Missouri prosecutors – agents of the state government, servants of the electorate – are taking it on themselves to decide what may, or may not be said by their state citizens about a favored presidential candidate in the run-up to the November election. I’m talking prior restraint. Because the people, in their infinite wisdom? Too freakin’ stupid to be trusted with the keys to the democratic kingdom. The simpletons have proven their propensity – repeatedly, I might add – to make bad choices for themselves.
Against their own self-interest, feel me?
This is just an intervention.
These servants of the people are not promising to rebut untruths in the agora, nor to let sunlight disinfect, nor even – to quote Jefferson – to let dissemblers “stand as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it,” no.
Hell, no.
They’re going to shut them bee-hatches down, baby. Going to use the coercive power of the state and ethics laws. People with guns going to be hanging around. Confiscating property, can you dig it? Which was always a crime to begin with.
You’ve been warned, tovarisch.
This is all because of the change and everything. Brave New World, and that.
Best to get on board or join the wounded.
PS – We shoot the wounded.
I do not know when I stumbled across Paul Graham, but I do periodically return to him to see what is new, and to dip back into what is old. What I noticed this morning, which may be new, or just escaped my ever probing and searching eye, is that slowly but surely his essays are being translated into foreign languages.
His essay Writing, briefly is a fast minute and half read, and has been translated into 10 languages. Beware, something will catch your eye, and you will re-read the essay in a more careful and critical fashion. Some may even print the essay out, and put in plain view, for in the statements encapsulated by semi-colons is the solutions to a writers problems.
The other essay that I often return to is How to disagree, which I once shared with Lex, when we were going mano a mano over a topic which I really do not wish to get into now. In it Paul Graham brakes down a discussion/argument in to 6 distinct levels, DH0 to DH6.
The two most destructive to a reasonable conversation is DH0 (Name Calling) and DH1 (Ad hominem attacks). The one that promotes reasonable discussion among reasonable people is DH6, or Refuting the Central Point. And that is why I took the time to write Obama’s time line, it is a hook to refute this empty suite business.
Within the above frame work, David Curp’s Dear Lex and friends, post #18, is a fine piece of writing, the imagery and repetitive thematic reference to fascism was carefully constructed. The relating of common English words to German and Italian was masterful, and devastating.
As a means of advancing the conversation, as a means providing insight, as a means to provide information, it is a flat DH0 in Paul Graham’s six levels. David Curp was calling a Obama fascist, and directly relating him to Hitler. He brought forth visions of concentration camps, and the chilling literary reference to Brave New World. This was a vicious attack, for there is no evidence that Obama has any fascist tendencies. It was character assassination at its best.
I was stunned. If you are, or have been an Academic, you are a member of a community of scholars. The central inviolate rule is that before you accept what somebody has said or written, you check the primary source. These were presented in my post #40, not in an attempt to embarrass Lex, but to point out that Mr. Curp took a pissant issue, used it to slime Obama, and failed to check the validity of the primary charge.
Now then, I still think I am within Paul Graham semi-colon encapsulated writing points, to wit:
so I think I can continue. There are no mistaken facts that need correction, no sentence I regret so far, and the harshest comments refer to the character assassination and slimming of Obama, which those of open mind would recognize without difficulty.
Dare I eat a peach? Dare I actually write something in Lex’s blog without tickling my fun bone? Of course not, but what was it that Paul Graham said? Yes:
So this is it. For those who do not understand Paul Graham’s DH1 level, ad hominem arguments, or his admonition that more time should be spent in revising than in writing, I give you a snippet from Curtis (#49) directed to me:
As for David Curp, he is a writer with uncommon skills, but assassin with a knife in his hand also possesses equal uncommon skills. He distracted me, and distracted all of us with this tenure issue.
