Home / Culture and Society / Why President Obama’s Health Care Plan is Still A Win-Win Winner, Part 2,799.63

Why President Obama’s Health Care Plan is Still A Win-Win Winner, Part 2,799.63

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Currently the Obama Health Care Plan, aka the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ironically appears to be on life support its very self. (To be perfectly respectful of the acronym PPACA, it should properly be pronounced with its first two consonants stuttered, so that the actual, proper enunciation of it is pah-pah-pah pack-ah.)

However, even though it appears mortally wounded, I will show in this article beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, that there are more than ample means of not only saving it, but of making a rather successful and highly profitable enterprise of it as well. I will also show how this can easily be done and exactly how the potential results of it will actually far surpass President Obama’s soaring, absolutely brilliant, logically, superior, empyrean very own rhetoric itself. Mind you, no easy task that.

Under this new and improved Obama Administration plan, devised with its super brainiac, progressive-liberal socialists such as Cass Sunstein and Drs. Donald Berwick and Ezekiel Emanuel; in combination with its ultra-liberal, super brainiac Wall Street wizards á là Goldman Sachs and GE, with people who are even smarter and more competent than Lloyd Blankfein, James Dimon, Jeffery Immelt, Timothy Geithner, et al, et al; again, I will demonstrate for an absolute certainty how It will in essence be a “Win-Win Winner.”

Here’s how, but before we begin, let us backtrack just a tad. As I see it, there are essentially three nagging and seemingly insolvable, major issues which just seem to be absolutely impervious and stubbornly resistant to reasonable national discourse and rational debate, and therefore, simple but effective and thoroughly efficacious solutions. Very quickly; constitutionality, overall cost and the utter myth of so-called, supposed “death panels.” Well let us, dear readers, now address these three.

I. Constitutionality

This of course is proving to be a rather sticky issue which is currently slowly wending its way through our judiciary system; and so far with mixed results. It of course will most likely wind up at the doorstep of the Supreme Court, but when is anyone’s guess. So I choose at this point in time not to comment or speculate on its constitutionality and its ultimate fate.

However please, dear readers, allow me to say that I consider this issue to be essentially a matter of basic human and civil rights, and of fairness, human decency and social justice. So therefore I must re-iterate and re-emphasize the point, “Constitution-Shmonsh-titution!” I must also add “death to the greedy, avaricious and selfish, evil capitalist Insurance companies and the even more diabolical pharmaceuticals and the generically even more diabolic “big” corporations, et al, et al, ad infinitum.

Look here, just as Dickens’ character “Mr. Bumble” after having been found guilty (as sin or is that as all hell?) addressed the judge, “if the law supposes that…the law is a ass, a idiot.” Likewise the Supreme Court if it rules against PPACA (again, pronounced, pah-pah-pah, pack-ah) will be an “ass” and worse. Therefore, ergo, igitur, propter hoc, damn the Constitution and full speed ahead. We need it, we want it, we got to have it; like right now five minutes ago. And again, Constitution-Shmonstitution; it’s our right and President Obama’s gonna make sure we get it – or else!

II. Overrall Cost

Yes, PPACA is going to be expensive but nothing as good and just as free health care, indeed unlimited, free healthcare for every American, is necessarily going to be inexpensive, nor necessarily unworthy of that cost – every single dime of it. It in fact is just a cost we must bear for the sake of human and civil rights, human decency and compassion, and for the infinite social good and social justice it will eventually achieve and provide us.

But it also does not have to be an open-ended expenditure either. That is why PPACA is so necessary as it has been devised. Yes, it has initial costs which tend to be budget busters, but overall, it provides us with mechanisms which will reduce those costs and through the magic of liberal progressive accounting and deep, deep, deep “new math” concepts as well as profound Ivy League and Harvard, super-brainiac theorizing, lucubration and cogitation; it will not only pay for itself but it will also give us a super return-on-investment as well. In a word, we’re going to be rollin’ in the hay with gazillions of ‘greenbacks’. Simply stated, “little in, mucho dinero out.” So what’s there not to like about Obamacare? How could anyone possibly find fault with it?

Allow me dear readers the following analogy derived from the old TV advertisement which I must paraphrase here and only slightly embellish for dramatic effect:

“You can pay me now…” Small bucks for an oil change. “Or you can pay me later…” With of course really, really, really big bucks when your engine explodes because you were too damn cheap to pay a few bucks up front for an oil change. I mean how goddamn stupid can you be?! When everyone knows you can get a lousy oil change for thirty bucks..but do you know how much an engine job costs…well it starts at $ 3, 000 and goes straight up from there.

That of course is bad enough, but what if your so-called frugality causes your auto’s engine to explode so violently that it sends several if not all the pistons and the whole transmission and engine block through the dash and kills your wife and maybe one or more of your kids; and or kills someone else in another car; or harms a pedestrian, let us say, a neighbor who is walking his or her dog and your goddamn crankshaft kills them all, kills the neighbor and his or her goddamn dog too…then what?

Well, are you such a goddamn tightwad, cheapskate, pennypincher, nay, are you so goddamn cheap that you’d squeeze a nickel till the goddamn buffalo farts? That you would kill hundreds of thousands, nay, millions of your own fellow Americans because you don’t want to pay for a lousy “oil change” right now?

And we all know of whom I speak. But if you don’t, then let me state here quite clearly, and not mince words about it either. Yeah that’s right, it is you lousy skin-flint, mean-hearted, mean-spirited, cruel, callous and insensitive, and thoroughly uncompassionate el cheapo conservatives and selfish libertarians too! That’s who!

How can anyone possibly be opposed to such a clear, brilliant investment which will pay such vast and monumental, humongous dividends within only a decade? You need not answer that rhetorical question because we all know that only a conservative and or a libertarian could be that stupid and mulish, that ignorant, mindlessly stubborn and brutish too. And we also all know that only liberal-progressive governance can make that sort of brilliant investment succeed and make it pay off and pay off big time.

Now I know there is a countervailing conservative argument, but as worthless as it is, unfortunately, the rules of debate, fairness and balance demand that we at least examine and scrutinize it somewhat before we completely deny, repudiate and reject it entirely out of hand. Intellectual probity and decorum and at least the appearance of openminded inquiry and debate, demands that we make the effort – besides which we no longer have numerical, overwhelming majorities in Congress. So here’s one of many conservative arguments against. The seminal premise of this one centers around a basic analogy with the following simple question:

Who in their right mind would pay thirty dollars for a substandard, tasteless, nay, raunchy, foul, tepid, all but meatless, burger; when one can buy a tasty, delicious and nutritious, meaty burger for three dollars at any McDonalds or Burger King or Wendys et al. Well of course no one in their right mind would shell out thirty dollars for such a worthless burger – but who says liberals qua liberal progressives qua commie-lib/simp qua pinko-lefty commie-loving Marxists are right in the head or have a rational and intelligent mind to begin with?

