Funny things can sure happen out there on the internets, eh? You just never know where they're gonna take you sometime.
I've been posting (and often annoying people) at a mom `n pop blog that's unabashedly loyal to all things associated with DryDrunk FratBoy and his puppeteers' agenda. I even got banned for being a jerk (yeah, I can be a jerk), but was graciously reinstated by the young lady who owns the site. She didn't have to do it, but she did.
One of my reasons for going there has been to develop a voice that's maybe best described as inspired by my idols Dr. Hunter S. Thompson; James Wolcott; RudePundit; and our own beloved Maryscott. I'm very fussy when it comes to choosing role models.
Anywho I was over there one day last week, and here's what happened...
More on the flip
It all started with this photo and caption:
Reuters - Mon May 9, 6:28 AM ET North Korean children play a shooting game with a toy gun aiming at a portrait of U.S. President George W. Bush at Namjun kindergarten in Shinwiju, Pyongan-Budo, North Korea. The photo was released by Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) on May 9, 2005. (Reuters)
Now, on to the Haloscan thread that this entry generated. I've edited the thread to eliminate useless chatter and hide every posters' identity but mine (though I don't post there as RubDMC)
(Boy, do I hate Haloscan. What a lameass excuse for comment management. But, it's free, so you get what you don't pay for, I guess. But does it ever suck.)
--
BRATS!
Actually, that could be a public school in a blue state. I was kind of surprised to see that it was just a bunch of brainwashed furriners.
Beth | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 2:12 am | #
--
That's just bizarre. Maybe it distracts them from figuring out the actual source of their problems and why their country is starving.
Erik | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 10:03 am | #
--
You feel less hungry when you shoot at a picture of the enemy.
Dave | 05.11.05 - 11:42 am | #
This next entry is the one that led to my newfound friendship:
So...does this mean I can have my Kindergarten child shoot at a pic of Hilary Clinton? Ooooh, how about Barbara Boxer? Nancy Pelosi? A whole shootin' gallery!
My new online friend | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 1:59 pm | #
And now for my oh so clever response:
Beth:
"...that could be a public school in a blue state."
My new online friend:
"...does this mean I can have my Kindergarten child shoot at a pic of Hilary Clinton? Ooooh, how about Barbara Boxer? Nancy Pelosi? A whole shootin' gallery!"
Your ill-informed comments are proof that ignorance and intolerance aren't limited to one gender.
RubDMC | 05.11.05 - 4:01 pm | #
Uh oh, I may have stepped in shit with that one...
RubDMC: you condescending and humorless reaction to Beth and My new online friend are proof that you're a fool.
McGibberish | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 4:55 pm | #
Now for some more reasoned discourse...
Look at the night time picture of the Korean peninsula. Sometimes stuff speaks louder than words.
Walter | 05.11.05 - 7:47 pm | #
--
Hahhahhah!!! Walter, sometimes your posts fill me with puzzlement as to what in the world you are actually trying to say, (or whether you are being facetious or not), but that was put perfectly. Thanks.
Erik | Homepage | 05.11.05 - 7:50 pm | #
meanwhile, back with the righteously indignant (me)
McGibberish:
So, those statements were supposed to be funny? And by my comment I'm being condescending?
Interesting...
If we take Beth at her word, she's saying that public schools in ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD, PA, MI, IL, OR, WA, CA (have I left any out?) post pictures of the President for kids to shoot darts at.
And if I understand My new online friend correctly, she wants to post pictures of two Senators and a Representative for her kid to shoot darts at.
Did I miss something?
RubDMC | 05.11.05 - 9:57 pm | #
My new friend comes back again...
Oh RubDMC, please. I was JOKING. McGibberish obviously got it. Chill out, wouldya? Sheesh. Hmmm...who's not being tolerant now???
My new online friend | Homepage | 05.12.05 - 6:55 am | #
--
But I did actually throw darts at Osama bin Laden's picture after 9/11. OH NO, CALL THE SENSITIVITY POLICE!!!
