He is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep in order to gain that which he cannot lose.
- Jim Elliot
Monday, August 30, 2004
Fried, Fried In His Memory
Originally posted 8:58 AM, 27 August 2004
Thanks for the Memory to Beaker's Corner:
A quote from John ForbesKurtz Kerry regarding the death of the reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home - and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen."
-John Kerry, January 20, 2003
Very eloquent.
However, as Beaker points out, it's important to please bear in mind a couple of things:
1. MLK was assassinated on April 4, 1968
2. John Kerry was sent to Vietnam in November of 1968, 7 months after the assassination of MLK!
There's so much uproar over the implication that one of Kerry's combat wounds may have been self-inflicted, but given the way he continues to shoot himself in the foot, it should come as no surprise.
To quote Christian singer/songwriter Gene Eugene, The trouble with lies is that you start to forget where the real man hides.
Update 08/30/04:
Thanks for the Memory to reader George Turner at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
It turns out that while not yet on the Swift Boats, Kerry was aboard the USS Gridley pulling Plane Guard duty in the Tonkin Gulf during the Spring of 1968, so the accuracy of his memory here may not be as faulty as it would first seem. Waiter, I'll have the Corvus Au Vin, if you please.
On the other hand, like the Swift Boat vets, some of Kerry's former Gridley shipmates are less than glowing in their view of him.
Thanks for the Memory to Beaker's Corner:
A quote from John Forbes
"I remember well April, 1968 - I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home - and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen."
-John Kerry, January 20, 2003
Very eloquent.
However, as Beaker points out, it's important to please bear in mind a couple of things:
1. MLK was assassinated on April 4, 1968
2. John Kerry was sent to Vietnam in November of 1968, 7 months after the assassination of MLK!
There's so much uproar over the implication that one of Kerry's combat wounds may have been self-inflicted, but given the way he continues to shoot himself in the foot, it should come as no surprise.
To quote Christian singer/songwriter Gene Eugene, The trouble with lies is that you start to forget where the real man hides.
Update 08/30/04:
Thanks for the Memory to reader George Turner at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
It turns out that while not yet on the Swift Boats, Kerry was aboard the USS Gridley pulling Plane Guard duty in the Tonkin Gulf during the Spring of 1968, so the accuracy of his memory here may not be as faulty as it would first seem. Waiter, I'll have the Corvus Au Vin, if you please.
On the other hand, like the Swift Boat vets, some of Kerry's former Gridley shipmates are less than glowing in their view of him.
No Torch Relay for Me, Thanks
Thanks for the memory to Brian at Tomfoolery of the Highest Order.
You may be familiar with the "Torch" theory(named for Democratic NJ Senator Robert Toricelli) regarding the Kerry campaign, which comes in two major variants: either the Democrats are waiting for Kerry to self-destruct, at which point a savior (Hillary Clinton is the most common name used) can step in and carry th day; or they're hoping Kerry will lose so that four more years of Bush makes the country ready for a Democratic President.
Apparently now an article on Opinion Journal by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson suggests that Republicans should take a similar tack -- he suggests that Bush is such a bad president that if he wins, the Republicans will lose power for a significantly long time. He further argues that defeating Bush will allow Kerry 4 years of mucking things up so badly that the American voting public will revolt in the other direction and establish a Republican dynasty.
Let's set aside for this post any discussion of the plausibility of the Democratic "Torch" theories, and address this one for a moment. And for the sake of this argument, let's set aside any discussion of how valid his view of the Bush presidency is. Let's even grant him the plausibility of his strategy.
What really about this screed is the attitude towards politics it reveals (an attitude, I must say, that while most prevalent on the left, is sadly by no means confined to it): Political power is its own end. Screw the country, think about what's best for the Party.
Thanks, but no thanks. While I'm sure there are those in leadership in both parties who think this way, I'd like to think that I, for one, vote based on who I believe is best for the Country. I realize that this is a fairly naive point of view, but there it is. This is the kind of thinking that leaves leftists hoping we'll fail in Iraq, or rejoicing in American soldiers' deaths because they hurt Bush's reelection chances, and is bordering on treasonous thinking. No number of years of power for ANY party is worth the potential harm to the country that 4 years of the wrong leader threatens.
You may be familiar with the "Torch" theory(named for Democratic NJ Senator Robert Toricelli) regarding the Kerry campaign, which comes in two major variants: either the Democrats are waiting for Kerry to self-destruct, at which point a savior (Hillary Clinton is the most common name used) can step in and carry th day; or they're hoping Kerry will lose so that four more years of Bush makes the country ready for a Democratic President.
Apparently now an article on Opinion Journal by Harvard professor Niall Ferguson suggests that Republicans should take a similar tack -- he suggests that Bush is such a bad president that if he wins, the Republicans will lose power for a significantly long time. He further argues that defeating Bush will allow Kerry 4 years of mucking things up so badly that the American voting public will revolt in the other direction and establish a Republican dynasty.
Let's set aside for this post any discussion of the plausibility of the Democratic "Torch" theories, and address this one for a moment. And for the sake of this argument, let's set aside any discussion of how valid his view of the Bush presidency is. Let's even grant him the plausibility of his strategy.
What really about this screed is the attitude towards politics it reveals (an attitude, I must say, that while most prevalent on the left, is sadly by no means confined to it): Political power is its own end. Screw the country, think about what's best for the Party.
Thanks, but no thanks. While I'm sure there are those in leadership in both parties who think this way, I'd like to think that I, for one, vote based on who I believe is best for the Country. I realize that this is a fairly naive point of view, but there it is. This is the kind of thinking that leaves leftists hoping we'll fail in Iraq, or rejoicing in American soldiers' deaths because they hurt Bush's reelection chances, and is bordering on treasonous thinking. No number of years of power for ANY party is worth the potential harm to the country that 4 years of the wrong leader threatens.
Cue Soundtrack: Also Spracht Streisand, or "My God, It's Full of Sh**..."
Originally posted 9:18 AM, 28 August 2004.
Hollywood, that is. Oh, and for those who caught the reference, it is also full of stars. Interestingly enough, those stars are the primary source of the horsedollops that give the place its distinctive eau du merde.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for this link to a blog that tracks the latest contributions to the pasture patties that dot America's intellectual landscape:
Singer and actress Mandy Moore is furious at being "outed" as a secret Republican in the new issue of America's Details magazine.
The publication's upcoming September edition lists Adam Sandler, Freddie Prinze Jr., Jessica Simpson, Shannen Doherty and Moore as silent supporters of current US President George W. Bush who don't join the campaign trail and make their political views known, unlike loud and proud Democrats Ben Affleck and Barbra Streisand.
However, the A Walk To Remember beauty has angrily denied she supports Bush and his party. Her publicist tells American website Pagesix.Com, "Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican."
I've said it before, I'll say it here to be definitive:
I really see no reason to pay undue heed to the opinions, conservative or liberal, of people who get paid primarily to speak words that other people think of for them.
While some celebrities do prove themselves eloquent on their own merits, most of them are capable of nothing more than parroting the latest screeds handed down ex cathedra from their party affiliations of choice -- except they can do it with feeling.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Sir George at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Just when I thought they couldn't get any dumber in Hollywood, Tim Robbins opens his yap, and of all sources, the UK Guardian takes him to task. The best quote is this one: "He shows me a scene that he's editing from Embedded that is both pretentious and simple-minded - not a happy combination - and is reminiscent of the worst shouty agitprop."
