third world county

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog. I hope both of you who have posted comments enjoy the improvement.

🙂

…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.

“New worry for phones: tight pants”

No comment needed.

(Photo and link via Gizmodo.)

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?