Ramona's picture

    FRIDAY FOLLIES: The Arresting truth about Orlando Cops, Vegetables, Bachmann, and the Sublime Ruby Bridges

     

    I guess you've heard that the Orlando police have been busy arresting people from Orlando Food, not Bombs who have been busy feeding the hungry and the homeless in the city's public parks.  That was a big story in itself, but the even bigger story was that, among the protesters, there was one lone supporter of the police.  He prefers to remain anonymous, but he's pretty clear about why he's supporting them (watch the video from Rawstory):
     

    “The Orlando Police Department has demonstrated that you can count on them to enforce the law,” the protester explained stoutly. “If it was against the law for women to vote, I think they would would be there to arrest women who tried to vote. And if it was still against the law for African-Americans to use the same restroom facilities as Caucasian-Americans, Orlando Police Department would be right there to arrest them. Because they will enforce the law no matter what it is, so we have to support them for that.
    “Because in America,” he went on, “the last thing you need is liberty, justice, conscience getting in the way of the law. We don’t want that. So we need to have officers who will just blindly obey and follow anything that they’re told. Because this country was founded on bootlicking. … I’m a tax-paying American. I want to see my tax dollars put to use. I like to see people getting arrested. … So I think they’re doing a great job, and as long as they continue to arrest people for feeding the homeless, I’ll continue to support them, because they’re doing their job. ... I think anybody should be arrested for feeding the homeless because it's a vicious, vicious problem."

    So here's "the rest of the story".  On Monday, while police were waiting in Eola Park to arrest more feeders of the hungry, Food not Bombs were in front of City Hall setting up their tables and serving up the food.  They were invited by the mayor, Buddy Dyer, who even offered to give them peppers from his roof garden.  It was an open invitation to set up "any time they wanted".  From the mayor. 

    Which brings me to my next question:  Who do the police answer to, if not the mayor?  Can't he just tell the police to go find some real crime to stop?  And if he's not in charge there, how does he have the authority to let them set up in front of City Hall?  Is he in danger of getting arrested, too?  So many questions, but the point is, the guy with the sign supporting the police got OFNB much more attention than their own protests did.  Fine job, guy, whoever you are.

    I think what I read was that Buddy, the Orlando mayor, has a vegetable garden on the roof of city hall.  They can't feed the homeless in public parks but they can grow veggies on the roofs of public buildings.  That's different.   Go tell that to the people in power in Oak Park, Michigan, where there's a battle going on because Julie and Jason Bass dared to tear up their front yard and put in a vegetable garden.  A nice vegetable garden.  Well kept.  No weeds.  But nonetheless they're vegetables and according to the interpretation of their poorly-written ordinance, they're not allowed in front yards.
     


     Julie Bass says she called city hall and didn't get a "no", so they went ahead and planted their veggies.  Well, one thing led to another and so far no jail time, but a fair amount of harassment in the form of citations, etc.  Julie took it to Facebook, where it went viral and now Oak Park officials are getting hate mail and phone calls and it's even gone international.  I think it's going to be all right, though.  The officials really want to back down.  They're just trying to figure out how to save face while doing it.
    (Breaking news:  No jail time for Julie.  Charges dropped.  Still the matter of the dogs, though...)

    And speaking of vegetables, did you hear the latest about Michele Bachmann?  (No, not the chutzpah thing.  But that was funny, wasn't it?  Is she the only person in the world who doesn't know that you have to hack up the "ch" like you would a loogie?)  No, this is a new revelation of an old story (2005), where Ms. Bachmann claimed she was terrorized and practically kidnapped by a lesbian and an ex-nun in a public bathroom.  As Mike Mullen wrote in City Pages, "Michele Bachmann, an ex-nun, and a lesbian walk into a bathroom sounds like the first line of a joke..."  She has a history of calling the police over rather silly incidents, but this one is one of the more hilarious.  Really.
     

     

    A moment of Sublime:   The famous Norman Rockwell painting of little Ruby Bridges being walked by U.S Marshals into her newly integrated school is going to the White House.  Rockwell called his 1964 painting "The Problem we all live with", and it was among the first of his paintings depicting real, unadulterated problems in what had formerly been perceived as "Norman Rockwell country".  It caused a sensation when it appeared on the cover of Look Magazine, and is still a vivid icon of the civil rights movement.  It's a painting that brings tears to my eyes every time I look at it, and now it'll be hanging in a prominent place in the White House, at least while Barack Obama is president.

    Ruby Bridges went on to become a civil rights activist, concentrating on the children who are in danger of being left behind.  She founded the Ruby Bridges Foundation "to promote the values of tolerance, respect and appreciation of all differences through educational programs".  That scared but brave little girl became the woman we cherish for her caring soul.  Sublime.



    The Problem we all Live With - Norman Rockwell, 1964

    Cartoon of the week
     
    "Let that one go.  He says he don't wanna be mah equal."
    Bill Mauldin - St. Louis Dispatch 1960
    *

    Comments

    Excellent post Ramona. Contrary to popular belief (especially among a large part of the left) racism has not gone away. It is alive and well and calls itself - The Tea Party.

    Currently represented officially by Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell.


    Sadly, you're right.  The wicked are always among us, too often in the raiment of power.


    Hey mauk, I happen to be a large part of the left and, speaking for myself, I don't believe racism has gone away. So there. But yeah, excellent post, Ramona.


    Thanks, acanuck.  Yes, I actually think it's the right who pretend racism isn't an issue.  Especially when we prove it is.


    Some general comments about this topic:

    Of the 10-15% of Americans who are considered to be in poverty, a small number are unable to  provide nutrition and shelter, etc. (e.g. half own a house). Most are deemed comfortable by past (pre WWI) standards. And, by the standard of poverty elsewhere in the world today...? By this measure they're actually rich.

    Assuming the ones at the park in Orlando were not nominally poor, but among the fringe that makes up a smaller number, I think that justifies giving them food in any circumstance. Heck, I give food to people who have jobs and houses (to make it easier and provide a sense of kindness that government's inert to).

    But, for the sake of discussion, what about people who are passing through, not in a destitute state of well being? In that case, don't you need a permit? I know that everyone needs one, but I'm asking if even the most angst filled social justice advocate would then understand the need for a government permit?

    It's possible that this story is being exploited for political purposes to draw people into looking at it emotionally rather than practically. Maybe the most the story teaches is that the Orlando law doesn't make it easy (or possible at all) to do a good thing under circumstances where the good thing should be allowed.

    Sounds an awful lot like many things that government does.

