity, “hate the sin; love the sinner”. That’s part of what drives me to make the distinction.

    – I don’t buy that there are meaningful opinions, at least as you’re using the phrase. There are facts and there are opinions. We may differ in our opinions about evil, but that doesn’t change the nature of evil.

    If you take the position that evil is an opinion, then the word has no weight behind it. It carries no more importance than a preference for the Steelers over the Patriots. On the other hand, if you take the position that harm is evil, and harm is real, you’re saying that evil is real. But something can’t be purely subjective and objective.

    (There are maybe a dozen subtle solutions to this puzzle, and I’ll bet that our resident philosopher is chomping at the bit to point them out, but I’m curious about your answer, or if you’ve even considered it before.) (Also, since this is a digression, let me tie it back to the original article a little. Our political discourse has been poisonous lately. If some of that poison is from misspeaking or misunderstanding, let’s eliminate it.)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Ooh, that’s a pretty rigid definition, Cindy.

    There are plenty of ideas that might come with some evil attached to them, but are on the whole good. For example, suppose one proposed to build a water treatment plant in a densely-populated region. To do this, land is needed; the land is farmed by someone. Building the plant will mean the displacement of the farmer, thereby causing him harm; but it also means that thousands of people will have clean drinking water.

    On balance, is this idea good or evil?

  • Baronius

    Roger, I’ve been mulling over your definition of evil, the arbitrary use of power. Wouldn’t that also apply to acts of mercy? A plantation owner frees his slaves, a parent spontaneously takes the kids to the park, a rich man gives his coat to a beggar, a wife wears her slutty nightgown to bed. All of these people use their power in an arbitrary way. Except for the slaveholder, every one of them goes beyond the strict requirements of justice (the slaveholder may be going beyond his society’s definition of justice).

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Baronius – what I meant is kind of restricted mainly to political power – I should have said that, perhaps, but I thought the context was rather clear.
    Did you have problem connecting to BC for the last two, three hours? all my links were broken.

  • Clavos

    All use of power, including political power, is arbitrary. The arbitrariness is inherent in the power itself.

    A powerful entity, by virtue of its power, does not have to obtain approval to exercise that power, therefore such exercise is, by definition, arbitrary.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
    Mao Tse-Tung

  • Baronius

    BC sometimes makes you work a little. I get a lot of freeze-ups, and sometimes the comments section won’t display. My main complaint these days is that ad for losing 25 pounds. It looks like that woman had her rib cage removed. I can only hope that her “after” picture is badly photo-shopped.

    Your definition of evil, then, doesn’t include non-political acts? Punching someone in the back of the head seems like a fundamentally evil act.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There’s another point to consider, Bar – and you touched on it.

    Opinion (which comes from Greek “doxa” – dogma/orthodoxy, etc) must be distinguished from knowledge. To say, “it’s (just) my opinion” is not necessarily to claim responsibility for what one is saying (as opposed to, say, “I know that such and such is the case”)

    So on matters of importance – e.g., saying so and so is evil – I should say one needs more than an opinion, because it’s not a light charge. (Everyone has opinions, they’re as frequent and easy to come by as asholes …., etc, etc.)

    “Judge not so you not be judged” comes to mind, or “who can tell another person’s heart.”

    So it’s kind of tricky, isn’t?

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet

    You’re not alone on the freeze ups Baronius, today especially

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    The point really is that charges/accusations of that kind have most force in the political arena (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, etc).

    Of course, anyone having real power over a great many other people is in the position to mistreat them – so those are the other types of cases.

    But we should reserve this term for the most important cases (if the term is to have the kind of force we expect it to have: diluting it would cheapen it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To add to this: the term is supposed to function in the moral/religious arena – as the worst kind of condemnation.

    To use it as a descriptive term is to essential misuse it. There’s got to be a point, and a very important one, to say something like that.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “All use of power, including political power, is arbitrary. The arbitrariness is inherent in the power itself.”

    Technically, yes. But in matters appertaining to the business of the state, if the power is used arbitrarily than the people have the right to overthrow their government. An important dimension of political philosophy/theory has always been the justification of power in terms of authority – either by appeals to the divine (divine right of kings) or in terms of “just/non-arbitrary/judicious/discriminate” exercise of power. (You can refer to my last piece, Politics and Ethics, part II; and you have any problems with what I’m saying there, we can discuss it at length.)

  • Cindy

    All use of power, including political power, is arbitrary. The arbitrariness is inherent in the power itself.

    A powerful entity, by virtue of its power, does not have to obtain approval to exercise that power, therefore such exercise is, by definition, arbitrary. –Clavos

    Brilliant!