I gave him three links in posts #43/44, and wondered what kind of mind I was dealing with who preferred to sneer, rather than use a Web search to educate himself. If we place ourselves in the 13th century, Professor Curp would be a monk in a scriptorium, who in his spare time argues about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and then damn all those who disagree with him to the eternal flames…
The link to Paul Graham’s short essay on writing can be found here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/writing44.html
The link to Paul Grahams essay on how to disagree can be found here, do not drift into the discussion section, for you will come to the conclusion that he is a snake in the grass. What fuels the discussion is what is hidden in the essay, intellectual honesty:
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
The link where I examine Obama’s time line, and set the hookd to allow further examination of the “empty suit” slime and smear can be found here:
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2008/09/05/community-organizing/#comments
Bah, humbug, this was truly a pissant thread.
As a resident of Missouri, and as someone who has frequently posted press releases for both Republican Roy Blunt and Democrat David Sater, I would be putting it very mildly by saying that I am TICKED OFF.
Thus, the First Salvo.
OP, have you considered starting up your own blog? You certainly seem to have the time for it, and who knows: Maybe folks who agree with you so strongly that Barack is the second coming will come by and read what you have written.
Sadly, I fear that much of your effort is wasted on us here. Pearls before swine, and so on.
*snicker*
Oink.
Lex, it’s a good thing you don’t live in the Show Me state, lest they show you the inside of a court room.
Regards,
Jake (Living close enough to MO to get their TV stations.)
“His essay Writing, briefly….”
Obviously, that “briefly” point has been lost on you, OP.
Lex,
You’ve just reminded me of a comic strip I really enjoyed but haven’t read for almost a year. Pearls before Swine….great comic strip and available online!
Here is the problem. Neptunus Lex is a Navy blog, and as such deserves the wide spectrum of opinion and participation that exists within the active and retired Navy community. You Lex, as the creator, writer, and editor of this blog have two choices. You can welcome dissenting opinion as a means to enhance and challenge the collective conscience of your readership. The alternative is that you can use the Navy themes to build a pulpit, and create a following like Rick Moran at his blog site. The song becomes more important than the spiritual needs of the choir.
Rest assured that if you stripped all Navy references from this blog, I would be long gone. In a conversation among gentlemen there are certain conventions that are held to, there are certain writers and thinkers that although controversial, remain hero’s to many of us. And, that is why I once again presented Paul Graham to your readership.
It has been a long day. I have watched the worlds finances slowly implode, and our stock market crash by over 700 points. I nurtured a bean soup, start to finish through 5 hours of prep, and then presentation. And, I tried to contain my seething anger, and failed my pappy.
You remember my mythical pappy. He once told me that you can go to bed angry, but that you have to awake with a purpose. Lex, I tried, but failed. I still cannot believe that Obama, the first bi-racial Presidential candidate in the history of our nation is savaged on one hand as a fascist, a Hitler clone, and on the other as an “empty suit”.
It will take a bit of time, but I will be back. We will never be able to throw a few down at the local bar until you understand that it is my Navy, as much as it is yours
OP, it is indeed your Navy, just as much as it is Lex’s or that of many others chiming in here.
No question.
Kind of like it’s our Country, differences of opinion and circumstance and talent and power notwithstanding. We each do what we can with what we have, all contributing to the whole.
All that said, each enters this arena alone, a battle of wits and words. Do not mistake disagreement for bland opposition. If you have something to say, do so. Defend it. Nobody is a slave to opinion here — you earn each and every person you sway to your view.
I hope to see you return.
– Max
You won’t find better opponents to sharpen you up than around here.
Our Paul,
I wasn’t attempting to distract with the tenure issue (which was why I included it in a ps) – it was central to your argument in another thread that Sen. Obama is a man of such uncommon abilities and versatility that he would thrive in academia- if he hasn’t published one peer reviewed article however, he would fail and fail badly – and if what you quoted was accurate “it is just not me” – then he was never ready for prime time. If he had one published article in a peer reviewed scholarly journal I would of course be wrong (he hasn’t) and so I’m not sneering, I’m simply reporting the facts. Getting all hot and bothered will not change the incontestable fact that he is an academic light-weight for all of his rhetorical skills.