That in effect is exactly what liberals mean to say when they speak in terms of their concept of an investment. They may not think that the consequences of their ideas of an investment will cost ten times more than it rationally should and be ten times less in quality or in efficaciousness than initially theorized and envisioned, conjured and planned for at some nebulous “brainstorming” bullshit session served with pizza, lots and lots of pizza with lots and lots of coca cola – and perhaps cocaine too – but if not the latter, certainly with a lot of “pot,” lots and lots of it; but if history tells us anything, that is exactly what liberal investments, with hardly any exception, become.

Another way of looking at it is to bring up another analogy – that of King Midas and the Gold Touch; very simply stated everything King Midas touched turned to gold. And this has been a metaphor for success and prosperity for over 2, 500 years now. Liberals do not have the Midas Touch, but rather unfortunately, they possess what I call the “brown touch.” Cause unlike Midas, everything liberals touch turns to shit; whether it’s the DMV or “The Big Dig in Boston” or Urban Housing Projects (what I call Bauhaus, high rise, ghetto, concentration camps of massive social dysfunction and incubators of massive social pathology) et al, et al, ad infinitum.

(Not to mention such liberal and liberal-progressive catastrophes such as the absolute, complete and total dismal, miserable, abject and disastrous, meltdown failure of our liberal and liberal progressive, statist and collectivist public schools; both intellectually, academically and scholastically on the one hand, and morally and ethically on the other.)

And just as the Roman poet Virgil warned “Danaos dona ferentes timeo.” Literally, I fear Greeks when bearing gifts, so too one must fear and distrust liberals when bearing their cockamamy, so-called investments.

Or to quote Ann Coulter at the recent CPAC meeting, “now Republicans are going to have to repeal National Health Care just so we can find out what’s not in it.”

III. Death Panels

We of course all know that “death panels” are an utter myth and worse; an utter piece of slanderous and totally unfounded propaganda and smear. But it is true, we liberal progressives deal in facts, rationality and in actual reality; while our conservative and libertarian nemeses (that’s a fancy SAT word for evil, vermin, lower-than-the-belly- of-a-worm, scumbag enemies of the peoples what don’t deserve to breathe, besides which they pollute the goddamn air anyway) do not deal in facts, rationality and reality, but in their opposites; in myths and lies and irrational fantasies and baseless propaganda.

So that is why we liberal progressives must speak out and reveal their mendacious, dishonest ways (yet another fancy SAT word here meaning “lying, prevaricating” scumbags which all conservative and libertarians truly are – and that’s a fact, a veritable mathematical given). Well, let’s face facts, the very last end stage of life, by far, is its most costly in America by many factors and by a huge percentage, and for the shortest period in our lives to boot. So what to do?

Well, former democrat and far-left liberal-progressive Florida Rep. Alan Grayson had it only partially right when he said on the House floor, (I paraphrase here) that the Republican health care plan was; one, to stay healthy; but two, if one were to get sick, to simply die. Well to be brutally honest, he got the concept right, but the wrong political party.

You see, we liberal progressives, to be brutally honest, have been publicly saying that Granny MUST DIE for a very long time. The first to publicly state as much, that it was the (patriotic) “duty (of senior citizens) to die” and to die quickly was Governor Richard Lamm in 1984. So again, let’s face facts and have the “cojones” to tell them like they izz, no matter how brutal they be and we appear.

Look here, we’ve also got to face the fact that when Granny and Grandpa start roaming and wondering about the streets aimlessly they become a public-safety hazard and nuisance not only to themselves but for everyone else too. Just think of what would happen if one of these mindless, brain-dead Zombies were to walk in front of your car while you’re tooling around the neighborhood or the parking lot of the local Walmart. Well even though it’s not your fault you’d still get a whole bunch of moving violation, traffic-infraction/citation points against you and your car insurance rates would necessarily skyrocket.

And what about their constantly wetting themselves uncontrollably and falling down and not being able to get up again. Or how about when they drive fifteen miles per hour in the express lane of the freeway or when they drive through the window of the local McDonald’s, not the drive-by window, mind you, but the plate-glass window of the front entrance, in their hurry to get the ‘early-bird’ senior-citizens’ discount, ‘blue plate special’ which by the way, McDonald’s does not have nor offer.

But worst of all, they constitute an enormous bad influence upon our youth, in that they are without a doubt a veritable force for the corruption of the former. How so, one might ask? Because they are so ditsy and or crotchety and ornery, and so personally incompetent and incapable of taking care of themselves that they become extremely vulnerable targets to even the weakest and most bumbling predators amongst us.

So much so, that many innocent, future Rhodes scholars of America, and future Senators and congresspersons and even perhaps, a future president or two or three or more, presidents of the United States of America (and if that were to happen, then the time honored, ages old prayer, “God forbid” will no longer have any worth nor currency because if one of these eagle boy scout, Rhodes scholars should become president, then that will be utter, complete and absolute proof-positive evidence that God really is dead which fact I am sure will tremendously please the liberal, secular progressives and Marxist atheists, as well as Time Magazine and Newsweek too, but enough of this aside, rather back to the main point again).

Whereby these thoroughly innocent Rhodes scholars and idealistic, but easily impressionable young people are simply tempted to mug and ‘roll’ and rob old people for fun and sport, and above all else, especially for profit. Beating up old people is only slightly more difficult than taking candy from a baby, in sum and to wit, it’s no ‘biggie’ – in fact, it’s a veritable piece of cake. In addition if one happens to kill a senior citizen in the process, one will receive a reduced sentence, and especially if one goes before a liberal judge, one will most likely only receive probation and community service and no jail time whatsoever in ‘juvee‘ let alone “hard time” in the ‘big house’.

So the obvious and patently self-evident dirty little secret is that old people simply entrap and force nominally decent teenagers and adolescents into a life of predation and crime. My heart bleeds for these young people and so should yours and everyone else’s. I mean what more do you have to know, old people simply deserve to die! And we liberals and liberal-progressives must simply provide them the means and wherewithal to do so in a humane and thoroughly compassionate way.

Why? Because we’re goddamn liberals and only we goddamn liberals, and we alone and exclusively so, have a goddamn monopoly and cartel-like vise-grip, stranglehold on goddamn compassion and human decency, that’s why!

However, dear readers, for the sake of brevity and the dictates of the confines of space herein, I must close. But do not be forlorn nor wretchedly saddened, nor disheartened and downcast, nor miserably despondent and crestfallen – for I soon will provide you with the “solutions” in Part 34, 059.72 – again, to be continued, and coming soon to Blogcritics (in spite of the capital crime and offense of that very previous, last dangling participle).

Powered by

About Irvin F. Cohen

  • Well put, Irv ole boy.

  • Well that makes three short ones and one vey long one today, evanesced into nothingness – but who’s counting anyway? And who says bland and insipid evil never triumphs too?

    Wasn’t it Hannah Arendt who said, I paraphrase here, that the face and individual embodiment of true evil was rather BANAL? But even she and this paraphrase of her has vanished from these pages too.

