Another liberal competes in the arena of ideas by opting out of the debate once his ideas are challenged.

About every other week or so I get an email from someone identifying him/herself with the Liberal or “Progressive” Left that reads something like this: “You REALLY believe this shit?”  Or, “You’re an Idiot.”  Or, “Why don’t you just vomit and die.”  There’s usually no reference to any particular article I’ve written, just a little love note from my fans on the other side of the political spectrum who want to show me that they’re a much more caring, compassionate, and reasonable human being than I am. 

My normal response is to send them a polite note back informing them that some idiot has hijacked their email address and is sending out moronic messages under their name, in case they want to follow up on the matter and do something about it.  This is different from my usual response to the fan mail I receive from the Uber-Right.  These messages are longer, much more tightly wound, and reference a whole host of diabolical cabals and secret societies I apparently belong to, in addition to detailing for me exactly how the world is being destroyed by “dangerous extremists” like myself who are ruining the American way of life.  When I’m not being vilified for supporting Jews and selling out to Blacks (actually, another term is used to describe darker skinned people), I’m told that, “It is more important to stop these extremists' internal threats to our way of life so that we can remain strong and free.  It is only then can we be successful against any threats to America including global warming, poverty, pollution, illiteracy, disease, starvation and terrorism.” 

My normal response to these people is to tell them I’ll bring the matter up at the next neocon world-domination planning session I attend, and advise them to loosen the tinfoil a bit around their head until I can report back to them.

Generally, both of these responses tend to end the discussion.  But every so often I get a determined fan on the Left who wants to continue the dialogue.  Actually, “dialogue” may be a poor choice of words.  “Diatribe” is a better description, because I’m just supposed to listen to what they say and not offer any response as contrition for my past pronouncements. But withholding my opinions has never been much of an option for me, so I write back, and they respond again, and before you know it another installment of the Looney Liberal Chronicles literally writes itself.

Our latest purveyor of good cheer and compassion from the Left is a gentleman by the name of John Sodrel, presumably from Kentucky, who goes by the moniker nobushlouisville.  Those of you who’ve read previous installments of the LLC know that I make it a practice not to reveal an individual’s identity so as to focus on what is being said, rather than who said it.  John, however, insisted that I use his actual name so as to “be sure to credit me if you use my stuff or reference me.” 

His reasoning?  According to John, “inclusion in your ‘Looney’ Liberal Chronicles would be something to be proud of! I welcome your nonsensical condemnation and wear it like a badge of honor!”  I am nothing if not amenable, so world, please meet John Sodrel who, by the way, doesn’t like President Bush.

You may be asking yourself what, exactly, is John so proud of?   My introduction to him was a spam email he sent to about 50 Conservative commentators that consisted of a series of links to Media Matters and Moveon.org websites.  There was no real independent commentary or analysis by John, other than his brief introduction that we all had to read these links to understand why the world hated Conservatives. 

My “your email address was hijacked” response got a few return laughs from some on the list, prompting John to reply that no, actually, it was my email address that was hijacked ha ha.  There’s always something a little sad about a response to a barb that goes something like “oh yeah, and so is your mother!”  But what really caught my attention was a note from one of the Dreaded 50 that John had refused to stop spamming when requested to remove their name from his list.  John had Truth on his side, and by God everyone he wrote to was just going to have to read those emails, proper etiquette be damned!  What he had to say was simply too important to be ignored.

Personally, I never found spam to be an effective method to persuade someone of the righteousness of my beliefs.  But then again, I’m not a Liberal, so for me the end doesn’t automatically justify the means.  We all need to respect others’ privacy, and treat our fellow man with respect.  Unless of course you’re a Liberal, which means it’s your duty to force your opinion on everyone else for their own good, whether they want to hear it or not.

To deal with a boorish spammer like John, everyone on the list simply consigned all of John’s future emails to the automated junk-inbox, and let it go at that.  That is, everyone but me.  Never one to not look a gift horse in the mouth, I used John’s research to help write a couple of essays for The Intellectual Conservative.  I knew there was some real insane material out there, and thanks to John I was able to dig even deeper than before. 

