The New Seven Dirty Words that must be avoided to engage in proper dialogue in the 21st century.
A few years back George Carlin identified seven words that could not be spoken in public or polite circles. Two identified parts of a woman’s body; two described biological acts; one described the male-female reproductive process, and two were twentieth-century euphemisms that both ended in the word fragment “sucker.”
By today’s standards, many of these words seem pretty tame. Sure, you’ll still get your mouth washed out if your Mom overhears you using them, but a couple of them have become almost mainstream. One was even incorporated into a somewhat famous political button distributed at the 1984 Democrat convention hailing the selection of “Fritz” Mondale and the unique anatomical features of his running mate, Geraldine Ferraro.
As for the others, I’ve heard the two biological/scatological references in business meetings as well as polite conversation, usually emanating from my mouth, but volunteered by others as well. Only three of the seven words still have any real social stigma attached to them; that is, when used in mixed company. I can’t speak for women, but put a group of guys together in the locker room or watching a ball game, and all seven of the words can be heard with unrelenting frequency.
To be true to Carlin’s main point, it wasn’t so much that these words couldn’t be uttered without condemnation. Rather, it was that they couldn’t be broadcast on TV. Today, however, with the advent of cable and Direct TV, my television set receives them just fine. These aren’t the public airwaves, though, where some standards are still maintained. However, thanks to Bill Clinton, while we cannot speak the four-letter word on TV that connotes sexual reproduction, we can certainly name the male appendage that contributes to this process.
While the seven still have a certain stigma attached to them, as a society we’ve certainly “evolved” in our thinking to allow just as meaningful substitutes. The nickname for the man who invented the first practical flushing toilet is now commonly used on broadcast TV as a substitute for the word George Carlin originally identified in his forbidden seven. Moreover, we no longer need to say “PO’d”; the full phrase can be uttered. And, equally descriptive substitutes have been found for the remaining words Carlin highlighted.
So it is we come to the first few years of the twenty-first century. Today, the controversy is no longer over whether an occasional profanity might slip into conversation broadcast over the public airwaves. Sure, the FCC will fine you if you make an egregious slip. But after a long, drawn-out appeal process which boosts your ratings in the interim as people flock to that show to see what all the fuss is about, the FCC will come off its initially high penalty and substitute a proverbial slap on the wrist instead. In a worst case scenario, even if the fine remains high, all that extra advertising revenue from an increased market share will more than compensate for any penalty.
But, occasional verbal lapses aside (along with its close cousin, the unintended wardrobe malfunction), there are several very real things that cannot be said today over the public airwaves — or for that matter, even in polite conversation — without risking immediate condemnation. Uttering any one of these words in an improper context will bring down the wrath of the keepers of public virtue who troll the airwaves and blogosphere alike, looking to censor anyone who strays from the path of accepted public speech whose definition comes to us courtesy of the Looney Left, the Democrat Party, ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and the rest of the arbiters of public dialogue.
And so it is with great trepidation that I highlight the New Seven Dirty Words that must be avoided when engaging in proper dialogue in the 21st century.
1. Wrong. As in, “You are wrong.” This is a narrow, judgmental, bigoted swipe at people who have their own equally-valid definitions of morality (or choose not to have any morality at all). Just who are you anyway to say what is right or wrong? It’s not like there’s some Book out there, or God-given universal moral code, that would help decide this. We don’t need any God-based, or scripture-based morality to tell us what is right or wrong when we have human consensus (as embodied in the United Nations) to handle these matters for us.
2. Patriotism. As in, “I disagree with your policies,” which of course to a Democrat or the MSM means, “I question your patriotism.” Point out that a certain candidate for president was in error about the surge in Iraq, and this is nothing more than an obvious smokescreen to question his love for our country. Patriotism is the last refuge of the uncritical thinker who cannot understand that putting your country’s needs ahead of your own is just a ploy to elect more Republican politicians, except of course for JFK; but that was a long time ago and doesn’t count since you’re questioning my patriotism by raising the issue.
3. Jesus Christ. Or, the more generic term God. Everyone knows that God can’t exist because science can’t prove He does. And besides, the Constitution forbids any mention of God. Period, end of discussion. (Well, I’m sure that’s what the founders really meant when they said that the State shall establish no official religion.) Invoking the name of Jesus Christ or God to support/defend your choices or actions is anathema to the common sense of public decency, and cannot be tolerated.
However, as a side note, it is okay to speak openly and freely about Allah, and to use public funds to provide separate facilities or washing areas for people who follow that religion. Fanatical, pissed off (see, “PO’d” is no longer required) practitioners of this faith tend to kill apostates and non-believers by cutting off their heads with a rusty saw. By contrast, when Christians get mad, they just pray for your salvation. The politically correct may be hypocritical, but they aren’t stupid when it comes to understanding the consequences of opposing Christianity and insulting Mohammed, Allah be Praised please don’t hurt me.
4. Human Being. As in, it’s not a “choice” or an “undifferentiated tissue mass.” It’s a “human being.” The undifferentiated tissue mass may have grown in a few weeks to resemble a human being, but it can’t live life on its own . . . yet. So it’s not really a child . . . yet. And calling it one would just hurt the feelings of the mother who just killed it. (Note to file: Update my living will so the grandkids don’t automatically ship me off to the organ-donor farm if I’m temporarily unconscious and can’t feed myself, or need a respirator to breathe because I have a serious case of pneumonia. Killing me off may be logically seen as a post-natal abortion because I can’t eat or breathe on my own, but I may not be quite ready to go . . . yet.)
5. Win. As in, “We need to win the war before we withdraw our troops.” When you have winners you have losers as well, and it isn’t nice to be the only one on top. That’s why it’s especially important today that the USA, as the world’s only true superpower, not bully other people like Saddam Hussein. Sure he was a tyrant who slaughtered innocent people, broke the treaty that ended the first Gulf war, shot at our airplanes and did other nasty things to us and our allies. But we have the United Nations to handle matters like that. If 14 resolutions won’t do the trick, then pass number 15. Just look how well Russia is responding today to international pressure to leave Georgia!
Finally, just imagine what the world would think of us — particularly other Middle Eastern despots — if the US didn’t leave Iraq until the war was won. Think how unfair that would be to countries like Iran and Syria who have their own national interests that would be held in check.
6. Proof. As in, “exactly what proof do you have that man is responsible for global warming?” Some things are just too important to wait around proving the idea correct. We all knew in the 1970s that the earth was entering a new Ice Age, and we needed to immediately pump more CO2 into the atmosphere to warm it. Today, we all know that the earth is actually warming, even though it’s been getting somewhat cooler the last few years. We need to reduce our collective carbon footprints (or pay indulgences to one of Al Gore’s companies to continue living a first world lifestyle while everyone else sacrifices).
The earth has gone through natural climate changes for billions of years, but we know that man is solely responsible for the trend we think we see since the late 1800s. Just don’t ask anyone to prove it. Where “scientific consensus” exists, proof is unnecessary. Or worse, subversive to the best interests of the planet as Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore define it.
7. Hussein. As in, “Barack Hussein Obama.” Sure it’s his middle name. And sure you could ridicule “George Herbert Walker Bush” as an out of touch politician with a patrician-sounding name, or make fun of Republican candidate for president Pierre DuPont a few years back when he wanted to be called “Pete” instead of his legal name “Pierre.” But if Barack X. Obama doesn’t want anyone to use his middle name, then that’s where the line gets drawn. If Barack wanted us to use his middle name, he would have given us all permission to do so. Not to say that Obama isn’t proud of his middle name or wants to distance himself from it. He’d openly embrace “Hussein” if it wasn’t for all you redneck blue collar Democrats who would read something into the name that isn’t there.
If you’re really uncertain about any of this, just ask Bill Clinton or Bob Kerry to explain it to you. Or just drop the middle name all together, and call him B.O.
You are now armed with the proper arsenal of words to make you a good global citizen in the 21st century.
Jackson-ic@hotmail.com
http://www.scifi-jackson.com/
Read more articles by Phillip Ellis Jackson
But I don't want to be a good global citizen. I have, however been looking for the FATWAH condemming BH Obama as an apostate and calling for the faithful to eliminate him due to this grievous violation of his born faith the peaceful religion of Islam, may Allah be blessed.
It seems to me that the need to write this article poses the basis for questioning the intellectual capacity of our electorate. Variable mores are used only when the electorate allows it. Therefore we may be moving to just the leadership we have earned. It is a glorious path that could be titled A Search for the Way to 4th World Status or how America became the dumping ground for the world's tired, poor, and the wretched refuse of everywhere else because we allowed it and produced an environment where these new entrants were offered many free things with no responsibility required. Or to quote West Side Story "Everything is Free in America"!
Comment by Mickey G | August 22, 2008
My apoligies to Emma Lazarus for the paraphrase from the New Colossus
Comment by Mickey G | August 22, 2008
You tend to use an awful lot of words to say not very much other than that you are a conservative crank who hates liberals, Democrats, and secular government, Mr. Jackson.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | August 22, 2008
Dr. K. Always nice to hear a reasoned, well-thought out rebuttal to what I write.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 22, 2008
By the way, the opposite of a “secular government” is a theocracy. Why would anyone want to see theocracy imposed in the US … unless of course it was headed up by a Messiah.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 22, 2008
Science can't prove Jesus Christ existed? Wow! Can science prove Abe Lincoln existed? How about Alexander the Great, or Attila the Hun? Not them either? Well, they must not have existed either.
I wonder if science can prove that it exists.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 22, 2008
P
Great article, as usual.
I would add a comment on the seven (or whatever) necessary modifiers to certain words.
It’s not a new idea, by any means. About 25 years ago a Conservative thinker (some would say that the modifier, “Conservative” can, by definition, never be used with “thinker” much less “Intellectual”) did a Lexis/Nexis search (no Google then) of the phrases “Ultra Conservative” & “Ultra Liberal”. He got several zillion hits for the former & about five for the latter, in each case, used to soften a description of a communist!
My suggested seven modifiers including “ultra” would be:
“Fundamentalist”, modifying the characterization of any person expressing an opinion which is to the Right of Fr Pflager.