    Insha’Allah, let’s see if God is willing, and this one survives, praise be to Allah.

  • Blandness is the key to acceptance and longevity.

  • Scholars point to a rising level of interest among older generations.

  • The everyday lives of neighbors can be lost in the din.

  • Muslim leaders should be doing more to help.

  • Well, Mr. Rose, I stand corrected, harrumph, harrumph. I guess, I think, somewhat, sort of.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Without meaning in any way to defend BC’s lowly assistant comments editor, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] please let me suggest that permitting the use of “jackwad” is not a matter of tolerance but rather, in the context of #48, simple respect for a writer’s style. Although both [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] have done their damnedest to excise, expurgate and expunge the commentary of Irvin F. Cohen, his voice nevertheless remains strong and unique among the various vapid whimpers populating this site, my own included.

  • Irv, I’ve answered all these inaccurate remarks of yours repeatedly, most recently last week, so unlike you I’m not going to keep repeating myself.

    Do you have a memory problem?

    The only other thing I would add is that the edit of your remark wasn’t done by me but by someone more tolerant than I, as I would have edited out your calling of Glenn a “jackwad” also…

  • But back again, even though the Comments Editor only expurgated a small portion of my # 48. But what a co-inky-dinky, it only pertained to a similar reference to him. So why is it OK for me to attack you viciously, but to mention him in the same breath is not?

    Have you thicker skin or are your sensibilities – that’s feelings for you – are they any lesser in importance than his? Which makes this expurgation of his so arbitrary and so petty and so solipsistic.

    But it was also a matter of content and opinion, but woe unto anyone, if in doing so it mentions him and questions his policy in any way, shape, manner or form; or has the utter gall and cheek to dissent from it; well then it is either expurgated or disappeared in its entirety, rather capriciously and with a heavy, ham-fisted hand to boot. Which gives “the great lie” to his so-called neutrality, impartiality, lack of bias and disinterested objectivity.

    So is it all just a matter of petty personality – yours in particular – Mr. Comments Editor?

    And why must I be forced to censor myself, again, what of the chilling effect, again through fear and intimidation of your arbitrary and capricious censorship?

    I was going to address those issues straight up – the very serious issues, mind you – which Glenn had inadvertently brought up, again of course, as is his wont and custom, in complete error. But nonetheless which I thought were worthy and needed to be answered.

    But the point is I have wasted six paragraphs here pointing out your hypocrisy and arbitrariness and petty inconsistencies in your mindless censorship of my post of what was a fairly serious topic which I still as of yet have not addressed.

    So, the point is how can any of us who do not conform to your so called policies, you know, the ones which you make up as you go along; how can any of us take you seriously, but more importantly, how can any of us trust you?

    Are you going to censor this one too – out of existence? Which arguably seems to be your modus operandi and because perhaps I have forced you into a corner of your own making and choosing. You just simply have to censor me here, and delete the evidence in its entirety, now don’t you?

    Of course you’ll deny such, because according to your own words, you never censor nor delete any comments herein whatsoever! What a sad, fucking joke you are! What a vile and despicable creature thou be!

    Do you think you possibly can be civilized and answer me, rather than the intellectual and philosophic barbarian you are, who instead of openly debating and answering for his actions, just simply must delete and silence his opposition and destroy the evidence in this process of this wanton perfidy of yours?

    Is that what you’re going to do Mr, Rose? Just simply silence me and destroy the evidence?

  • Alan,

    Your # 46.

    Yeah, something like that.

    comrade Glenn,

    Your # 47

    Yeah baby, yeah – eviler than you can possibly imagine.

    Do you want me to go through a long litany, BTW, that’s just another one of those (them for you) fancy SAT words for “laundry list.”

    Geez, I really am in good form today – really, really, really condescending and patronizing, ain’t I. Really?! And a harrumph to boot. I guess that gentler, kinder bullshit sort of thingy jiggy mah bob just didn’t work out too well with me – did it?

    Look here you commie-lib jackwad, when I am ready to emasculate my soul and to bow down and scrape before you in utter sycophantic, cringing and fawning obeisance; [edited] and to give up my persona and psyche and to conform to you lefty pinko true believers and you petty Martinet crypto fascists – I’ll let you know. Of course I’ll be dead then – literally, not figuratively, but fucking literally dead as in not breathing anymore and without a pulse, etc., etc., etc., – do you get the fucking picture now?

    Oh it just suddenly just dawned on me, if experience is the measure of anything in these here past posts of mine; I am about to be massively expurgated and or disappeared in entirety. So, due to this fascistic, chilling effect, I must stop here.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irv –

    1. Your poem – any Navy man would at first wonder if you were referring to the USS Midway (CV-41), by far the oldest of the carriers in the first Gulf War – and the only one that lost no aircraft in the war. To Navy men, the ship was legendary – and carrier sailors preferred her above any of the newer ones. Just a bit of military reminiscence….

    2. Did the greatest generation fail? America had an even larger national debt after WWII (relatively speaking) than we do now…but Truman and Eisenhower jacked the top marginal tax rate up to 91% and pretty much paid off the whole thing in a decade!

    Then Kennedy came along and lowered the top marginal tax rate to a ‘mere’ 70% (exactly twice what it is now), and there the rate stayed until Reagan took office.

    And how many depressions did we have during the 35 years from the end of WWII till Reagan took office? NONE. We had two significant recessions that I know of – one after the troops came home following WWII, and one that was due to the Arab Oil Embargo.

    So did the Greatest Generation fail us? NO. Instead, they KNEW what it was to sacrifice for the common good! They KNEW that taxes were very necessary – which is how Eisenhower’s interstate system got built, along with a host of other infrastructure projects.

    But do we have the national will to do such things now? NO. Why? Because government is evilevilevilbadbadbad and can never, ever do anything right – if you listen to conservatives. Does the government do wrong things? Yes, they DO – the wrong (and evil) debacles of Vietnam and Iran-Contra and Iraq come to mind – but they also do many things RIGHT. And anyone who says otherwise is wearing a set of historical blinders.

  • OK, now I understand the source of my confusion. It’s all a matter of punctuation. Your comma in “short, epic poem” misled me, since I took it to signify and. As in: this is a short and epic poem. But you meant “short epic poem,” which is to say, as epic poems go, this one is short.

    English is full of such potholes, requiring careful navigation. If I refer to a “long, standing complaint,” it means that the complaint is long, but doesn’t say how long it’s been standing. If, by contrast, I refer to a “longstanding complaint,” that means the complaint has been around for a while, but doesn’t say how long the complaint is.

    Anyhow, let me assure Blogcritics readers, whom you undeservedly deride as “intellectually challenged, moronic vermin,” that if they’re looking for a short epic poem, as opposed to a short, epic poem, they can’t go wrong with “The Once Mighty, Midway Revisited.”

  • Alan, Alan,

    Dare I say we really need not quibble nor carp as to what the length of a true epic poem on average is, now do we? Of course we do!

