Thursday, May 26, 2005

Who is more "Right?"

Left. Right. These terms are all wrong. To use polarizing terminology to describe the political landscape in America is really not an appropriate paradigm. I like to think of the beast as more like an amorphous blob with many magnetic points strewn about the blob as it shifts and moves through time. In between the points is the largely apathetic and acquiescent-by-their-silence middle.

I can see it now, Karl Rove sitting around his "war" room strategizing...

"Hey, let's polarize the people! That way it will be dramatically easier to label extremists as Liberal, Commie, Treasonous, Intellectual Non-Patriots so that we can demonize them, dehumanize them and thus, deflate their position. This will be great. Let's call this campaign, 'Castration by castigation!' Wahoo! Power up the Reichwing machine and let's do it. Phone up the survey experts and use our crack team of questionaire designers to influence elections. Then, we will unleash our reichwing fairies in the blogisphere and other media outlets (a la Gannon/Guckert) to help us leverage this polarization to keep us in power so we don't ever need "Minority" and Republic protection devices like the filibuster. Yippie Kai Yeah!"

The question then becomes, not who is more "Right," but who is actually correct? The Left, or the Right? You decide. See prior post from yesterday for ideas about the truth, perception and trust.


pia said...

truth perception and trust.
I heard Bush on the radio this morning with tears in his voice over---not stem cells, not the filibuster not anything except:
John Bolton

My perception was that those were real tears--God help America

A said...

You piously pontificate about polarization and then immediately begin a polarizing blog. It’s just to typically liberal. It’s in the official Democrat Playbook, Chapter 3, “Always Blame the Opposition for That Which We Are Doing.”

windspike said...

Dear A,

What a nice alliteration for you - "piously pontificate about polarization..." It has a nice ring to it, but incidentially, I wouldn't elevate myself, my blog or anything related to me as pious, whatsoever.

Don't go getting sanctimonious on me, A. Look inside brother/sister. Look inside. Therein lies a solution.


P.S. You forgot to explain how this post was polarizing. Could you elaborate, or are you just another one of Rove's Reichwing Fairies?

SheaNC said...

Sounds like Anonymous is having "random" thoughts...

AtRandom said...

You have so succinctly defined your typical type of polarization in your PS, that I couldn’t explain it any better. I will quote “are you just another one of Rove’s ‘Reichwing’ Fairies?” So you have, in question form, demeaned Rove, a polarizing comment by assumptively implying he is a Nazi, you have further implied that I too am a Nazi, then used a form of hate-speech by using the word “Fairies.” A derogatory term for gays and a friend of mine who is of the “Gay” persuasion considers it a slur. So your PS proves my point. You are sanctimonious, self-righteous, polarizing and accusatory, and you did it in so few words. I personally think you deserve an “B+” for your “comment.” I decided not to give you an “A+” because you have to realize what you are saying and understand it intellectually before you can get a top grade.

Yes, I posted anonymously inadvertently hitting the wrong key. Please accept my sincere apology for not getting that right but not being a computer whiz I didn’t know how to remove it so I let it stand. I was just having too much fun. I hate to be anonymous, it’s much more fun commenting on someone who considers himself to be on such a higher plain than everybody else and only occasionally deigns to speak to the masses. You, on the other hand, seem to be too afraid to post your picture. But I do think you should change your handle to “windbag” instead of windspike.

What is so amazing to me is that you make these comments you don’t consider derogatory and don’t even realize it. Is that because you’re up there in your “educationally whispering ivory tower” and don’t’ get many opportunities to mingle with us “Reichwing” unwashed. I’d be happy to define your perpetually polarizing pap (how’s that), but the last time I discussed each issue in your blog, you only responded to one or two points which doesn’t make a detailed analysis of your polarizations any fun. Your spouse is right...go get some air.

SheaNC said...

atRandom (let's call you "Randy" from now on, shall we?), I suppose a visit to your site will yield nothing but even-handed, fair, impartial, non-polarizing material. You're "fair and balanced" like Faux News, I suppose. And, of course, you're the only one allowed to make such statements.

AtRandom said...

Randy is good. Ol’ “windbag is good at calling people names” but I’m better. You, I’ll call “tush-lips.” You are, of course, wrong again. My blog certainly isn’t fair and balanced. It is my view of liberal lunacy and I so state. You, however, haven’t got the guts to post a comment there although you’ve obviously visited it, don’t claim you haven’t. It’s one click of the button. I haven’t tried to hide it and I haven’t posted anonymously. Then, windbag piously says “look inside brother/sister, look inside” That was enough to gag a maggot.

Unlike your slave master, I welcome all points of view and my comment line is open. I don’t try to censor them. What I object to is that windbag is presenting a radically liberal point of view, but condescendingly claims to be totally unbiased. I could care less that he has a point of view different from my own. Just be honest and admit it.

When he derogatorily calls people names and then patronizingly claims he’s not polarizing and is presenting a “fair and balanced” blog, it says a lot about his fears and credibility. My biggest objection to “educationalwhisper” is what it purports to be but is not. It’s a liberal blog with a liberal point of view. What’s so difficult about admitting that?