My new online friend | Homepage | 05.12.05 - 12:03 pm | #
Again, I engage...
My new online friend:
"I was JOKING. McGibberish obviously got it. Chill out, wouldya? Sheesh. Hmmm...who's not being tolerant now??"
That's the lamest, and most frequently invoked, excuse from someone who refuses to take responsibility for what they say - a common tactic among right wing blowhards.
If you're going to spout hate speech, at least have the integrity to stand behind it. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
In civilized circles, you don't get to spew whatever you want, then get to take it back because someone calls you on it.
You made your sentiments quite clear, and you've chosen your bogeywomen. Now be a grownup and own what you say.
RubDMC | 05.12.05 - 12:46 pm | #
Time for the blog owner to smack me down, and the original author stays with me on it:
Really. This is a perfect example of why liberals can't get their point across well. You have NO sense of humor.
BlogOwner | Homepage | 05.12.05 - 1:16 pm | #
--
Oh for Pete's sake, man. I said that, yes, and it was meant as a joke. Why don't you grow up and stop whining? I was NOT "spouting hate speech." I was trying to point out the absurdity of small children throwing darts at someone they don't even know!!!
My new online friend | Homepage | 05.12.05 - 3:10 pm | #
And do not even try to tell me there aren't Liberals in this country who throw darts at Bush's picture. Harry Reid got away with calling him a loser..oh yes, I heard his speech after the fact. While he didn't call Bush a loser again, he still holds with what he said and why he said it. Fine, just fine.
So I make a dumb joke about some North Korean kids shooting at a picture of Bush. I'm the only one? Am I the only Republican who is getting sick and tired of Clinton, Boxer, and Pelosi? I doubt that. No, I wouldn't let my son throw things at those ladies' pictures, so lay off me already. It was said in jest for crying out loud, and I'm sick and tired of defending some off the cuff, stupid statement I made!
My new online friend | Homepage | 05.12.05 - 3:26 pm | #
I'm actually pretty proud of this next response ;^)
OK, so BlogOwner and her husband (or My new online friend and hers) have just finished the week's grocery shopping and are pushing their cart across the crowded parking lot.
Suddenly some guy shouts out from a few rows away, "Hey, BlogOwner (or My new online friend), you filthy whore! That was some night last night, huh?"
About a dozen people look up. BlogOwner (or My new online friend) is speechless. The husband is livid. The man approaches - "Oh, heh heh, I was just kidding. C'mon, don't you have a sense of humor? You (suburbanites, Texans, registered Republicans, food shoppers, or whatever) gotta lighten up. Geez Louise."
I doubt you're buying that excuse, and I know the husband isn't.
Lesson #1: Think before you speak.
Lesson #2: Every joke has an underlying grievance.
You made it clear the first time that you didn't like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, or Nancy Pelosi; and you repeated it again just now. No surprise. Why try to run away from what you said?
As for BlogOwner's "Really. This is a perfect example of why liberals can't get their point across well. You have NO sense of humor." Hmmm, one person posts something in one blog thread, and you extrapolate that out to apply to some large number of others across all time.
Better yet, someone says something stupid and tries to wiggle out from it with a lame excuse - and now it's someone else who's the problem.
Nice try.
Now, if I may share a few of my favorite dumb blonde jokes....
RubDMC | 05.12.05 - 4:15 pm | #
My new friend is back, and with an invitation...
How was what I said lame? No, I do not care for those ladies, do you like George Bush? Why is what I said lame? Explain that, please, because I did own up to what I said, and admit it was stupid. I know that. And yes, I need to think before I speak, but I'm not the only one out there who shoots off their mouth. And that is NOT to imply that anyone out there in blog thread land or wherever is shooting off their mouths. It is done, though, and not by me. Better yet, RubDMC, why don't you just visit my blog and cut poor BlogOwner out of it. She doesn't need this aggravation, I'm sure.
My new online friend | Homepage | 05.12.05 - 4:51 pm | #
And now this dude (a frequent and lustful visitor - the blog is run by an attractive lady, and we all think he's got a hard-on for her):
--
...and another person joins the "no sense of humor club."