    But first, why did you have to mention all those numbers? Cause that’ll just simply scare off and terrify and piss off all of the subliterate, functionally illiterate, uncultivated, unlettered, intellectually unsophisticated, computer geek, nerd, dweeb, mindless, brainless and anti-intellectual morons, cretins, imbeciles and idiot know-it-alls who mostly populate the pages of Technorati and Blogcritics. These commie-lib (mostly) intellectually challenged, moronic vermin simply won’t make the effort – too many words, wahh, wahh, wahh!

    “The Once Mighty, Midway Revisited” could fit in either the “Iliad” or “Odyssey” roughly nine or ten times each. And what of “Paradise Lost” or “La Divina Commedia” (in terza rima) or the “Canterbury Tales” or the “Sonnets” or “The Leafs of Grass” et al, et al, ad infinitum? The Midway Revisited could fit in those by even several more factors. So epic? Yes, but long? No, not so whatsoever.

    One last point, it’s “War and Pizza” by Giuseppe Tolstoy which is the really long motherfucker. That bad boy ‘s got to be at least three feet in diameter and must way half a ton with everything on it. Har, har, har!

  • … short, epic poem …

    Short in what sense? Its 600 stanzas contain more than 11,000 words.

    That’s akin to calling War and Peace a novella.

  • Dear Allen,

    Of course, again, points all well taken. That is to say, all well, fucking taken. But to re-iterate, agreed in principle. Nevertheless I must admit that I followed conventional wisdom in giving them the praise they were due. And they were truly due it, I opine to a very large extent. Most of it in point of fact I again maintain was well deserved.

    First off, they did survive Roosevelt’s Great Depression and Rooseveltian liberal-progressivism and socialism, and through the miracle of liberal, democratic, enlightened capitalism created the greatest wealth and prosperity the world has ever known – in spite of the goddamn commie-libs. And they ultimately did defeat totalitarian and militarist fascism, repealed racism here at home, and won the Cold War and defeated the former Soviet Union, in spite of the liberals’ many attempts to lose it.

    But the key and operative words here are “conventional wisdom” – I have never blindly accepted conventional wisdom, and never will, as in never, never, never. But I confess that in this case I did make that exact effort – in order to appease and placate those fifth columnist, quisling liberals, commie-lib/simps and assorted lefty-pinko, commie, Marxist loving useful idiots who populate, dominate and control, and have done so for almost a hundred years now; every facet of our intellectual, educational, cultural, social and media bastions and centers.

    But secondly, and here’s the big fucking “but” I also said in the last third or fourth of my short, epic poem that perhaps “the Greatest Generation ever” was not the greatest generation ever. One, because they were too busy earning a living and creating all this wealth to pay attention to the utter moral and ethical bankruptcy, rot and decay wrought upon the nation, by this onslaught for the past fifty years by the usual lefty-pinko suspects; with its resultant, total and complete erosion and corrosion of our very moral fiber and fabric.

    And secondly if you recall, I also said that the Greatest Generation ever had failed the nation by spawning us and subsequent generations who were truly the worst generation(s) ever. I did this by comparing Marcus Aurelius, one of the greatest of the Roman philosophers, truly a man of great intellect and a paragon of virtue and moral fiber and conduct; to his son Commodus, who one of my professors of the Classics while I was a student of his in Rome, described (the latter, Commodus) as the absolute, very worst, most debauched, sordid, profligate and dissolute of all the Roman Emperors.

    So there, stick that up your fucking stove pipe and cogitate on that for a while – motherfucker. Otherwise have a nice fucking day.

  • Irv, I’m relieved to see that you’re back in harness. Your anecdote is both horrific (your injuries and the loss of life around you) and telling. I was in the Air Force during that timeframe, uneventfully guarding missiles stateside, and not only I but many other low-ranking airmen could be seen reading Catch-22. Although set during World War II, Heller’s book resonated with us Vietnam-era young men who found ourselves entangled in the same institutionalized stupidity that Heller depicted with such rapier wit from our fathers’ generation.

    Since you’ve written at length about both generations in your epic poem “The Once Mighty, Midway Revisited,” let me again take issue with your theme that The Greatest Generation (our fathers’) was “almost entirely without blemish nor fault.”

    As GIs, they griped endlessly about military stupidities, just as countless generations of mostly conscripts had done before them. Once demobilized, however, they grabbed their bennies and ran, milking the GI Bill for all it was worth as their collective rite of passage to the American Dream. Consequently, we inherited their military in the mid-’60s virtually unchanged from how they’d left it 20 years earlier. Sure we had some (but not all) newer weapons, and the barracks had been repainted once or twice in the interim; but as a social institution, Dad’s military hadn’t budged a goddamn inch. (The one, truly admirable and long overdue exception being racial integration.)

    So the Greatest Generation was a double-barreled failure. First, by politically instigating the Vietnam War, which was an unmitigated calamity. Second, by bequeathing us a military every bit as moronic in its day-to-day operations as their own had been.

    I have no idea what today’s all-volunteer military is like, since I haven’t seen it from the inside out. Our generation (The Worst Generation?) may have left no better legacy than Dad’s did. If so, more’s the pity, since we at least had Catch-22 to show us that unchecked idiocy runs in social institutions just as it runs in families.

  • Back again,

    To finish up the true anecdote/experience. I’ll spare you the war story aspect of it, just suffice it to say, this incident culminated over two weeks of heavy, “hairy’ fighting on a daily and nightly basis over a two week period in which several Marines and a handful of our South Vietnamese allies and trainees had also been killed and wounded.

    We started out the patrol around noon and were ambushed at one pm. I was carrying the radio and was the prime target. Even though I was severely wounded and the radio absolutely destroyed, it actually saved my life. But we were pinned down for over four hours in a bodacious, open estuarial tidal basin and had to fight lying down in a foot or two of water behind a narrow foot path/levee.

    As you can imagine, I paid no attention to ole Dostoyevsky which I had ensconced in the lower pants pocket of my jungle utilities – I was too damn busy fighting the enemy – and yeah, with only one hand because my right arm from the fingertips up to my shoulder was full of shrapnel and bullet fragments.

    It took a lot of doing before we finally fought our way out and I got onto a helicopter my guys had to commandeer from the Army and then off to a nearby Army Mash unit. I was a bloody, muddy mess, and so they got rid of my personal stuff and equipment and good ole Dostoyevsky was “gone with the wind” – har, har, har. Clever pun, even if I have to say so myself.

    Needless to say I was incapacitated and bandaged up like a mummy for a couple of days and on some antibiotic drips – couldn’t go no fucking where and had nothing to read. This is where fate, kismet, dumb luck and good ole serendipity found me. The typical reading material of course was garbage, but somehow I came across Heller’s “Catch-22” and I couldn’t put the motherfucker down.

    It was an uncanny encapsulation of my entire war experience to date. I had heard about him from a friend of mine, but didn’t consider it a priority read, no, for me to read something it had to be a classic or a great book like Dostoyevsky’s (Village) “Idiot.”