  • Cindy

    Roger,

    But in matters appertaining to the business of the state, if the power is used arbitrarily than the people have the right to overthrow their government.

    Exactly. People have the right to resist illegitimate authority.

    An important dimension of political philosophy/theory has always been the justification of power in terms of authority…

    Yes, that seems to be the problem with it. Authority must justify itself or it is illegitimate. Therefore, philosophies that try to justify authority are merely engaging in an attempt to legitimize the illegitimate.

    …”just/non-arbitrary/judicious/discriminate” exercise of power…

    Just, non-arbitrary, judicious, etc to whom?

  • Baronius

    Clavos, I don’t agree. Do you consider the enforcement of agreed-upon laws as power? Society of laws not men, and all that.

    Thanks, btw, for saying “echo”. It was probably the highlight of my week.

  • Cindy

    RE# 238

    Dr.D,

    Ooh, that’s a pretty rigid definition, Cindy.

    I agree Dr.D; it’s certainly not going to win an award for being a complete, or even always correct definition. I guess I was just trying to describe what I saw as evil and why on the fly. I am sure there are exceptions, but…

    If the farmers went to the town meeting where everyone got a say in deciding about the water tower and everyone decided that the water tower needed to go on that land and the community provided them with alternative farming resources…wouldn’t that be better than a government just taking away their land?

    So, in a sense your example could also be construed as also evil. (perhaps not as evil as murder or torture, but in some way evil)

    In another sense, though, an authority must justify itself to be legitimate. There are certainly times when it can do this.

    This may or may not be one of them.

    Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my mind about anything at any time, without any notice at all.

  • Clavos

    Clavos, I don’t agree. Do you consider the enforcement of agreed-upon laws as power? Society of laws not men, and all that.

    No, I don’t, because, in your example, the laws are “agreed upon”.

    To use an example with which I think you’ll see my point, one of the most recent true (i.e. not “agreed upon”) exercises of power in the sense discussed, are the executive orders issued by GWB, such as the Patriot Act. In my definition, all such fiats (for that is what the Patriot Act is) are “arbitrary” uses of power, precisely because they lack the “consent of the governed.”

    Thanks, btw, for saying “echo”. It was probably the highlight of my week.

    What a dull week you must have had…:>)

  • bliffle

    Lord Acton put it starkly:

    “All great men are evil men”.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s Catch 22 – an unresolved problem of political philosophy. Thucydides argued that power needs no justification – and in a sense he was right. But apart from that, people have always tried to justify power (some for good, others for less noble, self-serving ends) by couching it in the cloak of “authority.”

    Authority itself is a catchy concept. It denotes something emanating from the author/the creator/the maker. And part of the problem here is that – on face value, at least – if you recognize something as having the force of authority, you accept it. This is the crux of the problem – having others recognize a rule or government as legitimate authority.

    For the believers, God is the author, so the problem of recognition and acceptance is more or less resolved. There’s only the practical question, as to what God commands. But it differs when it comes to humans: By what right can authority be claimed, and how do we know it’s legitimate? That’s why all the attempts to connect the human version/application of authority to the divine (or basic morality) – in order to legitimize it.

    That’s where the ideas of justice, and fairness, and non-arbitrary, judicious exercise of power come in and are important. Because it’s only by those markers, and no other, that we can abide by “human kind of authority” and consider it binding.

  • Cindy

    Bar,

    If you take the position that evil is an opinion, then the word has no weight behind it. It carries no more importance than a preference for the Steelers over the Patriots. On the other hand, if you take the position that harm is evil, and harm is real, you’re saying that evil is real. But something can’t be purely subjective and objective.

    I see what you are saying here. My use of the word “opinion” would be for those things which would not be considered objectively evil–as rape or murder would–but would require a judgment.

    In your case you believe in a god and you let your god perform that judgment. It is therefore your opinion that your god’s opinion stands as valid. In my case, it will be made by me and therefore will be my opinion.

    So, I am acknowledging, by use of the word “opinion” that certain ideas of evil are not consistent throughout cultures, or time, or individuals.

  • Cindy

    You can substitute conviction for opinion, where I used it.

  • Cindy

    Otherwise someone is going to need to write me a list of evils that is complete, with no examples based on judgments of humans, gods, etc.

    Since we’ve been around for so long. I am sure if there is one, someone can surely produce it.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Beliefs/convictions carry greater force than mere opinions. Still, there had better be a good reason for calling someone evil – like trying to reform them, appeal to the danger they pose, things of critical importance. It’s not a term to throw lightly.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Baronius,

    I’m still looking for your response. What do you think?