While grateful for the free research, after 4 emails that consisted of nothing more than a series of web links, I was beginning to doubt whether John had the ability to express an actual thought.  As thankful as I was for the great material he sent me, I felt in my bones that John had the making of a Harry-junior in him, if just given the opportunity.  So, I decided to drop him a thank you note.  I dashed off a quick reply (unfortunately with a couple of heavy-thumb typos) thanking him for his efforts, and sent along a sample of my first "Looney Liberal Chronicles Postscript" featuring Vermont Lib, and my article on the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming to return the research-favor, telling him to “Keep it coming.  You've yet to shaow any ability to expess an original thought that isn't hotlinked to what another person has told you to think, but I'm holding out hope that you might actually comment on your own so I can add another chapter to my Looney Liberal Chronicles.”

That lit the spark.  John saw his opening to demonstrate the superiority of his political beliefs, and thus another postscript to the Looney Liberal Chronicles was born.

John Sodrel:  Glad to help you produce your bile. Are you going to cut me in on some of your financial gain, if any, as a result? Also, be sure to credit me if you use my stuff or reference me. Since in NeoconWorld black is white and wrong is right, inclusion in your "Looney" Liberal Chronicles would be something to be proud of! I welcome your nonsensical condemnation and wear it like a badge of honor!

Also, let me introduce you to a couple of concepts you apparently aren't familiar with judging from your idiotic "yet to shaow [sic] any ability to expess [sic] an original thought that isn't hotlinked to what another person has told you to think" comment. Unlike simpletons like you who pull stuff out of their ass and make things up without any substantiation or basis in fact, most intelligent people like me like to read — yes, actually read — what other people say, learn from it, and then combine these sources with one's own knowledge/thoughts to build and bolster a case. It's called intellectual curiosity and research — you might want to try them sometime. Ironic that I should have to explain this to an educator and "author" on the oxymoronically-named "Intellectual Conservative" website.

And even though I'm basically now devoting much of my efforts to highlighting and quoting mainstream conservatives who are speaking out and repudiating the corrupt Bush/Cheney agenda, I love how neocons don't know how to react so they attack the messenger ("really idiotic stuff from the Left") instead of even attempting to address the message, which was from the Right; this is intellectual bankruptcy at its worst.

I wonder, as more and more principled conservatives distance themselves every day from the hijacked ideology of the despicable Bush/Cheney administration and its proponents, who are neocons going to have left other than their ever-shrinking choir to preach to and how are they going to allege to be attacking "the Left" when it's actually the vast majority of the population?

Keep enjoying the Kool-Aid in your fantasy world.  Regards, John Sodrel

I could almost feel the love radiating from John’s words.  He was kind enough to respond to “simpletons” like me who just make things up with no research or substantiation.  This of course implied that John was at least a tad familiar with some of my actual work.  But knowing how liberals think, and having recently gone through this same issue with Vermont Lib in the first LLC Postscript, I knew there was a better than even chance that John had actually never read a single word I wrote (essay titles don’t count).  So I sent him the following message reacting to his above comments:

Phil:  John:  This is wonderful stuff, in a sad sort of way.  I give you an A for effort, but a D- on content.

I’m always amazed by people who pounce on typos as if they are a substantive issue.  Having read some of the “John Sodrel” comments that a quick Google search produces, I’d be careful about throwing stones at glass houses.  It’s never been my style to point these kinds of things out, even when the Looney Left is responsible.  For me, it’s an issue of class (or the lack of it for those who perseverate on things like this).

Having read your reply, I fully appreciate why no one will talk to you, thus requiring you to constantly spam people.  I’m not surprised that when I offered you an opportunity for dialogue, you refused to read what I sent you (especially after I read and reacted to yours).  Truth-searching only works one way for the Left.

As for pulling facts out of thin air, you notice that the first footnote in the Global Warming article came from the New York Times.  All others sources I used were documented with links back to the source.  You’d know this if you actually read what I sent before critiquing it.  But then again, that requires effort and thought.