    Well it turns out I was the village idiot and Heller’s magnum opus was actually a great book worthy of the great satirists and humorists from Petronius and Aristophanes to Rabelais and Swift to Voltaire and Twain. So I have a rather unique fondness for Heller and good ole Yossarian, and Major, Major MajorMajor and Ex-PFC Wintergreen, and of course my favorite, Milo Minderbender and literally a host of others. I met them in two hospitals in Vietnam, but it was as if I had known them my whole life – and they’ve been with me ever since.

  • Dear Alan,

    Again, point well-fucking-taken, but what about the Mad Hatter and the Queen of Hearts (I believe, Carroll’s brilliant characterization was the Queen of Hearts, well could be mistaken as I often am); yeah, what about them, too? Don’t they count?

    Yossarian, shmo-sarrian? What about the fucking Mad Hatter and the fucking loopy Queen of Hearts too?!

    True story. I was reading Dostoyevsky’s the “The (Village) Idiot” the day I got shot in Nam. Had it in my

    Sorry got a hypoclycemic attack coming on got to go, take sugar candy and and medecine and do the blood sugar thing, get back to you in a little while. Sorry bout the interrupton. Sorry, losin coherency, got to go.

  • Irv, I take your point. Reverse psychology. But please consider my original sentence: “Mr. Rose as a matter of policy does nothing that I ask him to do.”

    Thus if I ask him to not delete my comments, as a matter of policy he won’t comply; instead he deletes my comments.

    If, on the other hand, I ask him to delete my comments, as a matter of policy he again won’t comply. But also as a matter of policy, he will delete my comments because he has more than one policy. The first is to do nothing that I ask him to do. The second is to delete my comments.

    It’s like Joseph Heller’s Catch-22. Anyone who asks the flight surgeon to be diagnosed mentally unfit to fly combat missions must fly such missions because he is obviously sane; no sane man would want to fly them. On the other hand, if someone wants to fly such missions, he is clearly insane; but he too must fly them, since the Doc can excuse only those who ask to be excused. And the moment the insane man asks to be excused, he is demonstrably no longer insane, and therefore must fly the missions.

    Yep, that’s some catch you’ve got there. Catch-22. None finer.

  • Hey Kurtz,

    Does that mean if I ask Mr. Rose to delete whatever dreadful – in his eyes of course – comments I contribute to what appears to be the totally free, uninhibited and unfettered, rigorous, free -wheeling and dealing, lively and animated debate here at Blogcritics; he simply won’t arbitrarily and capriciously delete it? As has been his wont and custom towards close to a hundred of my comments and an equal number of others’ comments who have contributed on my own article sites and that of others?

    Geez Alan, if I’d had known that five months ago I and you and many others could have saved comrade Rose the trouble of deleting in their entirety, roughly two to three hundred comments, all of which I have copies of – now I just got to find and purchase a scanner which functions well and is compatible with my Mac, then I could learn how to build a web page with all the evidence Mr. Rose thought he was destroying, and I could share it with all the writers, commenters and visitors to this and your and all our sites. Whadda yah call them, URLs or something?

    But whadda I know about computers cause I ain’t a computer nerd/geek/dweeb/jerk what can’t read more than three sentences at a time. I exaggerate, my bad, make that a whole whopping four sentences at a time and who are mightily proud of that fact too, cause as long as they can play wizard at computer, they feel entitled to be vastly and monumentally ignorant, uncultivated and not very well read.

    So go know. All we needed to do was just ask, nay, demand him to delete our comments, and guess what, just out of pique and pure spite, he would NOT have deleted all of those many comments of ours. You know the hundreds which he says he never deleted. So again, go know.

    Dear Alan, have I sufficiently belabored this point and beaten this dead horse into salami – enough? Or do we need more seasoning?

  • Roger Nowosielski (#35), in case you haven’t noticed, Mr. Rose as a matter of policy does nothing that I ask him to do.

  • El Bicho

    #8 refers to #30 and others being deleted?! Sounds like some people have been very busy today.

  • Well, I’ve done it. Mea culpa.

    You’re free to ask Mr. Rose to delete it on the grounds that it constitutes personal attack.

  • I don’t see why you had to drag my name into your comment (#28) about Mr. Cohen. You don’t know what’s in my heart.

  • There are all kinds of conversions, Alan, so no, my meaning wasn’t so restricted and I was speaking only half-lightly. Perhaps just like in good ole Cohen, there are traces of decency in you, but I’m still taking it with a tablespoon of salt. One comment doesn’t a spring make.

  • To us born-again Christians, the conversion experience is not taken lightly. Only a heathen would joke about it.

  • As low as you’d like me to, Alan. I have no pride in my heart as far as you’re concerned, only love.

  • Roger Nowosielski (#28), according to BC’s Official Comment Policy, “We will edit/delete … unsupported accusations.”

    I bitterly resent your unsupported accusation that I “seem to be undergoing a major conversion,” and hereby call upon the censors to edit/delete your unfounded allegation.

    How low can you stoop, Roger?

  • I am aware of the difference between gratuitous and non-gratuitous vulgarity, Alan, but thanks for the reminder nonetheless.

  • @22

    That’s as close as you’ve come to ever complimenting someone on this site, Irv ole boy. Are you getting soft in your old age or is this the new, more benign and less vitriolic Irvin we are to look forward to in times to come? I’m not certain now I’m quite used to the idea. But then again, even Kurtz seems to be undergoing a major conversion, so I guess everything is possible.

  • Couldn’t have said it fucking better my fucking self.

    But really, got to go, am fading out fast.

  • Bravo, Alan, fucking bravo, fucking bravissimo!

  • Christopher Rose (#23), please let me add that not all vulgarity is gratuitous. Sometimes well-placed vulgarity expresses with precision and conciseness exactly what the author is trying to communicate, with the added benefit of being more colorful and accessible than the stuffy, censorious, veddy proper prose cranked out by [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Alan Kurtz] hacks such as [Personal attack deleted by Alan Kurtz].

  • Sorry folks, got to take a time out – in order to breath, take my medicine, rest and so on.

    But will be back soon, and will address all you worthless motherfuckers as is humanly endurable.

  • Thanks, Alan, much appreciated!

  • Dear Cannonshop,

    BTW, is that your real name or just a blogosphere/internet “handle” sobriquet/whatever? Because believe it or or not it has Anglo-Saxon possibilities as a true surname. There, how does that suffice for beating around the bush and not getting directly to the point?

    Actually I wanted to start by thanking you for your kind, quasi, sort of, I think, kind and adulatory comment in praise of me personally and my writing in particular. Again, sort of, I think. That is sort of what you said, no?

    To give you a lesson in pure humility and to show you what a truly fucking humble person I truly, really. really am: that’s right baby, I’m the fucking smartest, best-est writer in all of Blogocritterland, and that ain’t bragging, cause it ain’t bragging when it’s true, it’s just taken you goddamn peasant, yokel, pea-brained, no-talent, intellectual lilliputian, mental midgets forever to find out that irrefutable, undeniable fact.