“Extremist”, modifying the characterization of any person expressing an opinion which is to the Right of Frank Rich
“Nut”, as in “wingnut”, a suffix modifying the characterization of any person expressing an opinion which is to the Right of that of Keith Olbermann;
“Windfall”, modifying any reference to the profit earned by a right-wing capitalist as opposed to, say, a Hollywood Mogul,
“Robber Baron” modifying any reference to any corporate executive except one in a Media Giant.
“Advocate” modifying the characterization of an ultra Left-wing bomb throwing fundamentalist, extremist nut.
Comment by From Inwood | August 22, 2008
I think that the word which noone, even golf commentators are allowed to say is PROBLEM. It's been totally replaced by the nebulous ISSUE which is meaningless. An example is Judy Rankings saying that Natalie Golbus has travel 'issues' with her luggage during a flight. Words no longer have meaning!
Comment by kiwikit | August 23, 2008
"Why would anyone want to see theocracy imposed in the US … unless of course it was headed up by a Messiah."
I think it is interesting that it is folks like you, on the so-called right, who keep bringing up the term messiah in relationship to Obama. We liberals and Democrats simply think of him as a leader capable of inspiring the nation the way no politician has in the past couple of decades or so. Has cynicism really dragged us down so far that this idea cannot be accepted at face value?
Additionally, some of the religious conservatives among you are also attempting to paint him as the anti-christ. Which is it? It would be hard to truly be both.
Further on this point, let's not forget that it is your own pride and joy, President Bush, who claimed a "personal relationship with God" in order to galvanize the Christian vote early on, but I don't recall anyone accusing him of messianic pretensions. One has to wonder whether God told him to go into Iraq to precipitate the deaths of hundreds of thousands of heathens, or that torture was OK as long as it wasn't done to American citizens, or whether God suggested he encourage the Georgians to incite Russia, while already militarily tied down in two other wars, or even whether God whispered into his ear that loyalty was more important than competence in staffing his administration.
Regarding "winning" a multi-sided civil war in a country on the other side of the planet, what extent of lost life (not your own, I might add) and and financial ruin are you willing to endure before you cry "uncle" and admit that we will never win as long as we are perceived as occupiers in a foreign land. The European powers learned this in the last century…do we really have to take a fall as large as some of them did before we learn it, too?
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | August 23, 2008
I like this game. Can anyone play?
1. Racist, as in you are a racist.
2. Treason, as in the confederacy was treason (I'm just taking a wild guess that you're either a southerner or a sympathizer).
3. Impeach, as in, well, you get the idea.
4. Liar, as in lying lies and the liars who tell them.
5. Liberty, as in "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." — Benjamin Franklin
6. Mistake, as in "I made a mistake" can conservatives ever admit when they're wrong… uh, incorrect?
7. Compromise, as in working together to make laws that are reflective of the majority but respectful of the minority.
Comment by economicfreedom | August 23, 2008
Dr Kilovolt wants conservatives to defend a position that no one here has taken, i.e. Obama as the supposed anti-christ.
Apparently, Dr K either doesn't understand the concept of mocking, or else he doesn't think that anyone is allowed to mock Obama. Conservatives mock Obama because he so richly deserves it, sir. Well spoken, but saying nothing. Appealing, like a cotton candy. A leader, but he has never lead.
Some conservatives call him the messiah because so many of Obama's supporters swoon at his every word. He's going to save us all from those eeeevil republicans. Change, hope. A new day, yessir.
It bothers Dr K that Bush is a professing Christian, but it doesn't bother him that Obama is the same. Whatever happened to separation of church and state, anyway?
As to the rest of what Dr K has to say, nothing but a rehash of leftist talking points, with about as much substance as Obama. That ain't saying much.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 23, 2008
economicfreedom is clearly a brilliant thinker. D'oh!
Comment by Mountain Man | August 23, 2008
Dr. K: You are the one who accused me of hating "secular government", the opposite of which is loving a non-secular government, otherwise known as a theocracy. Don’t hold me responsible for your stupidity. You’re the one who made the original statement, not me.
I also challenge you to point to one statement I’ve made where I call B.O. the anti-Christ. It’s a rather weak way to argue when you try to hold me accountable for things other unnamed people may or may not have said, particularly when I’m not shy about voicing my own beliefs. Attacking me by inventing words I never uttered is a vapid way to act, but sadly not untypical of your typical posts.
Your shallowness is also typical of the way one argues that having a “personal relationship with God” means that God “told” Bush to invade Iraq. Here’s a quote from Obama in an August 2008 interview with the Chicago Sun Times: “When I asked Obama to describe himself spiritually, he said he was a Christian, that he has a ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ’.” http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/1090778,CST-NWS-fals05.article Are you concerned that Obama will now carry out God’s Holy Orders and stop aborting innocent children, or do something equally offensive to liberals? Are you condemning all people who have a strong religious faith, or just the people you disagree with politically. Actually, no need to answer that question. We already know.
There’s only so much ignorance and stupidity I can suffer through on a given day, and your latest attempt at political analysis has pushed me way past that quota. Please find someone with more than a second grade understanding of American politics to write your future responses, and/or someone who isn’t as painfully dumb as you are to say that I hate secular government without understanding what this means, or invent things I never said to react to, or condemn anyone who has a “personal relationship with God” — like Bush — while exempting anyone who has a “personal relationship with God” — like Obama — from the same criticism, and so on, and so on.
Well, it’s back to watching B.O. and his co-agent of “change”, the plagiarist who was elected to the US Senate during the Nixon Administration and would not retract the statement 4 months ago that Obama was unqualified to be President, talk about how rotten the country is while they drive around in SUVs and fly on private jets. Yep, B.O. is certainly a “new” kind of politician.
Just curious: exactly what are you a “Dr.” of, or is that just an honorific title you bestow upon yourself as part of some outcome based educational process?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2008
economicfreedom
Yes, I am a southerner.
I take it you're new to the IC, otherwise you wouldn't have asked me about the racism of the fringe Right (which I've written about and condemned extensively and explicitly — see “The Undisguised Racism of the Far Far Right” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/11/in-their-own-words-the-undisguised-racism-of-the-far-far-far-right/ as well as in “The True Conservative Racial Purity Quiz” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/08/the-%e2%80%9ctrue-conservative%e2%80%9d-racial-purity-quiz/), or the treason of the south, which I condemned at length in section 3 of http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/ and in numerous posts where I’ve been called a “race-traitor” for supporting Lincoln’s right to wage war against the South. The article I cited on treason also speaks at the end in great detail about not imposing religious beliefs on public policy. Even though I am personally and morally opposed to abortion, I argue that we must respect the decision of the Court and work to educate the public to accept a new standard rather than force it on them (i.e. respecting legal rights, even with something as heinous as aborting children).
All you really needed to do to answer your own questions was to look at what I actually wrote in the IC archives. Now let’s see if you’re man enough to admit you have no f**king idea what you’re talking about when you made your unfounded charges about what I believe.
In other words, are you honest enough to admit your “mistake” (your #6), or are you just another hack who shoots off his mouth with “wild guesses” about someone (like Dr. K routinely does) without having the slightest idea what you’re talking about?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2008
Dr. Kilovolt (a pseudonym denoting superpowers?) has chastised us ‘so-called conservatives’ for the effrontery of disrespecting his peerless leader. Yo! Killjoy! It’s an election year and we’re bound to knock your guy just like you (the left) have been knocking our guys! That’s called fair turn-about. But, since you bring up Obama’s inspirational credentials, let’s, by all means, explore that.
in•spire, Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French inspirer, from Latin inspirare, from in- + spirare to breathe, 14th century transitive verb1 a: to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration b: to exert an animating, enlivening, or exalting influence on c: to spur on : IMPEL, MOTIVATE d: AFFECT 2 aarchaic : to breathe or blow into or upon barchaic : to infuse (as life) by breathing3 a: to communicate to an agent supernaturally b: to draw forth or bring out 4: INHALE 15 a: BRING ABOUT, OCCASION b: INCITE 6: to spread (rumor) by indirect means or through the agency of another
Let’s look at some inspirational leaders. Obviously, Jesus Christ would have to be right at the top of the list because he has ‘inspired’ more people than any other to follow his example. Mohammed comes a close second and within a shorter time frame. Of course, Mohammed built on a base (at least in the West) largely prepared by Greeks, Romans, and Christians, and many of his early ‘converts’ were Christian and Jewish monotheists; making his successors primary job one of usurping the creation (constituency) of another. Contrasting Jesus with Mohammed, we have one dispensing an un-coerced uplifting and liberating message while the other dispensed a message of abject surrender. Going back a bit, we have Alexander the Great who not only conquered a vast territory but ‘inspired’ his followers with the transformative idea of ‘pan-Hellenism’ that briefly fused Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Persians and Indians into a single political entity. Now fast-forward a thousand years to Charles Martel with Europe teetering on the brink of Muslim annihilation. Martel inspired a handful of contentious Franks to follow his lead and, thus, changed the course of history. Jump ahead two generations and we find Europe not only saved but making a comeback under the steady and inspirational leadership of his grandson Charlemagne. Lionides who convinced reluctant Spartans to die denying passage to Xerxes much larger army, Joan of Arc the peasant girl who saved France, Cromwell the charismatic yet obscure commoner who rose to power to overthrow absolute rule in Britain in an age when nobodies (no matter how gifted) ever achieved a thing without patronage, Elizabeth I the accidental queen who held onto power against a backdrop of male ambitions, anti-protestant conspiracies and growing impotence to return her nation to consequence through the quite real and well-earned love of her people, Peter the Great of Russia who transformed (through hard work and constant goading) his backward country into a modern power, and Ghandi the Indian who hastened the end of British rule in his country. Which of these best exemplifies this inspirational quality you find in Obama?
But, let’s not forget there is a dark side to inspiration. Hitler, Mao Ze Dung, Attila, Pol Pot, Poncho Villa were also ‘inspirational’ to their followers. Is this the kind of inspiration we can expect from Obama?
FDR, JFK, Reagan, and Gorbachev inspired others through the power of communication. They did not do this by endlessly reciting cliché phrases of hope, change and progress. They did so by articulating what they wished us to do in clear, concise terms anyone could decipher without glossing over the risks. Can you honestly say Obama has laid out a plan that does this? If you have, please explain it to us. But, if Obama is the ‘inspiring’ leader you say he is, why is it you have to explain his plan for him? I have read through his proposals and listened to his speeches and there is nothing new in them, nothing I would buy into or wish for my country, and nothing that makes the least sense.
