"In a democracy (‘rule by mob’), those who refuse to learn from history will be the majority and will dictate that everyone else suffer for their ignorance."
…but only for Harvey‘s “Carnival of the Pajamas.”
But since I don’t ever wear pajamas, here’s a recent photo. I move so quickly and so often (sometimes it’s a matter of life and death, you know) that it was difficult for the photographer who caught me in a candid pose to get a clear pic. That’s life… 
Work it out.
OK, this is one of those offline conversations that I’ve decided to bring online, in some form. A not-so-petty gripe about the illiterati in the Mass Media Podpeoples’ Army who “inform” much of popular culture. I just re-read that, and I misspoke. It’s not so much that there seem to be illiterati in the MMPA as that the MMPA seems to be composed primarily of illiterati and their near cousins, the sub-literate.
Here’s one (of many) small, but typical example. You recall the kerfuffle some short while ago about Dick Cheney’s plain-spoken confrontation with Patrick Lehey on the Senate floor. A google search reveals that references recorded online among the MMPA label Cheney’s use of a word as “profanity” (often coupled with “cursing”) nearly three times more than as “vulgarity”. Common persons are easily misled by such sub-literate use of words.
Shame on the MMPA!
The word (and phrase) Cheney used were plainly not “profane”. In no way was Cheney’s comment blasphemous or disrespectful toward God or any religious symbol or person, unless MMP were to consider Lehey’s person to be holy, an object worthy of worship and religious devotion.
(Well, since they are the MMPA and Lehey is a [spit!] damned* loony left liberal moonbat politician, perhaps he is an object of their religious devotion. More on that later… )
No, the (rather small) minority who referred to Cheney’s comment as vulgar were more accurate. Sure, one of the words—the operative word that gave offense to some—could even in some usages be considered obscene. In the construction and context in which Cheney used it, it was hardly intended titilate, nor did it do so, therefore, of course, we can say it was not an obscenity, but clearly a vulgarity. (Of course, since it may have given a sexual thrill to some of the MMPA, because of their perverse nature, some post-relativistic deconstructionist idiot academician might be able to assert obscenity, but as everyone knows, they are all too idiotic to even consider.)
Still, most of the MMP seem unable to make distinctions between profanity, obscenity and vulgarity, though to anyone who stops for even a moment to think (assuming it is within their abilities to do so) can plainly see there are clear demarcations between these three classes of speech often considered impolite and even offensive. Profanity, defaming or disrespectful speech concerning that which is holy, is—or ought to be, IMO—always offensive. And in many cases, I can agree that both obscenity and vulgarity can indeed be impolite and offensive—even most, if not all, cases of obscenity. But when plain, even vulgar, speech is appropriate—as in Dick Cheney’s comment to the offensive, rude, disingenuous and altogether disgusting Lehey—then decent people will not be offended.
Lehey, of course, ought to have been offended. That was the (righteous) intent of Dick Cheney’s comment. And so ought it ever be that creeps like Lehey be offended, always and in all things, by ordinary people speaking plainly.
The MMPA, of course, can’t even classify vulgarity as such. To them, plain speech indicating offense with their object of worship—whichever LLM politician or cause or other LLM idiot that might be—is profanity, a verbal attack on something they consider holy.
Or else it is just that they are too stupid to be able to differentiate between the vulgar and the profane. (The obscene they hold a patent to, of course.)
*Note: my construction “damned loony left liberal moonbat politician” was not a profanity. I believe that an examination of Lehey’s positions, actions and words support a theological assessment that he very likely has damned himself. That being the case, I assert that, although my assessment is merely the expression of an opinion and decidedly not a condemnatory judgement (such judgement Lehey will face when he finally does face his Maker), my use of “damned” in that case shows a respect for the Subject who is worthy of true veneration. That is the antithesis of profanity.
Nor is my construction vulgar: it is my considered theological opinion, and the word “damned” is an accurate word to use in such a context.
Obscenity? If anyone is titilated by the thought of Lehey’s damnation, then any such person(s) is/are sick and perverted indeed, and it is their perversion, not my use of words that is obscene.
I’m tired.
(But I am NOT wearing a black negligee… )
Work it out.
If it’s too obscure, try google.
…snark, that is. This, of course. “The Zen of Autumn: Seven haiku Poems Based on the Season’s Top Hollywood Movies.”
An example:
Alexander Oliver Stone’s saga of the young warrior king, with Colin Farrell.
Over at IMAO, Frank J. is out to lunch and has Harvey guest blogging for him. Harvey has posted “Fun Facts About Christmas” which includes this nugget:
“Christmas specials which show Santa’s workshop at the North pole often include penguins. This is factually incorrect, since penguins are native to the SOUTH pole, where, coincidentally, Santa’s evil twin brother Satan Claus has HIS workshop.