As to the claim that I regard Obama as a fascist – I no more think that than I think that President Bush has moved this country one inch closer to fascism (tis why in note 39 I noted that my remarks in my first post were hyperbole). That being said, there is a nasty authoritarianism and political corruption at work in his campaign when those associated with it (with his acquiescence at best) turn to the police power of the state to shut down criticism Sen. Obama’s campaign regard as uncongenial. Also, while this question might be moot, why didn’t you raise this objection prior to your last two posts head on instead of chuckling over the cleverness of my writing – the change of tone is quite striking. Just for the record if someone ever manages to write that Sen. McCain is a coward, no matter how baroque or amusing the writing I would simply start out by calling such a person a tool and a child without any nicey-nice pussy-footing.
I’m sorry you feel ill-used. If it is any consolation I find someone who cannot hold down their side of the argument and then needs to portray me as a 13th century monk debating how many angles can dance on the head of a pin bothersome, if only because
1) Medieval scholastics didn’t spend a lot of time in scriptoriums, and all of them understood angels were immaterial hence the question of their relationship to spatial objects is a non sequitur – and so you demonstrate an incapacity to understand history sufficiently to insult (hence showing more of the failures of my guild)
2) the really neat Catholic monastic assassins are the albino monks whose existence was hitherto a secret prior to Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code and I’m hurt that you wouldn’t have referred to me using a more contemporary and cool example even though a web search would reveal that the photo I allow to be used for my department would call into question my albino status (it is all in the lighting).
So I’m sorry that I can’t look at Sen. Obama and see anything other than a talented speaker/rhetorician who is less suited than Gov. Palin to be the President. I am glad that our first bi-racial candidate is treated with decorum in public (even when he tries to play the race card to guilt people into voting for him – “I’m not like those other Presidents on the dollar bill” – got me dead to rights Senator – there is only one President on the dollar bill first off and second he was a doer, speaker and thinker – you only have one of those down, with the advantage of a teleprompter) and once again – he is not a fascist, but he should have waited for a term or two minimum before he tried to become our President and I do not respect his or your recklessness in attempting to push him into a position for which he has so little preparation or lack of concern over the political corruption his campaign is engaged in in Missouri.
Be well.
OP, you and I have had this conversation before, I think – the last time you huffed off. What I think I said then (and what I’ll repeat now) is that there are facts and interpretations. When you present me a fact that undermines the foundation of my position you’ll have my gratitude. But when you present – at book length – the interpretations of factual combination by someone whom you deem authoritative (and whose opinions you find congenial) you bore me nearly to tears.
I get that people may look at the same facts and draw differing conclusions – why don’t you? Your didactic persistence on some of these threads betrays a certain presumptuousness: You seem to think that we have not considered all sides of the issue you bring forth, that we only need a little more education – not realizing that we have very likely looked at the issue from as many different viewpoints as have you – and have simply drawn differing conclusions. That doesn’t make us right, nor does it make you wrong, but until you can disprove the factual underpinnings of our position, we have the right to our opinions.
I don’t need teaching, OP, and in any case, your tone borders more on the pedantic than the pedagogic. I need convincing. Facts convince, or at least force reassessments. Analysis is inherently subjective. I will not yield to the seeming brilliance of your analytical sources, not if you deploy them in legions nor bedrape them in PhDs (tenured or otherwise). Nor do I require you to yield to mine.
This is, I think, a rather special place. We manage to have conversations about a great many topics and by and large get along very well, despite disagreeing with one another from time to time, realizing that you can disagree without being disagreeable.