Both pretentious and simple-minded. That's about the best description of Hollywood I've encountered yet.
Hollywood, that is. Oh, and for those who caught the reference, it is also full of stars. Interestingly enough, those stars are the primary source of the horsedollops that give the place its distinctive eau du merde.
Thanks for the Memory to MyPetJawa for this link to a blog that tracks the latest contributions to the pasture patties that dot America's intellectual landscape:
Singer and actress Mandy Moore is furious at being "outed" as a secret Republican in the new issue of America's Details magazine.
The publication's upcoming September edition lists Adam Sandler, Freddie Prinze Jr., Jessica Simpson, Shannen Doherty and Moore as silent supporters of current US President George W. Bush who don't join the campaign trail and make their political views known, unlike loud and proud Democrats Ben Affleck and Barbra Streisand.
However, the A Walk To Remember beauty has angrily denied she supports Bush and his party. Her publicist tells American website Pagesix.Com, "Mandy is not, nor has she ever been, a Republican."
I've said it before, I'll say it here to be definitive:
I really see no reason to pay undue heed to the opinions, conservative or liberal, of people who get paid primarily to speak words that other people think of for them.
While some celebrities do prove themselves eloquent on their own merits, most of them are capable of nothing more than parroting the latest screeds handed down ex cathedra from their party affiliations of choice -- except they can do it with feeling.
Update:
Thanks for the Memory to Sir George at the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler.
Just when I thought they couldn't get any dumber in Hollywood, Tim Robbins opens his yap, and of all sources, the UK Guardian takes him to task. The best quote is this one: "He shows me a scene that he's editing from Embedded that is both pretentious and simple-minded - not a happy combination - and is reminiscent of the worst shouty agitprop."
Both pretentious and simple-minded. That's about the best description of Hollywood I've encountered yet.
Simply Indefensible
Being a good husband means, in part, enduring the Closing Ceremonies of the Olympic Games with your spouse. I made it, but just barely.
The inanity of it all was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Greeks seemed to actually enjoy themselves putting on this party (and the announcers made sure we knew, ad nauseum, just how good at partying Greeks are). What really got under my skin, though, was the portion of the ceremony concerned with turning the Olympic Flag over to Beijing.
OK, let's look past the canned-sounding Chinese National Anthem that sounded vaguely like the East German one from Top Secret!
Let's look past the Chinese Robert Palmer Girls with their pleasant to the eye but grating to the nerves combination of traditional Chinese miniskirts, Ancient instruments and 80's dance moves.
Let's look past the dance troupe Tai chi/Kung Fu dance number that was so very "Cultural Revolution."
What I CAN'T look past is the fact that the Olympics have been turned over to the Devil. Beijing is one of the most oppressive totalitarian regimes in the world, and their sports program both reflects and is intended to showcase the merits of that system. Children who show promise are taken from their homes and put in government-run training centers from an early age and there they remain -- separated from their families, wards of the state for as long as they can perform. If anything, the system makes the old Soviet system seem like Disneyland.
And you can bet that the games will be a showcase for the merits of a communist system as well -- well-run, clean, and efficient. But at what cost? How brutal will the crackdown be on dissenters to prevent any embarassment of China? Beijing 08 is going to be the Comunist world's answer to Berlin 36.
And I for one hope someone pulls a Jesse Owens.
The inanity of it all was somewhat mitigated by the fact that the Greeks seemed to actually enjoy themselves putting on this party (and the announcers made sure we knew, ad nauseum, just how good at partying Greeks are). What really got under my skin, though, was the portion of the ceremony concerned with turning the Olympic Flag over to Beijing.
OK, let's look past the canned-sounding Chinese National Anthem that sounded vaguely like the East German one from Top Secret!
Let's look past the Chinese Robert Palmer Girls with their pleasant to the eye but grating to the nerves combination of traditional Chinese miniskirts, Ancient instruments and 80's dance moves.
Let's look past the dance troupe Tai chi/Kung Fu dance number that was so very "Cultural Revolution."
What I CAN'T look past is the fact that the Olympics have been turned over to the Devil. Beijing is one of the most oppressive totalitarian regimes in the world, and their sports program both reflects and is intended to showcase the merits of that system. Children who show promise are taken from their homes and put in government-run training centers from an early age and there they remain -- separated from their families, wards of the state for as long as they can perform. If anything, the system makes the old Soviet system seem like Disneyland.
And you can bet that the games will be a showcase for the merits of a communist system as well -- well-run, clean, and efficient. But at what cost? How brutal will the crackdown be on dissenters to prevent any embarassment of China? Beijing 08 is going to be the Comunist world's answer to Berlin 36.
And I for one hope someone pulls a Jesse Owens.
Friday, August 27, 2004
The Last Thing I Needed to Hear
At 4 PM on Friday afternoon: "I just talked to my OB/GYN's nurse, and she said to check in to Urgent Care right away."
This from my 14-week-pregnant wife, who should be getting over "morning" sickness by now, but who is instead throwing up at the rate of 2-4 times per day, has lost 12 lbs. In 5 weeks (trust me, not a weight loss plan I'd recommend), and is feeling light headed and has heart palpitations all of a sudden today.
The doctor at Urgent Care doesn't seem to be TOO worried, they're going to run a few tests (just enough time for me to slip out, eat, update the blog and get back), pump some fluids in her, and prescribe a new drug. The downside is, the new drug is pretty pricey, and money's tight.
I swear to God, as much hell as this child is putting her through now, after it is born and grows, it WILL treat her with a level of regard usually reserved for heads of state and pop singers, or it WILL answer to me!
This from my 14-week-pregnant wife, who should be getting over "morning" sickness by now, but who is instead throwing up at the rate of 2-4 times per day, has lost 12 lbs. In 5 weeks (trust me, not a weight loss plan I'd recommend), and is feeling light headed and has heart palpitations all of a sudden today.
The doctor at Urgent Care doesn't seem to be TOO worried, they're going to run a few tests (just enough time for me to slip out, eat, update the blog and get back), pump some fluids in her, and prescribe a new drug. The downside is, the new drug is pretty pricey, and money's tight.
I swear to God, as much hell as this child is putting her through now, after it is born and grows, it WILL treat her with a level of regard usually reserved for heads of state and pop singers, or it WILL answer to me!
Quote of the Day
Thanks for the Memory to my friend & coworker Ricky V.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
Maybe You Shoulda Thought About That Sooner....
Thanks for the Memory to Ace of Spades HQ.
More sheer insanity from the lips of the erzatz Empress Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Zha Zha Evita Peron Dixie Wetsworth Heinz Ketchup:
Heinz Kerry: Swiftvets Hurting Troop Morale in Iraq
Well, we know of one Swift Boat Veteran whose words and actions long ago started hurting troop morale...
Breaking her silence on criticism of John Kerry's war record by the group Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Teresa Heinz Kerry said this week that such attacks are undermining the morale of troops currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I believe that discussions or attacks on [my husband's] service undermine the peace of mind not only of Vietnam veterans but of those now fighting for their country," she told the Dayton Daily News.
"Let us hope that if they volunteer for service their reviews are not going to be so nefarious in the future," she added.
You might want to avoid using the word "nefarious" when discussing the issue of your husband's past, darling.
