Catalyst I
Please read the comment by "Anonymous" (to now be called "Catalyst") on December 31, 2005; only when you've finished should you return to this post.
Wow! Nice job Catalyst (For the pleasure it gives me, I'll assume you to be a female; apologies if I'm wrong). I can't believe that I've been properly called-out by a communist . . . and that I'm now responding!
Privately, I've lamented to family and friends that I wanted my space to be more "intelligent" than what it's been. For it to be, though, I would need more time; time I simply don't have. Accordingly, I've chosen and accepted to dumb-down my space and make my shtick nothing more than a reply to the extremism of the Boston Globe. I come home from work; read the Globe; laugh at something stupid that a liberal extremist said or wrote; and respond. You can see how that pretty much caps the intelligence level of any of my posts if all I need to do is rebut a quote by Sen. Charles Schumer, Sen. John F. Kerry or any Globe columnist.
But, to address Catalyst directly:
I am not the "Republican" talking points. I'm pretty sure I'm the only space that made a point of the religion of most of the "filibuster" judges. My Mr. Sean Penn and Ms. Cindy Sheehan stuff is pretty original. For crying out loud, I mention the Boston Globe in just about every other thing I write; the national Republicans don't care about the Boston Globe. My Dianne Feinstein/Chevron PAC $ and the price for a gallon of coffee stuff was original. My Tom DeLay stuff was original (the whole A to B to C thing). My shtick is the anti-Globe. This week, for example, I responded to a Wellesley High School protest. What talking point sheet did I get that material?
Hey, Sean, poverty . . . still . . . New Orleans.
Because I'm the anti-Globe, I, of course, always end up on the side of President George W. Bush. Catalyst, I'm a stinking blog and I'm coming under fire for being results-driven? How about a large regional newspaper being so driven? Yes, I seem to always support the President or the Republicans but that's because a major regional newspaper always checks the party affiliation of their subject before the paper decides what its position is. Sexual harassment? Clinton - no foul. Packwood - foul. Campaign fund raising? DeLay - foul. Ickes - no foul. National security leaks? Plame - foul. NSA surveillance - no foul. The list is endless. How lame that?
As Catalyst uses the War in Iraq to state she would be against the war regardless of Sens. Clinton or Kerry's support, I'll also use the war to answer Catalyst's challenge to me. First, though, I'm going to argue for the war and not the deft slight of words that Catalyst slipped in about the "continuation" of the war.
I am for the war in Iraq because I believe that I am more safe without Saddam Hussein in power than with him in power. Period. End of argument. If the President and 100 Senators thought differently then I'd be critical of all of them. I have little interest in free Iraqis. I have little interest in female Iraqis having rights. I have little interest in female Iraqis going to school. I have tons of interest in a Beslan episode not happening in my hometown. I have tons of interest in a dirty bomb not going off in Boston (it won't know the difference between the liberals and the conservative; joking, I'm joking!). I have tons of interest in no terrorists coordinating shooting rampages in 15 shopping malls around the U.S. I simply believe that a Saddam Iraq increased the possibility that those things I fear were more likely to happen.
This space will see me mention the Hispanic U.S. Attorney General many, many times. He's a dear friend of the President and he's a very significant advisor. Yes, I'll be provocative playing on the General's ethnicity. I will not write a post supporting the President on granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Catalyst, correctly, nails me on this. You want to read a criticism of the President, read the Boston Globe. You want to read an opinion different than the one in the Boston Globe, read this space.
Finally, to Catalyst and recognizing my good-natured gesture in calling you a communist: you cannot call the Boston Globe conservative. Yes, I get the "big business" link, but only with the expansion of the political spectrum to include communists and fascists could the Boston Globe and I be considered neighbors. In the political spectrum that exists in the United States, the Boston Globe marks the left-most edge; I'm insisting that I'm firmly on the right but not an extremist (I'd probably not vote for the death penalty although I know it is a perfectly constitutional form of punishment if the people vote for it and just as there is no absolute right to free speech [yelling fire in a crowded theater] there is no absolute right to own a howitzer even though the second amendment says my right to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). I will not argue against the death penalty in this space. I will not argue for "gun control" in this space.
I regret I don't have more time to write a more intelligent space.
Now, let me go read today's Boston Globe, who knows, I could be back with another post later tonight. Sen. Charles Schumer said a lot yesterday . . . the Globe will be packed with his ridiculous quotes.
Please read the comment by "Anonymous" (to now be called "Catalyst") on December 31, 2005; only when you've finished should you return to this post.
Wow! Nice job Catalyst (For the pleasure it gives me, I'll assume you to be a female; apologies if I'm wrong). I can't believe that I've been properly called-out by a communist . . . and that I'm now responding!
Privately, I've lamented to family and friends that I wanted my space to be more "intelligent" than what it's been. For it to be, though, I would need more time; time I simply don't have. Accordingly, I've chosen and accepted to dumb-down my space and make my shtick nothing more than a reply to the extremism of the Boston Globe. I come home from work; read the Globe; laugh at something stupid that a liberal extremist said or wrote; and respond. You can see how that pretty much caps the intelligence level of any of my posts if all I need to do is rebut a quote by Sen. Charles Schumer, Sen. John F. Kerry or any Globe columnist.