One thing we can say for sure is you can’t predict who will be an inspiring leader and who won’t until after you see the result. Who, so far, has Obama inspired? Well, we have a mass of far left liberals plus the usually stolid African-American voting block that is so desirous of a liberal-black victory they are willing to overlook inability, disqualifications, and character. The more moderate part of his base (moderate liberals) is starting to fade. If inspiration is all it takes, wouldn’t this support be still growing? That’s not to say he won’t win and continue to receive unearned adoration from his core faithful, it just undermines the charisma-thing is of his making.
A better measure of inspirational capacity is the ability to sway your opposition. So far, I haven’t seen much evidence of Obama swaying anyone opposed to his agenda, have you? Obama has not led a major moment as did MLK or even Malcomb-X. He has not brought to the floor of any legislative body in which he served a major piece of legislation having a significant impact on the lives of millions of Americans. He has not led any charges up San Juan Hill or Capital Hill or Selma Alabama. He has caused no paradigm shift in race relations or the way Americans think or operate. And he has not even caused some slight movement in the way Congress votes on any given measure. All he has done is make speeches and carry banners others raised before him.
Clearly, having a capacity to inspire others is not, in itself a reason to choose one candidate over another. After all, Obama might inspire us right into the poor-house, an uncivil war, or mindless obedience. Nor is a lack of charisma one to disqualify a candidate. To the contrary, in free societies, we don’t look for a leader who merely inspires us because ultimately we don’t want so much to be led as put someone put in charge of the minutia of government who takes his lead from us. Therefore, the only reason we might choose a leader whose sole qualification is his ability to inspire others is we no longer wish to remain free. To be honest, there are no greatly inspiring leaders on the right at present either. The problem we have with the left respecting Obama is he is being touted purely on the grounds of this ‘inspiring’ quality and little else. This is an over-hyped non-message; and about as lame as it gets without something more than ‘he speaks what liberals devoutly want to hear’.
Comment by Bob Stapler | August 23, 2008
Sorry, I misspoke. Bush doesn't just have a personal relationship with God, but additionally claims that God tells him what to do, including, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq," among other golden nuggets. Am I the only one that finds this frightening?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Jackson, you are my token conservative. I did not say that you said Obama was the anti-christ, but rather was looking to you to explain to me how conservatives in general expect to have it both ways, some calling him the a-c, and some calling him a messiah. Similarly, how do conservatives expect to get away with calling Obama elitist, when McCain is the one with seven houses and $100 million in his wife's bank account?
Like it or not, Bob Stapler, Barack Obama has inspired Democrats to vote for him in large numbers. In the primary when he ran for the US Senate in Illinois, he received more votes than all the Republican candidates combined. He is also raising record amounts of money from unprecedented numbers of donors. There isn't much point in my transcribing his talking points, just as I have little interest in reading your repetition of the conservative ones. If you want to know about his ideas and his programs, go to the web page and read for yourself.
http://www.barackobama.com
Finally, to answer your question, Mr. Jackson, as with radio personality Dr. Science, I am not actually a doctor. The pseudonym is an homage to a personal hero, Dr. Megavolt. Who really is a doctor.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | August 23, 2008
Yes, I always look to the Guardian for unbiased reports, right after I consult the Huffington Post, Daily Kos and Moveon.org.
As I thought, you've invented a title for yourself instead of going through the difficult process of actually acquiring the education to earn the designation "Dr." No wonder your sources of information and accompanying analytical thought are so sophomoric.
This is really the best the Left can do to rebut anything I say — Sam, Taguba, and the self-aggrandizing pseudo-“Dr.”?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2008
By the way, for those of you looking in on this discussion, it a hallmark of the Left that — when they're not inventing words you didn't say and/or offering nonsensical criticisms like "hating secular governments" — when they cite a 3 year old source to support their bilge, it takes about two seconds to find the real truth of the issue. Namely,
Nabil Shaath, who was the Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said in a BBC interview that Bush had added: “God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.” Shaath has since modified his original account of Bush’s words during the Israeli- Palestinian summit at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in 2003. Both he and Mahmoud Abbas, then the Palestinian prime minister and who was also present at the meeting, now say Bush did not claim that he had “felt God’s words coming to me”. … Stephen Mansfield, author of a bestselling book called The Faith of George W Bush, believes the Palestinian officials might have misinterpreted Bush’s “standard” remarks about praying for guidance: “He has often said that he prays about something and senses that he should go forward, which is not quite the same as saying, to put it sarcastically, that angels appeared and the voice of God sounded in his bedroom.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article576481.ece
Of course, knowing that the original source of the charge has recanted or revised the accusation doesn’t deter the Left from ignoring that fact and bringing the charge up again, which is why no one takes anything they say seriously. And it’s why, as I pointed out before, listing to them is only good for its comedic value because genuine discussion is impossible with a fool or a deliberate fraud who purposefully distorts the facts of a matter.
This is why it’s always good to find out if the self aggrandizing fool who claims to be a “Dr.” actually has the credentials to back that claim up, or just gives himself a title to make himself feel important.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 23, 2008
Really, Mr. Jackson. I called you a conservative crank and made some observations and asked some questions. In return you have referred to my stupidity, vapidity, painful dumbness, and now sophomoricism and self-aggrandizement, while not really responding seriously to any of what I said. I hope you enjoy being the big fish in your little imaginary pond, because your style of debate won't work very well against people who actually have different points of view than you do, and don't accept as gospel your beyond-the-mainstream conservative canon.
Regarding sophomoric tactics, incidentally, ridiculing or dismissing the source is a big one. Regardless of the Guardian's political leanings, the article cites quotes that were reported elsewhere in the media, and cannot be simply ignored.
Riddle me this, sir. The economy is in shambles. Trade and budget deficits are out of control. In a world of increasing demand for oil, our energy policy has been "screw conservation…burn all you want, we'll conquer more." And we are stuck in an occupation that is grinding our military down (literally, in the case of vehicles and equipment) to a state of readiness comparable to right after Vietnam. Who has been in charge for the past 8 years, and is thus responsible for this mess? A Republican administration, with a Republican-controlled congress at its beck and call for most of that period. As bad as the Democrats may be, according to you and your ilk, how could they possibly be any worse than more of the same?
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | August 23, 2008
Dr. KillVote says “Like it or not, Bob Stapler, Barack Obama has inspired Democrats to vote for him in large numbers. In the primary when he ran for the US Senate in Illinois, he received more votes than all the Republican candidates combined. He is also raising record amounts of money from unprecedented numbers of donors. There isn't much point in my transcribing his talking points, just as I have little interest in reading your repetition of the conservative ones. If you want to know about his ideas and his programs, go to the web page and read for yourself.”
Like it or not, Barack Obama has not inspired anyone to vote for him who did not wish to be inspired by him. Democrats lined up throughout the primaries behind two candidates they see as furthest from and most critical of Bush who is still mainstream (one of them barely). The typical Democrat voter is still smarting from the 2000 defeat, are convinced both it and the 2004 elections were ‘stolen’, and willing to vote for the devil if that is what it takes to prevent a third Republican win. Both Obama and Hillary are seriously flawed in terms of filling the role of President and would be extremely divisive of the nation. Obama has no credentials for leadership beyond getting himself elected and raising a lot of money. His flaws include his suspect associations, known corruption, extreme socialism, willingness to sacrifice key supporters, and a tendency to conceal. Hillary’s credentials include helping depose a sitting president, a failed attempt at foisting national healthcare on us, tampering, and covering her husband’s butt in one scandal after another. If Obama wins, this will make the second time in which the probable corruption of a candidate will have been ignored by the electorate. That makes Obama’s charisma and what it portends for the future deeply worrisome. It also says a lot more about the electorate than the candidate.
When Barack ran in Illinois, he was running in a safe district where Democrats have been winning for decades where, barring a miracle (candidate so bad even Democrats won’t vote for him), no Republican stands a chance. Scratch his Illinois cakewalks as proof of charisma. We have already had some inkling of soft money irregularities in the Obama fundraising, but Congress is making no fuss about that just now because – oh, wait a minute, Democrats rule Congress! In any case, fundraising is not a good measure of ‘inspirational’ or charismatic character, it is an indication there are powerful interests backing Obama and/or an energetic team of fundraisers willing to ‘bend rules’. Bush in 2000 raised more than any Democrat, so the liberal-media pounced on the disconnect between fundraising and voter support; proving fundraising ability rarely denotes popularity or elect-ability. So, unless you can show his fundraising is a) mainly from small contributors and b) largely spontaneous, we can scratch that too as evidence of charisma.
As I said before, I have read Obama’s ideas and (just so there is no opening here to misrepresent me) I have been to Obama’s website and ‘did’ study his ideas and programs; and there is nothing there to excite or entice anyone except radical-socialists, protected minorities, and special interests; and little even of that. It was a short read and not particularly taxing for anyone aware of the issues. It is so repetitious and vacuous you could throw half of it out and not sacrifice a wit of substance. It is the same cliché phrases you here him repeating in his sound bites with just a dash of filler added to give the appearance of freshness. From reading it, I get the impression he or his handlers have made a conscious effort to avoid anything of substance lest it come back to bite him before the general election. I am not afraid to hear what the left has to say, and would be pleasantly surprised to hear one making sense for a change. But, that didn’t happen. I was not blown over by the Obama charm or his logic. Sorry. So, if the Obama base is feeling ‘inspired’ by his leadership, it is a) because ‘they’ haven’t studied his program and are clueless where he’s going, b) share his radical views, or c) don’t care so long as he is non-white and/or non-Republican.