You’re a welcome guest here, but when you change from debating the point to hectoring the company, you should not be surprised when the reception chills.
lex: minor spelling correction…
it isn’t spelled “didactic”, it’s more commonly spelled “dick-ish” (with the hyphen)
“Shed this “empty suit” mentality and think. Right now he is worthy of your contempt, for he is wrapped in an empty suit. But, Curtis, just suppose he is not an “empty suit”. Then my good man, your fears, what ever they may be, will be exponentially multiplied.”
Does anyone else read the hint of salvation in this comment?
Wow!!!! I really thought it was over last night, I just cannot believe that this thread is still active.
I appreciate MaxDamage comment (post #60).
Now then, so everybody understands what is going on, David Curp is beating a straw man. Obama had a clear running field to the Academic world when he graduated with distinction from Harvard and was Editor of the Law Review. That path is well trodden and needs no further discussion. He chose to become a community organizer in Chicago. Whaaaat!
While at Chicago Law he taught on the non-tenured track, which requires no publications, and advanced to highest position of senior lecturer. While he was teaching, he held other jobs, wrote two books, became a legislator, married and started a family. He was a busy man, yet David Curp sneers because he did not publish!
David, David, David, my good man. Obama never aspired to become an Academic. Why are you beating us over the head with his lack of publications? Why this need to denigrate Obama with this:
You know, I am beginning to think you are not blessed with an inner pappy. By now my inner pappy would have said:There are times that it ain’t what you accomplish what counts, it is what you learn.”
As an academic, you must surely understand that Obama used the University of Chicago as a laboratory for his mind. On one hand he was in a community of scholars, and could learn by interacting with them. On the other hand, the cross currents and tensions of our society where in front of him, and his students would teach him what they were.
You are clearly puzzled by why I would I would on one hand be so bland to your primary post (#18), and yet come back at a later time with the charge that you were equating Obama with fascism
Three reasons: The first is obvious, I wanted Lex’s readership to go back and read your post. I wanted it firmly fixed in their heads. The second, is that I was ticked off out of my mind, and my pappy cautioned me that it was OK to go to bed angry, but you had to awake with a purpose, with a mission. And third, I am a disciple Paul Graham, he cautions about writing in anger.
That said, Fliterman saw exactly what I saw:
That is what I like about Fliterman, he says it short and sweet. He does have this distressing tendency to force one to go to the dictionary, i.e. tovarisch. My bleat (#51) echoed, after a good night sleep, what Fliterman said.
I will certainly not retract or modify the charge that your primary post (#18) was an attempt to slime Obama as a liberal fascist. In the hard right intellectual saloon that Johna Goldberg created, “Liberal Fascism: The Secrete History…” is the new bible. That you have become a disciple to this “bilge water” is apparent. To wit:
.
I have a confession to make, I have spent some time in the Academics, the culture is well known to me. In the hallway, coffee cup in hand, the classic way you slip a knife between a colleagues ribs is to point out that he is like a medieval theologian, arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It was indeed vile on my part.
That said, the best teachers learn from their students. So this is your task. Print out Paul Graham’s “Writing, briefly” and hand it out to your students with a casual “I found this, I wonder what you think of it”. Next day quiz them as to whether what Paul Graham was saying had any value. Make sure your ask them the big one, did they save that piece of paper for future reference.
Then, ask them if they would like another Paul Graham snippet. If they say yes, give them How to disagree, but only towards the end of the week, for they will need the week end to think about it. Quiz them after a few days.
I have grown old, and I wear my pants legs rolled, and I have lost my student laboratory. I would be interested in what your students say…
For those who are convinced I am an Obama fan, I should point out that the candidate I favored was knocked out of the primaries by a heinous TV add, whose author appears only at the end of the add, and can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M-cmNdiFuI&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/
For those who think that this is nothing but a variant of high school food fight, they are of course right, and the winner can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-yldqNkGfo&eurl=http://weblog.sinteur.com/
And for those who wonder what this whole tenure thing is about, consider this: There was once a kind of creative guy who received tenure at the University of Kansas, who in celebration created a video. Lex, who disdains “soft” sciences, would advance the video as proof of their irrelevancy. I love it as an expression as a man who knows how to tickle his fun bone. It can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKW3DzcUEOI&eurl=http://crookedtimber.org/
That is it! No more!
