Just some fun…
Posted on August 27, 2007
Filed Under Blogging, Liberalism, Media, Politics, Reason | 10 Comments
This one wasn’t particularly interesting and certainly doesn’t rise to the level of ridiculous like some of the other “discussions” I’ve had with bloggers–I can’t even say for sure if this guy is liberal, but he’s no fan of Mitt Romney for sure, which shows me that his brain doesn’t function very well. Compared to the rest of the field, who honestly holds a candle? Obama? Please…
Anyway, the only reason this is worth note is that it exposes a couple of patterns that are so common to academia, which for the large part means liberals. I’m counting this guy as “academia” since he went out of his way to mention his dissertation and grad school in his goofy video. He’ll consider such designation on his behalf a compliment, I’m sure.
First, notice how testy he gets when I expose the irony of his criticism. Granted, maybe he’s more testy that I exposed the “I hope this video makes me famous” intent of his video. Either way, he can’t just take it on the chin and laugh it off, even with the playful tone that I used in my opening comment. (Granted, again, tone is a hard thing to interpret in such informal writing, especially when it’s written as criticism as it certainly was.)
Next, notice how he completely abandons the real substantial part of my criticism of his criticism–the part that calls him out for trying to blame Mitt Romney or his campaign for a grammatical gaffe made by some independent support group of Romney’s. On that point he conveniently and suddenly falls mute, instead choosing to focus the full measure of his analytical prowess on whether or not its appropriate to terminate an interrogative phrase with a period, as validated by this or that style guide. Who cares? (Note the appropriate use of question mark.) The only reason I even brought up the punctuation at all was because I found it amusing how his self-congratulations was so vigorous as to make him overlook an obvious grammatical flaw of his own (style guides bah…only academics follow them anyway).
Finally, notice the dead giveaway of a liberal who has lost an argument (again, I can’t say for sure if this guy is a liberal, but he’s sure playing from their playbook). Rather than, “thanks for visiting,” or “thanks for the comment, we disagree,” or “you’re wrong, and I’ll prove it,” he chooses “go away! I don’t care about being corrected, or listening to anyone who doesn’t agree with me…I prefer the Kos-style liberal echo chamber to actual debate!”
So predictable.
Final Note: I submit that I may be WAY over-selling this entire thing. There’s probably not much here at all, really. Maybe I’m just tired of people taking pot shots or making criticisms without any foundation in reality or fact and I took it out on this poor wanna-be YouTube celebrity. So on his behalf, let me say, I hope the DailyKos was watching and that they are about to offer him a regular feature on their totally valid and rational site.
Comments
10 Responses to “Just some fun…”
Leave a Reply
Oh my God, you sure love to analyze your own internet activities, don’t ya? I got cranky when you half-heartedly tried to excuse my fictitious grammatical mistake by dismissing me as “just another “my self-proclaimed hilarious YouTube videos and acerbic blog wit will make me famous!” blogger.” You don’t think that’s going to rile me up, buddy? Nothing playful about that, unless you’re a total dick. I blog for a number of reasons, including simply as a writing exercise (since, as an engineer, I would otherwise deal mostly with numbers) and to (surprise) analyze and discuss the issues of the day. What do you blog for, other than to toot your own horn and recap your shenanigans of pissing off liberal bloggers?
You can’t tell I’m a liberal by looking at my site? Wow, you are one sharp tack. But at least you noticed my academic arrogance. Have you re-read your own About page recently? Talk about cocky. I return your pot-calling-the-kettle-black criticism on that count.
And finally, I didn’t run away from a losing argument; you were looking for an error where there wasn’t one, surely just trying to generate fodder for another fluff-job blog post like you have just written, and wasting my time. As for your banner point, it’s as “official” as the group “Georgians for Romney,” and apparently worth their $100 or so to buy; I didn’t suggest the national campaign HQ bought it, but somebody with the operational capacity for putting on this big media event did, and that’s official enough.
Now, if you want to raise a real point — like how Christ-like it is of your Mormon candidate to dismiss the notion of “we’re all in this together” while suggesting that people who can’t afford health insurance “pay their own way,” knock yourself out.
Hey, thanks for stopping by. Gotta admit, I’m surprised.
Anyway, on to your points and my rebuttals:
- Yes, I love to analyze conversations with liberal bloggers. I try to make some sense of them, and if I can’t, I just post them for the entire world to see (since the entire world reads my blog).