Heinz Kerry reacted to the Swiftvet criticism after speaking to the AFL-CIO Coalition of Labor Union Women in Ohio on Tuesday.
The Rich Boston Brahmin reacted... after speaking to working women with whom she has nothing in common beyond her gender.
Asked Monday about the Swiftvet criticism by the Gannet News Service, Heinz Kerry responded less forcefully, saying, "I honor my husband's work. I honor his past."
Funny, "honor" and your husband's past don't exactly create a strong association to many of us.
"I may be wrong," she added. "But I have to believe that no veteran today, including those who don't plan to vote for my husband, feels very good about these attacks."
Except, of course, for the veterans making the allegations, as well as, oh, almost every vet I know.
All I can say is, please, please, PLEASE, Milady, keep talking. You're doing WONDERS for the campaign, REALLY.
Which one? Oh, you didn't ask me that.
More sheer insanity from the lips of the erzatz Empress Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Zha Zha Evita Peron Dixie Wetsworth Heinz Ketchup:
Heinz Kerry: Swiftvets Hurting Troop Morale in Iraq
Well, we know of one Swift Boat Veteran whose words and actions long ago started hurting troop morale...
Breaking her silence on criticism of John Kerry's war record by the group Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, Teresa Heinz Kerry said this week that such attacks are undermining the morale of troops currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I believe that discussions or attacks on [my husband's] service undermine the peace of mind not only of Vietnam veterans but of those now fighting for their country," she told the Dayton Daily News.
"Let us hope that if they volunteer for service their reviews are not going to be so nefarious in the future," she added.
You might want to avoid using the word "nefarious" when discussing the issue of your husband's past, darling.
Heinz Kerry reacted to the Swiftvet criticism after speaking to the AFL-CIO Coalition of Labor Union Women in Ohio on Tuesday.
The Rich Boston Brahmin reacted... after speaking to working women with whom she has nothing in common beyond her gender.
Asked Monday about the Swiftvet criticism by the Gannet News Service, Heinz Kerry responded less forcefully, saying, "I honor my husband's work. I honor his past."
Funny, "honor" and your husband's past don't exactly create a strong association to many of us.
"I may be wrong," she added. "But I have to believe that no veteran today, including those who don't plan to vote for my husband, feels very good about these attacks."
Except, of course, for the veterans making the allegations, as well as, oh, almost every vet I know.
All I can say is, please, please, PLEASE, Milady, keep talking. You're doing WONDERS for the campaign, REALLY.
Which one? Oh, you didn't ask me that.
Starting My Christmas Wish List Early
Just got this email:
Dear Mr. & Mrs. B,
With great pride, we are pleased to announce the release of the long awaited CD, “Mourning in America: Music and Eulogies from the Funeral Services of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.” This official CD, produced by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation will benefit the Ronald Reagan Memorial Fund. While many other unauthorized CD’s of the funeral services have already been released, this official CD, “Mourning in America”, has been sanctioned by Mrs. Reagan. Proceeds from the sale help the Reagan Foundation to fulfill the vision of President Reagan’s life’s work and to ensure that America’s future remains bright for our generation and generations to come. To order the CD, please visit the Reagan Library’s online Museum Store at http://www.reaganlibrary.com/store/ .
This touching CD includes:
• Exclusive remarks by Mrs. Ronald Reagan
• Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Band: Ruffles and Flourishes, Hail to the Chief, and My Country 'Tis of Thee
• The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
• U.S. Air Force Singing Sergeants: America the Beautiful
• The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
• Dr. Ronan Tynan/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Ave Maria
• Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
• The Cathedral Choir/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Jerusalem
• The Right Honourable Baroness Thatcher, L.G., O.M., F.R.S.
• Armed Forces Chorus/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Battle Hymn of the Republic
• The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., C.C., LL.D.
• Dr. Ronan Tynan/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Amazing Grace
• The Honorable George H.W. Bush
• U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra/ Congregation: Ode to Joy
• The Honorable George W. Bush
• The Armed Forces Chorus/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: The Mansions of the Lord
• Michael Reagan
• Patti Davis
• Ronald Prescott Reagan
• Eric Rigler/Bagpiper: Amazing Grace
• 11th Marine Artillery Regiment: 21-Gun Salute
U.S. Army Band Bugler: Taps
Thank you for supporting the Ronald Reagan Memorial Fund. May we continue to be blessed with your friendship as we work to preserve the legacy of President Ronald Reagan.
“I KNOW IN MY HEART THAT MAN IS GOOD
THAT WHAT IS RIGHT WILL ALWAYS EVENTUALLY TRIUMPH
AND THAT THERE IS PURPOSE AND WORTH TO EACH AND EVERY LIFE.”
-Ronald Reagan, November 4, 1991 at the Dedication of the Reagan Library
Warm regards,
R. Duke Blackwood
Executive Director
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation
http://www.reaganfoundation.org
I got teary-eyed just reading the email. I can't imagine what it will be like listening to it.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. B,
With great pride, we are pleased to announce the release of the long awaited CD, “Mourning in America: Music and Eulogies from the Funeral Services of President Ronald Wilson Reagan.” This official CD, produced by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation will benefit the Ronald Reagan Memorial Fund. While many other unauthorized CD’s of the funeral services have already been released, this official CD, “Mourning in America”, has been sanctioned by Mrs. Reagan. Proceeds from the sale help the Reagan Foundation to fulfill the vision of President Reagan’s life’s work and to ensure that America’s future remains bright for our generation and generations to come. To order the CD, please visit the Reagan Library’s online Museum Store at http://www.reaganlibrary.com/store/ .
This touching CD includes:
• Exclusive remarks by Mrs. Ronald Reagan
• Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Band: Ruffles and Flourishes, Hail to the Chief, and My Country 'Tis of Thee
• The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
• U.S. Air Force Singing Sergeants: America the Beautiful
• The Honorable Richard B. Cheney
• Dr. Ronan Tynan/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Ave Maria
• Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
• The Cathedral Choir/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Jerusalem
• The Right Honourable Baroness Thatcher, L.G., O.M., F.R.S.
• Armed Forces Chorus/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Battle Hymn of the Republic
• The Right Honourable Brian Mulroney, P.C., C.C., LL.D.
• Dr. Ronan Tynan/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: Amazing Grace
• The Honorable George H.W. Bush
• U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra/ Congregation: Ode to Joy
• The Honorable George W. Bush
• The Armed Forces Chorus/U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra: The Mansions of the Lord
• Michael Reagan
• Patti Davis
• Ronald Prescott Reagan
• Eric Rigler/Bagpiper: Amazing Grace
• 11th Marine Artillery Regiment: 21-Gun Salute
U.S. Army Band Bugler: Taps
Thank you for supporting the Ronald Reagan Memorial Fund. May we continue to be blessed with your friendship as we work to preserve the legacy of President Ronald Reagan.
“I KNOW IN MY HEART THAT MAN IS GOOD
THAT WHAT IS RIGHT WILL ALWAYS EVENTUALLY TRIUMPH
AND THAT THERE IS PURPOSE AND WORTH TO EACH AND EVERY LIFE.”
-Ronald Reagan, November 4, 1991 at the Dedication of the Reagan Library
Warm regards,
R. Duke Blackwood
Executive Director
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation
http://www.reaganfoundation.org
I got teary-eyed just reading the email. I can't imagine what it will be like listening to it.