Lex, is there ever a time when calling someone names is more correct than taking the time to dismantle them politely and rationally?
I ask because I have only minimal skill in the latter, and the former is oh so tempting right now…
OP brings to mind a certain sociologist that used to spam the sci.military.navy newsgroup back when I used to have time to spare. He has the pedantic disdain down pat.
OP disagrees. Fine. This isn’t a council, it’s not making a decision, it’s the marketplace of ideas. Let him say his piece and we each take it apart and adjust our own thinking accordingly.
Besides, he liked my post #60 — gotta stand up for him a bit after that admission. Even if he disagreed with me, there is no foul in paying the respect.
– Max
Fuzzy-
Try my approach:
See OP comment,
scroll
scroll scroll scroll
Think ‘Fuck that’
Go get a beer instead.
#69 is why Australia will eventually inherit the earth.
Only to give it back again, as too much of a bother.
#63 and #69 – That’s just too perfect! Thanks for the laugh – a great way to start the day.
Lex-
I’m left wondering if I ought to feel complimented or insulted……
Note to OP …. brevity is the soul of wit. Think about it.
All the best … Marianne
Two things:
THING 1. I seem to remember a certain smear campaign conducted by the far right in 2000 against McCain (producing the now oft quoted line of “agents on intolerance”) and then another conducted in 2004 against Kerry. (I’m not willing to delve into the rightness of either, just that these things happened to both sides.)
In my humble and considerably uneducated/ignorant opinion the above argument is nothing more than an exercise in pedantry and solipsism. It appears that we’re not listening to the original post from which this malarkey vigorously arose.
I’m switching to rant since we’re too close for guns.
A – Is this really the rise of the New World Order?
People, come on. How many times have we seen these movies or conspiracy screeds where shadowy (I have to give OP points for making references to the Shadow, though, that was amusing) government conspiracies have aligned to deprive many millions of people of their rights. Everyone ought to know by now that having large segments of the military or government involved in a conspiracy is impossible because of Newton’s First Law. The system is so large and travelling at such a rate that God himself would have a hard time dislodging it from it’s current path. Trust me. Anyone thinking I’m a complete tool for saying this obviously hasn’t been to a PSD* recently.
I can’t accept the argument that this is some malignant darkness poised to swallow our souls. The most simple originator seems to be some overzealous state prosecutors who meant one thing and then said something else.
Just curious: Are any of the people working for the Missouri prosecutors office named F. Mulder?
B – Could this simply be an effort by the Obama campaign to ensure that we don’t have the childish name calling of the 2000 and 2004 elections?
The giant flip-flops at the 2004 Republican convention sure were a lot of fun, but I think we could have elevated the debate to a slightly more adult level. Honestly, I hate the idea of prior restraint being used in this manner, however if this was a toothless straw man designed to warn people away from “acting the fool,” then I still can’t say I like it much.
What I would like to see is a complete ban on 527 groups and special interest campaigns, period as it would alleviate the need for the sort of wankery that got us (by I mean Lex and his readership) into this fracas in the first place.
Somehow I don’t think the McCain camp will say anything on the matter as 1) protest would likely have some form of blowback, and 2) it benefits them as well since they would obviously be able to assert a right to equal protection.
THING 2. POASTING IN AN EPIC THRED.
* – PSD is Personnel Support Detachment. This organization is nominally supposed to do paperwork relating to personnel and service records. It doesn’t. Frankly I’m not sure what they do over there, other than create Easter Egg hunts for your own paperwork (guys – I know Cray is a somewhat common last name, BUT WHEN HAVE I BEEN A FEMALE LIEUTENANT WITH A DIFFERENT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND HOW DOES AN SH3 NAMED WALTERS WIND UP WITH MY PAPERWORK), lose your Service Record for six months (while blaming this problem on you since the thing is “your responsibility”), and so forth. Rage rage rage.