    You have to side with the person who actually has no food, but somehow understand that people differ on how to address that situation. Each individual can address it though, if they want to... and that does ease the burden for professionals and charity groups and the like. 


    "And speaking of vegetables, did you hear the latest about Michele Bachmann?" --Ramona

    If that were even a little witty it might be possible for people to credit it with something other than crass mockery. If it impresses anyone it would be due to the fact that they enjoy the baseless ridicule of others, and then what should be expected? Congratulations? If that's the case, the discussion is very near the bottom.

    I find it interesting that in the first 10 hits that I followed regarding the presumably ridiculous foray of Michelle Bachmann's police reports, I could not find one showing (or linking to) actual verbiage of what she reported (did, said or experienced).

    If you're so convinced that this stuff is so ridiculous that only someone with a vegetative mind could produce it, why is the dialog so short on facts and so long on accusation and insult? It seems to me the more vegetative activity is the one that fails to actually research events, rather than say actually get into a climate that can be seriously unsafe (cf. Gabriel Giffords). 

    In case you're thinking of going there, No, I don't support her politically or financially. I have defended Michael Dukakis among conservatives for similar reasons. Honestly, who judges anyone or anything fairly with baseless ridicule? 


    One thing you might want to come to terms with is that political sites and their bloggers, regardless of their ideological bent, will operate with an understanding of shared knowledge.  For those of left leaning bent, Bachmann's comments ranging from un-American activities to gays, along with her inciting speeches in the early days of the tea party to her inane comments about the debt ceiling, means she has no credibility and there is nothing really she can say that will be given merit.  If she does make a comment that has validity, there are definitely dozens of more credible people to attribute the same sentiment.  As is usually the case in politics, people tend to not attribute anything valid to a politician (even a blind squirrel will find a nut from time to time) if they have made too many comments that those people fear would gain credibility as a result.double post - illumanti are at work again


    "political sites and their bloggers, regardless of their ideological bent, will operate with an understanding of shared knowledge"

    Did I take issue with someone's shared knowledge? Knowledge requires familiarity with a person or topic. No one cited what is known. If they had, you might have a point to make about me glossing over the greater "shared" meaning. Whether you're talking about the idea of just one person's or it's shared among 100 people simply makes no difference... unless you would prefer that what's "shared" not be subject to the same logic (or consideration) as it would for any other discussion, simply on the basis that a bunch of people advocate it.  


    you took issue with Bachmann being referred to as a vegetable.  This is based not just on the police stuff but on her history of comments and actions.  While I don't believe she is literally a vegetable, I believe just her views on homosexuality means she not be given any credibility as someone who should have a significant voice in the public discourse. 

    Now you can provide evidence why we should consider Bachmann as someone to take serious (hence not a vegetable).  But just because someone on a political site has already come to a conclusion about a politician's worthiness to be listened to is not a fault.

    Anyone who has spent any amount of time on blog sites with a left lean knows why Bachmann is viewed the way she is.  We can't be going into the full list everytime she is brought up for people such as yourself who seem not willing to familiarize yourself with rationale prior to commenting. 

    So rather than just attacking Ramona's characterization of Bachmann, please provide examples why Bachmann should be characterized in any other way.


    "attacking Ramona's characterization of Bachmann, please provide examples why Bachmann should be characterized in any other way"

    I didn't attack it. I discredited it, by: 

    a) pointing out it's a blatant crass (and baseless) form of ridicule

    b) asking for (suggesting to use) facts about the claim
        (I mean ridiculousness of reports Bachmann filed)

    c) comparing Bachmann to a "politically opposite" person,
    to (hopefully) show that all meanness baseless

    I don't need to win you over to Bachmann nor do I want to.

    It seems to me you're trying to segue away from the crass insulting nature of how some characterize people, in ways that no people deserve, especially when the sole reason (as stated) is that the views are disliked by many in a group (and that I appear to be ignorant of that).

    This appears the excuse, simply be mean to people. The problem is it's weak and it also allows you to not have to support what's claimed (plus it's mean).


    I provided you with nice list of reasons why Bachmann should be discredited, a list well-known by those in the center and left of the political spectrum.  People like Bachmann, regardless of their of their ideology, who seek the highest office in the land deserve to be ridiculed. 

    Since there is plenty of evidence out there, just start with her request to investigate un-American activities and go forward, I have to believe if someone made the comment, "Hitler the thug," without evidence (the author assuming everyone knew he was a thug) you would come on and comment asking for facts to prove Hitler was a thug.

    In other words, not everyone who chooses to enter the political arena, especially the presidential election arena, deserves respect.

    Respect is earned not a right.  Bachmann has not earned it.

    If that is being mean, then, well, so be it.  Welcome to politics. 

    Again, the evidence against Bachmann is well documented.  So if there is something to counter all the evidence against her, please provide it.


    People who do not want to be ridiculed should not do/say things so ridiculous that they render a person no other option than to ridicule them.

    If I ever hear that she has said something that is NOT ridiculous I will try to point it out so as to seem biased. Don't hold your breath until then. You will die. Or maybe just pass out then start breathing automatically, but you might fall and hit your head, so you could still die.


    Another way to put it: you seem to have the expectation that each blog and comment on a thread be a stand alone assertion on par with a 350 page political dissertation, where the author goes into the multitude of considerations and shades of grey, while acknowledging that the whole truth cannot be known, and that obvious assumption is explicitly acknowledged as such.  Blogs and comments work in the context of the whole.  Read all of Romona's blog and all of the blogs on this site, and all of the comments, and suddenly things start to come more into focus.


    "Another way to put it: you seem to have the expectation that each blog and comment on a thread be a stand alone assertion on par with a 350 page political dissertation, "

    That's total bologna! Produce one fact, in context of something said, stated, or experienced according to the actual events supporting the claim that her concerns about assault are ridiculous. 350 pages? You could do it in one short paragraph if you actually could support it. Maybe the truth is you can't, and it's just another comment along the line of things used to falsely accuse people personally for lack of "political compliance".


    Now try to follow me here.  Your basic thesis here is that Ramona is calling Bachmann a vegetable solely on the police issue (which a quick google of provides the basis, but here is a rather balanced account from Politico), whereas there is no direct evidence that Ramona was making her accusation solely on that.  In fact the implicit assertion of "speaking of vegetables" is that Bachmann long ago established herself as such based on other comments and actions.

    (and yes sometimes when a politician who fully disrespected, little things they would forgive or look the way on with those who they do respect are blown out of proportion for the political effect. but again, welcome to politics.)