I don’t dispute Obama has some charm. He’d have to be at the head of the Democrat pack of hopefuls. What I disbelieve is he has taken the front position solely or even largely on the basis of this ‘inspirational’ quality you harp on. Ask yourself would Obama be leading the pack if he were white or a Republican? Colin Powell was a much more attractive package than Obama, potentially more of an inspiration to young blacks seeking role models, much more centrists, and with far better credentials; but he was vilified by the left. Condie Rice has received similar undeserved abuse. Yet, both these black leaders are strongly for the advancement of fellow blacks and are moderately liberal. They would serve every bit as well to break the black-glass ceiling, yet they are prejudicially rejected. Why? They are rejected because they wear the R-label and have consorted with the viscerally hated Bush’s and for no other reason. If that is the measure of your candidate, that must be inspirational but only if he’s not a Powell or a Rice, than you need to re-examine your qualification.
Comment by Bob Stapler | August 24, 2008
I just showed where the Guardian story was recanted by the people making the original charge, yet Dr. K. insists that since the original story appeared and was publicized worldwide, it must still be true.
Vapid and stupid are too kind of a description. This is why debate with a hyperbolic, dishonest fool is impossible.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
Phil and Bob,
You're wasting your time. Dr K ignores the corrections we have made to his assertions, yet he goes on repeating them. You are assuming he is capable of rational thought, so you are making a rational presentation.
But Dr K is clearly not rational. He has his riff and he's going to pound it through, even though he is wrong. This type of response from him is a textbook accomodation of his cognitive dissonance.
The facts don't matter. Three of us have said that no one here has accused Obama of being the anti-christ. But he persists in leveling the charge again. This is irrational.
Irrationality seems to be a trait of leftists. I can account for it no other way. Most people have a conversation and actually respond to what is said to them. Dr K is a one dimensional thinker, and no amount of logic or reasoned presentation will make a difference.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 24, 2008
MM: This is why I said that continuing a conversation with a committed liberal is only good for its comedic value. It's a given they have no real interest in a two way dialogue. Take care, Phil.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
My point in bringing up the word "racist" was just to show that you couldn't even say the word without making the supposed toughminded conservatives out there cry, become abusive and defensive. So insofar as that goes, your response proves my point - the word has become taboo and how dare anyone on the left use it honestly. Are you a racist? Maybe, maybe not, but if your words should be fair game so should everyone's. Number Seven on your list is really only used to either: (1) express personal question about whether someone with such a name could be patriotic, or; (2) to stir racially or ethnically charged bigotry among your "base" so that they do not vote their economic interests. It plays on the fear and loathing of the less-educated white lower classes in similar ways that Jim Crow and the KKK did. Is it as extreme? Certainly not. Your hysteria over the word itself proves the point that you, sir, are a hypocrite.
Comment by economicfreedom | August 24, 2008
economicfreedom:
As I suspected, you asked me several direct questions, even “guessing” that I’m a southerner to bolster your charges that southern conservatives won’t address issues of racism, the “treason” of the South during the Civil War, won’t respect minority rights, and most of all, won’t acknowledge making a “mistake” (Comment 10, point #6).
I’ve shown you that your assessment of me is wrong, but you won’t admit you made a mistake — even though this is one of the criterion you yourself introduced to judge another person’s behavior. Instead, you simply repeat and expand upon your original claim.
On the Right, we confront our nuts and expose their stupidity, which I’ve done repeatedly in taking on the Paleoconservatives who claim that “race matters”. We don’t ignore it, or excuse it, or in the ultimate twisted logic, blame the Left for our people saying stupid and racist things.
On the Left, when confronted with people who are similarly over the top in their reasoning, like EF they either ignore what their crazies say, or start a new website to promote that bilge (Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Moveon.org, etc), or blame the other side for making their crazies crazy, thus excusing their behavior.
By the way, it rings a little hollow to accuse Republicans or Conservatives of racism against Obama. The only people who have actually voted so far against Obama are Democrats in the Democrat primaries. They are the ones who are making decisions based on race, led by Bill Clinton, Bob Kerrey and other Democrat hacks who are stirring up their racist base with charges that Obama is just another Jesse Jackson, or repeatedly emphasizing Obama’s middle name.
Like all good liberals, you are great at raising unfounded accusations, and when proven incorrect, blaming the accused for making you accuse them, all the while charging people who haven’t cast a vote against Obama as racists while exempting the people (Democrats) who did vote against Obama because of his race.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
I didn't "accuse" you of anything. I used the "you are a racist" device in a similar vein as you used "you are wrong" in your post, #1. Treason, well I just brought that one out because I thought it might have similar effect. Assuming that I was in fact calling you a racist, than I am willing to accept the fact that it would be a mistake to be so presumptuous. I also think you mean JOHN Kerry, since Bob's mostly out of political life now, but who knows - maybe you did mean the Medal of Honor cited amputee. I think you're hilarious. And yes, you're being a hypocrite (but Gosh no, not a racist or traitor, and my sincerest apologies for using words that make you cry) to get so defensive at the very mention of the words I listed. Your president should be impeached for the lies he told which lead to war, and not just an erection.
Comment by economicfreedom | August 24, 2008
Economic Freedom Comment #26: “I didn't ‘accuse’ you of anything.”
Economic Freedom Comment #10 point #2 “Treason, as in the confederacy was treason (I'm just taking a wild guess that you're either a southerner or a sympathizer).”
** You related this diatribe directly to me, as the author of the original article. Not to some hypothetical “you”.
You made a mistake about who I am and what I represent, and I called you on it.
Your response is to not admit your mistake, even though this the hallmark of what you define as proper behavior [Point #6 “Mistake, as in "I made a mistake" can conservatives ever admit when they're wrong… uh, incorrect?”].
Now that I’ve shown you that I don’t fit the stereotype you tried to tag me with, you still won’t admit your mistake. At best you simply try to weasel out of the issue with “Assuming that I was in fact calling you a racist, than I am willing to accept the fact that it would be a mistake to be so presumptuous.” You can’t bring yourself to say as clearly and unequivocally as you said someone must in your point #6 [“Mistake, as in "I made a mistake" can conservatives ever admit when they're wrong… uh, incorrect?”]. Where are your words “I made a mistake,” period?
All you need to do to expose the sophistry of liberal thought is ask them to live by their own rules.
Economic Freedom Comment #26: “I also think you mean JOHN Kerry, since Bob's mostly out of political life now, but who knows - maybe you did mean the Medal of Honor cited amputee.”
*** No, it’s Bob Kerrey as I originally stated, a fact that’s obvious to anyone who actually follows what is happening in politics today. From the Huffington Post (so you know it must be true!): “[Bob] Kerrey continued: ‘It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/dem-bob-kerrey-uncertaint_n_118135.html And, from ABC news “Why Did Bob Kerrey Mention Obama's Middle Name — 'Hussein'? Some Obama supporters have asked why former Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., who endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., today, mentioned her opponent Sen. Barack Hussein Obama's middle name in remarks published in The Washington Post.” http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/why-did-bob-ker.html
Once again, this is why genuine dialogue with the Looney Left is impossible. At least we share one thing in common though. We both favor impeachment (EF’s point #3). It’s just that my focus was on a different president.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
KillVote says “The economy is in shambles. Trade and budget deficits are out of control. In a world of increasing demand for oil, our energy policy has been "screw conservation…burn all you want, we'll conquer more." And we are stuck in an occupation that is grinding our military down (literally, in the case of vehicles and equipment) to a state of readiness comparable to right after Vietnam. …”
“…economy in shambles”
Our economy is not in a shambles. The Great Depression was an economy in shambles. The Soviet economy of the 1980s was an economy in shambles. We’re not even close to either of those. Technically, we are not even in a recession despite liberals earnestly talking us into one the better to garner votes. Every economy has its ups and downs and no amount of delaying action can prevent it. Bush has sometimes tried to micro-manage the economy, but when he has, it has been no different from Congress or Democrat presidents who have done exactly the same. Politicians always want to take credit for a good economy and can’t resist tinkering believing it helps. Similarly, the opposition always tries to hurt the guy in office and Democrats are particularly fond of that through undermining public confidence to the point the economy falters. That makes both guilty of messing with the economy in ways that are not good for it. Fortunately, it takes a lot of tinkering and/or sabotage to tank a really big, strong economy. Oil is the only variable currently capable of blowing a hole in it, which makes your argument against drilling incomprehensible (I will return to that in another section).
“… Trade and budget deficits out of control”
On the budget I am somewhat in agreement with you. However, I would remind you it took others to make this budget such a mess. Bush could not have expanded the budget without the connivance of Congress, including the then bare Democrat minority. Bush wanted support from Congress in the fight against terrorism. Congress wanted expanded social-welfare programs and Bush had social-welfare programs of his own. Defense has increased the budget all of 4%, but the budget overall increased 44%. That sounds high, but remember the Clinton budget increased 83% even while reducing deficit 75%. Clinton could do that because of the dot-com boom. Prior to 9/11, the deficit was still shrinking and Bush was sticking to austerity while waiting for the economy to resume. After 9/11, he decided terrorism took priority, and the country agreed. Bush asked Congress to curtail spending in other areas in order to make an all out effort, but Congress refused. So, instead, Bush has had to run the war on a shoe-string while placating Congress to stay on-board. One effect this has had is to make the war longer and costlier, but more significantly it has meant Bush has been unwilling to veto any budget Congress demanded.
If you look at annual budgets and deficits as a percent of GDP, you may be surprised to learn the Bush budget has been a little smaller than the Clinton budget and is largely flat; and although the deficit spiked in 2002, it has been shrinking ever since. Thus, with adjustments for growth, the Bush budget and Clinton budget aren’t all that different. Still this picture could have been better had Bush been willing to say no and gone to the people (the way Reagan did) to sell the idea we can meet our goals AND control spending. Bush has started to push back in the last year, but he is still not doing a good job of communicating this to the public.
“…energy policy has been "screw conservation…burn all you want, we'll conquer more”
Energy policy has not been “screw conservation”. Bush has made it clear he thinks Americans are wasteful and has lectured us about it. I happen to disagree, but your remark is blatantly misrepresentative of Bush specifically and conservatives generally. We have had this argument within these very pages, some conservatives agreeing with Bush and oil conservationists. You are also misrepresenting both history and conservatism when you accuse us of ‘conquering’ to get oil. The U.S. has sometimes intervened, manipulated, and even put boots on the ground protecting a strategic interest in oil, but we have never conquered or taken significant control of oil belonging to others other than to prevent it falling into the hands of aggressors who would have blocked the sale of oil to those it wishes to humble. If this is conquest, it is a very strange kind of conquest wherein the victim benefits more than the aggressor and the interests of the majority of nations are served.