Dickwad the Shithead | 05.12.05 - 8:58 pm | #
OK, my turn again
My new online friend:
I said that your excuse - I was just joking - was lame. I also said that I wasn't surprised that you don't like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary Clinton.
If your comment about having your kindergarten-aged child shoot darts at pictures of two Senators and a Representative ("A whole shootin' gallery!") was a joke, I don't get it, but maybe that's just me.
If saying that it was only a joke was your chosen way of denying the substance of what you said, then I think that's lame.
As for Dickwad the Shithead, well, there's just no accounting for humor or taste - but I figured that one out a while ago.
RubDMC | 05.12.05 - 9:52 pm | #
Return of the horny asshole...
There's PLENTY of accounting for humor and taste, RubDMC. You just don't have any of both.
Dickwad the Shithead | 05.13.05 - 1:06 am | #
Now we get to the heart of an open door and an open mind (and a repeat invitation to visit her blog)...
RubDMC, I will be the first one to step up and admit (my emphasis) that I don't keep up with the news as much as I should. Therefore, I preface what I say with just that "disclaimer," if you will. As for having my child shoot darts at anyone's picture, my goodness, isn't my job to teach tolerance? Do you honestly think I would teach my kids to dislike anyone, whether that person be a Democrat, a Republican, a man, woman, Iraqi...??? I do not teach my kids to be racist, narrow minded, just as I was never brought up that way.
Now, you just come over to my blog if you have any future comments.
My new online friend | Homepage | 05.13.05 - 6:39 am | #
Here's someone posting at a reactionary blog who's actually openly questioning something she said! It didn't quite register with me, and instead I get off being sanctimonious one last (?) time...
My new online friend:
"I do not teach my kids to be racist, narrow minded, just as I was never brought up that way."
All I had to go by was what you wrote. You really want me to come by that blog, huh?
RubDMC | 05.13.05 - 4:25 pm | #
Bless my new friend and her compassionate heart...
Well, RubDMC, if you were to check out my blog, you would see that most of the time I am pretty goofy and I don't go around spouting hate speech. I ask questions, you know, what's wrong with that?
I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not some dumb housewife.
My new online friend | Homepage | 05.13.05 - 5:02 pm | #
Boom. What could I say? I was speechless for the better part of a day, then wrote:
My new online friend:
"RubDMC, I will be the first one to step up and admit..."
You know, I sat with that post for more than a day before realizing that with it you've come closer than anyone here ever will to actually thinking out loud that maybe you've made a mistake, or weren't being clear, or may have mis-spoken.
Thanks very much for that. I'll cross-post this at your blog, just to make sure that you get the message.
RubDMC | 05.15.05 - 3:22 am | #
That was last week. I visited her blog, and it's very enjoyable. She has a friendly and honest voice, and as she said she's really questioning and exploring what this whole freaking mess might actually mean for her and her family. She calls herself a Republican and former liberal, but my personal opinion is that she's also finding that such labels are pretty much without any real meaning.
Some of her posts are of the personal nature, like talking about her 2 young kids or the activities of her days; others refer to current events and her questions about them - the daily bread of this place.
I posted a few responses, keeping both condescension and preaching at bay. I suggested she visit dKos, and provided a link to my user page here. There are also a few other folks that seem to visit her blog regularly, and they are similarly unlike the ranting lunatics I've come to expect too often.
Yesterday, she mentioned that she had just seen Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson on a show. She didn't seem familiar with Stewart or TDS, but hated Tucker's bowtie. She wondered aloud about what kind of history there was between the two. Bingo!
While I was crafting a clever response that included my uniquely insightful take on corporate media, along with an offer to find a link to the Crossfire video with Stewart from last Fall, another regular popped up and handled the video link.
Well, to make a very long story somewhat less long, today I got the following email from my new online friend...