Riiiiiiight.... I'll make sure you get the memo......
Stumbled across this list on funkylady's blog. If you work in an office, you get it:
BLAMESTORMING: Sitting around in a group, discussing why a deadline was missed or a project failed, and who was responsible.
SEAGULL MANAGER: A manager who flies in, makes a lot of noise, craps on everything, and then leaves.
ASSMOSIS: The process by which some people seem to absorb success and advancement by kissing up to the boss rather than working hard.
SALMON DAY: The experience of spending an entire day swimming upstream only to get screwed and die in the end.
CUBE FARM: An office filled with cubicles.
PRAIRIE DOGGING: When someone yells or drops something loudly in a cube farm, and people's heads pop up over the walls to see what's up.
MOUSE POTATO: The on-line, wired generation's answer to the couch potato.
SITCOM: Single Income, Two Children, Oppressive Mortgage. What yuppies turn into when they have children and one of them stops working to stay home with the kids.
STRESS PUPPY: A person who seems to thrive on being stressed out and whiney.
SWIPEOUT: An ATM or credit card that has been rendered useless because the magnetic strip is worn away from extensive use.
XEROX SUBSIDY: Euphemism for swiping free photocopies from one's workplace.
IRRITAINMENT: Entertainment and media spectacles that are annoying but you find yourself unable to stop watching them. The O.J. trials were a prime example.
PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE: The fine art of whacking the crap out of an electronic device to get it to work again.
ADMINISPHERE: The rarefied organizational layers beginning just above the rank and file. Decisions that fall from the adminisphere are often profoundly inappropriate or irrelevant to the problems they were designed to solve.
404: Someone who's clueless (from the World Wide Web error message "404 Not Found," meaning that the requested document could not be located).
GENERICA: Features of the American landscape that are exactly the same no matter where one is, such as fast food joints, strip malls, subdivisions.
OHNOSECOND: That minuscule fraction of time in which you realize that you've just made a BIG mistake.
CROP DUSTING: Surreptitiously farting while passing through a cube farm, then enjoying the sounds of dismay and disgust! (leads to'PRAIRIE DOGGING'.)
BLAMESTORMING: Sitting around in a group, discussing why a deadline was missed or a project failed, and who was responsible.
SEAGULL MANAGER: A manager who flies in, makes a lot of noise, craps on everything, and then leaves.
ASSMOSIS: The process by which some people seem to absorb success and advancement by kissing up to the boss rather than working hard.
SALMON DAY: The experience of spending an entire day swimming upstream only to get screwed and die in the end.
CUBE FARM: An office filled with cubicles.
PRAIRIE DOGGING: When someone yells or drops something loudly in a cube farm, and people's heads pop up over the walls to see what's up.
MOUSE POTATO: The on-line, wired generation's answer to the couch potato.
SITCOM: Single Income, Two Children, Oppressive Mortgage. What yuppies turn into when they have children and one of them stops working to stay home with the kids.
STRESS PUPPY: A person who seems to thrive on being stressed out and whiney.
SWIPEOUT: An ATM or credit card that has been rendered useless because the magnetic strip is worn away from extensive use.
XEROX SUBSIDY: Euphemism for swiping free photocopies from one's workplace.
IRRITAINMENT: Entertainment and media spectacles that are annoying but you find yourself unable to stop watching them. The O.J. trials were a prime example.
PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE: The fine art of whacking the crap out of an electronic device to get it to work again.
ADMINISPHERE: The rarefied organizational layers beginning just above the rank and file. Decisions that fall from the adminisphere are often profoundly inappropriate or irrelevant to the problems they were designed to solve.
404: Someone who's clueless (from the World Wide Web error message "404 Not Found," meaning that the requested document could not be located).
GENERICA: Features of the American landscape that are exactly the same no matter where one is, such as fast food joints, strip malls, subdivisions.
OHNOSECOND: That minuscule fraction of time in which you realize that you've just made a BIG mistake.
CROP DUSTING: Surreptitiously farting while passing through a cube farm, then enjoying the sounds of dismay and disgust! (leads to'PRAIRIE DOGGING'.)
Top Ten List for Friday, August 27, 2004
From the Home Office in Tenmile, Oregon
Top Ten Reasons I, a Conservative, Still Live in Oregon:
10. What, leave? I just got back!
9. At least it's not California.
8. Three words: Target Rich Environment
7. Beer strong enough to make even Howard Dean calm down.
6. Patchouli makes excellentmosquito repellant.
5. For sheer comic brilliance, nothing beats watching Kucinich supporters and Nader supporters debate.
4. Plenty of "Free Mumia Benefit Sitar Concert" fliers for the fireplace to keep you warm on those rainy Northwest nights.
3. There's entertainment value in asking the dredlocked Barrista for an "ANWR Crude Oil Latte in a Paper cup made from old growth firs" and watching the look on their face.
2. Spotted Owl tastes like chicken, but with less cholesterol.
1. THIS IS MY BIRTHPLACE AND HOME, BY GOD, AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'LL LET THE FREAKS HAVE IT WITHOUT A FIGHT!!!!!
Cross-Posted at Head West, Turn Right on January 18, 2005.
Top Ten Reasons I, a Conservative, Still Live in Oregon:
10. What, leave? I just got back!
9. At least it's not California.
8. Three words: Target Rich Environment
7. Beer strong enough to make even Howard Dean calm down.
6. Patchouli makes excellent
5. For sheer comic brilliance, nothing beats watching Kucinich supporters and Nader supporters debate.
4. Plenty of "Free Mumia Benefit Sitar Concert" fliers for the fireplace to keep you warm on those rainy Northwest nights.
3. There's entertainment value in asking the dredlocked Barrista for an "ANWR Crude Oil Latte in a Paper cup made from old growth firs" and watching the look on their face.
2. Spotted Owl tastes like chicken, but with less cholesterol.
1. THIS IS MY BIRTHPLACE AND HOME, BY GOD, AND I'LL BE DAMNED IF I'LL LET THE FREAKS HAVE IT WITHOUT A FIGHT!!!!!
Cross-Posted at Head West, Turn Right on January 18, 2005.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
You like? I Like!
Frightening likeness:
Now if only John Edwards would bleach his hair, we'd have Pool Boy!
Now if only John Edwards would bleach his hair, we'd have Pool Boy!
Required Reading
Thannks for the Memory to the Llama Butchers.
The whole controversy regarding the swift boat vets and their Anti-Kerry book Unfit for Command is currently the rage all across Blogneyland. So it seems only fair to let SenatorKurtz Kerry defend himself.
In his own words.
The whole controversy regarding the swift boat vets and their Anti-Kerry book Unfit for Command is currently the rage all across Blogneyland. So it seems only fair to let Senator
In his own words.
The Things We Do for Love
Like walkin' in the rain and the snow
when there's... No place to GSCRITCHZIIIIIIIP! *GRAB* POUND! SMASH! WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM! CRACKLE SPLINTER SHATTER! grumble grumble.... sweep sweep sweep DUMP.
*sigh* so much for THAT album. Listen, you stupid knownothing pop singer! You wanna talk about the things we do for love? empty and clean your pregnant wife's puke bucket for the umpteenth time, THEN come talk to me about "the things we do for love." Useless git.
Furthermore, whoever named it "morning" sickness should be killed slowly.