    So....

    One can, as I have done, in a hyperbolic way, which is par for the course out here in the blogosphere (in part because we're all trying to show how truly witty we are), assume that you attacking Ramona's characterization of Bachmann for being a vegetable because she didn't go into the whole history of Bachmann, but rather reduced it to "speaking of...."

    You may want her go into a whole spill of statements about gays and how she was inciting violence among the tea party rally folks, etc etc.  But everyone here already know that stuff.  It's old hat. Common knowledge.  I'm sorry you weren't privy to it, and that somehow you feel kept out of the loop. Or that you feel an expectation that bloggers like Ramona need to get folks like you up to speed with every blog or every comment.  Life isn't fair. Dang it.


    "Now try to follow me here."

    I'm not going there, I'm not into the activist hot-button, emotional argumentation. In my experience it's an endless black-pit of bitterness and ill feelings. But I will say one thing. It's completely different to hold a belief in an idea and defend it on that basis than to personally judge, ridicule, shame or otherwise disparage a human being for mere disagreement about said ideas.


    I'm not going there,

    Which is short hand for "I know you're right but I don't want to admit it."

    But one last time, it one thing to simply disparage someone, and it is another thing to disparage someone based on evidence, which is why Bachmann is disparaged here.  You still haven't provide one piece of evidence why I or anyone else should politically respect Bachmann.  My guess is because you can't.  Which is the opposite of someone like Dukakis.


    It's called a satirical segue ... only a posited vegetative mind would work to tie a topic about vegetables with one of another wacky thing Bachmann did. And don't try and give me that "prove Bachmann has been wacky" bullshit ... at this point, I'd be hard pressed to find three instances in which she has appeared sane.

    Good lord. The woman filed a report accusing "false imprisonment" ... because a couple folks tried to talk to her in the bathroom.

    She's a fucking dingbat. Deal with it.


    Everything kgb999 said has nothing to do with what's required. Under law false imprisonment simply means someone wants to leave a place and someone else prevents that from happening. Gabriel Giffords wasn't physically blocked by a couple people who she doesn't personally know, and her views were far less controversial than Bachmann's. 

    And look what happened to her.

    You know, it's never good to be crass, mean or intellectually dishonest just to make political points. And I don't say that conservatives don't also, or for that matter independents (they have their targets too!), but I really find it especially troubling  when folks do it who describe themselves belonging to a group that takes pride in ideas of tolerance and respect.


    tolerance and respect as virtues does not that mean that one allows people who make inane and dangerous comments to get a free pass.  Calling someone like Bachmann a vegetable on a political web site is neither crass, mean, nor intellectually dishonest.  In fact, one of the most intellectually dishonest thing one could do is to say that Bachmann is a value add to the political discourse in this country. 

    Human language is built on metaphor.  Every word other than pronouns can be traced back to a physical/concrete object or phenomenon.  Even the most of the abstract of words.  The simile "Michele Bachmann is like a vegetable" is line of poetry, maybe not on par with "Juliet is like the sun" but poetry all the same.


    I've heard insults called "humor" before, but I have to admit that I've never before heard it called "poetry". That's a new one.


    Dagblog is cutting edge, man. 

    But for your insulting pleasure I give you the Ye Olde Official Shakesparean Insult Kit, you artless, crook-pated apple-john.

    or the random Shakespeare insulter for actual quotes, like

    So, so, thou common dog, didst thou disgorge thy glutton bosom.

    Taken from: Henry IV, part 2

     


    And no matter whatever value has come from today's discourse on Dagblog, thanks to flow of the discussion which led me to Shakespeare Insult Kit, I can't wait to use "Away I say, thou gleeking, pottle-deep winter-cricket" at my next committee meeting when someone says something to which I deeply disagree.


    Thou froward swag-bellied foot-licker!


    Oh yeah?

    Beware my sting thou frothy idle-headed moldwarp


    Indeed. That is a gem of a find.


    I'm having a hard time figuring out how you draw equivalence between the Tucson shootings and this. It seems kind of crassly bullshitlike. In the context of this forum, it's almost as if you are trying to pick at a perceived recent emotional wound than actually make a salient point about Bachmann. So, for that: asshole. But I am neither a liberal nor a Democrat so the tragedy likely doesn't resonate with me in the way you are hoping ... in that regard, you shoot rather wide of your mark.

    It certainly does seem kind of brazen for someone using such a tactic to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty.

    Bachmann made her police complaint well after the alleged incident had resolved, and after reportedly having received apologies/clarification of intent from so-called assailants. As such there was zero physical danger that obviated making a criminal complaint. Clearly, Bachmann was able to extract herself from the the situation without difficulty, file a police complaint, have the police investigate and reply with a polite variation of "There is no merit here, lady. Why are you wasting our resources in this age of wacko republicans slashing public service budgets left right and center?" What a total dip-shit.

    I find it difficult to believe that a secreted ultra-liberal Scandia police force blew-off her complaint to further their socialist-communist agenda and make her look silly .... and now she can't ever go safely to Scandia no more.

    For myself, I take pride in the ideas of effectiveness, sound judgment and a lack of bullshit. I think that may be where some of your confusion arises. Why the hell am I going to respect something that is totally lame? I may be required to tolerate it's existence ... but that doesn't mean I'm not going to mock it. Welcome to America. We're a pretty brutal lot once you get out of liberal-land.

    If you want me to show respect for a party's politicians, the party shouldn't run people like Bachmann. If your(?) guys insist on this shit you should expect nothing but well-deserved ridicule from me. The woman is pretty much an embarrassment, that's why the Dems love to obsess on her. Defending her as serious only reduces your own credibility.


    "In other words, not everyone who chooses to enter the political arena, especially the presidential election arena, deserves respect.

    Respect is earned not a right."  --AT

    Every person is equal in dignity and deserves that level of respect. If you're talking about something else that people do to "stir up" a greater feeling of allegiance or attachment in you (which is often unwise), that's a side issue. That's not what I defended. It also has nothing to do with the issue of credibility of Bachmann's concerns and the facts surrounding her experience.  


     

    A short primer in dignity and respect, Smithers style:
     
    That would explain your nonsensical quips, you have no argument.
     
    It takes gall for you to question someone's intellectual honesty when you apparently have not one iota of it.
     
    I'm thankful no case rests on your opinion. ... The term "troll" comes to mind.
     
    She's as dead as the ignorant leftist manifesto she ascribed to. 
     
    What vacuous claptrap.
     
    No sir, Obama is a didactic power monger.