- I noted that I might have angered you with my shot about your video, obviously I was right (I’m always right). I’m not apologizing for it; however, a person of good will and good nature would recognize it as playful, or take it as playful, no matter what the intent. Offense is only taken, it can’t be given. If you took offense at it, I must have struck a nerve.
- Who cares why you blog or why I blog or why anyone blogs? Blogging by nature is, for most, an exercise in self-aggrandizement and self-promotion. For me, it’s just fun to put on record all the hilarious and stupid conversations I have with liberals. If you follow any of the links that I point to in reference to such conversations, you’ll see that I rarely–almost never–make comments on liberal blogs with the intent of pissing anyone off. I’m just trying to hold them to account for their accusations and assumptions, which are almost uniformly unfounded and untrue. It’s always the liberals who draw first blood, so to speak. A typical pattern, which is another reason why I record it…to show the pattern.
- I couldn’t tell you were a liberal by looking at your post. Check your logs or site stats, you’ll see I haven’t been to a single other page on your site. So no, I can’t tell you’re a liberal by looking at your site. I haven’t looked.
As for my about page, I wrote that very meticulously. I’m glad you appreciate it.
- There was an error. Two of them, actually. One grammatical (style guides or no, a question is a question–only a liberal is ok with changing the rules to suit their needs), one logical. Obviously the latter of the two is the more important and more substantial of the two, as I acknowledged. You decided to dig into the lesser issue of the two, deflecting the attention to lesser issues in true liberal fashion. Whether it was intentional or just liberal instinct, I’ll never really know, but I have my suspicions.
Anyway, you suggested that Romney, with all his millions and all his “slickness” managed to produce a banner that is, well, unprofessional at best. It’s a cheap, thinly-veiled smear at Romney when in reality he had nothing to do with it. So just make sure you’re clear who it is you’re criticizing.
- Now, the weighty question. This is a easy one. People should pay their own way. We’re not a socialist country, much as liberals and some Democrats want to make it so. Romney’s point is obvious, and his position on this issue has been well-documented. We shouldn’t all be paying for people to have health care who can’t afford health care. I have enough to pay for without having to carry the health care burdens of others, a large portion of whom would be illegal aliens if the liberals have their way. That doesn’t mean I don’t think the health care system shouldn’t be reformed in some way to make it possible for anyone to afford some kind of health care. In fact, I really don’t mind some government assistance for health care, if the circumstances are correct, but I am completely against the idea that just because you don’t make a certain amount of money, you get your health care provided on the backs of the taxpayers.
Romney’s whole reform position is to expect people to pay their own way, but to provide a better system in which they can pay their own way. There’s nothing at all wrong with that. In fact, it makes for stronger citizens with better self-esteem. Welfare in all its forms, untempered, only creates laziness. If you don’t believe that, just move to Canada for a while.
You won’t agree with me, I’m sure, but if you don’t you’re wrong. People have to pay their own way. It’s critical to their social and personal development. Democrats and liberals don’t really want a socialized system because they really care about the people, anyway. They’re just using it as a political weapon to try to entice minorities, who are really the target of their social messages. Sadly for them, the people who really start to experience the American dream–to make an honest wage, to earn in surplus and begin to store up for their futures–always come down on the side of the free market and paying one’s own way–decidedly conservative domain–regardless of their nationality or ethnicity.
Thanks for playing, but you can’t make judgments about Christianity unless you understand true Christianity.
“In a nutshell, I’m a thinking man.”
I almost just peed myself. Who says something like that, other than a totally arrogant [naughty word]-head? You are blinded by your own self-love. Get over yourself, dude.
Kate,
You don’t have the intellect to understand, so I’ll just leave it at that. Thanks for stopping by, though. You’re really showing well for yourself.
No, thank you for editing my comment because I used a *gasp* NAUGHTY WORD! I can’t wait til recess starts so we can trade stickers and drink juice boxes.
Maybe if I read your site long enough, some day I will have the intellect to understand. A girl can dream!
Way to address the issues, genius.
Keep on dreaming, though.
“He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.”
You interpret your bible your way, and I’ll do the same with mine. And until our economic situation drastically changes so that everyone can earn enough money to pay for health care that isn’t unattainably expensive (I wouldn’t hold your breath, JC said the poor we would always have with us), some people are just plain not going to be able to afford health care once they’re done paying for rent and food and clothes. We all have “enough to pay for,” but most of us are still doing pretty well even when we whine (you’re such a great IT professional, I doubt you’re hurting financially). If your only response to the poor is, “Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, this is an entrepreneurial society,” then maybe you’re just a [naughty participle] [naughty word] wearing a hollow WWJD bracelet.
Welcome back.