The Looney Liberal Chronicles are public domain — by design.  So there’s no “financial gain.”  I will most certainly credit you by name and make sure everyone knows all about you personally if I ever write about you.  Normally, I withhold the individual’s name and simply debate their ideas, but since you want the personal acclaim I’m glad to highlight your foolishness.  Unfortunately, you’ve given me nothing substantive to work with so far.  Hotlinks to other people’s thoughts only showcase your own inability to form a coherent thought.  And dumb comments about things you haven’t actually read, while entertaining, only go so far.  You can of course follow the path of Vermont Lib and just keep on saying dumber and dumber things.  If I have a spare moment I might consider doing something on you, but no promises.  I get a lot better stuff from other people who can actually think.

Oh, and one last thing.  If you actually knew anything about me, you’d know why calling me a neocon puts you in the same league with the far Right Wing nuts who also attack my writings.  This of course requires you to actually think again before responding, so I’m not holding out a lot of hope that you’ll even understand what I’m saying, let alone seek that knowledge out.  I wouldn’t want to do anything to take away from your efforts to expose conservatism by actually reading what individual conservatives write.  If you have a better adjective than “idiotic” to describe someone who states things emphatically they don’t actually know, and refuses to read anything sent to them when they claim to be searching for the truth, I’m open to suggestions.  (Note:  “Liberal” and “Progressive” have already been taken.)

I’ll give you one more shot at actually saying something before I just consign your emails to the default-junk box, and like the others you spammed, never look at them.  You’ll keep expending wasted energy feeling good about yourself for sticking it to those dastardly conservatives.  Of course your efforts will produce nothing of value, but like all good Liberals, it’s intentions not deeds that matter. All the best, Phil

Well, John was having none of this!  In a terse reply back to me, he proved me wrong by dissecting my Global Warming piece and highlighting each and every fallacy he found. 

Well, I’m sure that’s what John intended to do.  But in actual fact, his entire response to something I actually wrote (vs. what he assumed I probably might have/would have/may have said about some topic or another) was as follows:

John Sodrel:  Let's see. Who should I believe? Thousands upon thousands of esteemed scientists with no agenda other than knowledge from all over the world who have devoted much of their lives to studying this, or Phillip Jackson and a tiny handful of industry-funded hacks and ideological propagandists? Hmmmm, tough call.

Admittedly, we don't know to what extent exactly man is contributing to the unequivocal fact of global warming, but anyone who thinks that 70 million tons of man-created crap pumped into the atmosphere every day doesn't have any effect at all is an utter moron!

I look forward to your next article "proving" that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old.

John Sodrel

I was encouraged by the response, in a perverse sort of way.  At least John actually expressed a thought.  Unfortunately, having a real thought, and simply writing a bunch of words on a computer to express an alleged thought, are not the same thing as I once again pointed out.

Phil:  Okay, this is a little better.  I’m getting some marginally useful material for my Looney Liberal Chronicles.  But the jury is still out.  I can’t just do another “Vermont Lib” Looney Liberal Chronicle, so you’ve got to do more than simply rant and rave and call me names. 

I wrote a 30,000 word heavily footnoted essay on global warming, and you respond with about 100 words calling me a moron.   (Name calling is okay — I know that’s the primary vehicle for the Left to “debate.”  I do it too.  The difference is, you use it as a substitute for addressing the substance of what I say.  I use it to describe the utter vacuity of your lack of original thought).

So let’s have a look at your analysis of my essay.

1. “I look forward to your next article ‘proving’ that the Earth is only 6,000 or so years old.”

** Sorry to disappoint.  If you bothered to read my “Politics of Science and Religion,” you’d know that I specifically reject a literal biblical view of creation.  I know this surprises you because your core assumption is that every conservative is a Christian fundamentalist hell-bent on imposing his religion on you.  Then again, you’d know that I reject this too if you read my essay on Abortion politics.  But that would again entail effort on your part.