    Or Willy would say: "Base slave, thy words are blunt, and so art thou."


    That would explain your nonsensical quips, you have no argument.

    It takes gall for you to question someone's intellectual honesty when you apparently have not one iota of it.
    I'm thankful no case rests on your opinion. ... The term "troll" comes to mind.
    She's as dead as the ignorant leftist manifesto she ascribed to. 
    What vacuous claptrap.
    No sir, Obama is a didactic power monger."

    That's really a lot of work to go through Donal, to come up with so very little.

    I recall that in most of these instances no one disputed (and in some cases later admitted) using nonsense, ridicule, etc. (what I might call bologna or claptrap), but of course excused it under the guise of "fairness", "satire", "humor"... and as of late "poetry". 

    The woman actually is dead, and made no significant mark in the manifesto.

    Finally, "didactic power monger" is relevant. It's a strong statement that can fit Obama, Bush, Roosevelt or any other war time leader. I'll give you that it's personal though. I do retract (and apologize for) that aspect of the comment. In all honestly, Presidents often assume an office of "didactic war mongering". Still, they don't have to accept it, that's by choice.

    Also, it's fair to point out trolling when, in fact, the remarks are pejorative, off topic and have all other hallmarks of the behavior.

    So... I appreciate your care and concern over my conduct, but really, for all it took to create your list, you found one or two fopaux. But I'll certainly take more care, now that I know you're afoot!  (:


    No trouble at all with such a rich vein of hypocrisy in only two weeks. Even so, I knew you'd come back and claim that a faux pas was justified when you did it. 


    So, if I were to say that I laughed so hard I had tears rolling down my face over "fopaux" would that be considered ridicule?


    Hmm... Something else I've discovered in my perusal of trolling (aside from mainly looking to be a nuisance to someone who you don't agree with) is the common tack of finding highly technical faults like punctuation and spelling to throw in a "dig" rather than do genuine work examining logic or reasoning of the idea. 

    Trolling is an actual formal topic these days Donal (and Idealist). You two should seriously check it out.

    You're welcome! (:


    A favorite tactic of trolls is to accuse others of trolling.


    Honestly, do you care to talk about the topic Donal?

    With Respect,

    T. Smithers (:



    the image of the fractalposted by cmaukonen is worth visit.  whether we realize it not, the chaos of our response is somehow with the realm of the pattern.  we're just strings vibrating.


    smithers bows down to his Buddha, George W. Bush, the non-didactic Decider and:

    Great White War President

    Saddam-Getter and true power monger, whom smithers was AOK with until the wars turned into fiascoes.


    Smithers, can we talk?  What do you think your role is here on dagblog?  I think you're probably a decent sort, but if you have one flaw it might be that you keep returning to  places you obviously don't like that are populated with people you can't stand in order to let those people know how much you can't stand them.

    Do you see the folly in that?  (Forgive me, I'm still on my Friday Follies high.)  Do you know how short life is?  Do you know how futile it is to try and convince people who think rather highly of themselves that they are not who they think they are but are, instead, real A-holes?  Do you get how little they care what you think after that? 

    And can you understand that in these places you can't stand, populated with people who really grind you, there are some who actually spend hours writing about subjects they care deeply about (or just want to make fun of) and find it really annoying when any conversation that finds you in it always turns to a negative analysis of either the author or the commenters,  and then a defense of same follows, along with some cat scratches and bad words and a total fall-apart of any sensible feedback about the topic at hand?

    So let me ask you:  Could you just once stick to the topic at hand and join us in dissecting it (the topic) instead of trying to put the people you're sharing the room with on the chopping block? 

    Thanks in advance.

    Sincerely,  Ramona


    And before you dissect my grammar, yes, I know I should have said "the people with whom you're sharing the room"....

    I like my way better.


    And if I might add to Mr. smithers_t, Ramona, saying "respectfully" when you're acting like a jerk, doesn't negate the jerkiness. Just make you seem like a bigger one. Just sayin'. Respectfully, of course.   =)


    "if you have one flaw it might be that you keep returning to  places you obviously don't like that are populated with people you can't stand in order to let those people know how much you can't stand them."

    That's not my intention. I talk about ideas that are important in our day... really it's the only basis for interest. To the extent that the idea keeps the focus, it's also (usually) not taken personally. 

    But to be fair Ramona, if anyone can't stand on their own two feet in discussing (sometimes) weighty issues on a public blog that involves mainly adult people (some of whom are studied)... well, think about it.... they should be prepared for tough intellectual argument that goes beyond the usual water cooler chat.

    I mean nothing personal. I post at conservative blogs too. I won't tell you my screen name there because I don't want to try and answer the liberal position here). They're in some ways a tougher group to talk to, they don't feel they need to address the poor, even as I did above, they think that too is an ideological battle when it's one of the issues that actually isn't.

    I said earlier, if people don't want substantive debate that's fine, I won't hang around. I really have no interest in the "body slam" method of discussing politics that's so popular among pundits and (some but certainly not all) blogs. So I pick and choose the topic, and forum, based in part on that idea.

    Role? Open dialog, don't take sides, try to keep it simple while employing reason and hopefully not be personal or disrespectful. (Note: addressing ideas is open fair and infinitely possible to do without the ill motives you've ascribed, none of which do I have. If you're made to feel bad by someone disagreeing with an idea... You need to just back up and look at what was said literally (not through the prism of some hateful attitude of an uber-right winger). That I assure you I am not and will never be.

     So that's it. Take care.


    The thing that really confuses me: you have not substantiated anything.  All you have done is talk about others not substantiating.  So maybe, just maybe, you could possibly substantiate one particular policy stance or politician.  Until you do, I will consider you a provocateur. Which does have its role, but it is minimal.

    What might help is if you provide one blog to show where you do stand. That is beyond everyone should be respected.

    I would add that given the  flow of those commenting on this site, there have times when I have been the odd man out. 


    But Trope, you're never an ass just for the sport of being an ass! =)


    There are some who might disagree with you on that assertion.


    Never underestimate your value to this here dagblog.  Your comments above deserve some sort of prize.  A Dikkday prize.  So where the hell is he when we need him?


    Yes, where is that misbegotten knotty-pated ratsbane!


    Wow!  That deserves a prize, too.  What a dilemma.  I'll leave it to DD to sort it all out.


    "maybe, you could possibly substantiate one particular policy stance or politician.  Until you do, I will consider you a provocateur. Which does have its role, but it is minimal."