You accuse this administration of both failing to provide for our energy needs and of doing positive things that protect or exploit available supplies. Which is it? The left, by pursuing for many years a policy that is rabidly anti-oil, is now in a position where it cannot now embrace obvious (even if only temporary) solutions to the oil uncertainty. If this administration has been delinquent either in securing fresh sources of oil or transitioning to non-oil sources, doesn’t it stand to reason earlier administrations that took positive steps curtailing both oil exploration and the most promising alternative to oil (nuclear) are still more culpable of creating the present situation? Bush has done nothing to add to this pile of rubbish except to accept the pickle environmentalists put us in and deal with it from there. We know you will deny this for the simple reason that it was two Democrat administrations that did most to deny us significant sources of energy while pushing inadequate alternative technologies down our throats. I would also point a finger at Congress, the EPA, Energy Department, and the Supreme and Federal courts for their role in blocking exploration and forcing the subsidization of weak substitutes.
“…stuck in an occupation that is grinding our military down … to a state of readiness comparable to right after Vietnam”
First, let’s jump to the last part of that drivel. The U.S. military was in political disarray in the early 1970s right along with the rest of the country, but it was not in a state of physical or organizational un-readiness. 1973, the year we left Vietnam (the year after I returned from duty), our military was in the highest state of readiness it has known since WWII. Even as we pulled out of Vietnam, we were redeploying to other parts of the world to keep the peace and check continued communist troublemaking. Vietnam caused some serious introspection within the military, both with respect to how wars are fought and when; but there was never a time when our military was in disarray or unready to answer a call to duty.
As I said above, the War on Terror represents 4% of GPD and less than 10% of available manpower (less when you dial out unrelated defense spending and reserves). WWII represented more than 40% of GPD and 2/3 of available manpower. Even WWII did not represent our ultimate war-fighting capacity, as that would have meant something nearer 90% of available manpower and 100% of GDP as happened in the collapse of the Third Reich. Obviously this means, as a nation, we are not even close to war-fighting capacity; as has been misrepresented by pacifists and the media. We haven’t even been fighting this war using much of our regular Army, mostly resorting to National Guardsmen and Reserves; keeping the regular Army in reserve to deal with surprise threats. No, we don’t want more battles than we already have, but we do have more than we need to deal with what is now on our plate – should that become necessary.
Our forces in Iraq are now drawing down, not ground down. There was a time when they were having less than optimal effect, but, even then, they faced no serious threat from an enemy capable of ‘grinding them down’. The problem then was they could not simultaneously contain and train. They are now being replaced by Iraqi forces, forces which have been trained and battle tested to take our place. Morale is high among our troops who have great confidence in their mission, a mission they have carried out with honor, courage, sensitivity and restraint. They are not ‘stuck’ in an occupation; they have liberated a people; and it is reprehensible taking that away from them through such dismissive talk. It also encourages our enemies into thinking we are weak when we are not. That just causes more suffering in countries we are trying to protect.
Comment by Bob Stapler | August 24, 2008
Bob: Like Mountain man said, it's a futile effort to have a rational discussion with the Looney Left. Your on target comments are correct as usual, but wasted on these folks.
We’ve got one guy who needs to inflate his identity by calling himself “Dr.” when he has no legitimate credentials. We have another guy who criticizes the Right for not admitting directly and clearly to making “mistakes”, only to dodge and weave when he makes a mistake about tagging me as a racist, or says nothing when he claims I was talking about John Kerry only to have it proven that, yes, it was really Bob Kerrey as I originally stated.
I swear I am not inventing people like Dr. K and economicfreedom (or Sam or Taguba), just to make silly comments from the Left to easily highlight their stupidity. These are real people, not products of my imagination. You can ask the IC editors to verify that I am not inventing these identities and sending out their nonsense from my computer pretending to be a Liberal.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
With regard to BOB Kerry, I MADE A MISTAKE - we will never hear that from BUSH's mouth. I play by the rules and the FACT of the matter is that although did relate the 7 words I chose to you and your views as you have stated them it was not meant to necessarily be a personal characterization of you. If it seemed as such, I apologize. The fact is that you continue to flip out, not admit mistakes, not admit the hypocrisy of your own when you flip out (in a way I have found VERY entertaining, because I'm really just trying to get your goat) etc. etc. Fact is you're a SOCIAL conservative and you make silly arguments of conviction. I'm an ECONOMIC conservative that thinks politicians (conservative & liberal) should get their noses out of morality & religion. Fact is, I'm messing with you. You took the bait, it's wildly entertaining, and I thank you.
Comment by economicfreedom | August 24, 2008
After several email exchanges, the guy whose own rules said we must all immediately and unequivocally admit our mistakes in no uncertain terms, has finally been forced to do so because his rationalizations can no longer be sustained. So, we’ll count this as progress.
And, in apologizing for his mistake, he fulfilled at least half of the observation I made in my last essay http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/08/19/has-the-left-become-completely-deranged/
“Then there’s the second example of new Left thought. It contains a lot of CAPITALIZED WORDS and multiple exclamation points to show that the author of these remarks is a SERIOUS GUY!!!!”
As for the charge that “The fact is that you continue to flip out, not admit mistakes, not admit the hypocrisy of your own …”, exactly what is the substance of this charge? FE started off calling me a southern racist who supports treason, etc., and our entire exchange after that was to force him to admit that he made a bogus charge. The only hypocrisy is FE first saying he didn’t say it, then trying to dodge the issue, then finally being forced to admit it. I believe in psychological circles they call this charge “projection”.
And let’s not forget the remainder of that sentence “…when you flip out (in a way I have found VERY entertaining, because I'm really just trying to get your goat) etc. etc.”, which supports the thesis I’ve repeated constantly that these people are not interested in a serious conversation, so why should we take anything they say seriously? They’re just here for their entertainment value to watch them dodge, weave, hyperventilate, then declare victory and leave.
FE’s not interested in substance, by his own admission, because he’s not capable of having an adult conversation. This is why it’s so funny to call me a social — I mean SOCIAL — conservative who speaks from a religious-based morality, when my essay on “The True Nature of Human Morality” argues just the opposite.
Like my discussions with the crazies on the Right, I’ve always maintained that the best way to expose the motives and lack of substance of the Left is to let them talk, and then hold them to their own words. As economicfreedom was forced to admit after only three or so exchanges, nothing he said was meant to be taken seriously (as if this wasn’t obvious from the beginning).
Usually these guys last 5 or 6 rounds (like Sam and taguba) before having to backtrack from their hyperbolic excesses or just go away because the stupidity of their position is so obvious.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
On August 22, 2008 here on Intellectual Conservative Aaron Goldstein wrote that “[I]f Obama wants to accuse McCain of harboring racist sentiments he will render the term racism meaningless.” [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/08/22/the-nugacity-of-obama/] I would argue that if people who believe that supporting the enemy in wartime because they believed enemy propaganda is acceptable behavior, which Obama did by campaigning for Kerry, then the word patriotism is meaningless.
Comment by Ark Ashamed of Bill | August 24, 2008
You're flippin hilarious!
Comment by economicfreedom | August 24, 2008
So just to be straight: You're not a hypocrite for complaining about 7 words you think the left gets too bent out of shape over, then flipping out over my 7 words, for personal ideological or other reasons? Touche.
Comment by economicfreedom | August 24, 2008
Phil,
Can you tell me, What is the point of someone like E C coming to a discussion forum like this and spouting off on things, but now says he was only intending to mess with people? If he really didn't think we all were racists, how does calling us racists achieve anything? I think his backpedal rings hollow.
What is clear is that he has swallowed the leftist talking point hook-line-and-sinker that "SOCIAL" conservatives are racist, then regurgitates it. When he discovers that we really aren't, all that is left to fall back on is "shucks, I was just kidding."
E C then informs us he is a "ECONOMIC" conservative, but not a "SOCIAL" conservative. Very frequently, a person who makes this distinction is really neither. In fact, my experience is that rarely do people who make such a claim even understand what either position really is.
Last thing: One might wonder why E C's life revolves around what might or might not come out of Bush's mouth, and why it might be relevant to what we talking about here.
BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) is an ugly disease.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 24, 2008
MM: Like I've repeatedly maintained here and in previous posts, people like EC aren't to be taken seriously. They are to be appreciated for their comedic value only, and the unintended illustration that the Left contains an excessive number of vacuous fools who are incapable of real conversation.
The only difference between EC and Dr. K. is that EC couldn’t maintain the fiction of serious discussion past 3 comments, and now says he was “just kidding” to cover up the stupidity of his previous statements. In short, he’s been forced to admit what we all know — that EC is just a fool, and never intended for anything he said to be taken seriously.
Fortunately, he’s probably a 15 year old kid, so he won’t be able to vote this election.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
Dr. Kilovolt’s charge that conservatives want to institute a “theocracy” not only is ill-founded but also ingores the fact that the Religious Left seeks to impose a social theocracy on this country. As far as I can tell, even the so-called Religious Right only desires to return to the conditions which we had as recently as the early 1960s, which hardly constituted a theocracy. The irony here is that the puritanical aspects of the 1950s were the direct result of the imposition of Puritanism on this country by the theocratic Progessives of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In antebellum America the Left sought to reduce separation of church and state, and Abraham Lincoln shared this view. Religious Left “Second Great Awakening” preachers wandered the North telling people that the Constitution was insufficient to hold the Union together [see James Piereson, “Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism” (New York: Encounter Books, 2007), p. 64]. Both the Religious Left and so-called Religious Right sprang from New England Puritanism, and conservatives of a libertarian bent have little use for either. The Puritianism imposed on this country in the so-called Progressive Era is a novelty and should be outside the conservative perimeter when it comes to defending traditional values.