--- XXXXXX <xxxxx@isp.com wrote:<p>
I hope you don't mind me emailing you, but I've been
giving things a lot of
thought lately, and since you're the only Liberal
person I "talk to," I was
wondering if I could ask you, or discuss with you,
some things.
Thank you, again, for giving me the "smack on the
ass" as it were, regarding
me and my stupid comments. I was mad, at first, but
then it sunk it and I
realized that at some point I've got to admit
defeat, or being wrong, or
totally off base. Yeah, what I said over at
Sparle's blog was supposed to
be a joke, but hey, that's over, right?
At any rate, it hit me that if I call myself an
"adult" that perhaps I
should stop being so narrow minded and one-sided as
far as my politics go.
Yes, I'm a Republican, but does that mean I can't
listen to Liberals or
Democrats? Reading "lefty" blogs won't change the
way I think, but it will
make me think.
What's my point? Well, just this. I agree totally
with you about the fact
that if one does not "toe the party line" they open
themselves up for
criticism. I've noticed on a lot of blogs, both
right and left, that to
even rationally ask a question or make a comment
seems to ignite a firestorm
of, well, bitching! No, I'm not the most informed
person out there, and I
may come off as a big dope, but what's wrong with
asking questions?
Frankly, I'm getting tired of posting even somewhat
neutral comments and
being blasted or called "crazy."
Some questions I haven't been able to have answered
are: If Gore had won in
2000, would attitudes be so different? If Bush
hadn't gone into Iraq, would
attitudes against him be different? How would Gore
have handled 9/11 and
the aftermath? Christianity and moral values seem
to be at the forefront.
What if it was Buddhism or Islam that was the
prevailing religion?
I know, pointless to speak in hypotheticals, and I'm
really not asking these
to be a snot, or a fat head. I just cannot get over
the seeming bitterness
that I hear from everyone. Not just Democrats, but
Republicans too. I know
that the Right is not blameless in all this.
I used to be a big time Liberal, so I'd like to
think that maybe I could see
both sides of these arguments. Things happened over
the years to bring me
over to the Right, though, and I'm not going to
change the way I think,
anymore than I expect you to change.
I'll tell you that I'm married to a National
Guardsman, and darn proud of
him. I'll also tell you that Rumsfeld isn't highly
regarded in this
household...surprised? No, we don't completely fall
in lock step with this
administration.
I'm rambling, I have a million thoughts flying
around in my head and I can't
settle them down. I hope I haven't come off as a
complete idiot, but like I
said, you are the only Liberal I know. Well, I do
know a few more, but I
alienated them after the last election because I had
that Rush/Hannity
attitude. That attitude got tiring.
Wrapping up now. I look forward to discussions with
you.
Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx
a.k.a. Xxxxxxx
Now, seriously, how often does this actually happen? Here's an intelligent and open minded person saying that she wants to engage in a dialogue about the things that are on her mind.
I hope that my response doesn't sound too full of myself. I keep trying to tell myself, "But she asked."
Hi!
Wow, what a wonderful note to get from you.
And I really have to thank YOU for being as generous
and open as you are, especially after I snapped at
you.
As for your questions and comments - oh boy, where to
start?
Well for one thing, I gotta tell you that after saying
I was done with BlogOwner's blog I went over there and
started posting again. Why? I don't know, except maybe
because I wanna say what I wanna say, and her blog is
a place for me to work out a particular "voice."
You caught some of that voice, which is for me to call
bullshit when I see it. I don't want the voice to be a
beligerent one, but then again I can also be pretty
cutting when my patience gets particularly thin - some
of the folks who post there may be nice people (hey,
if Anne Frank can say that she believes people are
basically good after what she went through, I owe it
to her to act on that belief myself, difficult as it
may be), but so many of the posts there are just
bullshit talking points and insults. If I thought that
the insults were funny, I might cut some slack, but
they're mostly very juvenile.
I admit that when it comes to politics and religion I
can be pretty provocative in baiting people to see if
they'll rise. But I also like to think that if
folks'll honestly engage, so will I.
I mean, that's what you've done. you've honestly
engaged.