    I don't advocate any Presidential candidate. I think the office is unnecessary, it's largely a figurehead. Although attempts are made to give strength to the office for political reasons. Each major party candidate's incumbent does that in different ways, using executive orders and the like ...or what progressives call "the bully pulpit" (should be called the speech-writer's pulpit!).

    I prefer to discuss ideas and issues though. Any single one from your long list earlier would have been fine, honestly. If you want, I'll pick one myself later.

    "What might help is if you provide one blog to show where you do stand. That is beyond everyone should be respected."

    I think dignity and respect is beyond all the other issues (if by beyond you mean more important or relevant)

    I'm quite proud of you for not being a group insider. To be honest, I wouldn't wish that on anyone I know.

    Cheers!


    I don't advocate any Presidential candidate. I think the office is unnecessary, it's largely a figurehead.

    Respectfully, that statement, made in vacuo (i.e., without any deeper explanation), seems to suggest a significant lack of understanding of how our government works. I often argued that George W. Bush proved just how important the office of President is, albeit for very sad reasons.


    Open dialog, don't take sides?   Yes, to the open dialog, no to not taking sides.  I'm a liberal; that's the side I'm taking.  If you mean don't side with other commenters just to pile on, I'll agree with that.  But if you think what you're doing is not taking sides, I've got news for you.

    Open dialog comes when both sides respect the opinions of others, however wrong they might seem to be.  You clearly have no respect for opinions other than your own.  I think you are in need of some open-minded soul searching. 

    I asked you what you thought your role was here because what I'm seeing is a classic instigator.  If you truly want some intelligent conversation among people whose views might differ from yours, you have only to go back and re-think the "dialog" you've inspired with the closed-minded "elitist" tag you use so often instead of actual topical discussion.

    Your arguments for Michele Bachmann aren't serious arguments.  You came to dagblog to play devil's advocate, no matter the conversation.   Most of the people here are playing along, but I doubt anyone is really taking you seriously.   And they'll get tired of it before long.  You're not the first one to try it.


    "the closed-minded "elitist" tag you use so often instead of actual topical discussion.

    Your arguments for Michele Bachmann aren't serious arguments."

    Interesting to take such offense at the term elitist (which is not a put-down of persons, but something employed by many groups, unintentionally)... and then, in the next sentence, say something elitist. Like I said, it's unintentional. I'm sure I do it too.

    The thing about "sides" though... you tend to see them most clearly when standing in the middle. You may think I'm conservative because I'm not liberal. Conservatives tell me I'm liberal. But I really don't hold that many views of either group. That's the classic "if you're not with us, you're against us." I'm not against anyone. I'm not even against Bachmann. (;


    Might I suggest that when your spell-check says you've messed up, but doesn't give you an alternative (because you've hacked it up so bad that it can't come up with a guess) you might try using another word, or google the word (google often can figure it out and give you the right spelling.)

    Sorry, but blogging is a sometimes a brutal sport, especially for those who spend the majority of their time on a left-of-center blog site taking a contrarian  position on virtually every subject that comes up. I mean, come on, if you're legit, surely you would agree with someone, some time, on something, wouldn't you? I know I don't read every word you write, but those I do leave me wondering how you ended up here unless you're on some kind of a mission. If you have any illusions that you'll change hearts and minds, good luck with that.


    Bingo.


    "I mean, come on, if you're legit, surely you would agree with someone, some time, on something, wouldn't you? I know I don't read every word you write, but those I do leave me wondering how you ended up here unless you're on some kind of a mission. If you have any illusions that you'll change hearts and minds, good luck with that."

    In my experience, agreeing with the right ideas of people with strong political motivations reinforces the sense of (one way of putting it is) "if you're not part of the solution, you' must be part of the problem".

    Honestly, its true of strong conservative or liberal adherents or religious adherents, etc. Each one has "system", a sort of happy play-box that defines belonging. It brings people in in a couple of ways... it can break them down when they ask difficult questions. If people want to be liked, they often "join up" (not literally), or they will be dismissed or told to leave or ignored. It can also bring them in because the naturally held one or two of the group's ideas that were really important to them (they will often give up their other ideas in order to belong to the bigger, better, stronger? idea)

    You really have to not care if people don't like you if your intention is to think critically on your feet and not be arbitrarily persuaded by dogma or group thinking.

    Me changing hearts and minds? No. But the truth, if its' reasonable... (it can also be sharply critical as long as it's not delivered in a mean way... no one listens to meanness with good reason)... Well, it Can, and Does, Change people in the most basic way. (Been there!) In important ways sometimes 

    Mission? No. I'm between travel destinations, nothing more than that. I have some time.


     I have some time

    Ain't we a lucky bunch of motherfuckers...


    In the spirit of Shakespeare, maybe one should say are we a lucky bunch of spleeny, sheep-biting wagtails.


    In a sense, Yes... you have means (intellect /will) to do Good... Maybe you could win friends and influence people... Or, if not, have some fun, take the Morals Politics Test... maybe you could win a prize for being the most insightful political critic on your spleeny, sheep-biting street. smiley  


    Yes, every person is equal in dignity as a human being, and deserve that level of respect.  But, here's the catch, Bachmann made a choice to enter politics, no one forced her to do that.  And if she says homosexuality is a disease, given the collective knowledge of our society, then she is either, (1) an idiot or (2) a disingenuous asshat.  Giving her the benefit of the doubt I choose (1) over (2).  In order to convey this assumption (she actually may be #2) there is a number of metaphors and similes I could use.  Vegetable is one of those.  This is in no way attacking the dignity she is afforded as a result of being part of the human community.  


    "This is in no way attacking the dignity she is afforded as a result of being part of the human community."

    It's good of you to, in the end, credit Michelle Bachmann with dignity. I can't say I expected that (and would not have wanted to judge anyone that poorly)... but thankfully, I didn't have to go there. So... I credit you  (:


    I recall that in most of these instances no one disputed

    Do you really expect us to banter with a moron who cannot deconstruct a pun as if we were talking to an equal?  Dream on, freeper.


    I rest my case: Trolling, gross disrespect and elitism, all in one short sentence. (See above)


    I rest my case

    Case dismissed.  Next plaintiff, state your name for the record and raise your right hand to be sworn...


    Calling Jack McCoy....Jack McCoy are you there. 


    "And if she says homosexuality is a disease, given the collective knowledge of our society, then she is either, (1) an idiot or (2) a disingenuous asshat."

    I won't get into the common activist mind trap of "you're either for us or against us", whether that regards issues of gays or gun advocacy... But, you don't get to read minds, or make assumptions... and you appear to be doing that without restraint. 