    Goddamnit, I’ve been here an eternal, unending whole five fucking months, and to mean to say, you’re just learning how fucking brilliant I am? Geez, give me a break, cut me some slack will yah! A whole fucking five months and you’re learning just now how fucking brilliant I am. You know, you can’t begin to realize how disappointed I am in all of you.

    Wait a minute, I have to look at and admire myself in a dozen or so of the 143 mirrors I have set up in my condo, and light a few votive candles in a humble offering to my true greatness, and ineffable, truly blinding and unspeakable, just, just, just brilliant, great and talented, liddle ol’ moi, me myself and I. Mumh, mumh, mumh, mumh. I kiss the hand which touches my elbow and caress the shoulder which is attached to that arm which is attached to that forearm and wrist and hand…muh, muh, muh, muh I kisss myself, my brilliance, my overwhelming greatness…oh my God, I think I am going to pass out.

    I’m just too smart and brilliant for my brains…which geez, that would be a fabulous lyric for a song, a gold, platinum song gone viral throughout the world, make me a ton of money, a gazillion dollars.

    But enough of me.

    Back to you…what did you say your name was…you said it was Cannonshop…as in little people, inconsequential, insignificant little people? Oh yes, now I remember.

    Look here, Cannonshop all the former, well I just couldn’t help myself, cause I was having too much damn fun putting down myself and everyone else too.

    But let’s get something straight here, I too am a product of the worthless and abominable public schools which set me literally ten years back. I didn’t start college in earnest until I was 28 years old, and after having experienced an odyssey through life in that ten years which many if not most people do not experience in a lifetime. But all well and good, and whoop-dee-do.

    The point is I often read your comments Cannonshop, and they make a lot of sense to me. They’re well written, say a lot and are easily understandable, unlike yours truly who is often opaque and overly employs subordination and sentence complexity to the point of maddening distraction.

    I haven’t seen any articles by you, but so what? If you can write a decent comment which you more than often do, then you can write a decent article for these clowns, yours truly included.

    And as for your, our, worthless public school educations, don’t let that keep you back or set you back as it did me. Formal education is important, but only up to a point, what is truly most important is your desire to learn. Not one single day should pass without having learned something worthwhile, nor without having made an effort toward that noble goal.

    You know the great autodidacts, almost to a man, from Frederick Douglas to Eric Hoffer to Malcolm X all said that learning to read is the easy part, took them no more than six months or less; the truly difficult part was learning what to read, and they all agreed, that was a lifetime process.

    So yeah, go out and formally study a little Latin and French or German, and a little Calculus and Physics and Chemistry and a whole bunch of history and literature, and uggh a little, a very, very little of the phony balognee, so-called, supposed social sciences. But I also assume you’re still a young man but are beyond going to one of our extremely overpriced, worthless Marxist bastions of so-called, supposed higher learning.

    Well if you can’t or you just simply do not want to, then don’t. But I do enjoin you herein, whether you go back to college or you pursue your life on your and its own terms; I do hereby enjoin you to read, and to read assiduously, to read a whole, fucking library, and then when you’re done with that library. read another fucking library. And read, read, and read some more. And only stop reading when you ain’t breathing no more! Then and only then, you can stop reading.

    So again, thanks for the kind comments.

    But to stay in character and to keep up my ‘creds’ as an extreme asshole – please have a nice fucking day and go fuck yourself too.

  • No joke, Mr. Chief Censor. I am merely being helpful, censoring my own comments in advance to spare you the bother. Oh, wait, I remember! Censoring is no “bother” to you, is it? Just comes naturally. Like [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Alan Kurtz] to a [Personal attack deleted by Alan Kurtz].

  • Is that an Alan Kurtz joke?

    If so, the world as we know it really is coming to an end!

  • Christopher Rose (#17), what a condescending reply! Thanks for proving my point, you [Personal attack deleted by Alan Kurtz] from that [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Alan Kurtz] country across the pond.

  • I was only being facetious, Chris. The other day when I said something to this effect, in half jest, Dreadful accused me of racism.

  • Maybe condescension, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder?

    All I can do is tell people what I am doing; if they choose to be cynical and imbue qualities into words that weren’t there when the words were written, that is their issue and not something I can do anything about.

  • Not if it’s a national trait. Then you lack the necessary contrast.

  • I’d like to focus on just one of Irv’s observations. In #8, he twice refers to the chief censor’s condescension. In #11, the chief censor denies the charge.

    Perhaps this exemplifies the cultural gap between Americans and British. I’ve never been to the UK and am not an Anglophile, so I can only hazard a guess. Maybe the arch condescension that Irv and I smell wafting off the chief censor’s comments [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor] is nothing more than typical British smug superiority and is not specifically intended to patronize Irv and me. Maybe …

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Glenn Contrarian (#13), please don’t belittle the Sarge. He was an NCO, not a commissioned officer.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irv –

    Clavos is indeed a hard nut to crack. To me, he’s more enigmatic than you, for though I keep finding round holes to put him in, he still insists on remaining a square peg. You, on the other hand, appear to have fit in that round hole quite nicely (no, that’s not meant as a vulgar metaphor).

    One more thing – we all bring something different to the table. You bring not only a classical education and a wealth of travel, but also (like Dave and (IIRC) Clavos), combat experience, and yours was as a commissioned officer. But for all your education and experience, everyone else here has some experience you don’t have…and their experiences have taught valuable lessons you haven’t learned, lessons every bit as important as the lessons you yourself have learned over the years.

  • Cannonshop

    there are articles which remind me of humility-in which, after reading for a bit, I say “(censored) it, I’m a dumb mechanic.”

    Irv, you are now the most frequent author of such articles. (means: you’re hard to follow and take forever to get to your point-and you belabor things as you get there.)

    This is probably a result of your being very-well-educated, vs. my being rather poorly educated in the public schools.

    Thus, I bow to your superior credentials, if not your superior ability to communicate.

  • Irv, you claim that I “make all the rules yourself, by yourself, for yourself – alone with absolutely no checks nor balances upon you. All decisions are final and without appeal”.

    This is all incorrect. If you were paying attention to the information I have given you several times now, you would already know that if you have a serious issue to raise, you can raise it directly with me. If you then disagreed with my response, I can refer it up the management food chain for review.

    Similarly, I am not making up rules to govern the conduct of anybody, simply following the comments guidelines, which were written by the site’s founder.

    I’ve not yet seen you acknowledge your persistent mistakes in this regard, so I’m not persuaded that you do actually admit when you’re wrong as you claim.

    Given that, you will presumably find it hard to believe that I am not even interested in being right or wrong on a personal basis.

    I see mistakes not as embarrassing but an opportunity to learn something, which hopefully I still have the capacity to do. If not, then my future work activities – which have nothing at all to do with my role at Blogcritics – may not do as well as I hope.

    I also hope you will think seriously about the difference between censoring opinion and editing gratuitous rudeness.

