House of Eratosthenes, you should be.
The issue that faces us next year, right behind that whole dead-terrorist-bodies thing, is whether the donks benefit from a frayed, fragile, threadbare tethering to reality or whether that tethering has snapped altogether. The donks are pretty emphatic that the real issue is whether or not the current President is a dumbass, which seems to me a peripheral article of history at best. We disagree; should we debate the question, it would be a pretty quick debate but it might get a little messy, gentle as I would try to be. It's the facts, you see; they are not on their side. Next year, they are running — the "moron" is not. That's just the way things are. We don't get to vote on George Bush's intellect or lack thereof — we are obliged to vote on the sanity of the donks, or lack thereof.
Things I Know
222. People who tolerate evil, because of their hidden agendas, fear of consequences or retribution, knowledge of their limitations, laziness, whatever, want everyone else to tolerate it as well. Being allowed to make up their own minds, to opt out of any movement to oppose the evil, to be left alone while braver men confront what they will not, never seems to be enough for them. Always, or nearly always, there is this passion to stop others from doing what they lack the courage to do. They talk about this passion and the resulting frustration a great deal. But they won't explain it. I wish they would.
Things I Doubt: 12. Men who demand thin women
The fashion industry demands thin women, and all the men I know of who make the decisions there, are gay. Straight men like huge tits. Straight men think Marilyn Monroe's torso looked a lot better than Keira Knightley's. Almost all of them. Yes, there are exceptions, but all the exceptions I know of are part of the "I'm so sorry I'm a man, I'm thinking of becoming a vegetarian, I'm proud to be a male feminist, please tell me what to do" puppy-face peacenik crowd.
The point is, when The Left notices that those who disagree, aren't serving, and announces the discovery of hypocrisy, they show their own ignorance. People who disagree, aren't serving by definition, because when you serve you give up your freedom-of-speech rights about things like this. People who do that, are heroes. And while they go off and fight with bullets, the terrorists they fight plan to retaliate in the theater of ideas. The terrorists have said so!
"As for my answer, it remains unchanged. To oppose YOU. Anyone who asks "Why Aren't You There?" is, all the bullshit peeled aside, a nihilist. Nihilists are having a fairly good time of it right now; they're injecting a nihilist marinade into everything we do in public policy lately; and, by nature, don't support the troops or much of anything else. Someone with principle and brains has to be stateside, to make sure they are opposed.They are trying to make a lot of decisions for everybody else, after all. Those decisions are not wise. They are not harmless.
They have to be opposed.
I've learned to leave my edits out of Wikipedia, whose problems of late result from being policed above, rather than below, par. While I believe in the experiment overall, I fear it is doomed to carry, everlastingly, at least a stain of defeat. This is perfectly acceptable to me, since we live in an imperfect universe filled with imperfect things. But some folks have made it their mission in life to police Wikipedia. Edits that offer another perspective on things, disappear so quickly that they have no effect at all, and this is by the design of an excessively enthusiastic editor who doesn't happen to like that other perspective.Said hyperactive and overly self-indulgent editors tend to lean left. That's just the way things are. Leftists have more time.
1. A disease which causes the afflicted person to cite the disagreeing political viewpoints of others, and react to the disagreement by eschewing any juxtaposition between them and himself, perhaps out of the fear that his arguments will be revealed as insubstantial or logically tenuous if challenged. ... 3. The delusion that showcasing this disease and the suffering from it, is in fact the manifestation of some kind of ethical or philosophical principle....Posted by Vanderleun at September 22, 2007 12:36 AM
You never disappoint, sir, when pointing me to a new read. This is some tasty stuff. I read regularly Sippican Cottage and now this for second breakfast. Soon, I will become a useless eater, commenting, and not out protesting something, the way that more productive people do.
Posted by: Jauhara al Kafirah at September 22, 2007 7:41 AMMANILOSIS (n.):
...
2. The duality comprised of: a) a sense of entitlement to a public forum free of competing ideas, juxtaposed with b) an intellect free of ideas capable of attracting competition. Also: Vacuum (n.), Vacuous, Vapid (adj.), Vacuously (adv.), Mincing, Posturing, Simpering (v.)
HOME