Dr. Kilovolt apparently forgets that the modern liberal welfare state is a form of theocracy based on the doctrine that monies taken from people through threat of imprisonment are a form of voluntary charity. In the Religious Left theology Caesar was a saint, and only the mean-spirited would complain that the beneficiaries of his largess were all in Rome. This form of state compulsion of virtue is obviously Puritianism. The Religious Left believes in what David Horowitz calls the Socialist Idea—that humans can achieve a perfect society if the state is given enough power. The reality is that even the relatively mild liberal welfare state is exploitative and objectifies people. As Thomas E. Brewton pointed out on August 23, 2008 [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/08/23/thomas-paine-and-the-values-of-1776/], even the radical Tom Paine saw high taxes as oppressive.
Comment by Ark Ashamed of Bill | August 24, 2008
I admitted my shortcomings on certain specific facts. You're still a big-picture hypocrite. Did I call "all of 'you'" racists? Nah, but if the sheet fits wear it.
Comment by economicfreedom | August 24, 2008
"I admit my shortcomings on certain specific facts" [translation] "I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I feel things deeply, so that compensates for my ignorance."
Then end with a gratuitous unsubstantiated reference to conservatives and racism, and call people a hypocrite for making you back away from your previous unsubstantiated charge — which you've already admitted wasn't sincere anyway, just like this probably isn't sincere too.
And these guys wonder why no one takes them seriously.
You just can't make this kind of stuff up.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
Phillip and Mountain Man,
Wasted on DK or not, others read our rejoinders and contrast the two to see who is reasonable and thoughtful and who is just blasting away with blanks. I am sure DK can see poison-prose does not convince anyone. His difficulty is he has committed to defending a house-of-cards and is finding it difficult persuading anyone not already of that persuasion. When people find themselves in that situation, yet are unwilling to let go the cherished shibboleth, they typically resort to harsh accusation and bombast. They are not accustomed to people who question these beliefs, only those who nod dumbly and uncomprendingly. Only the wise realize it is time to reconsider the ground they stand on is sand. Defeating falsehood is not all that difficult; in fact, it takes a lot less cunning than it takes to defend lies. Stick to the truth and be willing to examine your own shibboleths, and you will always come out on top.
I am unconcerned DK, EC, Taguba, and Sam are upsetting proceedings here. Those who come here thinking to ridicule and show off, quickly learn we are no pushovers. Obviously, we would not be here sticking our necks out if we didn’t enjoy a good battle of wits. So if they imagine we will simply bow down to liberal brilliance without something backing it up, they’ve got another think coming. We’ll stay the battle until they either concede we have it aright and they've been fed the load of bilge-water, or leave tails dragging. Or they can stay and get one drubbing after another. I do not apologize for this as they come spoiling for a fight. Liberals are so convinced conservatives are all a bunch of yahoos, bigots, superstitious boobs, and warmongers they come expecting easy victory and believing themselves uniquely equipped to put us in our place. When that doesn’t happen, they throw tantrums and resort to verbal violence. They also come thinking themselves exempt and unfair to receive as they dish out. DK has been better than most, but he is not without fault in that respect. He has insulted and attacked the character of those he opposes with prejudice and without substance.
Liberals who come here looking to bloody without getting bloodied serve a function even when they (and we) don't realize it. They define for us 'the problem'. We would soon tire of hearing ourselves if it wasn't for fresh cadres of brainwashed liberals turning up demonstrating how much ignorance persists. We'd be just preaching to the choir otherwise. Just look at how long this particular thread has gone on and how many have weighed in, all thanks to liberals-with-a-mission. Each of us has tackled a different piece of the liberal gauntlet, and to devastating effect. No, however pleasant it may seem having an audience of like-minded conservatives only, it is not we who need our help penetrating the fog they are in, and it is not we who enliven our conversations half so well. So, to some degree, we need them to come and should not discourage them too much from coming. They may leave disgusted and unrepentant, but, in arguing with us and trying to convince us of false and badly formed ideals, they are forced to hear the hollowness of their own silly notions until even they are lost what more to say. They are forced back time after time on the same rocks of their making, put up with us breaking down every flimsy stick they throw up, and demolishing every conviction they hold dear. They are forced to listen, perhaps for the first time, what rubbish they spew and what a comedy they present. When they leave, they are a lot less certain they hold the answers. If we accomplish only that much, is it still futile or is it a start toward something less obtuse?
Others come here just to listen, perhaps battered into silence or submission by liberals everywhere and looking for arguments and information they can use to quiet the liberal din. Maybe they just want to give the other side a fair hearing before condemning us as liberals insist we must be condemned. Or maybe they come wanting to escape the liberal echo chamber and wanting fresh air to breathe. Coming here, they read the same liberals using the same stale arguments, but here these arguments are broken down and left in heaps. Soon they join in the fray, gaining in skill and building reserves of toughness with which to combat liberals on their own ground without being drawn into irrational arguments and screaming matches where liberals have all the advantage. So, if we provide them with something they can use, through answering each false construction in turn, is that still futile or is it a small victory?
And some come here suspecting they may be closet-conservatives but with minds so poisoned against that notion it is positively painful for them. So they come thinking to sample the wares, but can't help but frame every utterance in the only political terms they've ever known. This doesn't go over well and sometimes it is we who mistake their meaning.
Don’t be so concerned I am wasting my breath. Truth is never wasted, and I do try to stick to the truth. If I am unsure of my ground, I find better ground. And, on those occasions I am hasty in judgment, I am not averse to admitting it and stick by the truth thereafter. I began here as one of those lurkers who just listens. I was one of those tired of living in the liberal echo chamber (where I live it is less than 10% conservative). Long ago, long before I had any political convictions, I lived awash in liberalism and knew no other 'truth'. I never embraced the ideology, I just didn't question what so many took as gospel. Yet, I have always been a conservative at heart even when I could not bring myself to say it because of the poisoned image of conservatives; the same poison these gentlemen have drunk. Soon after finding IC, I was joining in and reveling in the freedom of saying what can’t be said without getting ganged up on by a pack of howling liberals who go postal at any disagreement with them, who regard love-of-country and faith as aberrations to be shunned, and who believe government exists to eradicate all inequity or to assuage liberal guilt. I admit I used to be timid confronting this suffocating liberal bombast, but no longer and this place has helped me achieve that. I have learned, here, how far you can push to be heard and when you should listen. Each of us grows a little from these debates, so, if I sometimes tolerate nonsense more than is seemly, I am also one of those who once sat dumb and mute before the superior wisdom of liberal-socialism. Who knows, maybe one of these (DK, EC, Taguba or Sam) will come over from the darkside hearing one voice a little more tolerant of them from having been there. We can always hope.
Comment by Bob Stapler | August 24, 2008
Well said, Bob.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 24, 2008
Bob: You make an excellent point. The real value is in letting others with no dog in the fight see which side makes the most compelling case for their position.
I like the way you analyze things and get to the heart of the matter. It's why you're my favorite writer here at the IC.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
I'll spell it out since you kind of have A.D.D. or something:
1. You claim there are 7 words that have become "dirty" and cannot be said without some pinko liberal, like me I guess, flipping out.
2. I test the water with 7 words I think make silly conservatives flip out and we dare not say.
3. You prove the point by flipping out.
Hypocrite. Hilarious. Keep it coming. I'm getting a big kick out of how darn seriously you take yourselves. You're a hoot!
Comment by economicfreedom | August 24, 2008
Where was this great material when I was writing http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/08/19/has-the-left-become-completely-deranged/
Timing is everything in life.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
The reason I don't do much work to come up with a mountain of evidence to repudiate your convictions-based philosophies: I have better things to do with my mind. Simple.
You all are basically engaged in intellectual inbreeding. Have fun.
Comment by economicfreedom | August 24, 2008
Oh, and seriously. I mean, SERIOUSLY!!!!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
"I don't come up with mountains of evidence to refute your [points] because I have better things to do" [Translation] "I'm too busy emoting and feeling things deeply to educate myself before I open my mouth. And please take me seriously, even though I’ve said before that I’m not really being serious.”
You just can’t make this stuff up! Seriously.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
I'm sorry, this stuff is just too funny to let go so easily. First the pseudo Dr. K. rails against me for “hating secular governments” (which means I’m supposed to want a theocracy to replace secular government?). Now this guy is offended by my
“convictions-based philosophy” (the opposite of which is to espouse positions that have no philosophical grounding — i.e. pure emotions vs. reasoned thought.)
Do these people even think about what they say before they say it?
I’m getting damn close to having enough fresh material for another Looney Liberals Chronicles postscript. The problem is, who would really believe people think this way? Harry was a loon, but he wasn’t delusional. Then again, this kid is only 15, so it's not fair to pick on him too much for being pure id.
What a dilemma. So much good material, and my convictions-based philosophy is holding me back from using it for my LLC.
Seriously.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
Note to economicfreedom: Since, by your own admission, you don’t really read anything to form coherent thoughts before you express them, “id” is not a John Kerry/Bob Kerrey “error” where you think I’m talking about ID (Intelligent Design), or a Hollywood forensics website (Investigation Discovery), or the abbreviation for the state of Idaho. It refers to the “the uncoordinated instinctual trends” of the human mind — you know, shooting off your mouth because you feel something deeply, even though there are no real facts to support your emotions.
From Wikipedia: Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the "psychic apparatus" defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model, the uncoordinated instinctual trends are the "id"; the organised realistic part of the psyche is the "ego," and the critical and moralizing function the "super-ego."
I think they cover this stuff in the 11th grade, so you’ve got a while to go before you have to learn it for a test so you can forget it again quickly, and not let all those mountains of facts get in the way of the points you want to make.
Seriously.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
Phillip, I just yesterday had a face to face interaction with someone with deeply held Liberal beliefs, and it was not only instructive, it was quite similar to the one here.
I mentioned that I had serious issues with BO, at the very least due to his lack of relevant experience, and was worried about many of the rather butt-dumb proclamations he'd made about his intentions.
The response was an angry diatribe about John McCain, GWB, the Republicans, and terminated with "read Obama's record, you'll see."
Needless to say, I had:
1. Not mentioned my personal politics once. However, I was instantly a Neocon-loving dirty Republican.
2. Not expressed a single opinion about anything Republican in any way, shape, or form, merely stated I had concerns about Obama. However, I was immediately fingered as evil, pigeon-holed, "profiled" (oh yes, THAT word), and ranted at about various anti-Republican "talking points." If, of course, being angrily shouted at for a simple statement could be identified as "talking."
