Day: December 6, 2010

Posted on

Signs Spur Twaddle

I saw this over at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller and went searching for a larger version of the featured sign on the web:

Of course, this commonsense statement of the obvious about The Zero resulted in the Usual Suspects uttering the typical banal racist twaddle (a local CBS station’s site, of course):

And then, there’s [sic*] people traveling through on the Interstate like Greyson Johnston, from Dallas.

He saw the billboard shortly after he saw the Bruceville-Eddy city limits sign.

“I’m not real political, at all, but I mean, he is the first black president, ever, and you know,” Johnston says, “You’re gonna have people that hate him, you’re gonna have people that like him.”

Dumbass racist. Oh, the “[sic*]”? “People” is plural. The dumbass Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind “reporter” wrote, “And then, there’s [“there IS”] people… ” instead of “there ARE”–indicating that the writer, typical of Hiveminders, can’t count past one.

There is apparently a superabundance of dumbasses in the Hivemind and its lobotomized sycophants, as the above is typical of “news reportage” on the sign.

Of course, that sign (which has apparently been up since August, though this is the first I’ve seen it) hasn’t drawn nearly the fire that this one did:

Narurally, the Hivemind and assorted leftards, idiots and liars (but I repeat myself) made a lot of hay out of this one by citing it as an example of the lowest of ad hominem attacks, the so-called “Hitler fallacy”. What all that hand-waving and finger-pointing and name-calling was in aid of, obviously, was obscuring the simple fact that if one were to simply state many the social and political policies of Hitler,Mao and Obama in plain English, one would be hard pressed to tell them apart. Indeed, their ideologies and rhetoric (and behavior,come to think of it) all have much, much more in common than they show differences.

But arguing facts is never in the interest of the Hivemind and its fellow travelers.

Posted on

Now, That’s a Desktop Background

Following on LC Aggie Sith’s post, I *Heart* Hooters, I went searching for a hooter of my own to use as a desktop background and found this:

*heh*

Now, that’s a hooter.

And so is this one… found later and made into my “new(er)” desktop background:

“Whatchu talkin’ about? I AM smiling… ”

And the replacement for the second background above…

Posted on

Is WilkiLeaks Exacerbating “America Hate”?

Does it really matter? The “America haters” are generally of several, sometimes overlapping, classes. Whether it’s envy, fear, antipathy over real or imagined (or even manufactured out of whole cloth, as most of the “offenses” against the Islamic hate cult) wrongs, hate is hate and pretty much insures that any arguments the “hater” has will make them just as wrong as whomever they feel–rightly or wrongly–has harmed them.

That the wikileaks revelations may make such antipathy a bit more open or vocal for a while, things haven’t really changed much since the 1950s and 1960s in terms of antipathy towards America and Americans. Sure, the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind is trumpeting such antipathy more loudly now, but the fundamental reasons for antipathy towards America and Americans are still the same… and are still pretty much the same reasons that America is such a popular destination for immigrants, both those who respect her laws and society and seek to come here legally, and those who do not.

Frankly, I would agree to a great extent with those whose antipathy toward America is based on the federal government’s interference in the internal matters of other countries, whether in military intervention or economic sanctions (or aid). Sticking our fingers into the Bosnian tarbaby is no better or worse than doing so in Iraq and Afghanistan–or than the Fed bailing out foreign banks. (The “feddle gummint” playing rescue of some select parts of the financial sector it sabotaged with its own policies is a separate, though related, issue.)

But speaking directly to the casuistry employed in the “unofficial WikiLeaks” apologia for its revelations, I find it less than compelling. Firstly, the argument that, “So here’s the rule we will live by: If our action is likely to cause retaliation, and hence murder, we should not commit that action. If we commit it, we should be condemned” is dismissed by “knowledgeempire” on the basis that holding to such a standard would require also condemning, “Noam Chomsky, the BBC, NBC, The Guardian, Amnesty International, and so on,” for being irresponsible. So? How does this support “knowledgeempire’s” argument? It could easily be argued by any rational observer that “Noam Chomsky, the BBC, NBC, The Guardian, Amnesty International, and so on,” do indeed deserve condemnation for irresponsible, and in many cases wittingly disingenuous, dissemination of information and disinformation.

Then, the “Let’s only count civilians” argument fails on its citation of “fact”. The facts it cites are in serious dispute outside the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind, so citing such things as argument is weak.

Two fails in as many points of argument=failed argument, IMO. Making an argument by assertion (backed only by disputed “facts” from organs with past poor behavior with “facts” and suspect motivations and goals) alone should not be enough.

All that said, any condemnation laid at wikileaks’ feet–and I have not yet done so–ought only be condemnation for dissemination of disinformation. If what they reveals is true and factual, perhaps it can lead to more responsible behavior from those the information embarrasses. I don’t have a high regard for the ever more obscurantist behavior of the “feddle gummint” in this most disingenuous (no, make that “dishonest”) and opaque administration since Nixon, so if the opacity is breached and sunlight shone on it, so much the better in the long run.

But, making “America hate” worse? Pull the other one.