He mostly makes fruitcakes – the most concentrated form of evil known to man.”
Getcherself on over these and read the rest.
Warning: While I didn’t particularly notice any profanity, there was some mild vulgarity. Avoid it or live with it.
(NOTE: in snickering condescension for those whose sensibilities are a wee tad too hyper, I have **’ed out a letter in one word, following… As one dear saint told me once concerning that most common of vulgarities, “I never could understand the problem with saying sh*t. I grew up on a farm and was always stepping it it… ” Her wisdom has lived with me ever since, and it comforts me whenever I contemplate the tirals and tribulations of our erstwhile neghbors who were named Shatwell, after an ancestor with good bowell movements. )
Heavens. What would the world be like w/o snippy chicks with “lash ’em, lash ’em til they drop” mean tongues? (Well, nowhere, mon frere.)
“The left has it’s own pagan holiday. Halloween. That’s a day wherein it’s okay for liberals to dress up like witches, babies or whores. So the outside matches the inside.”
Moxie has… uh, moxie.
Don’t ask why this bubbled to the surface. Just don’t.
Whatever you do, don’t let word of Johnathan Swift’s modest proposal spread to the God damned abortionists.** They have no sense of humor and would probably consider it seriously. And in fact, in the Netherlands, I expect to see it put into effect within my lifetime…
**That was NOT swearing or cursing. It was a theological evaluation of a class of persons who consider murder of innocent babies to be a moral good.
Apparently it’s sweeps week in the blogosphere, as the “2004 Weblog Awards” event winds on down to December 12, the last day of voting.
Best example of sweeps week blogging so far? Over at INDCJournal, we have a “blogochiropterologist” examining the loony left barking-nihilistic-poo-eating moonbats in their natural habitat…
Just so you know, INDCJournal is not entered in the humor category.
[BTW, you should be able to quickly deduce why I used “chiropterologist” instead of “chiroptologist” from the lead-in to the INDCJournal post linked above. Oh, and here (meaning also, there), as well, of course… ]
Oh, have I made it perfectly clear that you are now wasting time here instead of going to INDCJournal and reading the post I link here?
In his Wednesday “View” this week, Jerry Pournelle comments briefly (for him 🙂 on the topic of public education. In the middle of this disquisition is this couple of paragraphs:
“The trouble with democracy is that it tends to pull everyone to a common level: great men cannot rise to their proper level. This was known by Cicero and once known to almost every intellectual in Western Civilization. Now we don’t have a Western Civilization, and to the extent that we do our intellectuals are mostly ashamed of it; and while the last thing our Enlightened class wants is real equality, the notion of “equal treatment” is now pervasive. Why would it not be? The official view of man as taught in almost every classroom in the nation is Jacobinism, Rousseau, “Man is born free yet he is everywhere in chains,” and the rest of it. Why are we then surprised when a great many people act as if they believe that?
The Framers knew better. The Founders knew better. The notion that within most human hearts beats a burning desire to take his neighbors goods and possess his wife was prevalent. As Chesterton observed, one needs only to read the newspapers to confirm the doctrine of Original Sin. One need not be religious to come to the view that to secure rights governments must be instituted among men. But when the notion of rights, and I’m as good as you and I got to have my rights same as anyone becomes the pervasive public doctrine, there are bound to be consequences.”
Disquieting thoughts. But then, truths are always harder than lies… “No Child Left Behind” has nothing whatever to do with excellence in education and everything to do with mediocrity, and for that dedication to mediocrity, we get less than that somewhat less than lofty goal.
We have indeed “sown the wind”.
Consider the introduction to the 1983 National Commission on Education report:
Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world…. the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and as a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur- others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments.
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves…. We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
And the whole philosphy behind such abortions as “No Child Left Behind” continues that act of “unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.”
Consider, if you will, that the world of Harrison Bergeron is the least worst of the outcomes we (or our children) might face from such a philosphy of equal—lowest common denominator— outcomes. (Just click the link. Read the tale.)
Frank J. (at IMAO) demonstrates once again why he got my vote for Best Humor Blog this year (although I am not sure he’s kidding here). Commenting on the apparent poisoning of Yuschenko (Ukraine presidential candidate), he comments,
“I suggest that, in the future, we have Jimmy Carter as an election monitor with his job to try the food and drink of each candidate to make sure it isn’t poisoned. When Carter finds a legitimate case of a candidate trying to poison another, he can then be replaced by Bill Clinton.”
Now that I ponder this a bit more, I think perhaps he’s serious. At any rate, it’s certainly a good idea. Well worth a try. And Jean Fraud sKerry could step up to support democracy should Clintoon discover a case of one candidate trying to poison another. I think Frank’s onto something, here!