Now if you'll pardon me, I need coffee.
when there's... No place to GSCRITCHZIIIIIIIP! *GRAB* POUND! SMASH! WHAMWHAMWHAMWHAM! CRACKLE SPLINTER SHATTER! grumble grumble.... sweep sweep sweep DUMP.
*sigh* so much for THAT album. Listen, you stupid knownothing pop singer! You wanna talk about the things we do for love? empty and clean your pregnant wife's puke bucket for the umpteenth time, THEN come talk to me about "the things we do for love." Useless git.
Furthermore, whoever named it "morning" sickness should be killed slowly.
Now if you'll pardon me, I need coffee.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
In God We Trust -- Everyone Else Keep Your Hands Where I Can See Them.
Recently my good friend Vic over at Darth Apathy posted an entry that laid out in significant detail his personal philosophy of life. Not long after that, my Blogfather, Rusty Shackleford of MyPetJawa, posted an excellent entry on why he considers himself a neolibertarian. Since I respect both of these individuals, and since we're told that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I have decided to follow their lead and explain my own quirky view of the world.
I would hope that anyone who knows me, as well as anyone who has paid close attention to comments I've made here and on other blogs, is aware of the fact that I'm a Christian. Yes, I'm one of those people who sincerely believes in a Personal God, and all the religious claptrap that goes along with that.
Now, I realize that many of my friends and readers are not Christians, or even theists for that matter. For the purpose of developing friendships, that is fine with me. You can be an atheist, agnostic, gnostic, Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, Animist, or tree-hugging dirt worshipper for all I care. I may privately believe you are dead wrong (literally), but as long as you treat me with kindness and respect, I will treat you with equal dignity. If you wish to explain to me the error of my ways, in private, feel free, but expect me to reply in kind. If you are truly curious as to what I believe and why I believe it, and why I believe everyone should, again, in private, I'd be happy to oblige.
However, for the sake of this post, any discussion of the validity of my theism is not appropriate. Like belief in the existence or non-existence of ANY deity, this is a belief reached by faith. And while I believe that my decision to take that leap of faith was reached for reasonable motives, the leap has been made. The only reason I mention this belief is that as an orthodox believer, I acknowledge the Authority of God, as revealed in Scripture, and my philosophy and ethics are intended to be guided by this belief. To quote Dickens, You must remember this, or nothing that happens later will seem wondrous.
Since I view scripture as the authoritative source of God's express will, and as a Christian have chosen to obey (or at least attempt to obey) that will, it stands to reason that when it comes time to formulate a political philosophy, I would attempt to base that philosophy on what the bible teaches me about God's view of politics. I know, this sounds like a "Violation of Church and State," but I have two responses to that. First, that's a sad misinterpretation of the constitution, and second, even if it were, I would have to continue to believe as I do, and be willing to suffer the consequences. Why? Well, we're coming to that.
I must admit that I have never made an extensive study of this issue in scripture. However, I am a lifelong Christian, a Pastors son, and have had enough exposure to scripture to have formulated some opinions based on my understanding of it.
Like many other subjects, the Bible addresses politics differently in the Old Testament than in the New. There are some very important reasons for this, and Paul actually spends a good deal of time in his epistles explaining those reasons, but for the sake of this discussion, it suffices to say that my views are primarily based on the New Testament.
Based on my exposure to the New Testament, I have concluded that there are two political responsibilities enumerated: The Role of the State and the Response of the Christian.
The Response of the Christian to Government is pretty simple. As long as it does not interfere with our relationship with God, we are to obey the laws of the State. The only exception occurs when the Law specifically prohibits us from doing something God commands us to do, or Commands us to do something God prohibits. In those specific cases, we are to peacefully disobey the state, follow God's commands instead, and humbly and meekly accept the punishment the State metes out. God is, in the end, our judge.
The Role of the state is a bit more complex. As far as I can ascertain, two main concepts are expressed regarding the State: Justice, and Righteousness.
The meaning of the first is not the modern leftist doublespeak meaning of the word, "Justice," but rather implies, as I read it, the imperative that the State protect its subjects: From foreign enemies, from each other, and from the predations of the state. In other words: Defense; Order (Law Enforcement); and Ethics.
The meaning of the second is the one that causes difficulty, and has been the source of much trouble and created a great deal of animosity towards Christians due to a misapplication of the concept.
Throughout Church history, Christian civil leaders have interpreted this call for Righteousness as a call for State-enforced Christian standards of behavior throughout society. This has led, ironically, to some of the most un-Christian of activity on the part of those who have called themselves Christians.
However, I have reached the conclusion that this is not what was meant by Righteousness to begin with. And I have reached this conclusion for two main reasons: First, Christ plainly stated, My kingdom is not of this World. The Goal of his ministry, Death, and Resurrection was NOT to establish a theocracy (or at least, not this side of the apocalypse). His goal was to reestablish the relationship between God and His Creations, to establish His Kingdom in the hearts of believers; Secondly, we must view the message of Righteousness in context. At the time, the reigns of State were almost always exclusively in the hands of one person. The Church of the book of Acts was established in the days of the Roman Empire. Prior to that, Israel had been a Monarchy. And so I believe that the call for Righteousness in government in the Bible is a call for righteousness in the life of the Ruler. The Bible states that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom." The Biblical principle is clearly that only a ruler of high moral fibre who strives to do what is right, and pursues righteousness in his own life, is capable of properly administering Justice.
Now, for most of history, the two roles I've mentioned have been pretty clear cut. Christians, as subjects of the state, were to conduct themselves first in obedience to God and secondly in obedience to the state. The State, in turn, administered Justice, in various qualities depending on the government in question. When the government was led by a purported Christian, it also often tried to administer Righteousness, again with varying degrees of success and with varying and often deleterious effects on Justice. In other words, Christian Rulers attempted (usually poorly) to play the role of the state, and individual Christians responded as subjects thereof.
But as a modern American, I am faced with an interesting paradigm. As a member of a representative Republic, I am, at least in theory, part of the state. I may not rule directly, but I vote to decide who does, and in the case of the State and Local level, I actually do vote for the laws themselves. And so I find myself in the position of having both sets of responsibilities, and having to figure out how to balance the two.
In theory, it seems simple: When voting for leaders and on issues, vote for those most likely to promote Justice (again, more on that definition later), and most likely to pursue righteousness. Once the voting is done, abide peacefully by the results until the day comes that they ban my faith. In other words, work within the system as long as possible. The question becomes, how do you choose the right leader(s) and positions on issues to do so? The Devil, whom I believe exists, is indeed in the details. Or at least, in the wrong choice of details.
So let's address both concepts one at a time, this time in the opposite order, beginning with Righteousness. How do I, as a Christian Ruler (yeah, sounds funny, but to a small extent, we're all rulers here), pursue the righteousness called for without oppressively forcing my religion on others? In two ways. The first way is to attempt to practice righteousness in my own life to as great an extent as is possible -- to be ethical, honest, moral, and obedient to God myself, so that any decisions I make in voting are based on sound ethical principals. The second way is to exert my influence as a voter to demand ethical conduct from the government I elect. That's it. I don't believe it is my duty to enforce any moral code on other citizens. Nor is it their right to enforce theirs on me. The only time I would ever use my vote to enforce my beliefs would be in order to prevent the establishment of a law that requires me to do what God forbids, or forbids me to do what God requires.