    Consider, if Bachmann were discussing a) pathology; or b) what she believes an abnormality (perhaps due to religious belief)... well, it's impossible to judge the meaning fully, and even begin to engage in any kind of proof or rational discourse, without knowing more. So, the whole nature vs. nurture.... born this way or made a choice, etc. thinking, can't be addressed logically.. and the alternative? Having people cite a whole bunch of conflicting surveys and anecdotes.

    But it's genuine, non-idiotic, non-asshat, valid argumentation to explore what I would call "behavior vs. value"... (related to my defense of Bachmann actually.. if she were honest she'd have to say she affords the same dignity to people who don't believe what she does, even if it's abnormal or "sin" to her)... and, it's especially easy to have that discussion when you remove yourself from "perceived judgment" of those who you might mistakenly think are doing anything but expressing belief in an idea. And it's easier yet when you remove yourself from "the sides". But to do that takes effort. 

    Again, I won't go there.. where you were trying to take me earlier. I'll discuss what's known about the topic (which might be far less than people think), not anything else. And only in the context of whether or not it's ridiculous, since that's the original claim. 


    there are certain places where one asks society to draw the line.  From your perspective, which is in the end the logical extreme of relativism that the conservatives used to bash liberals, you would defend those who do genital mutilation on young girls because it was their cultural ways in the "old country."  Who are we to disagree.  I support the pro-lifers to state their case (but to shoot abortion doctors, nor to terrorize those seeking legal operations).

    She can discuss it as a pathology, etc. but based on the evidence, she might as being saying that evolution is a falsehood or...maybe look at some of her best quotes:

     

    1. On ethnic riots in Paris (November 2005): On the face of it, Bachmann observed, “multicultural diversity … sounds wonderful. But guess what? Not all cultures are equal. Not all values are equal. And ... those who are coming into France, which had a beautiful culture, the French culture is actually diminished, it’s going away.”

    2. On evolution (October 2006): Bachmann provoked viewers by claiming that a significant portion of the scientific community rejects the theory of evolution: “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.”

    3. On Terry Schiavo (October 2006): Bachmann provoked ridicule by describing Terry Schiavo, who lived in a permanent vegetative state, as “a woman who was healthy. There was brain damage, there was no question. But from a health point of view, she was not terminally ill.”

    4. On anti-Americans in Congress (October 2008): “I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?”

     

    5. On the threat of a ‘global currency’ (March 2009): “I’m very concerned about the international moves they’re making, particularly … moving the United States off the dollar and onto a global currency, like Russia and China are calling for.” 

     

    6. On the effects of greenhouse gases (April 2009): “Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” 

    7. On Democratic presidents and swine flu crises (April 2009): “I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I’m not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it’s an interesting coincidence.”

     

    8. On the threat posed by the U.S. census (June 2009): “I think there is a point where you say enough is enough to government intrusion.… Does the federal government really need to know our phone numbers?”  

     

    9. On the government bailout of GM (June 2009): The congresswoman famously called the Obama administration a “gangster government.”  

     

    10. On health-care reform’s potential to dupe parents (October 2009): “Does that mean that someone’s 13-year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have [her] abortion, be back and go home on the school bus? That night, mom and dad are never the wiser.”  

    But if you want to grant her opinion equal to all other opinions on the matter as matter of affording her the dignity deserved a human being, well...go for it.


    Please take one issue at a time, and please show how there is not a valid (non-ridiculous) position in the statement. I ask you to take one at a time because of time and because I'm sure that the idea of what's ridiculous can be more easily encapsulated that way... also, it would have to tie in to an expressed though or idea rather the general assertion of "well, she's ridiculous.. so everything she says must be ridiculous", which is indefensible.

    "From your perspective, which is in the end the logical extreme of relativism that the conservatives used to bash liberals..."

    This could not be more off. If you want to talk about that aspect of one of the points, I will. What does the contention of relativism relate to? Don't assume things about me or of how I think on that topic (I'm open in that area!). But how does it relate to an item? Did Bachmann state it's a relative view and use that to promote some idea? If so, which one?

    Also, (and the moderators would probably agree) in the interest of space try linking instead of pasting long blocks of text?


    On one hand, it isn't about one issue.  This all began because you were "offended" [insert your own word] by Bachmann being characterized as a vegetable, which you attributed solely to the police issue.  I made the point the vegetable comment was a characterization of collective nature of Bachmann's comments and actions.

    But if you want me to focus on one aspect - the idea that homosexuality is a pathology or abnormality - the collective wisdom of our scientific and cultural sectors tells us that both perspectives are off base.  Yes maybe she is right in the end.  But somewhere we have to take a stand about what is and what isn't, even while acknowledging that these "truths" are truths without a capital "T."

    You may not realize it being new here, but i am the resident post-structuralist....the powers of Derrida activate. 

    There-is-no-outside-the-text.

    Whatever biological expression exists is expressed through the cultural imperative imposed through the language.

    Bachmann is adding to the cultural text....and it is dangerous...in my opinion as I understand the world through my paradigm.  And that is all I know.

    As one sage put it: There is a part of me that will remain a mystery to me. 

    So how can I say I know what the world is.

    When I speak of what Shakespeare meant to say, all I am saying is what I mean to say.

    In other words, no one, repeat no one has any access to objective truth.  All understanding is subjective understanding.  Yet we must get up and move into the day, we must assume the floor is beneath us and the sun will rise in the east, or what we call the east. 

    ....so, Bachman, politically speaking, is a vegetable for all intents and purposes.


    the vegetable comment was a characterization of collective nature of Bachmann's comments and actions.... the collective wisdom of our scientific and cultural sectors tells us that both perspectives are off base.  

    Um, if collective nature or collective wisdom had relevance, you'd be able to say what they are. If they're just a theory, and you can't support them with reason, then there's no application to the topic.

    Why talk of them as though they're authoritative then?

    "Yes maybe she is right in the end."

    That's open.

    Then you made contradictory statements. 

    If this one is true:

    "Bachmann is... adding to the cultural text....and it is dangerous...in my opinion as I understand the world through my paradigm.  And that is all I know."

    This one cannot be true:

    "In other words, no one, repeat no one has any access to objective truth."

    You cannot, at the same time, know that nothing is true outside your own paradigm, yet know that no one outside yourself can know truth. You're sawing off the branch that you're perched on (logically speaking).

    You also conveniently don't have to defend the assertions about Bachmann, yet you deny anyone else to defend their's too by some sort of mystical authoritative exception to your own rules (that you can't know).