Drew,
You say:
I would say that is an infringement on my right to free association, an action every bit as contemptible as any chilling effect that prosecutors in Missouri may or may not have engaged in. McCain-Feingold was travesty enough as it was, need we compound their stupidity by further criminalizing political speech by citizens?
XBradTC,
I misspoke. I agree with what you’re saying here and realize that what I was saying is pretty stupid. Some of these ads on the other hand confuse and muddy the issue so much that you have no idea what the thing is about until you read the fine print at the end of the advertisement. Usually whoever is sponsoring these things would be the one to benefit.
So for instance, I see an advertisement filled with DIRE CONSEQUENCES AND IMMINENT DOOM sponsored by Exxon/Mobil? Or the same thing from the California Teachers Union? Or RJ Reynolds? Or People for the Free Ejaculation of Palestine? Or the American Socialist Party?
It makes me kinda mad because I know that every single one of these organizations has an axe to grind and a profit margin to protect. They’re not interested in what’s good or right, they’re interested in making money.
What I mean here was that I’m opposed to the politicization (sp?) of media for the benefit of people with billions of dollars at their disposal when you and I – the common people – are not afforded the same.
Thanks for calling me on that. Seriously.
Drew C. (and Marianne Matthews),
Let’s try again, since in spite of having attempted to irrigate the desert-like minds of most undergraduates for over 15 years I still believe in the power of education -
some of us were indulging in hyperbole and mockery to shame those who would use police power to “better our debate.” For the record I do not hold with the idea that Obama is a “liberal fascist” (nor is Jonah Goldberg’s book of that name my “Bible”) but even more so I do not regard it as the place of law enforcement officials to discuss the good Senator’s Christian faith or tax cut plan (and doing it in such a way as to imply that any objections to these are not just out of bounds politically but also legally). I also find it disconcerting that your concern that some on this site are going all conspiracy-mongering on you is followed up by a call to ban 527s (which, to your real credit, you realized was going too far). Do I think we are on the verge of a great darkness that will swallow our souls and you are a member of the great silencing conspiracy too, sent to peek in on us vragi ludu/enemies of the people but who couldn’t stay effectively cloaked? To be clear, no (souls, being immaterial cannot be “swallowed”), no and no. However, there is something dangerous afoot where we can’t stay with how wrong it is for prosecutors and sheriffs to be making positive statements about a candidate in coordination with a candidate’s campaign. Not all political authoritarianism and police-state tactics are fascism – many authoritarian regimes have a range of civil liberties, functioning courts and pluralistic party-systems with a winner-takes-some system of voting. And not all political authoritarianism is fascism by a long-shot.
But, while this is not fascism neither is this “a conspiracy so vast” and that is a bad thing, since as you correctly pointed out, a real conspiracy would likely fail. Yet instead of hiding their partisanship elected officials exercising police power felt comfortable on television describing their role in “elevating the tone” of a campaign on behalf of one candidate alone and in presenting certain opinions as truths so incontestable as to imply that disagreeing was a prosecutable, political offense (while not meeting any objection by the self-anointed “fourth estate”). They are not hiding anything/conspiring. Though it might strike you as “malarky” that some are concerned about this alone, for me that concern arises in part out of our observing a very nasty pattern of the Obama campaign seeking out those in the media and now in the executive branch to close down lines of inquiry and attack they regard as out of bounds. Bad as a political habit in and of itself, but when a state prosecutor responds positively to such an initiative and “says one thing and means another” in favor of the Obama campaign, Houston, we have a problem because:
1) how do I know what he “means”/”really wanted to say”?
2) what if I get the above wrong and said prosecutor meant what he/she said and I now have to hire a lawyer – best to not take the risk and engage in a little self-censorship, non?