3. Not even once considered that I might just actually read the news (a large and widely varied list of sources, in fact), and that I did, in fact, know Mister Obama's "record" (using the term advisedly).
Insanity. For the record, I am a registered Independent, a Centrist who leans mildly to the Right. But merely raising a single question or two about Mister Messiah Hussein Obama instantly made me a target for a frothing-at-the-mouth Liberal Democrat hell-bent of "destroying" me and any hint that I could have a point.
I salute you for having the patience to keep replying to these Lunkheads.
Hey, Doctor K: do you know what a "Category Error" is? In Philosophy, it means you have begun with incorrect fundamentals, then have pursued a fallacious logical path to equally fallacious conclusions.
You Democrats do this as easily as breathing. And I am sick of it, and you, having listened to this crap from you lot for much of my life (I am just short of 50). I officially adopt the label Conservative as of reading this thread and your comments contained therein. Thank you for convincing me you Democrats are a pack of lunatic arrogant morons drooling at the thought of imposing your idiotic aberrant philosophies onto me.
Good evening.
Comment by Last Angry Man | August 24, 2008
Phillip, sorry for the extended angry rant. Living up to my username in my first post here, I suppose. Mea Culpa.
Comment by Last Angry Man | August 24, 2008
Seriously. Seriously!!!!!!!!! SERiously. SerIOUSLY. Phil, I just can't make it work. Help!
Comment by Mountain Man | August 24, 2008
MM: Purge your mind of all thoughts. Dig down into your primal emotions. Feel something deeply, then say the first thing that comes to your mind. It's kind of like breaking wind. You really haven't done anything of substance, but you have made your presence known.
And when you do, use lots of CAPITAL LETTERS and multiple exclamation points.
SERIOUSLY!!!!!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
Shutting…. down…. mind. Logic… fading. Feeeeeling. Liberals…. making sense.
Yeessssss, global warming… man's fault. Abortion….. good. More taxes…. good. Conservatives…. bad. Smaller government, oowwww… SMALLER GOVERNMENT… thoughts entering mind…. SMALLER GOVERNMENT….. good! God and religion…. GOOD, of course! Rush Limbaugh… good!
Sorry, Phil. I tried.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 24, 2008
MM: I never said it made sense. I only said that's the way to think like a liberal. [I considered saying “reason like a liberal”, but rejected that phrase since reason connotes a higher level brain function than mere id-based thought.]
One suggestion. Eat some beans next time you try it. The symbolic breaking of wind may need to be accompanied by actual sound effects and their associated olfactory distress. The combination of sound and scent could help distract the cognitive functions enough to allow random thoughts to form. However, under no circumstances allow any "conviction-based philosophy" to seep into that process. If you actually think about what you say before you say it, liberalism won't work.
Anyway, that’s the best advice I can give you. I tried the liberal mind-meld with Harry in my Looney Liberal Chronicles, and it took me a week to recover. Journey into the depths of the liberal thought process is not for the faint hearted.
And, it goes without saying that the process cannot be sustained without either suffering permanent neurological trauma, or starting with a diminished mental capacity. I mean, how else can you explain people like EF or Madonna?
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 24, 2008
"Sthuper, Sthuper Stherious, guyths."
Wow, great exchanges, though one can easily recognize which side comes battle-ready. Awesome essay, Dr. Jackson.
Comment by Jekken | August 24, 2008
Last Angry Man: It never ceases to amaze me that the things liberals profess to hate the most (stereotyping, censorship. Limitations on free speech, blacklisting [think Hollywood] etc. are the very things they instinctively practice. Irony is lost on the ironic.
There have been some libs who want to engage in a legitimate debate. Unfortunately, these libs don’t seem to use the internet much, which has been dominated by loons with aggrandized self-titles and hyperbolic reasoning abilities. And, like economicfreedom admitted, they’re never really serious about what they say anyway.
So, when these folks pop up, it’s time to have some fun with them. You start by letting them talk, and talk, and talk some more. It doesn’t take long for their insanity to manifest itself (with or without EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATIONS or multiple explanation points!!!!!!!).
Dialogue with a lib doesn’t produce any meaningful exchanges. But it can be a lot of fun to watch them hyperventilate and go nuts!
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 25, 2008
"Dr. KillVote"
Isn't that a bit third grade for a posting on a website with pretensions at "intellectual conservatism," Mountain Man? And to think Mr. Jackson called ME sophomoric!
Being gainfully employed, I don't have the time or patience to play in your sandbox all day, but if you really want some rebuttal, here are one or two:
- Re the screw conservation thing: "but your remark is blatantly misrepresentative of Bush specifically and conservatives generally"
Remember this golden nugget from Cheney, uttered with a sneer? "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy…"
- "but we have never conquered or taken significant control of oil belonging to others other than to prevent it falling into the hands of aggressors who would have blocked the sale of oil to those it wishes to humble"
Wow, how many qualifiers can you place on a statement? That is about as good as ""The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe — those days are gone." Have you forgotten the fifties, when we ousted the democratically elected prime minister of Iran because he threatened to nationalize their oil, and replaced him with the Shah? Look how well that turned out!
- "In the Religious Left theology Caesar was a saint, and only the mean-spirited would complain that the beneficiaries of his largess were all in Rome." Have you been smoking something, Ark Ashamed of Bill? It takes someone ruthless like Cheney to approve of Caesar, buying off the populace and senate so he can dictate as he likes. Not really on the liberal agenda.
- "The U.S. military was in political disarray in the early 1970s right along with the rest of the country, but it was not in a state of physical or organizational un-readiness." I respectfully disagree, and it is increasingly so now.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/01/marine_stretched_080114w/
And this from Melvin Laird at foreignaffairs.org:
"As with Vietnam, the Iraq war is revealing chinks in our fiscal armor. Only after the Vietnam War ended did its drain on the U.S. economy become apparent. During the war, our military readiness to fight other conflicts was precarious. Billions of dollars were drained away from other missions to support the war. It became a juggling act to support our forces around the world."
Regarding your reference to your previous posting (rant, more accurately), "Has the Left Become Completely Deranged?," Mr. Jackson, I considered responding to it, but it was so fantastical and devoid of fact that it didn't seem worth my time. Again, lots of words to say, in essence, "Liberals are stupid and I don't like them."
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | August 25, 2008
"Dialogue with a lib doesn’t produce any meaningful exchanges. But it can be a lot of fun to watch them hyperventilate and go nuts!"
Who is hyperventilating? This is fun!
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | August 25, 2008
“Regarding your reference to your previous posting (rant, more accurately), ‘Has the Left Become Completely Deranged?,’ Mr. Jackson, I considered responding to it, but it was so fantastical and devoid of fact that it didn't seem worth my time.”
And as if to prove my point, the guy who needs to give himself his own academic credentials reappears to tell us that he has a lot of information to refute everything I say, but like economicfreedom just can't actually find the time (or ability) to do it.
But he really has a great response. Really.
And seriously.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 25, 2008
"…but it was so fantastical and devoid of fact that it didn't seem worth my time…" A categorical dismissal is anti-intellectual. Pick one or two points and show us where Phil is wrong.
Oh, and see if you can do it without mentioning Cheney, Halliburton, homophobes, or drug companies.
The rest of your rant is off-topic, irrelevant, and devoid of substance. But I did like the Cheney quote, "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy…" He was and is totally correct. The other quote I could not locate, so I must assume that you must have copied off of dailykos or some other "reputable" leftist website.
As far as my screen name, I have never mocked yours. It is a sign of immaturity to call people names. You have done this ever since you arrived, and have not offered a single substantial response to any point made. That is why you are no longer taken seriously here and viewed as a hateful little boy. At least, that's where the evidence points.
I'm glad you are gainfully employed. Thank a rich guy who was willing to give you a job.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 25, 2008
I will agree with one thing Dr. K said. It's not nice to make fun of his "Kilovolt" pseudonym. This guy went to a lot of trouble to make himself appear intellectual by giving himself an advanced degree of his own making, and mocking "Kilovolt" makes a mockery of the mockery of giving yourself your own advanced degree.
That’s just too many mockeries in one name.
Seriously.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 25, 2008
Hey MM: Notice how this guy who objects to having anyone not address him as "Dr. Kilovolt" because that’s the degree he invented for himself will only refer to me as “Mr. Jackson”, not “Dr. Jackson”, even though I actually have a Ph.D.?
In other words, we must all respect his fictitious degree, but he sees no reason to acknowledge my real degree. Kind of an interesting metaphor for liberalism if you think about it. Ignore real accomplishments, and dwell only on the world you create for yourself.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 25, 2008
"Kind of an interesting metaphor for liberalism if you think about it. Ignore real accomplishments, and dwell only on the world you create for yourself."
I live in a terribly Blue State, and I see this all of the time. I refer to it as "an artificially contrived fantasy word that works after a fashion, only because so many have bought into it."
An example of the quoted portion above: I was once walking down the street, and a guy was walking along smoking. This woman walked by, and as she did, she mock-coughed a few times, and said to him angrily, "Stop poisoning me!"
She walked a few more feet, got into her very large, gas-guzzling vehicle, and drove less than two blocks, where she got out and went to shop.
Two blocks. "Stop poisoning me." Does anyone else here see the glaring hypocrisy in this interaction?
This is what I have come to expect from them. Intellectual dishonesty coupled with angry inappropriate radicalism. Smug radicalism at that.
Comment by Last Angry Man | August 25, 2008
LAM: Fortunately, I live in a very Red State, but I travel to NY and CA a lot, so I know exactly what you mean. They feel compelled to tell you how to live your life, but will accept no criticism of theirs.
I once had a woman actually walk out of her own house because I said that her statement “any CEO can run any company” was, well, “stupid” (as if the CEO of Petco could step in tomorrow and run Microsoft). This was preceded by a 10 minute diatribe on her part where I was told that anyone who supported Bush was a [insert string of personalized expletives here]. She just couldn’t believe that I actually had the audacity to call her idea “stupid”, and asked my wife if I was verbally abusive at home. Her poor husband just cringed when I laughed because he and everyone there had just witnessed the boorish personal insults she hurled against me for holding a different political opinion than hers. The woman, to this day, has no idea of the disconnect between her words and actions.