    You seem quite confused.

    When you want to talk about the topic, (if you think you even can), let me know.


    I am a vegetarian, and as such, I am offended at the comparison of my beloved vegetables to a person like Bachmann. Vegetables would NEVER marry someone who tries to pray someone's gay away.


    Now that you mention it Stilli, my broccoli has never referred to teenage homosexuals as barbarians.


    I will apologize to you, dear stilli, if I cut you to the core over my indelicate comment about veggies.   It was totally insensitive of me.  So ashamed.  I am.


    Hahahahahaha! No prob, Ramona. We all slip from time to time. Apology accepted.


    Even though this is actually Saturday, but since this is Friday Follies and since he was mentioned, and I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't bring forth one of the all time follies (unfortunately for the liberals in this country)


    There's a certain something about a man in uniform...


    I know, I see this and I can think of is An Officer and A Gentleman.   grrrrrrr


    I'm not sure if the fatal element is the steely-eyed squint, the stupid grin, or the stencilled name on the helmet....


    definitely the steely-eyed squint...it burns into my soul.  I'd walk 500 miles to vote for him.


    but it may be that my people come from the north sea swept moors that I will also vote for these guys, too.


    Hayzoos, I go away for the day and look what I come back to!

    Do I think Michele Bachmann is a vegetable? No, I don't. I know a vegetable when I see one. Do I think her ideas are as brainless as a vegetable? Yes, I definitely, indubitably, indeedy do. The difference between Bachmann's ideas and a vegetable's is that when a vegetable gets an idea there is nowhere for it to go. It (the idea) can never, ever hurt anybody. When Bachmann gets an idea it has the potential to hurt scores if not thousands, if not millions of people.

    Anyone who knows me knows I don't make fun of people who don't deserve to be made fun of. Michele Bachmann is fully deserving, and as long as she keeps providing material I don't plan on making nice.

    Thanks, all, for commenting. Sorry I wasn't here.


    No problem.  It fits within my arrogant wheelhouse to speak for other people I've never met.


    Bachmann is a vegetable the way ketchup is a vegetable.


    prepare for a cease and desist order from the Heinz estate.


    Though ideas can't be brainless, here's your chance to show the vegetable-like brainlessness of an idea.

    "When Bachmann gets an idea it has the potential to hurt scores if not thousands, if not millions of people."

    What's the idea? Who do you think will be hurt by it? In what way do you think they will be hurt by it? And why do you think that's so?

    Also, given the prospect of hearing more of your ideas of "well-deserved fun", if you would save it for someone who agrees it's fun, I'll restrict my response to comments that are genuinely interested in the topic. And if you don't have any like that, that's fine too. No harm, no foul. We're not required to interact in online exchange or any other way.  


    to jump into this as i have done all day: her statements about defaulting on the debt is just one which can point to in which she knowingly or unknowingly can create suffering for millions if people in their wondrous ignorance follow her. That is just one. Do you want more. 


    Thanks, Trope.  That's one, and a good one.  There are so many others but I'm not going to play that game.  We've gone over them time after time and Smithers knows what they are, too.

    I can't imagine the chaos she would create if she were given any more power than she already has.  She is incapable of thinking things through, of seeing the big picture, and that's not simply my personal read of her.  She proves it again and again by publicly announcing where she stands on issues.  Where she stands is planets away from where we need a good leader to be standing.


    "[Bachmann's] statements about defaulting on the debt is just one which can point to in which she knowingly or unknowingly can create suffering for millions if people in their wondrous ignorance follow her."

    What did she say, in context?

    Saying that someone can create suffering by a decision without having to show in what way that would occur, especially without following the actual statement (and reasoning), in context, can't show anything.

    No, don't go on to another unless you can state the present case for ignorance in some way that can be explained. Honestly, you stated no case that I actually could share with someone else and have them believe it or learn something from it.


    See, Smithers, here's where you're again missing the point.  I don't like Michele Bachmann, I have absolutely no respect for her; I think, given the chance, she would be a most dangerous leader.  I feel it's my duty to call attention to her foolishness so that there is no chance she'll ever get any farther than she is at the moment, and so far I've not had to resort to anything but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    You have every right to defend her if you can actually come up with a reasonable defense.  But if you and I were arguing about Michele Bachmann I would expect you to stick to the issue of Michele Bachmann, as I would, and not attempt to make me look the lesser because of my feelings about her.

    I think any defense I've heard so far is baseless but I don't know you personally and I have no intention of making the discussion about you and not about her. 

    I think that's probably where we part ways.


    "I feel it's my duty to call attention to her foolishness"

     If you are compelled to draw attention to "incompetence", why is there not a statement asserting that that follows with some reason?

    I'm fine with, "You just don't like her and want to rant", if that's actually the case. I'm not interested in that, and it isn't likely there would be a fruitful dialog in it allowing one to learn or be better informed (because that tends to be high on rhetoric and short on facts).

    Good enough.


    But, but, but, Smithers.  It's okay if you're not interested.  Really.

    On Fridays I write Friday Follies.  I have fun with it, oftentimes at the expense of politicians I really don't like.  The great thing about Friday Follies is that it's published on Friday, so you're given fair warning that there may be something in there that you're not going to like, and you can avoid it like the plague.  My suggestion to you is, "Smithers!  For God's sake, don't read it!"


    Ramona! He IS having fun (unless of course he's being held hostage and someone has a gun to his head and is making him read and respond to all of this stuff!) You don't keep coming back over and over and over and over (you get my point) unless you're enjoying it. I know I am!


    I absolutely do enjoy debate. It allows me to learn and (on occasion) teach. It was gratifying hearing AT allow Bachmann the status of dignity she deserves, especially at a board like this (that's rare). But I do think it's the difference between hatred and strong beliefs. I also enjoyed hearing that AT is open to Bachmann being right (even on an issue that AT would sincerely wish she's wrong about.) That's open.

    The whole issue of relativism, if it were rightly understood, could clear up a tremendous amount of confusion between the liberal and conservative views though.

    (if it could be addressed without being too deeply philosophical or conceptual, that would be a challenge, but maybe worth it). potential blog for the esoteric-minded, I suppose...

    All people are much more than their concepts. None should take it bad if losing a point. (I lost one today in the "didactic war monger" comment which was rightly pointed out as hypocritical. Life goes on.  (:


    And I call attention to her incompetence simply by quoting her own words, by reporting her actions.  It's not nearly as difficult as you might think.  It rarely requires a lengthy explanation.  Her words speak for themselves.  