    The former isn’t happening, even when a commenter such as the anonymous Person, if I understand their remarks accurately, indulges in such blatant falsehoods as holocaust denial.

    You are also mistaken in perceiving my direct remarks to you as being “condescendingly and insultingly and abusively so” or that I am “finally… [trying to] reason with you”.

    My tone, if anything, is one of frustration, as you have been told all this several times before so, if you are sincere, this would be where you admit you were wrong, which you have no problem about doing, right?

    I will go further and say that I don’t hate anybody participating on this site or bear grudges, so there is no continuing rancour or behaviour directed at you or any other commenter.

    In summary, you have been informed how to raise a concern with me; you know who guards the guards; and you know I’m not making up the rules.

    I was asked by the original site owners to do this because of my commitment to the comments space, which some here would like to do without, but I value highly.

    Having checked, I have the full support of the new management regime too, so we are going to have to find a way to get along, as the way the comments space is handled isn’t going to change for the foreseeable future.

    In the end it comes down to this: do you in fact “admit to when I am wrong” and move on or are you “intractable”?

  • Dear comrade Nails, el vato duro y doloroso

    Very good, in fact I’m quite impressed. Nothing wrong at all with your Latin. A fucking plus in fact. All I would recommend is the word order, you might want to place the verb at the very end of the sentence, so it would read quis custodes ipsos custodiet…which word order is also somewhat similar to a common form of prosody called chiasmus. So again, very nice touch. In addition the reflexive, personal pronoun ipsos (masculine, plural, accusative case) is another very nice touch. And the subjuncective, although not necessary, remember this was supposed to be schoolboy Latin, is by far also another very nice touch.

    Well, that means you had to read at least a third of my screed. Or did you just skim this comment of mine in quest of something you could find to play “gotcha” with me?

    You’re a hard nut to crack or decipher. You’re simply a bitter old man like myself, but much more bitter even than I, and you’re a hater too. I truly can’t understand your bitter animus toward me, what the fuck did I ever do to you?

    Could you fill me in please. And please don’t turn this into some sort of kinky, weird, sordid love fest, some phony, insincere factitious coming of minds.

    Or allow me to address it thusly, why are you such a fucking scumbag, hater and Iago-like schemer? Or what makes you such a snake in the grass viper? Or is that too personal, or just too much information for one night?

    Please inform, and oh BTW, have a nice fucking day and a nice fucking life too, what little is left of it for both of us. Alors, tout á l’heure, y vaya con Dios, cause you’re gonna need him.

  • Clavos

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes…

  • Dear Mr. Rose,

    Is that humble and obsequious enough for you? I prefer, well i won’t say it because you”ll censor me – does “chilling effect” mean anything to you?

    However, unlike you, I admit to when I am wrong and I do not outright lie as to the number of comments you have deleted in a given time period as you have done so on several occasions. But I must admit that I overlooked one comment which had not been deleted which I thought had been (unless you’re playing fun and games with me and simply re-instated it, in fact a comment which was rather tame and innocuous).

    But yes, I am not perfect and could easily have been mistaken, I readily admit as much. Yes instead of one, I may have counted two. My bad.

    But then the question arises is only one fascistic act of censorship better than two? Is only one half as bad as two? Or put another way, the Pathet Lao, the Viet Cong, the Khmer Ruuge and the North Vietnamese communists only killed three million souls in their “glorious peace” – why that’s only half as bad as the six million of the Holocaust!

    If it’s such nonsense, then why did you delete it so capriciously and arbitrarily and now mention it so condescendingly and insultingly and abusively so. If it’s such balderdash why are you now finally, after having deleted hundreds of my and others’ comments, why do you find it so compelling to reason with me?

    I mean if it’s such nonsense, that you are not a crypto-fascist, good ol’ boy, arbitrary and capricious, Alice in Wonderland, Orwellian censorship thug; why then do you now feel a need to reason with me? Why not do what you have consistently done for my brief history here at Blogcritics since October of 2010, roughly five months or so; and just simply delete my comments as quickly as you are able, one after another in quick succession ad nauseam? Is the leopard now trying to convince me that he no longer has spots?

    Or am I being too tough on you here? Is it that you are now sincerely attempting to reveal your good faith here? That you’re actually speaking with me rather than resorting to your quick and heavy hand of censorship. But how can I trust you after the hundreds of comments of mine and those of others which you have deleted in their entirety; not to mention the expurgated comments too; and all your threats, veiled and otherwise? How can anyone trust you.

    “If you actually have a serious issue to raise then, like all Blogcritics writers, you have my direct e-mail, so use it.”

    Well, all well and good, sounds reasonable. But again, I must re-iterate and re-emphasize the question, how can I trust you, how can anyone take you seriously and actually trust you? After all this fascistic, Orwellian thuggery and good ol’ boy cronyism you have carried out?

    Some easy and simple, schoolboy Latin here: Quis custodes custodit? Literally, who is to guard the guards?

    Where are the checks and balances? Beyond your arbitrary whims and caprices, social and cultural and political biases, and personal antagonisms, etc.? Where are we to go when you insult and demean us like rain unto water? Who is to delete your lousy, over the top comments, your smears, your threats, your intimidations?

    “If, as unfortunately seems more likely at this point, you are just interested in pointless posturing…”

    Oh I see, anything which questions or criticizes your behavior, your censorship; whether fascistic or arbitrary or capricious or as a matter of personal animus and antagonism towards myself and a myriad of other writers here; I see that is just mere posturing punishable with deletion and the silencing of one’s voice and of one’s intellectual freedom to debate and express one’s views and opinions on these pages! I see.

    Terrible of me, to keep on posturing so. But please pray tell, again, who is to determine who is posturing and who is speaking merely critically and analytically, and who, what very villain indeed, is not? Is it me? Of course not! Is it Allen or Dave; or your cronies, stooges and apologists like Clavos and Dreary and Glenn and Richardson and STM and a host of others? But not them either. For it is only you. You make all the rules yourself, by yourself, for yourself – alone with absolutely no checks nor balances upon you. All decisions are final and without appeal.

    And as Alan said and was quickly deleted for having said it, you probably don’t even remember it. But after you had deleted my # 30, and Costello’s # 31, and Alan’s # 32 in quick succession, Alan wrote, and I must paraphrase here cause I was not quick enough to copy and save all but my #30; he said as best as I recall, it is truly sad that someone with that sort of power could abuse it so very much. And guess what you did to that comment within five to ten minutes.

    I’ll refresh your memory for you, you deleted it. That’s what you did! I guess I was “posturing” but what about Allen and Costello, were they “posturing” too? And why were you so damn quick to delete all of our comments so damn quickly? You didn’t even give the proverbial ink on the proverbial page enough time to dry before you yanked it off the screen.

    Is this the product of a well reasoned, thoughtful and reflective mind? Is it measured in dispassionate, disinterested, impartial, unbiased, and again, highly reasoned and reflective thought; of a mind which is both analytical and critical but reasonable and tolerant in its viewpoints, and perhaps more importantly; in its actions and behavior as well? Or is it reflective of a knee jerk reaction to silence those voices which demur and dissent, or God forbid, actually find fault and criticize the Comments Editor?