These people live in a world where thoughts replace deeds, good intentions mean more than actual accomplishments, where any questioning of their policies is a mean-spirited attack on their patriotism, and where they can simultaneously call you "retarded" or genetically deficient in one sentence, then lambast you for saying their ideas are "stupid".
"Stupid" is a descriptive assessment of a statement, position or belief system. "Retarded" et.al is just a smear. But this kind of nuance is lost on the looney left, as this comment section and the reaction to the other articles I have written more than demonstrates.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 25, 2008
Dr. Phillip Ellis Jackson, in the online world I tend to refer to people by their chosen pseudonyms. I was calling you Mr. Jackson for short, intending to be polite — no slight to your obviously impressive academic achievements intended. I'll call you anything you want, and honor your honorific, but it won't make you right.
To take a page from your book on repetition of refuted statements, I have already said that I do not claim to be a doctor. So why are you so obsessed with my clearly fictional pseudonym? "Notice how this guy who objects to having anyone not address him as "Dr. Kilovolt…" Where did I say that? It was the "KillVote" thing at issue, and I wasn't insulted by it so much as pointing out how childish it was for a post on a site called "Intellectual Conservative."
Regarding self-aggrandizement, you don't think you are being overly modest on your "About the Author" page, do you?
"Jackson uses his extraordinary background, which reaches into the highest levels of business, academic life and government, to create unique, realistic stories." You are just chock full of superlatives for yourself.
Grammar check: "While a graduate student he taught university classes and was a research assistant to several internationally-renown faculty members." I think you meant "internationally-renowned," the adjective form, not the noun form.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | August 25, 2008
"These people live in a world where thoughts replace deeds, good intentions mean more than actual accomplishments, where any questioning of their policies is a mean-spirited attack on their patriotism, and where they can simultaneously call you "retarded" or genetically deficient in one sentence, then lambast you for saying their ideas are "stupid"."
Indeed.
I work with Homeless Veterans, a difficult profession at best. I have been walking down the street and been lambasted about my lack of service and understanding about the Homeless by young, liberal college students, because I would not donate money on the spot, right now!
I must admit, it was terribly satisfying to wait them out, smiling, as they excoriated me, and then simply reply, "I work with the homeless. Please get your facts straight next time before you harangue me."
And believe it or not, they *still* kept on after me, because I was an ungenerous bastard who wouldn't donate money. Surely I of all people must understand…
Monomania in any form is not pleasant to experience.
Comment by Last Angry Man | August 25, 2008
Regarding your reference to your previous posting (rant, more accurately), "Has the Left Become Completely Deranged?," Mr. Jackson, … Again, lots of words to say, in essence, "Liberals are stupid and I don't like them." [comment by Dr. kilovolt]
Dr. Kilovolt needs to brush up on his pathologies as derangement syndrome can exist with or without stupidity.
Comment by jb | August 25, 2008
Dr K is happy to oblige our fun by providing even more fodder. Have you noticed that he has not addressed a single point raised, except for the supposed abuse of his screen name?
And then comes the obligatory grammar correction, which is the last refuge of a person who needs to feel superior as his dignity slips away…
Comment by Mountain Man | August 25, 2008
LAG, I'm really beginning to like you. For a "a registered Independent, a Centrist who leans mildly to the Right," you seem to have a good take on conservatism as well as the folly of the Left. Good work and welcome.
Comment by Mountain Man | August 25, 2008
MM: Thanks for the Kudos. Glad to be here (I lurked and read for about a year first).
As they say, "Familiarity Breeds Contempt." Well, I am there, right about now. The current election cycle has put me over the top, and I realize that it's time for me to take a personal political stand, and wear that banner openly. Centrism worked before 9/11, but it's moribund now. We don't live in reasonable times.
I'm a Veteran (hence my current profession, a natural fit, I suppose), but find myself being harassed by Liberals here about Iraq, as if they have a clue about what they're talking about. It makes no difference to them; they are "In the know," and I couldn't possibly be. Imagine that.
Comment by Last Angry Man | August 25, 2008
"Notice how this guy who objects to having anyone not address him as "Dr. Kilovolt…" Where did I say that?” It was the "KillVote" thing at issue …”
*** Yes. And I referred specifically to “Kilovolt” in my comments. I continue to address you as “Dr.” in all my correspondence to you or referencing you, despite the silliness of wanting to adopt a title that reflects academic accomplishment as in honor of whoever it was you said you wanted to honor. You could just as easily have adopted “Kilovolt” as your pseudonym without the “Dr.” and accomplished the same objective. But you wanted the honorific title. I did the same thing to some idiot on the Right who insisted on calling himself “Sir William”, or whatever the name was. It’s one thing to pick a pseudonym, it’s another to offer up a pretentious self-aggrandizement of an actual degree when you are discussing issues where an education matters. So as long as you continue to use it, I’ll continue to point out the silliness of calling yourself a “Dr.”.
“Regarding self-aggrandizement, you don't think you are being overly modest on your "About the Author" page, do you? "Jackson uses his extraordinary background, which reaches into the highest levels of business, academic life and government, to create unique, realistic stories." You are just chock full of superlatives for yourself.”
*** I’ll certainly have a discussion with my publicist who wrote this. Let’s see what’s overstated. Is it an ordinary background to earn a Ph.D. from one of the finest universities in the world (The University of Chicago was ranked #3 behind Harvard and Yale in political science in 1981 when I graduated). I’ve run three companies and my partners and I have sold them for millions of dollars, allowing me to retire in my early 50s. I think that counts for a high level of business accomplishments. I was the key staff person for the final negotiation of the NAFTA treaty, worked for the largest government affairs company in DC for 3 years reporting to Bob Beckel and Jody Powell, was speechwriter for a successful congressional campaign, received presidential awards for private sector programs I created from two presidents (meeting them in the White House), and was SVP of government affairs for a trade association for 11 years. I think that qualifies as out of the ordinary in government life.
As for creating “creating unique, realistic stories”, here are some of the reviews I received for my books:
1. “A post-apocalyptic/time-travel/political-thriller… Timeshift is a novel quite unlike it anything you've read before. Phillip Ellis Jackson is definitely a unique new voice in science fiction!”
2. “Timeshift puts a spin on the subject of time travel. … The author's strongest points are in his ideas and plotting. What happens within the book's technological framework is always intriguing. The chess-like developments of the plot itself are also comfortably paced, and indeed such elements click into place throughout. … I must also confess that I got an unexpected chill down my back at one of the story's major plot developments. There is some promise for this new writer.”
3. Timeshift is a very crisply written novel, a true page turner that takes you breathlessly to its end, almost like falling into the racing swirl of Timeshift's Beta Light machine. If anyone is looking for a good read for sunning at the beach, or for a long flight, pick up this fine sci-fi thriller. It will definitely keep you engrossed and entertained, right down to the last page.”
4. “The Timeshift Trilogy is a great mix between science, technology and life-like characters. We have become fans of Phillip Jackson as a ‘story teller’, just as we know many of those who read these books will too.”
5. “It takes a fine craftsman and storyteller to remove us from the work-a-day world and propel us into a fantastic story that includes a United States split in two like the late Roman Empire, as well as a machine that can view the past the way we might watch a VCR. What makes the book a fascinating read has little to do with these strange, almost foreign, notions, but has everything to do with what has always been the hallmark of good fiction, an interesting plot and good character development. Mr. Jackson is good at developing characters quickly. Even the minor characters generally rise to three dimensions and have mixed motivations and even mixed loyalties. Timeshift is a fascinating sci-fi thriller that will keep you turning the pages—cover to cover.”
6. “This [Between Two Worlds] is the first fictional book on the Civil War that I have added to my website. Phillip Jackson brings to the Civil War something other than the run of the mill informational repetoir we have come to expect. He brings a breath of fresh air to us looking to expand our interest in the American Civil War. Take this book on your vacation to the beach; carry it up to your private study and close the door for some personal time with his book's characters.”
7.“Timeshift and Between Two Worlds are wonderful science fiction. Truly outstanding! If you enjoy time travel books, then these books are for you. Timeshift and Between Two Worlds will definitely keep you entertained, right on down to the very last page. I can’t wait for book 3. Take a leap into the Beta Light and see what I mean.”
8. “The scenes and characters [in Timeshift] just seem to flow right into your head and the whole thing makes as much sense as if you were living it right along with the characters…. I actually read it twice in the last six weeks and what I’ve read of the second book is even better.”
I could go on, but you get the point.
Now exactly what has been over-exaggerated in “Jackson uses his extraordinary background, which reaches into the highest levels of business, academic life and government, to create unique, realistic stories."?
Tell you what. Let’s compare what I’ve done with my life with what a typical, well-accomplished person has done with theirs, and see if this is all that unique and extraordinary. Since you brought up the subject, let’s use you as an example. Tell us all about what you’ve done, and put these descriptions of me to shame as uncalled for boasting.
Again, the difference between liberals and conservatives is that we brag about what we’ve actually done, while you guys just invent fancy titles for yourselves.
“Grammar check: ‘While a graduate student he taught university classes and was a research assistant to several internationally-renown faculty members.’ I think you meant "internationally-renowned," the adjective form, not the noun form.”
No. In real academic circles, the phrase is as it was written “renown”, not “renowned”, as this press release from http://www.capital.edu/16875/ illustrates: “Internationally Renown Physicist and Best-Selling Author Lawrence Krauss to Speak at Capital University March 31 “ This is why you need to do more than a Google search which gives you an alternative spelling used in other situations to form your judgments.
Real “Dr.’s” know stuff like this.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | August 25, 2008
LAG is right…We do not live in reasonable times.
A story much like LAG's you-gotta-give-cash-to-the-homeless-or-you-are-a-hearless-**#%$rd …
During the Live Aid concert, I was watching C-Span one day and James Shikwati, noted Kenyan economist said something like "Stop the aid, West. You are killing us!" He spoke about fledgling pharmaceutical companies in Africa being decimated by floods of free meds from the West, keeping Africa in a cycle of dependency because what business can compete with FREE?? Right after that, I went to church and there was a nun giving a sermon raising money for free pharamaceuticals for Africa. She has raised a prodigious amount of money around the US and was about to flood Africa once again with free meds.
I me