Now to address Justice. First I must define it. Earlier I said it was protection of subjects, but I believe I have a better definition which encompasses those earlier ideas, but is more accurate a definition: I believe that in its essence, Justice is the right application of consequences. This means ensuring, to as great an extent as is possible, that everyone is held responsible for the consequences of their own actions, and none can force the consequences of their actions on others. In other words, protection for the innocent, punishment for the guilty, and a wall of protection between the two -- Defense, Law, and Order.
Now, in days to come, I plan to expound in blog entries on how I think these principles apply to specific political topics facing me as an American. But in the meantime, allow me to explain the title of this entry, how it applies to this topic, and why I can not be, in good conscience as a Christian, either an Anarchist or a Totalitarian.
The danger of Anarchy is either of the assumptions that: A) Man is basically good and wise and if left to his own devices will eventually sort things out and all will be just and good; or B) Man is an animal and the laws of natural selection apply and if you aren't fit enough to survive, that's the way it goes. I disagree.
One other theological principal that I apply to my political philosophy, and which I failed to mention earlier, is the concept of the fallenness of Man. While I believe we were created in the image of God, and are at times capable of all the good and desirable qualities with which he imbued us, I also believe that the corrupting influence of sin has rendered us capable of incredible evil. Government is a tool intended to protect us from each other, because left to our own devices, we will eat our own young.
But leaving the government in the hands of one or a very few individuals is equally dangerous, since those individuals are capable of the same predatory tendencies the rest of us are, and political power just increases their ability to act on them. This is why I have come to believe that while a constitutional Republic is not inherently more religious than any other form of government, with its checks and balances, it does provide the best framework for pursuing the justice that is God's purpose for government.
I would hope that anyone who knows me, as well as anyone who has paid close attention to comments I've made here and on other blogs, is aware of the fact that I'm a Christian. Yes, I'm one of those people who sincerely believes in a Personal God, and all the religious claptrap that goes along with that.
Now, I realize that many of my friends and readers are not Christians, or even theists for that matter. For the purpose of developing friendships, that is fine with me. You can be an atheist, agnostic, gnostic, Pagan, Wiccan, Buddhist, Animist, or tree-hugging dirt worshipper for all I care. I may privately believe you are dead wrong (literally), but as long as you treat me with kindness and respect, I will treat you with equal dignity. If you wish to explain to me the error of my ways, in private, feel free, but expect me to reply in kind. If you are truly curious as to what I believe and why I believe it, and why I believe everyone should, again, in private, I'd be happy to oblige.
However, for the sake of this post, any discussion of the validity of my theism is not appropriate. Like belief in the existence or non-existence of ANY deity, this is a belief reached by faith. And while I believe that my decision to take that leap of faith was reached for reasonable motives, the leap has been made. The only reason I mention this belief is that as an orthodox believer, I acknowledge the Authority of God, as revealed in Scripture, and my philosophy and ethics are intended to be guided by this belief. To quote Dickens, You must remember this, or nothing that happens later will seem wondrous.
Since I view scripture as the authoritative source of God's express will, and as a Christian have chosen to obey (or at least attempt to obey) that will, it stands to reason that when it comes time to formulate a political philosophy, I would attempt to base that philosophy on what the bible teaches me about God's view of politics. I know, this sounds like a "Violation of Church and State," but I have two responses to that. First, that's a sad misinterpretation of the constitution, and second, even if it were, I would have to continue to believe as I do, and be willing to suffer the consequences. Why? Well, we're coming to that.
I must admit that I have never made an extensive study of this issue in scripture. However, I am a lifelong Christian, a Pastors son, and have had enough exposure to scripture to have formulated some opinions based on my understanding of it.
Like many other subjects, the Bible addresses politics differently in the Old Testament than in the New. There are some very important reasons for this, and Paul actually spends a good deal of time in his epistles explaining those reasons, but for the sake of this discussion, it suffices to say that my views are primarily based on the New Testament.
Based on my exposure to the New Testament, I have concluded that there are two political responsibilities enumerated: The Role of the State and the Response of the Christian.
The Response of the Christian to Government is pretty simple. As long as it does not interfere with our relationship with God, we are to obey the laws of the State. The only exception occurs when the Law specifically prohibits us from doing something God commands us to do, or Commands us to do something God prohibits. In those specific cases, we are to peacefully disobey the state, follow God's commands instead, and humbly and meekly accept the punishment the State metes out. God is, in the end, our judge.
The Role of the state is a bit more complex. As far as I can ascertain, two main concepts are expressed regarding the State: Justice, and Righteousness.
The meaning of the first is not the modern leftist doublespeak meaning of the word, "Justice," but rather implies, as I read it, the imperative that the State protect its subjects: From foreign enemies, from each other, and from the predations of the state. In other words: Defense; Order (Law Enforcement); and Ethics.
The meaning of the second is the one that causes difficulty, and has been the source of much trouble and created a great deal of animosity towards Christians due to a misapplication of the concept.
Throughout Church history, Christian civil leaders have interpreted this call for Righteousness as a call for State-enforced Christian standards of behavior throughout society. This has led, ironically, to some of the most un-Christian of activity on the part of those who have called themselves Christians.
However, I have reached the conclusion that this is not what was meant by Righteousness to begin with. And I have reached this conclusion for two main reasons: First, Christ plainly stated, My kingdom is not of this World. The Goal of his ministry, Death, and Resurrection was NOT to establish a theocracy (or at least, not this side of the apocalypse). His goal was to reestablish the relationship between God and His Creations, to establish His Kingdom in the hearts of believers; Secondly, we must view the message of Righteousness in context. At the time, the reigns of State were almost always exclusively in the hands of one person. The Church of the book of Acts was established in the days of the Roman Empire. Prior to that, Israel had been a Monarchy. And so I believe that the call for Righteousness in government in the Bible is a call for righteousness in the life of the Ruler. The Bible states that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom." The Biblical principle is clearly that only a ruler of high moral fibre who strives to do what is right, and pursues righteousness in his own life, is capable of properly administering Justice.
Now, for most of history, the two roles I've mentioned have been pretty clear cut. Christians, as subjects of the state, were to conduct themselves first in obedience to God and secondly in obedience to the state. The State, in turn, administered Justice, in various qualities depending on the government in question. When the government was led by a purported Christian, it also often tried to administer Righteousness, again with varying degrees of success and with varying and often deleterious effects on Justice. In other words, Christian Rulers attempted (usually poorly) to play the role of the state, and individual Christians responded as subjects thereof.
But as a modern American, I am faced with an interesting paradigm. As a member of a representative Republic, I am, at least in theory, part of the state. I may not rule directly, but I vote to decide who does, and in the case of the State and Local level, I actually do vote for the laws themselves. And so I find myself in the position of having both sets of responsibilities, and having to figure out how to balance the two.
In theory, it seems simple: When voting for leaders and on issues, vote for those most likely to promote Justice (again, more on that definition later), and most likely to pursue righteousness. Once the voting is done, abide peacefully by the results until the day comes that they ban my faith. In other words, work within the system as long as possible. The question becomes, how do you choose the right leader(s) and positions on issues to do so? The Devil, whom I believe exists, is indeed in the details. Or at least, in the wrong choice of details.