2. “Let's see….who should I believe? Thousands upon thousands of esteemed scientists with no agenda other than knowledge from all over the world who have devoted much of their lives to studying this, or Phillip Jackson and a tiny handful of industry-funded hacks and ideological propagandists?”

*** So, what part of my analysis of the Natural Resource Defense Council did you find incorrect?  I’m presuming of course you actually read that far; but I presume too much.  Rather than repeat it all again here, why not just go back to my essay and read past the first page.  You see that I don’t use “industry” sources or ideologically-tainted sources (except, of course, for extensively quoting the NRDC, which is on your side).  And to further address another gratuitous slur that you’ve made with no effort to substantiate it, I receive no funding from anyone for my writing.  Interesting, isn’t it, that the people who rant and rave the most about “Conservative lies and distortions” are the ones who most quickly resort to these tactics themselves, instead of actually addressing the point a Conservative is making.

3. “Admittedly, we don't know to what extent exactly man is contributing to the unequivocal fact of global warming …”

*** So why then are you making unequivocal statements about it?

4. “… but anyone who thinks that 70 million tons of man-created crap pumped into the atmosphere every day doesn't have any effect at all is an utter moron!”

*** The subject of pollution is not the same subject as global warming.  And, last time I looked, “crap” was not an airborne pollutant.  Would you like to be more specific, and then we can discuss cause-effect relationships, lag times, cyclical patterns, and a myriad of other factors that influence the climate? 

If you bothered to read my essay before critiquing it (again, I know I’m asking a lot from you), you’ll see that I don’t automatically dispute that some global warming may be occurring.  I simply ask how it is measured, what precisely causes it, how man fits into that equation, and what we should do about it (other than make a bunch of hysterical statements that serve a specific political agenda, as I also documented at length).

John, the D- hasn’t risen any higher.  I said before that I need more than “dumb,” name-calling histrionics to write another chapter in the Chronicles.  You’ve still offered nothing of any substance, and certainly no original thoughts.  You may disagree with what I say, but at least I say something and make an effort to support my positions!  You don’t seem to be able to do any of this.

Let me know if I’m writing to a 15-year-old boy, and I’ll go a little easier on you because my expectations will be lowered appropriately.

All the best, Phil

Well, as you can imagine, these were fighting words to John.  I had questioned his character, and his scholarship — not by assuming things about him, but by actually responding to things he wrote.  I waited anxiously to get a further critique of a substantive issue (like Global Warming) that I had raised with him, or at the very least, have him set me straight about the fundamental facts he used to support his core beliefs. 

John’s second reply was a bit longer than his first.  But as to its substance, well, you be the judge.

John Sodrel:  Mr. Smug, Just so you know, I read every bit of dis/misinformation that you sent me.

Now, there's so much that's idiotic, wrong, or actually referring back to you about what you've said below that I don't have the time nor energy nor desire to bother refuting it. I prefer spending my valuable time reading and learning from credible sources rather than suffering fools with a minuscule minority of zealots. I've learned that trying to have an intelligent discussion with those on the far right is tantamount to talking to a brick wall, so what's the point? I'll just keep on sending out emails nobody reads referencing conservatives (and others) who repudiate the corrupt Bush/Cheney agenda, and you can keep on writing lengthy apologist disinformation for a website nobody reads.

However, I will give you one last lesson before I go since you do claim to do "research," as it were. When quoting other people/sources, it is accepted practice to use "[sic]" following errors so as to differentiate between the original author and the person doing the quoting, and this has nothing to do whatsoever with "pouncing on typos" as you sophomorically claim. It's always been my style to write correctly, even when the radical Right is the audience. For me, it's an issue of intelligence (or the lack of it for those who try to make an issue of it).

Toodles, John Sodrel

Always the kindly uncle and educator, I replied to John with a bit of friendly advice.

Phil:  John: A quick helpful suggestion to start.  When trying to disprove a claim that you lack class, it’s usually not wise to start off your comment making up a disparaging name to address the person you’re communicating with.  You’ll note that despite my disagreement with you, I haven’t found it necessary to treat you similarly.  This gets back to my earlier point that when you take away the Left’s ability to use insults and smears, they have precious little substance to say about the facts of an issue.