But, to address Catalyst directly:
I am not the "Republican" talking points. I'm pretty sure I'm the only space that made a point of the religion of most of the "filibuster" judges. My Mr. Sean Penn and Ms. Cindy Sheehan stuff is pretty original. For crying out loud, I mention the Boston Globe in just about every other thing I write; the national Republicans don't care about the Boston Globe. My Dianne Feinstein/Chevron PAC $ and the price for a gallon of coffee stuff was original. My Tom DeLay stuff was original (the whole A to B to C thing). My shtick is the anti-Globe. This week, for example, I responded to a Wellesley High School protest. What talking point sheet did I get that material?
Hey, Sean, poverty . . . still . . . New Orleans.
Because I'm the anti-Globe, I, of course, always end up on the side of President George W. Bush. Catalyst, I'm a stinking blog and I'm coming under fire for being results-driven? How about a large regional newspaper being so driven? Yes, I seem to always support the President or the Republicans but that's because a major regional newspaper always checks the party affiliation of their subject before the paper decides what its position is. Sexual harassment? Clinton - no foul. Packwood - foul. Campaign fund raising? DeLay - foul. Ickes - no foul. National security leaks? Plame - foul. NSA surveillance - no foul. The list is endless. How lame that?
As Catalyst uses the War in Iraq to state she would be against the war regardless of Sens. Clinton or Kerry's support, I'll also use the war to answer Catalyst's challenge to me. First, though, I'm going to argue for the war and not the deft slight of words that Catalyst slipped in about the "continuation" of the war.
I am for the war in Iraq because I believe that I am more safe without Saddam Hussein in power than with him in power. Period. End of argument. If the President and 100 Senators thought differently then I'd be critical of all of them. I have little interest in free Iraqis. I have little interest in female Iraqis having rights. I have little interest in female Iraqis going to school. I have tons of interest in a Beslan episode not happening in my hometown. I have tons of interest in a dirty bomb not going off in Boston (it won't know the difference between the liberals and the conservative; joking, I'm joking!). I have tons of interest in no terrorists coordinating shooting rampages in 15 shopping malls around the U.S. I simply believe that a Saddam Iraq increased the possibility that those things I fear were more likely to happen.
This space will see me mention the Hispanic U.S. Attorney General many, many times. He's a dear friend of the President and he's a very significant advisor. Yes, I'll be provocative playing on the General's ethnicity. I will not write a post supporting the President on granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Catalyst, correctly, nails me on this. You want to read a criticism of the President, read the Boston Globe. You want to read an opinion different than the one in the Boston Globe, read this space.
Finally, to Catalyst and recognizing my good-natured gesture in calling you a communist: you cannot call the Boston Globe conservative. Yes, I get the "big business" link, but only with the expansion of the political spectrum to include communists and fascists could the Boston Globe and I be considered neighbors. In the political spectrum that exists in the United States, the Boston Globe marks the left-most edge; I'm insisting that I'm firmly on the right but not an extremist (I'd probably not vote for the death penalty although I know it is a perfectly constitutional form of punishment if the people vote for it and just as there is no absolute right to free speech [yelling fire in a crowded theater] there is no absolute right to own a howitzer even though the second amendment says my right to "keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"). I will not argue against the death penalty in this space. I will not argue for "gun control" in this space.
I regret I don't have more time to write a more intelligent space.
Now, let me go read today's Boston Globe, who knows, I could be back with another post later tonight. Sen. Charles Schumer said a lot yesterday . . . the Globe will be packed with his ridiculous quotes.
posted by Zack at 6:54 PM
4 Comments:
Catalyst? Thoughts?
Your blog rocks!!
Based upon your writing that, "[a]ccordingly, I've chosen and accepted to dumb-down my space and make my shtick nothing more than a reply to the extremism of the Boston Globe," there is not much else to be said. I'm glad to read that you admit that you have no interest in discussing and/or analyzing the issues in a mature way to get at the truth but, rather, you are just interested in lobbing hand grenades at the Globe and blindly backing your Republican "homies."
I'm not sure what else to make of your blog when you write as follows; "I am for the war in Iraq because I believe that I am more safe without Saddam Hussein in power than with him in power. Period. End of argument." Really, end of argument, what if you had the reasonable foresight to realize that the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein would result in complete anarchy, a terrorist breeding ground, a dramatic increase in radical anti-American religious based beliefs, political upheaval, the ultimate installation of a brutal dictator with aspirations of militaristic regional dominance, the loss of 100,000 innocent lives, etc., would you still be confident writing "end of argument?" Shouldn't the "argument" encompass a discussion of what is likely to occur beyond the proposed initial action, isn't that logical? End of argument, the only question is why I wasted my time engaging you, there are strong arguments to be made for the war and continuation of it, I respect those that have a logical rational for their positions, you don't; you think that opinions are facts or that beliefs make things more likely to be true, whether one believes in something or not makes it no more or less likely to be true.
In any event, your empty platitudes aside, your appeal to reduce everything to a simple blurb "catch phrase" may satisfy your four loyal readers but I need more, I will move on to debate the issues in a forum that isn't just a pointless anti-Globe shtick. (Note, just when I thought you couldn't go any lower you manage to drain a little more out of the pool; you hit the bottom of the intellectual barrel with your thinly veiled insult (misogyny anyone?); "I'll assume you to be a female; apologies if I'm wrong," it would be stooping down to your level to comment further, I'll move on).
Catalyst...one good reason for the war is to take the fighting to the bad guys instead of behaving like a little lamb...waiting for them to take out a school or a mall or a little league field. The fact is there are bad guys out there who want to take down our way of life. It's not our fault, we don't deserve it, and we have nothing to be sorry for.
Post a Comment
<< Home