So let's address both concepts one at a time, this time in the opposite order, beginning with Righteousness. How do I, as a Christian Ruler (yeah, sounds funny, but to a small extent, we're all rulers here), pursue the righteousness called for without oppressively forcing my religion on others? In two ways. The first way is to attempt to practice righteousness in my own life to as great an extent as is possible -- to be ethical, honest, moral, and obedient to God myself, so that any decisions I make in voting are based on sound ethical principals. The second way is to exert my influence as a voter to demand ethical conduct from the government I elect. That's it. I don't believe it is my duty to enforce any moral code on other citizens. Nor is it their right to enforce theirs on me. The only time I would ever use my vote to enforce my beliefs would be in order to prevent the establishment of a law that requires me to do what God forbids, or forbids me to do what God requires.
Now to address Justice. First I must define it. Earlier I said it was protection of subjects, but I believe I have a better definition which encompasses those earlier ideas, but is more accurate a definition: I believe that in its essence, Justice is the right application of consequences. This means ensuring, to as great an extent as is possible, that everyone is held responsible for the consequences of their own actions, and none can force the consequences of their actions on others. In other words, protection for the innocent, punishment for the guilty, and a wall of protection between the two -- Defense, Law, and Order.
Now, in days to come, I plan to expound in blog entries on how I think these principles apply to specific political topics facing me as an American. But in the meantime, allow me to explain the title of this entry, how it applies to this topic, and why I can not be, in good conscience as a Christian, either an Anarchist or a Totalitarian.
The danger of Anarchy is either of the assumptions that: A) Man is basically good and wise and if left to his own devices will eventually sort things out and all will be just and good; or B) Man is an animal and the laws of natural selection apply and if you aren't fit enough to survive, that's the way it goes. I disagree.
One other theological principal that I apply to my political philosophy, and which I failed to mention earlier, is the concept of the fallenness of Man. While I believe we were created in the image of God, and are at times capable of all the good and desirable qualities with which he imbued us, I also believe that the corrupting influence of sin has rendered us capable of incredible evil. Government is a tool intended to protect us from each other, because left to our own devices, we will eat our own young.
But leaving the government in the hands of one or a very few individuals is equally dangerous, since those individuals are capable of the same predatory tendencies the rest of us are, and political power just increases their ability to act on them. This is why I have come to believe that while a constitutional Republic is not inherently more religious than any other form of government, with its checks and balances, it does provide the best framework for pursuing the justice that is God's purpose for government.
I Love Living in Oregon
Reason #973: Rainy Day Sunrises
The sun is casting it's rays between the cloud cover and the mountains. There's something eerily beautiful about a brightly lit landscape under a dark and brooding sky.
The sun is casting it's rays between the cloud cover and the mountains. There's something eerily beautiful about a brightly lit landscape under a dark and brooding sky.
Who in the Hell D'you Think You Are?
A super star?
Well, right you are!
- John Lennon, "Instant Karma"
While I've only been blogging for a short while, I've been reading and commenting on other peoples blogs for some time now. Many of those blogs are political, and the discussions can become, shall we say, heated. I have noticed one particular attack on bloggers by commenters that seems quite common, and I have even seen a few bloggers resort to it in reference to other bloggers. The attack begins with a question along the lines of, "What makes you think anyone cares what you think?" The essential charge is that bloggers are self-important proles who think their opinion is somehow of value to others.
And the charge is, to some extent, true. If we didn't think our ideas were original enough, important enough, or well expressed enough to pique others' interest, we wouldn't be blogging them -- we could merely save them to our C: drives in a word processing document and be done with it. But this is nothing new. Almost all human endeavor requires at least a modicum of confidence, even arrogance. Bloggers have that in common with everyone who has ever written a letter to the editor, submitted writing for publication, auditioned for a play or a band, held a concert, submitted a resume, or proposed marriage. They all believed that they had something to offer that the audience would find at least acceptable, and hopefully praiseworthy.
This is an essential feature of the human spirit. Call it confidence, arrogance, whatever you like. I call it hope. Proverbs 13:12 says, in part, Hope deferred makes the heart sick. Without hope, without the belief that we have a chance, however slim, of succeeding at something, we don't even bother trying. And what is confidence, if not self-induced hope?
The thing is, in many cases, we're right. Thank God that John Elway was "Arrogant" enough to believe he could play football, or Handel that he could compose music worth listening to. Imagine if Shakespeare hadn't had the self-importance to publish his writings. And the same is true of the Blogosphere. Just take a peek at the TTLB Ecosystem. There are plenty of blogs out there that get read, on a regular basis. The top few have a significant readership. And even a humble blog like mine gets a small but steady stream of hits. Apparently, there are plenty of us who DO have something worth saying.
Now, I'll admit, there are exceptions to this rule, and there are plenty of overrated celebrities, AND overrated bloggers, who don't deserve the attention they get. Humanity is fickle, and this is an inevitable result of that fickleness. And when that happens, it is altogether fitting that we expose the lack of substance supporting the adulation.
But let's not be so hypocritical as to criticize a blogger just for being so presumptuous as to, you know, blog. If that sort of presumption is banned, blogspot.com will be out of business tomorrow.
And you and I will be looking for something more productive to do with our time.
Well, right you are!
- John Lennon, "Instant Karma"
While I've only been blogging for a short while, I've been reading and commenting on other peoples blogs for some time now. Many of those blogs are political, and the discussions can become, shall we say, heated. I have noticed one particular attack on bloggers by commenters that seems quite common, and I have even seen a few bloggers resort to it in reference to other bloggers. The attack begins with a question along the lines of, "What makes you think anyone cares what you think?" The essential charge is that bloggers are self-important proles who think their opinion is somehow of value to others.
And the charge is, to some extent, true. If we didn't think our ideas were original enough, important enough, or well expressed enough to pique others' interest, we wouldn't be blogging them -- we could merely save them to our C: drives in a word processing document and be done with it. But this is nothing new. Almost all human endeavor requires at least a modicum of confidence, even arrogance. Bloggers have that in common with everyone who has ever written a letter to the editor, submitted writing for publication, auditioned for a play or a band, held a concert, submitted a resume, or proposed marriage. They all believed that they had something to offer that the audience would find at least acceptable, and hopefully praiseworthy.
This is an essential feature of the human spirit. Call it confidence, arrogance, whatever you like. I call it hope. Proverbs 13:12 says, in part, Hope deferred makes the heart sick. Without hope, without the belief that we have a chance, however slim, of succeeding at something, we don't even bother trying. And what is confidence, if not self-induced hope?
The thing is, in many cases, we're right. Thank God that John Elway was "Arrogant" enough to believe he could play football, or Handel that he could compose music worth listening to. Imagine if Shakespeare hadn't had the self-importance to publish his writings. And the same is true of the Blogosphere. Just take a peek at the TTLB Ecosystem. There are plenty of blogs out there that get read, on a regular basis. The top few have a significant readership. And even a humble blog like mine gets a small but steady stream of hits. Apparently, there are plenty of us who DO have something worth saying.
Now, I'll admit, there are exceptions to this rule, and there are plenty of overrated celebrities, AND overrated bloggers, who don't deserve the attention they get. Humanity is fickle, and this is an inevitable result of that fickleness. And when that happens, it is altogether fitting that we expose the lack of substance supporting the adulation.
But let's not be so hypocritical as to criticize a blogger just for being so presumptuous as to, you know, blog. If that sort of presumption is banned, blogspot.com will be out of business tomorrow.