You are beginning to interest me though in writing an article about you.  As I said before, I need more than ranting and raving to justify the effort, since there’s nothing particularly new or interesting about that when debating a liberal.  But when we get into the area of outright lying, then it becomes interesting. 

I was amused to see that “Just so you know, I read every bit of dis/misinformation that you sent me.”  This was the same thing Vermont Lib said to me when I challenged him.  Of course, it was just as easy to disprove his claim as it is to question yours.  You critiqued my Global Warming essay by referencing things that weren’t in it, challenging conclusions I never drew, and characterizing my sources inaccurately.  All this in only 100 words or so to respond to a 30,000 word heavily footnoted essay.  Now you tell me that you’ve actually read every word, but won’t actually respond to anything I wrote.  I offer you a chance to have a dialogue, and you tell me that you won’t because as a member of the Right, I won’t agree to have a dialogue with you.

I think you’ve got a tiny little problem with being truthful John.  Actually, it’s more than a tiny problem.  I called your bluff and offered you an opportunity to educate me with an exchange of ideas, and the thought so horrified you that you’ve fallen back on the old canard of telling me you have so much to say that you can’t actually say it!

So given the opportunity to think, your response is Conservatives are “zealots,” you’ll keep sending out emails that no one reads, and Bush/Cheney suck.  Such is what passes for intelligent discourse from the Left.  You can’t present your point of view intelligently because there is nothing to present.  When given the opportunity, you spend 150 words telling me about the proper way to use “sic” in a sentence, and only 100 words to give a non-response response to my global warming essay.

I can’t promise that when I write about you I’ll make you famous.  But when I do, I’ll certainly let people have an opportunity to see who and what you really are.

All the best, Phil

It was at this point that John had had enough, and called an end to our discussion.  Confident that his ideas had bested mine in a one-to-one exchange, John did what a good Liberal usually does at this point.  He declared unilateral victory, and promptly left the room, metaphorically speaking.  Of course, he had a parting shot for me on the way out the door.

John Sodrel:  You're so pompous, it's hilarious.  I can hardly wait to see what you write/spin about me! Can you do it soon, please? The anticipation is practically killing me!  Get busy!  John

I was beginning to think my reference to a 15-year-old boy may be correct, at least from an intellectual and emotional maturity standpoint.  But then again, I’ve known many Liberals my own age who still debate like a twelve-year-old, so who really knows?

Anyway, I sought to assure John that I’d do everything I could to make his wish come true.  And, rather than edit his words (which is not my standard practice), I was more than happy to treat everyone to the original exchange in all its magnificence and glory.

Phil:  John, it'll be your own words, just as you wrote them.  A lack of substance and all.  I'll do my best to get it out quickly.  Just keep checking that dastardly Intellectual Conservative website you cite as a prime example of everything wrong with the world — but never actually read. 
 
And actually, while it will be about you because you insist that I give you full credit for the ideas you never actually express, in keeping with the tradition of the Looney Liberal Chronicles you've also never read, the main focus will be on the way you think and the thoughts you struggle to convey.  That's the real source of comedy.
 
All the best, Phil

There were no further responses from John, and no more spam to date.  Having been offered the opportunity to present a coherent thought and debate its merits, John — like the good Liberal he was — opted to “toodle” his way on to other more important (and less mentally taxing) matters befitting the superior intellect he boasted.

I’m glad to have helped John earn his “badge of honor” by highlighting his complete and utter inability to discuss or defend any of the beliefs he holds.  It’s the epitome of all that modern day Liberalism holds dear: form over substance, good intentions over actual accomplishments, and an unwavering search for Truth and Justice (so long as it doesn’t require any effort or critical thought on their part that conflicts with their preconceived judgments).

Like Harry, Vermont Lib, and the other cast of characters from the Looney Liberal Chronicles, we owe John Sodrel a tremendous debt of gratitude.  Without them, who would be there to constantly remind us what Liberalism really is, and what Liberals actually do?