So you say you “hate” such effective prior restraint but regard mocking it as a sign of fear-mongering? Is your hatred aesthetic (simply not stylish enough) or does it flow from deeper concerns? When I and I’m sure Lex, post about how creepy it is that “the Dear Leader” is being sung about by children, or how Democrats might think about buying some snappy uniforms, I am mocking and exaggerating for effect and not engaging in hackneyed prophecy or making a serious point about liberal fascists almost being upon us. The purpose of such mockery is to draw attention to objectionable behavior and make it so ridiculous as to make the offender stop (it is why lots of people use the term “theocon” or compare their religious fellow citizens to the Taleban– most I’m sure don’t believe real theocracy is upon them, but they want to shame the opposition). Efforts to enact de facto prior restraint is not fascism or real socialism, the sequel (I am not like a hard left winger who simultaneously believes that we are in a wide-ranging fascist state and feel comfortable objecting to such fascism via easily traceable IP addresses). The lesson I took from Orwell when I read 1984 as a teen however was, that by the time the police state establishes itself it is too late to resist effectively – you can die nobly (if you are lucky) but against a real police state determined to keep power you will almost certainly lose (which means the only way to “take one on” is to join the pigs at the dictatorial trough and hope you can oink enough plrualism to divide the rulers – and that means you have to get as close to filthy as them, but they will always be better at it because they like such filth). And so I mock and poke fun at a political campaign that is overstepping important boundaries of civil liberty and open discourse for its own partisan advantage because those are precious goods on their own and deserved to be defended by strong methods and strong words. The offenses/failures of professionalism Lex linked to are evils in and of themselves, not because we are trembling on the verge of authoritarian government, but because the Obama campaign and the Missouri prosecutors cooperation with them already represents a corruption of democracy. A sin or nasty habit need not be mortal to be disgusting and worth skewering.
ps: Marianne – I know I never shall be witty -sorry.
As a Chicago resident, I must remind you that use of public employees for political purposes (specifically the perpetuation of a one-party system) is standard fare here.
Democratic institutions are completely corrupted in Chicago and Cook County, where Obama has his politic roots.
It is not surprising that it was Chicago where Milt Rosenberg’s hosting of a thoughtful Obama critic was essentially harassed off the air by a well organized Obama campaign.
Make no mistake that power corrupts, and when the Obama regime takes hold of the reins, the Chicago approach will be extended at every opportunity, some times subtley, some times not. “Join me” will be the public message, the “or else” will be unstated but quite real.
Thank you Marianna Mathews. No disagreement here.
You probably have noticed that at Obama’s campaign site they are selling caps, tee shirts, and lederhosen. Unfortunately, the last item is reserved only for members of Obama’s Truth Squads.
I note David Curps most recent contribution to the conversation, and I will try to alleviate the fever that grips his writing and the fear that is in his soul. Some quotes from the News-Leader political blog:
Indeed, if you go to the video Lex’s original post, there is no mention that these Obamaphiles would seek prior restraint or legal prosecution. I can understand why the Hard Right is huffing and puffing, after all, their hero’s are Lee Atwater and Carl Rove. I mean, fiddeling with the truth is just like a misdirection play in football. Not to worry,
No word yet as to the Attorney General plans. Whether he will devote any time to McCain’s truthiness problems is unclear.
The quoted material, from the News-Leader, a newspaper in Springfield, Missouri, can be found here.
Has anyone ever remarked that you have an obsessive side to you, OP?
I’m beginning to wonder if OP is one of those folks who never finished his dissertation. A lot of anger issues there.