First, this is a serious and complicated issue, so I’m going to lay off the sniping now. I know I started in on you, admittedly, so let me be the first to stop. Feel free to continue. I think I’ve already established that you can’t hurt my feelings, so knock yourself out if you feel so inclined. And although you did take some good digs at me in your latest comment, I also see beyond the digs that there are some valid points in there.
Prepare to be shocked: I don’t disagree with you. Not entirely, anyway.
Now, on to the issue.
First, “He that hath two coats…” That’s the whole point. Jesus says nothing about the government taking one of my coats, if I should be so blessed as to have two, and giving it to another. His teachings in no way espouse or condone government imposed redistribution of wealth, and they certainly don’t condone the idea of governmental oversight of the taking of a portion of any person’s coat and giving it to another if they barely have one of their own (while retaining a portion of that coat for its own “administrative” costs, of course).
You’re absolutely right: I, personally, am doing pretty well, for the moment, although until recently that wasn’t so much the case. I’m a contractor, so my financial life can sometimes be very much a “chicken and feathers” existence. If I’m not extra careful during the times of chicken, the times of feathers can be pretty bleak. I take it you assume that when I refer to myself as “successful” I’m referring to financial success. Not so. I just mean I’m good at what I do. It does pay me well, when I’m under contract, but unfortunately that’s not a perpetual condition. Why does any of this matter? Well, for one, I understand very well what it feels like not to be able to afford health care. I don’t have it provided by an employer and I know exactly how much it costs to pay for my own. In fact, I can’t even get it at the moment. But here’s the rub: I don’t expect the government to provide it for me. It’s not the role of government to tax me so it can decide how to spend that money on my behalf, even if that means giving some of it back to me in the form of health care plans. Now that my professional life is in a “chicken” phase for the time being, I don’t want to give the government any of my money so they can pay for someone else’s health care. That doesn’t mean I don’t feel a burden of responsibility to “impart to him that hath none.” Quite the opposite. I take that responsibility very seriously and very personally. But that’s just it, and that’s the intent of Jesus’ counsel: it’s not a something that can be compelled by anyone or any organization. It is something personal between the haves and the have-nots. If it’s compelled or imposed by an outside agent, it loses all merit as charitable service. By right of birth, people are free to choose right and wrong. Those who choose right, in this case, are those who understand their personal responsibility to those of lesser means and there are countless ways that they can address those needs without government imposition. Those who choose wrong must be free to so choose and they must be willing to suffer whatever consequences may result either in this or the next life. Certainly the suffering of those who may have been helped by charitable giving will be answered on the heads of those who choose not to give. That doesn’t mean, however, that those needy won’t still endure the suffering, sadly enough. So it’s up to those willing to choose right to do all in their power to make sure that no one suffers who is within their reach. It’s not the government’s responsibility, nor is it their right. It’s personal.
Now, you said it yourself, “…until our economic situation drastically changes so that everyone can earn enough…” You’re exactly right. That’s the whole point of Romney’s position. He has been very clear that he believes the best solution to changing the economic situation is to allow the free market to control the costs. If government takes its mitts (no pun intended) out of the health care issue and allows the market to do what it does, health care costs will unquestionably go down. We absolutely have to change the economic situation, but putting health care entirely under the control of government is not the way to do it. When did government ever run anything better and more efficiently, for less cost than the private sector? That’s not to say that all government health benefits should be done away, but they can then be reserved for only those in the most dire of need and the rest of us will be able to buy our own according to our will and pleasure.
So, on the heart of the issue, we actually agree. We absolutely have a responsibility to care for those who are less fortunate as much as we are able. But that responsibility lies with me and you and the doctors and hospitals and those of good will who will do everything they can, quietly and sincerely, to help anyone who they know to be in need. The government just wants to ingratiate itself into the middle of that process so it can retain a portion of the proceeds for itself, and my gripe (one of them) with liberals is that they seem to be ok with that. I think it’s a travesty and it’s a crime against the very core of Christianity. If I may make such an odd connection between Christianity and Bill and Ted, Christ expects His followers to be excellent to each other. It won’t do to just let the government take over for us and feel justified that we’re doing our part by supporting unrighteous (and technically unlawful) taxation.
wow…that turned out to be a novel.
I am soooooo far behind on my reading …..
Apologies for not “being here” sooner, but I must say your tolerance of the thoughtless RE: this post was admirable. I seldom venture to the liberal web sites to comment anymore. Such self-centered dingbats — I’m in a low tolerance mode right now.
Keep up the good work!!!!