And you and I will be looking for something more productive to do with our time.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
It Sure Beats Paying for Hammock Time
Thanks for the Memory to Tim Worstall
Not long after Tim and Triticale linked to my Niemoller Post, I saw a significant spike in the number of visitors to my site. So when I went to Tim's blog and noticed that he's blegging for a charity, I cound't resist the temptation to help.
Tom's started a campaign called the Anybody but Sully Project. His goal is to raise more funds than Sully did in his recent blegging campaign. Not orders of magnitude more, not even multiples of, just more than -- even if he only beats Sully by one red cent. All of the money qill go to a charity in Portugal (where Tim lives) that assists handicapped children through equestrian therapy.
Now, the charity alone plays my heartstrings like Jimmy Page. But toss a chance to sully Sully into the pot, and you have an irresistable mix. Go check it out, and if you can, give.
Not long after Tim and Triticale linked to my Niemoller Post, I saw a significant spike in the number of visitors to my site. So when I went to Tim's blog and noticed that he's blegging for a charity, I cound't resist the temptation to help.
Tom's started a campaign called the Anybody but Sully Project. His goal is to raise more funds than Sully did in his recent blegging campaign. Not orders of magnitude more, not even multiples of, just more than -- even if he only beats Sully by one red cent. All of the money qill go to a charity in Portugal (where Tim lives) that assists handicapped children through equestrian therapy.
Now, the charity alone plays my heartstrings like Jimmy Page. But toss a chance to sully Sully into the pot, and you have an irresistable mix. Go check it out, and if you can, give.
What Would Niemoller Think?
(Originally Posted 23 August 2005 at 9:54 AM PDT)
The other day, I posted a comment to this post on Triticale's blog. In it he recounts a story that's a sad example of just how dumb we've become. One of the reasons I titled my blog as I did is because it's my opinion that the quality of reasoning in America has gone rapidly downhill in recent years -- rapidly downhill as in "like a meteor in a gravity well". And I believe this lack of reason and logic is a major factor in the strident tone of modern political discourse -- because so many opinions are based on emotion and not on thinking, any dissent is viewed not merely as a philosophical difference, but a personal attack.
And so, I made the following comment, with apologies to Pastor Niemoller:
First they came for Logic, and I did not speak out, for I did not think logically.
Then they came for Reason, and I did not speak out, for I did not think reasonably.
Then they came for Thesis and Synthesis, and I did not speak out, for I did not think synthetically.
Finally they came for me, and I could no longer think for myself.
UPDATE 24 Aug 2004:
If you compare the quote above to the original or the ones quoted at Triticale or Tim Worstall, you'll notice that the order is slightly different. Last night as I was lying in bed, I realized that I wanted to put them in descending order from what I perceived as the most advanced of the three concepts, formal logic, to the most foundational, thesis and synthesis. This way, not only is it a fairly deft (if I do say so myself) play on Niemollers original quote, but it also shows the regression than can be observed in modern thought: starting with a lackadaisical attitude towards formal logic and the avoidance of fallacies, and deteriorating through a cessation of any reasonable attempt to make ones arguments correspond with ones conclusions, to the loss of any ability to synthesize original ideas from what you already know whatsoever.
As soon as I had this thought, I realized that if I made the change, and even more so if I explained the change, there would be some who would accuse me of thinking too much. This, of course, cemented my decision.
The other day, I posted a comment to this post on Triticale's blog. In it he recounts a story that's a sad example of just how dumb we've become. One of the reasons I titled my blog as I did is because it's my opinion that the quality of reasoning in America has gone rapidly downhill in recent years -- rapidly downhill as in "like a meteor in a gravity well". And I believe this lack of reason and logic is a major factor in the strident tone of modern political discourse -- because so many opinions are based on emotion and not on thinking, any dissent is viewed not merely as a philosophical difference, but a personal attack.
And so, I made the following comment, with apologies to Pastor Niemoller:
First they came for Logic, and I did not speak out, for I did not think logically.
Then they came for Reason, and I did not speak out, for I did not think reasonably.
Then they came for Thesis and Synthesis, and I did not speak out, for I did not think synthetically.
Finally they came for me, and I could no longer think for myself.
UPDATE 24 Aug 2004:
If you compare the quote above to the original or the ones quoted at Triticale or Tim Worstall, you'll notice that the order is slightly different. Last night as I was lying in bed, I realized that I wanted to put them in descending order from what I perceived as the most advanced of the three concepts, formal logic, to the most foundational, thesis and synthesis. This way, not only is it a fairly deft (if I do say so myself) play on Niemollers original quote, but it also shows the regression than can be observed in modern thought: starting with a lackadaisical attitude towards formal logic and the avoidance of fallacies, and deteriorating through a cessation of any reasonable attempt to make ones arguments correspond with ones conclusions, to the loss of any ability to synthesize original ideas from what you already know whatsoever.
As soon as I had this thought, I realized that if I made the change, and even more so if I explained the change, there would be some who would accuse me of thinking too much. This, of course, cemented my decision.
Swift Boat Tea Party
Thanks for the Memory to Michelle Malkin.
Borrowing insight from Belmont Club and Thomas Sowell, and then synthesizing it into her own piquant analysis, Michelle points out that this controversy represents a very serious threat to the mainstream media's pythonesque (and by that I don't mean Monty) grip on the minds, if not the hearts, of the American public.
For generations the media has constituted a de facto totalitarian regime ruling the realm of discourse in America. But the natives have been restless for years, as evidenced by the popularity of talk radio, the amazing success of Fox News, and most recently, the blogging phenomenon. The Powers That Be knew there were rebellious factions out there, but they managed to maintain control, managed to supress or ignore any story or information they did not approve.
But the Swift Boats issue has changed that. Despite the media's best efforts, the story got out. And ironically, it may have been the actions of their own Viceroy, John F Kerry, that finally made the difference. If Kerry hadn't so actively tried to supress this story, it may have gone nowhere. But by attacking it, he acknowledged it, and the genie was out of the bottle. Now the media must deal with a story they didn't generate, and their damage control efforts are in high gear.
While they may eventually succeed in this effort in regards to this story, the damage is done. A precendent has been set, and like the first shots in any revolution, what matters is not always who wins this skirmish, what matters is the fact that the war has begun.
Borrowing insight from Belmont Club and Thomas Sowell, and then synthesizing it into her own piquant analysis, Michelle points out that this controversy represents a very serious threat to the mainstream media's pythonesque (and by that I don't mean Monty) grip on the minds, if not the hearts, of the American public.
For generations the media has constituted a de facto totalitarian regime ruling the realm of discourse in America. But the natives have been restless for years, as evidenced by the popularity of talk radio, the amazing success of Fox News, and most recently, the blogging phenomenon. The Powers That Be knew there were rebellious factions out there, but they managed to maintain control, managed to supress or ignore any story or information they did not approve.
But the Swift Boats issue has changed that. Despite the media's best efforts, the story got out. And ironically, it may have been the actions of their own Viceroy, John F Kerry, that finally made the difference. If Kerry hadn't so actively tried to supress this story, it may have gone nowhere. But by attacking it, he acknowledged it, and the genie was out of the bottle. Now the media must deal with a story they didn't generate, and their damage control efforts are in high gear.
While they may eventually succeed in this effort in regards to this story, the damage is done. A precendent has been set, and like the first shots in any revolution, what matters is not always who wins this skirmish, what matters is the fact that the war has begun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)