Please….For the sake of the children and my mental health …this train wreck of a thread must cease immediately… Best
PS, Obsessive disorders and anger issues are just two of the unfortunate pathologies on exhibit here.
km and OP,
km, see http://islab.oregonstate.edu/koc/favorites/college/drop.gif
and Our Paul – I really do hope the picture is not you, but since you have spoken ill of KARL ROVE, who is not a “hero” but like a god to me and indeed all of us on the right, who care not one whit for truth (funny why you should even bother speaking with such goram reprobates, but that’s shiny since you are not working for the proto-alliance which is the Obama campaign while you are wasting pixels on us) perhaps you suffered the loss that Groening so accurately portrays in my link for your current (but what were then your future sins) under his mighty hand. Given KARL’s infinite reach you might bethink yourself as to whether you want to pursue this thread any further because when our white terror sweeps back the impending but flawed effort at Communist revolution that you and all of the Obaminators legions shall try to wage before you discover (too late) the Lightworker’s terrible secret and how he shall betray you all
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/kevin_o_brien/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1221640366215410.xml&coll=2&thispage=3
Be well, but beware…
Has anyone ever remarked that you have an obsessive side to you, OP?
Dang it Lex, you really blew that one right by me. Coming in it sure looked like a standard ad hominem attack until I saw that question mark at the end of the sentence. That not only froze the bat on my shoulder, but really fried my brain. I had to abandon what this thread was about, and construct a reasonable answer to your query.
The first problem was what exactly you meant by obsessive. I mean, if you are using the term in a clinical psychological sense as it refers to a compulsive behavior (continual or intrusive), for example, hand washing. I would have to answer along those lines: Yes, back in the days when I was a practicing doc I was obsessively compulsive about washing my hands in the clinical setting. The House Engineer now comments about my not washing my hands, but I think she is obsessive, not me…
I was also obsessive about the iron main on Perseverance, never starting that diesel without checking the oil level and keeping a weather eye on the temperature gauge. But then, most folks would consider that prudence.
If you are approaching the term with a writer’s license, i.e. “preoccupy or fill the mind to a troubling extent”, well then I have been riddled with this problem. In my youth I obsessed about religion. In my salad and halcyon days (as I said before, they are different) certain women induced obsessive thoughts, and to this day I cannot look at the bottom of a sailboat without laying a critical eye on the fairing of the keel and rudder.
Judging from the above, I think (cough, cough), that you chose the wrong word. Gasp, I apologize for even making a suggestion to an Editor of a blog. The word you where seeking is perseverate, which has been defined as
It is an early sign of dementia, what ever its etiology, and is only noticed by a very astute non-clinician. Having confessed to a rum sodden brain in the past on your blog Lex, and having cruised by the big 75, and having misplaced the car keys, you may be on to something.
That said, my obsessive perseveration in this blog centered in two areas: (1) Was the initial premises that Obama had formed a brigade of law enforcement individuals to enforce prior restraint on free speech correct, or a load male bovine excrement? (2) Did Dave Curp state that this controversy was not a load of male bovine excrement, but an actual manifestation of the left wing Obamaphiles shedding their pink garments and donning brown shirts and arm bands?
The answer to the first question is get your pitchfork. The answer to the second question is that if you can parse one of Dave Curp’s sentences, and deconstruct one of his comments, you are a better man than I am… Forget the water, for #@%$&**%# sake, and pass the rum…
ps: Dave, I cannot believe that you did not comment on the three videos I posted on my comment #65. Okay, the first one was a bit too cute, the second (food fights) was clearly meant to offend those who think that wars are a glorious thing where honor can be gained, but the third one was a celebration of tenure, in dance, and surely must have tickled your fun bone…
He says obsessive, you say perservative ….
Then again, the words “nuts” come to mind, for the whole thread!
Pecksniffian.
THAT’s the word i was looking for before…
You actually read what he said?
Wow.
You actually think that I actually did read it?
Wow.
OP reminds me of a few commenters on M. Totten’s blog that used his forum to showcase just how smart they are. Couldn’t get anyone to visit their blog I guess.
I now understand why Instapundit doesn’t allow comments. A loss for many, though at least Mr. Reynolds and his fans do not have to slog thru the comment dung.