    C'mon, Smithers, everything she says is a hoot!


    Here's Bachmann taking all the little sprouts for a ride.


    I can't believe I read all that! From comment 5 on, all smithers or smithers-based.

    And yet I couldn't tear my eyes from the screen. Sort of like getting 250 pages into a long, boring novel that you hate, but telling yourself, "Only 100 pages more; might as find out how it ends." And then the ending turns out to be just as boring as the beginning, and you realize you knew all along that it just had to be.

    Why didn't any of  you regulars stop me?


    That's quinn's job, and I haven't seem him recently.


    Yeah, where is that shirker?


    I know.  I hate myself for it, too.  This is my conclusion: 

    http://dagblog.com/friday-follies/friday-follies-arresting-truth-about-o...

    I'm done playing with Smithers.


    This is in keeping my promise to Trope who requested "substantiation" of specific points. Since I didn't make the contentions (the points) about Bachmann in the thread, I'll use one of Trope's bullet points, the first one:

    1. On ethnic riots in Paris (November 2005): On the face of it, Bachmann observed, “multicultural diversity … sounds wonderful. But guess what? Not all cultures are equal. Not all values are equal. And ... those who are coming into France, which had a beautiful culture, the French culture is actually diminished, it’s going away.”

    Bachmann is not referring to human dignity in the statement that cultures and values are not equal. She's making a factual statement.

    It's true that cultures (and, at a finer level, communities) and their values, in order to differentiate and preserve what they have, resist change from outside... That which comes from what they perceived to be "the other". Every group does that which has  identity, whether it's cultural, national, racial, etc. If I understand her, Bachmann is saying other groups exercise power to diminish what they think doesn't serve them. The French culture IS being diminished, and perhaps not improved.

    I think it would have made a better response if she had talked about the French Revolution, a case where the "cure" for imbalance (of wealth) turned out to be far more insidious than the disease. "The Reign of Terror" (those diminishing the previous culture) imposed values that were, by any standard, grossly unjust, wicked actually. Due process? Gone. Even people who knew someone who had wealth often were beheaded (Beheaded by association, by suspicion). 

    Anyone could easily study this issue, look into the data and draw conclusions from it. But her statement is not false.... If you're arguing that it's polemic, weak on it's conclusion, or that the data to support what she said isn't there, I don't see that. Although I'm not coming from that vantage point, she is schooled differently.... But far from showing that she's a stupid person (or inane /funny because she's just so "out there"), I don't see anything showing what she said to be inaccurate or false or even presenting an alarming "out there" idea.

    Again, some may shun debating or looking at facts and the logic surrounding them (or see it as boredom).... The way I see it is that if one is going to put up strong statements of disagreement, but then find the presumptions on which the strong disagreements were based aren't supported by real events, facts (or the full context of what has transpired), maybe it's because the view is based on nothing more than disliking a person's tone, beliefs or even their appearance... If so... well, that may be personal dislike or intolerance, but it wouldn't be justification for attacking a person's credibility, intellectual capacity or the truthfulness of their ideas.

    Thoughtfully,

    ​T. Smithers


    Okay, I'm going back on my promise to stop playing with you, Smithers.  I need to say this to you:  I wrote a blog above that included many paragraphs beyond the few mentions of Michele Bachmann.  You chose to pull the word "vegetable" out of it so that you could follow your usual pattern of disrupting blog posts on dagblog.  I resent it mightily.

    Not because you brought it to your comment but because you refused to let it go, even though there was nowhere else to go with it. 

    You know why I resent it?  Because the longest segment of my blog was about Ruby Bridges, the little black girl who had to be escorted by U.S Marshals to an all-white school.  She became an advocate for disadvantaged children and I thought that was important and beautiful.

    The other segment I thought was important and beautiful was the one about the Mayor of Orlando giving space to Food, Not Bombs to help feed the poor and disadvantaged after they were forced to leave the city's public parks.

    As the resident contrarian,  there was no way you could leave it alone.  You said:

    Of the 10-15% of Americans who are considered to be in poverty, a small number are unable to  provide nutrition and shelter, etc. (e.g. half own a house). Most are deemed comfortable by past (pre WWI) standards. And, by the standard of poverty elsewhere in the world today...? By this measure they're actually rich.

    Assuming the ones at the park in Orlando were not nominally poor, but among the fringe that makes up a smaller number, I think that justifies giving them food in any circumstance. Heck, I give food to people who have jobs and houses (to make it easier and provide a sense of kindness that government's inert to).

    But, for the sake of discussion, what about people who are passing through, not in a destitute state of well being? In that case, don't you need a permit? I know that everyone needs one, but I'm asking if even the most angst filled social justice advocate would then understand the need for a government permit?

     For the sake of maintaining a sane discussion of my blog, I chose to ignore this.  If one of us had challenged your premise, you would have been one happy camper.  But since we didn't, you had to find something else.  You chose the one-liner, "And speaking of vegetables", and off you went.  And you won. 

    No more discussion of the good things happening in my Friday Follies blog post.  Not a single mention of Ruby Bridges' name.  You did that.  It's what you come here to do, and you did it.

    Now I'm done.


    This response honestly surprises me... because I thought you were through "playing" already. What I think happened is that you didn't read my second comment (vegetable) until after you said you were through, and because it has sharp statement at the end of it.

    Look, I'm not your moral judge (or anyone's) nor are you mine. But it's fair to talk about the use of personal statements (even toward politicians). One of your bloggers must agree with that because they rebuked me on the same issue yesterday.

    I feel it's fair of you to point out the beauty in your other statements, and I admit I'm not the kind of person who is given over to "cheerleading" people's comments, even if they're eloquent. Do I appreciate the writer's effort? Yes. It's harder to write than reply.

    What else can I say? I wanted to keep my promise to Trope (mixed in with the dialog above) or I wouldn't have commented. I don' think this was bad.

    Smithers

    P.s. You'll see the same beauty (ultimately, care /concern /charity) for the poor if you read my first post carefully. I have to travel (to pay some bills), etc. So I'll not be troubling the faint of heart...  (hmm... I don't really believe that... but rather the growling beasts that jollyroger spoke of? Yes, I think they're afoot... Indeed so!)   Happy rantingsmiley


    Why am I not surprised at your response?  Because it's what I expect from the little I know of you.  This is a group, whether you like it or not.  We write and gather here because we choose to.  You seem to think it's okay to come in here with the sole purpose of disrupting.  It's a game with you.  I'm no longer playing that game.

    So this really is the last time I'll respond to you.


    Latest Comments