    So again, I must assume by your line of reasoning that this must be posturing on my part and on anyone else who dares to criticize or demur or dissent with you, who does not conform to your solipsistic arrogance and sense of self-importance and of good ol’ boy entitlement. Must be posturing or else:

    “…then we’ll keep deleting all personal attacks (again, I guess you mean anyone who demurs, dissents, protests, criticizes, does not conform, finds fault, or doesn’t roll over and play dead, etc., with and for you) against anybody on this site, which isn’t censorship of opinion at all.”

    No Mr. Rose, it’s intimidation and veiled threats, and you’re absolutely right, that ain’t censorship – that’s fascism!

    And finally: “You seem like a bright enough chap so you ought to be able to understand the difference between censorship and a lack of manners…”

    Oh, I see, it’s not my intellectual freedom, nor my dissent, nor my protest, nor my defiant lack of conformity to your rules and your rules alone, nor openness and transparency on your part, no, none of these; it’s solely a matter of manners, of bad manners on my part. Not you in the least, just me.

    How fucking condescending, demeaning and patronizing can you be? Mr. Rose? Am I some ignorant and stupid six year old child you think you can bully mercilessly and browbeat at will. Who the fuck do you think you are? Who the fuck appointed you dictator for life of the Comments Editorship? Was it God? My good lord, even I ain’t that fucking arrogant.

    Now as for “a bright enough chap” – I must admit that I ain’t that smart, I ain’t like you slimy-limies, I ain’t the third smartest person in the world like doctah dreary there. I must admit I’m kind o’ slow on the uptake and thick between the ears, not with brains but with meat, which I suppose makes me a real fucking “meat head” – nevertheless I do have a very high IQ, in fack, hundred and ninety-five, that’s a negative 195 however, which makes me dumber than a rock, mind you, not just dumb as a rock, but dumber.

    Now as dumb as I am, I jess kant figuyour out howl yall in a back, left-handed fashion kin equate censorship witt manners, ozztensibilee good manners at that? So censorship is sort of different than manners, is that it. So if I behave, if I conform to your dictates and roll over and play dead for you, if I have manners as you say, then I won’t be censored and deleted? Is that it? Is it as simple as all that?

    Geez, like I say, I’m kind of slow on the uptake and still dumber than a rock, mind you, not as dumb as a rock, but in fack, dummer. So I just simply doan understand, isn’t that the same as intellectual and philosophic coercion, force and extortion? You know like take this little bribe of mine and behave good or I’ll kill you.

    Geez Mr. Rose yah sure dew got away with words and them thar ideas and deep thoughts n’ stuff, get a person ta think ah whole bunch. Har, harr, I know – you must think I just fell off the turnipt patch or truck or whatever the fucking metaphor is, yesterday, that’s it. Har, har, harrr, I ain’t that fucking stupid, I done fell off the turnip truck the day before yesterday. That’s how goddamn smart I izz…can’t fool me, har, har, har!

    No Mr. Rose I am intractable and as far as I am concerned just as it was high time for Ben Ali and Hosni to go, and is now also high time for Muammar to go right now, as in five minutes ago; so too it is time for you to say sayonara and shuffle off to Buffalo. Once more again, it is high time for you to just delete yourself and or disappear yourself as well and get out of Dodge. Your removal from Comments Editorship would free up Blogcritics to higher, more productive, livelier and freer, truly open debate.

    You’ve done your tour in hell, for good or ill, and now it’s simply time for you to move on. Sometimes it takes a lot for a person to recognize and understand that he or she has overstayed his or her stay. So gather up your stuff, cut your losses and just pick up and go, and shuffle off to sunny Buffalo or wherever your liddle ol’ heart desires.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Personally, I think Irv would be most gifted with whimsy – and to me, that’s praise indeed, for there are few indeed who can write whimsy well. I tried…and BC pretty much panned the effort. For good reason, I guess.

  • Clavos

    I’ve said before that I’ll never have your level of eloquence, that I’m frankly jealous of your ability with the written word. And I mean it.

    You shouldn’t be, his “style” is repetitive (unnecessarily so) and boring; I have yet to read one of his screeds in toto, I usually find something more engaging and interesting to do — like watching the grass in my yard grow.

    He makes Edward Bulwer-Lytton look good.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And I do wonder what your writing would be like if you were stoned. Would we have another Hunter S. Thompson on our hands? Ah, I admit I’d like to see what your writing would be after a bottle of absinthe! In a rendezvous with Chaka Khan a stately Wayne manor was decreed….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irv –

    I’ve never seen so many different ways of saying “bovine excrement”! Here’s one more: “tae ni carabao” (Tagalog).

    I’ve said before that I’ll never have your level of eloquence, that I’m frankly jealous of your ability with the written word. And I mean it.

    That said, the fact that your classical education (I’m jealous of that, too) is such that you’re able to take language on flights of magnificence…doesn’t make your central point right.

    Here’s a suggestion, and one that will probably strike you as silly beyond words: humility…and gentle humor. If you would write with such – for surely you can – you might find a much more receptive audience.

    I do try to do that…but I usually fail. You’re more capable than I (and I say that without candor), and I think you’d find a lot more success with your political arguments if you tried.

    Why not give it a try, Mr. Cohen? Just once, and see what happens!

  • Irv, only one comment of yours has been deleted today, in which you repeated the same untrue nonsense about we comments editors you’ve posted before.

    If you actually have a serious issue to raise then, like all Blogcritics writers, you have my direct email – so use it.

    If, as unfortunately seems more likely at this point, you are just interested in pointless posturing, then we’ll keep deleting all personal attacks against anybody on this site, which isn’t censorship of opinion at all.

    You seem like a bright enough chap so you ought to be able to understand the difference between censorship and a lack of manners…

  • Dear comrade, commie-lib/simp, pinko-lefty, commie-Marxist loving Glenn,

    Please do not be offended Glenn, but since you’ve completely persuaded me into becoming a commie-lib just like yourself; by your overwhelmingly compelling, thoughtful and thoroughly persuasive and logical argumentation; I have learned to be absolutely forthright and brutally honest.

    And so I am only repeating your arguments in summary as best as I can. I just left out all of your overwhelmingly convincing facts – didn’t have room for all that empyrean, protean merde du taureau, mierda del toro, excredementum tauri and kopros taurous.

    But please feel free to add your valuable, nay, make that invaluable merde du taureau to the debate.

    I sincerely thank you for your kind comment.

    I only just hope that this comment of mine will not be deleted in its entirety as two or three of my comments have already been today. Thank you for your interest nevertheless, irregardless; that’s I suppose how you might say regardless; of what the Comments editors might do to this comment of mine.

    I mean, they would never delete a comment of yours or one in which you are a seminal figure, now would they?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “All sound and fury, signifying nothing.”