I guess that's one reason that I might hang in with
BlogOwner- she might be beginning to engage. We'll see
- she's pretty stubborn and well-defended, from what I
can see in her posts.
Right now I'm mostly having "fun" with a guy named
Dave. His posts have been pretty idiotic.
Anyway, I mostly need to limit the time I spend
online, there and elsewhere. I imagine you can relate
to that. It can be a valuable way to spend time, but
it can also be a time sink - I can look up at the
clock and see that I've just let several hours go by
that I'll never get back.
Anyway, regarding your questions and comments - I hope
your husband can stay safe. Is there any chance of him
being deployed?
I'm sure you're proud of him, and that he's committed
to what he's doing. My hat's off to the both of you
for it.
One of the bullshit lies (you don't mind if I swear,
do you? I can swear a lot. If it bugs you, tell me)
that the hatewing reactionaries try to spread around
is that "liberals hate our soldiers," which is part of
their long standing attempt to hijack all things
related to love of country.
I've started using that term, "hatewing
reactionaries," to describe the people who've taken
over the government, along with the noiseradio/TV
frauds like PillPoppin' Rush, O'Liely, Hairhat
Hannity, Ann/Man, and the like. "Hatewing" is for the
fact that they're not "right" at all, and because
their main currency is fear and hatred. Without fear
and hatred, they've got nothing. They spew it. They
vomit it. They bathe in it.
"Reactionaries" is because they're trying to go
backwards. If the true brains behind this group,
public people like Grover Nordquist and Dobson and
Cheney and Delay, as well as the more plentiful
background puppetmasters whose names we don't really
know (I don't mean to sound paranoid) could have their
way, we'd find ourselves back in the days before Teddy
Roosevelt, when the robber barons held sway and
accumulated the kind of wealth that, if they were
doing it today, would make Bill Gates's fortunes seem
less significant. If you know anyone who understands
economics, finance, and statistics, ask them to help
calculate John D. Rockefeller's (or J.P. Morgan's or
Andrew Carnegie's, etc.) fortune at its peak in
current (adjusted for inflation) dollars.
The hatewing reactionaries want to basically eliminate
the middle class (which was made possible by the
policies of FDR, moving forward) and re-align American
society in much starker terms, with pretty much all of
the wealth ending up concentrated in their hands.
It's already happening, with reductions (moving
towards the complete elimination) of the estate tax,
taxes on capital gains and dividends, and upper
bracket income taxes.
These guys are crooks, pure and simple. They're not
Republicans - Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican; Dwight
Eisenhower was a Republican; Abraham Lincoln was a
Republican.
The hatewing reactionaries have hijacked the
Republican party because it was a ready and willing
vehicle for them to achieve their aims. Richard Nixon
kicked it off, and what you see now flows largely from
his time. It's where this current gang cut their
teeth, and they learned very well from Watergate and
Nixon's humiliation.
I hope you don't mind my ranting like this.
Your questions are very good ones. I'm not going to
pretend that I have answers, but you've identified
some pretty good places to start:
>>If Gore had won in 2000, would attitudes be so
different?
Well, first - Gore DID win in 2000. That election (and
2004) was stolen. Again, you might think I'm sounding
paranoid with that, but I truly believe it. Our
election "system" is shameful and fraudulent. It's
almost too much to bear thinking about it, but we've
got to call a spade a spade.
If Al Gore had taken office in 2000, I expect that the
hatewing reactionary machine would have gnawed at him
even harder than they did at Bill Clinton. So, I think
that part of my response to your question is that
"attitudes" would be much different than now - they'd
be worse.
>>If Bush hadn't gone into Iraq, would attitudes
against him be different?
Good question. I think that a war and occupation
against Iraq was a foregone conclusion with these
guys. It was just a metter of timing. Cheney very much
wanted to go on to Bagdhad in '91, but Bush the Wimp
wisely held firm against it. (I call him Bush the Wimp
to differentiate him from his son, DryDrunk FratBoy. I
have little respect for either of them, but at least
Bush the Wimp acted like a grown up sometimes, lap dog
though he was).