You are obviously his clone or more likely you are “windbag” writing to yourself so you can have some comments or just as likely you’re windbag’s wife.

Blogging is the wide-open exchanges of ideas or don’t you believe in that. The underlying and very dark tone of “tush-lips” and “windbag” is the implication that I don’t have the right to post my disagreement with the points of view on “educationalwhisper.” In all the time I’ve been posting on those blogs to which I’ve responded, windbag has had comments from you, me a “pia”. It has become very obvious to me that you’re willing to do the name calling, but not willing to compete in the marketplace of ideas. I would be willing to bet that “windbag” is excited to see what ol’ “Randy” has to say. Gives him something to look forward to and gets his adrenalin flowing....probably why his wife is so upset...he’s reading my comments and ignoring her.

Try, you’ll love it even less than

windspike said...

Dear Randy,

Where is the proclaimation you so resoundly indicate and spuriously suggest that I say my blog is not biased? Of course it is. A blog, by definition is written from the author's perspective.

Also, how is it that you know I am not gay and married to my boyfriend? Your automatic leap to the assumption I was married to a woman points you to yet another flaw in your logic.

I don't close out opions or comments, in fact, I can delete yours, but don't. Your commentary only serves to amplify the points I have made time and again.

Instead of arguing and debating the ideas thein, you reduce your points to debasing commentary, which serves only to embarrass yourself.

I've been to your blog and frankly, I don't find it worth commenting on a la Cao and others: you say you are open and welcoming, but if, as you state, your goal is to offend (e.g. "I’m sure that you too will have the privilege of being offended at something on my blog either in the future or the past."), then again, you only serve further embarrass yourself. Offending, my friend, is the easy way out.

If you had a shred of integrity, it might be enjoyable and edifying to engage in a dialog with you. You don't, and it is not.

MoxieGrrrl said...

"It’s in the official Democrat Playbook, Chapter 3, “Always Blame the Opposition for That Which We Are Doing.”"


Interesting, I find that's in the REPUBLICAN Playbook...

I also find it interesting that AtRandom appears to be baiting people into visiting his site and leaving comments. I still don't quite understand the necessity to troll opposition websites, as I find the concept a huge waste of time, but I suppose it makes for some fun reads.

AtRandom said...

Dear Windbag, (since you continue to call me by your chosen name for me, which also includes Nazi, dishonorable and a host more)

Then have the guts to say where you're coming from. And please get off your "holier than thou" "intellectual elite" self aggrandizing bandwagon.

I will admit to an assumption that you are married to a woman since you identified yourself as the stay at home father of two. But calling those with whom you disagree "Fairies," a gay slur, doesn't support your attempt at establishing an implied orientation.

I reread my first post on your blog, which contained a lot of specific critiques of your conclusions. You ignored them all. I have lots of integrity but then you define only those who agree with you as having it.

What has been obvious throughout this exchange, is that I've brought up, time and time again, contradictions that you, like all, liberals aggressively ignore and to which you still haven't responded.

I frankly don't believe that you could dialog with some one of another persuasion. That became obvious on my first post. It's actually what got me interested.

I'm sure you'll continue calling people names and justify it because of your piety and dedication to your self-defined intellectually elitist positions.

I sure you'll also continue to fain ultimate rationality while perpetuating your myths or points, as you write, you've "made time and again." Obviously, they haven't gotten through, at least not to the majority of voters.

PS. By the way you too are making an unwarranted assumption about my name. You assumed that because my blog is called that it's my name. Since you are so fond of telling people to go google themselves, I suggest you type those words in and find out where it really came from. I'm sure you'll be just as distraught at its origin.

PPS. Pick a subject and position and defend it, if you dare and let's see if a dialogue can begin. I have only one rule for my participation...each subject and position has to be contained within 100 words and responses would also have to follow the same rule. But I won't hold my breath.

windspike said...

Dear Random,

You first.

SheaNC said...

atRandom, your behavior is so ridiculous and juvenile it's hard to believe you're not just some adolescent punk trying to mess with people on his/her Mom's computer.

You claim to value name-calling and insults as a method of discussion? And you think that makes you special somehow? Your attempts fall far short of your being considered a worthy adversary. Your name-calling and insults are a cowardly attempt to take potshots at people who's opinions you are unable to comprehend.

You never make any point about any relevant issue. You say "pick a position and defend it," which is done in each original post. then you change the subject and wail like a banshee about something unrelated. You write like a schizophrenic.

And, it is obvious that you come here not to discuss or debate, but to insult the blogger and those who agree with him. I cannot know what pleasure you derive from that, but instead of achieving your goal of making people angry, and thus making yourself feel superior, you only reveal yourself to be worthy of pity.

SheaNC said...

One more thought, Randy -- I also noticed your attempts to harass Windspike to visit your blog and leve comments. Ha Ha Ha! That's pathetic!

AtRandom said...

Dear Tush-lips, consider your goat got!