>>How would Gore have handled 9/11 and the aftermath?
Short answer - more effectively than this bunch.
FratBoy really had an opportunity right after the
terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. He had the whole country behind him, as well
as pretty much the entire world. But as I said above,
a war and occupation against Iraq was the main agenda.
The terrorist attacks were just a convenient cover for
lots of things.
I believe that Gore would have gone after the
terrorists as criminals, which is the appropriate
response. That means solid detective work, building an
airtight case, and hauling in the perps for clear
justice and swift punishment. We're a nation of laws.
That's how we do it here, or at least that's what
we're supposed to stand for.
But I also expect that the hatewing reactionaries
would have howled for Gore's blood after the terrorist
attacks. He would have had to haul in Osama and crew
before 2004 to stand a chance for reelection.
Meanwhile, FratBoy gets a pass on all of it.
>>Christianity and moral values seem to be at the
forefront. What if it was Buddhism or Islam that was
the prevailing religion?
I believe that the hatewing reactionaries include
militant perverters of the Christian faith, like
Dobson, Fallwell, Reed, and so many others. Those
people aren't as interested in faith as they are in
power and money, but they know how to use their
positions to manipulate voters.
There are others in their sphere who're most
interested in establishing a power structure based on
biblical law, just as many of the Islamic clerics have
established a power structure based on koran. Islam
has long been a 'political' religion, so they've got a
head start, but the long and the short of it is that
our ideals of relgious freedom and tolerance are
anathema to this segment of the hatewing
reactionaries.
"Moral issues" is just a code word, like "pro-life." I
mean, I haven't met anybody who's "anti-life." Have
you?
As for buddhism and islam - spirituality is internal,
it's what each of us believes as our relationship with
God (or however we name that which is bigger than
ourselves). Religion is a human construct, a way to
organize people. And, like any other such construct it
can be perverted. Islam and buddhism aren't immune to
that, though I think buddhism in particular is more
able to resist it because it's the loosest of
religions.
I hope this is a start.
I really enjoy reading your blog - I like your voice,
it's as though you're letting me in to your thoughts
and ideas and questions and day/life happenings.
That's a very generous gift from you.
Thanks for sending this note.
I'm working for the next two nights (7p-7a, I'm a
nurse in Boston), and am going to be wrapping up a
bunch of stuff until it's time for work. I need to
stay offline to get my other stuff done - let's see if
I can ;^)
I also can't access this email account from work,
where I sometimes have some downtime. I will check in
at your blog, though.
Say 'hi' to your husband for me, and give those two
kids each a big hug. Being a mother's the toughest job
in the world.
Best, RubDMC = Jerry
PS - I spend time every day at the web site DailyKos
(www.dailykos.com). I call it "dKos," and it's really
extraordinary. I hope you'll check it out.
The easiest way to explain it is that it's like a
giant online university. There are many brilliant
people contributing content there - economists,
journalists, scientists, activists, humanitarians - so
there are lots of "courses" available.
Most notably, though, everybody is just folks.
The attitude is very open, the focus very progressive.
The site owner (Markos = "Kos") is a partisan
Democrat, and the political slant is clearly that way.
But everyone is welcome, and all views are given a
fair shake.
I didn't "learn" my attitudes at dKos. I'm 50 years
old, so I'm already kind of set in my ways ;^) But
dKos is certainly where I'm learning to give voice to
my beliefs, as well as learn a thing or two (or a
thousand) to help round them out, or adjust them.
I'm also going to post your email to me, and this
response, in a diary. I'm not going to reveal any
identifying information about you, but I do want to
share this exchange with the dKos community.
Peace out, Rub
Not much else for me to say at this point. The diary turned out to be a lot longer than I thought it would be, even though it's mostly cut and paste.
I think there's a lesson or three in all of this, and I'll be thinking about what exactly they might be. In the meantime, take comfort with me in knowing that there are lots of people out there just like my new online friend - concerned about what's happening, and open to the truth.