Friday, May 18, 2007

Moonbat X-post: More on Con Votejacking, by Greg Palast

Wingnuts & Moonbats: More on Con Votejacking, by Greg Palast

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Wingnut X-post: Greg Palast on the Fired Prosecuters Scandal

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Greg Palast on the Fired Prosecuters Scandal

While some believe that this story isn't important, I think Greg Palast has unearthed evidence of the link between Rove & the White House, "Torquimada" Gonzales' fired prosecuters, and left-of-center voter intimidation past, present, and future.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Too many crossposts, not enough posts

Now that I made Wingnuts & Moonbats, I haven't been using this blog nearly enough. (I guess when you come right down to it, most of my posts here were political... Taking them away didn't leave much else...) The crossposts kinda stand as reminders that this blog needs another focus (or perhaps it is me that does).

So, who am I, anyway?

Well, I'm a guy who's really into politics, that's for sure 8>)

I like funny stuff, and I think a lot that goes on in this world is very funny, including too many things that aren't meant to be.

I like music of all kinds. I was a big ol' Deadhead in high school, and still indulge in them & the fruits of their legacy on my tastes; jambands, folk, bluegrass, jazz... Some new-age-y stuff speaks to me, or at least helps me sleep. Strangely enough, I've become *more* of a slave to pop as I've gotten older. The repetition used to bother me no end, & I'd tune away on principle. But now I find myself sold by it sometimes. I first noticed it with Ciara's "1, 2 Step" & "Goodies" a summer or two ago. Somehow, I found myself diggin' 'em, even though they weren't in my usual listening sphere, wide as it is. I also really dig standards, which I think has a lot to do with my father being a musician, somehow. I can still recall having an almost perfect moment 20 years or so ago, driving home from work one early spring day with Sinatra singing "On a Clear Day...," and realizing just how cool he was...

I used to be a voracious reader, but not quite so much, anymore... I still purchase the books, and start most of 'em, but I don't finish nearly as many as I once did. Maybe it has something to do with my being such a political news junkie, and the ever-changing nature of that.

I can take or leave most movies & TV. I watch a good amount of the latter, but I wouldn't miss it tremendously if it suddenly disappeared. I spent a good six months without one in the 80's, until a friend of mine on a visit home from the Navy couldn't take it, and brought one from home for us to have, so that HE could watch it while he was there. We kept it in the closet for a while, except when he was there, before finally giving in. Even now, my wife & I have one TV in the living room, & pretty much basic cable. (No movies, no sports...)

I am married to a most lovely woman. In some ways, we are magical together, but marriage isn't as easy as it looks... We're learning & growing all the time. (Neither of us are particularly healthy, which provides for opportunities for each of us to be at our best, & our not so best. Right now, she's the angel, & I'm... less so.) She makes me smile & be thankful for her every day, though...

I've primarily been in retail sales & support most of my life. (I prefer running the back of stores--inventory control, stocking, warehouse layout--but I'm also quite good out front, & tend to end up out there...). But, after going into a run of sustained Ventricular tachycardia (V tach) during a stress test, I became the proud owner of an Implantable Cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Complications with that--frozen shoulder & muscle achiness--kept me away from my last job longer than they liked, so they let me go. (About a month later, they let every full time employee go as well, so I suspect it wasn't about me, at all... I'm waiting to see how long it'll be before the whole company's gone. The CEO who took over in 2000 had high expectations, but has seemingly run the place into the ground.)

Bottom line is, I'm currently unemployed, not as physically able to do the work I did as I once was, and weighing my options. Diving back in is a little scary... ...but really necessary.

I'm not sure what else to toss out, here... Perhaps that'd be a good place to stop, at least until I have something else to say...

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Moonbat X-post: Clift: A Third-Party Ticket in 2008?

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Clift: A Third-Party Ticket in 2008? - Newsweek Capitol Letter - MSNBC.com

Kevin Kelly -- Cool Tools

Kevin Kelly -- Cool Tools

This is an awesome neat website I accidented upon... (From upside down flags to a child friendly snot remover in mere seconds... That's why I love the Internet.)

If there's one thing I got from my dad, it's appreciation for gadgets & gizmos that'll do stuff better or faster than you could without 'em. This website is chock full of stuff that'll do stuff you need done (even if you didn't know you needed it done--or had even thought of doing it--before you got there...)

My favorite actual useful thing--which I just might order, being left-handed myself--is a SmudgeGuard. It's a piece of glove that goes over your pinkie, down that side of your hand & around your wrist, covering that side of the hand to prevent smudging when we lefties put pen or pencil to paper. Brilliant. And yet so simple, I don't understand why no one (not even me, who's been smudging my writing since kindergarten) had thought of it before. Here's the SmudgeGuard inventor's site, for even more info.

Kudos to bookofjoe for posting about the SmudgeGuard & also posting the list of other great gadget sites, including Cool Tools, that featured that product. I'll be poking around them too, just as he did.

Friday, April 27, 2007

Dishonest Debate Tactics - Shifting the Burden

Now that I'm taking all the political stuff outta here (Have you seen the spiffy new blog, Wingnuts & Moonbats?), I figure I can focus on other things, here...

Today, I'm thinkin' about using language and debating, & specifically about folks who want you to disprove their points or statements.

Some of the following examples will be real. Some will not be real. Either way, I'm not interested in discussing the veracity of the statements, but only their value in confrontational conversation.

You suck. Go on, prove you don't.

The anti-war movement is anti-American.

You stole my sandwich.

Conservatives hate free speech.

Anarchists and Liberals share the same basic political philosophy. They're Nazis.

These statements (& every other affirmative statement under the sun) all share a similar feature. The onus is on the person making it to prove his/her statement is true, by offering evidence. That's the way it's supposed to work, and we have every right to expect that proof, rather than just accepting the veracity of the statement. In it's absence, one has every right to flat out dismiss the statement as being without merit.

Sometimes, that's where the trouble starts...

Sometimes, the party making the statement tries to turn it around, and requires YOU to prove what THEY said is untrue. They're not proving anything... Instead, they're trying to shift the burden of proof to you. And, they're asking you to prove a negative, which, if you really think about it, is just about impossible.

There is no conclusive evidence I could ever offer that I didn't steal something. I could produce people who saw me somewhere else, but the accuser says, "So you didn't steal it at that time... But prove you didn't steal it, at all." A search of my property reveals no stolen item. "Maybe you hid it. Proves nothing." No physical evidence on my person. "You were careful, wore gloves, and showered. You still could've done it." No matter what I said, I could never ever prove I didn't do it.

That's why legally, ethically, & logically, the onus for providing proof always falls on the original speaker. Don't get trapped, and don't accept the claim that you're only "playing word games, or semantics," which often indicates that they know the jig is up; you recognize their "word game," of shifting the burden of proof for their words onto you. Make them keep the burden they came into the conversation with. Make 'em prove what they say is true.

If a person is unwilling or unable to prove the statement s/he's making is true, you are under no obligation to accept it is true, and can therefore reject it as unproven, & therefore untrue.

If you still don't believe me, just try to prove you don't suck.

(When you can't, it won't mean you do suck. or that you don't suck. or anything else, at all. And that is the point.)

Some of those statements above have other problems, like being sweeping generalizations, as well. Perhaps I'll hit that one next time.

Wingnut X-Post: Free Speech, Imus, & the Free Market

Wingnuts & Moonbats: Free Speech, Imus, & the Free Market

My thinkin' on Imus & free speech, and my discussion with 2 Cons about it.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Wingnuts & Moonbats

Wingnuts & Moonbats

My new happy place. Seemed like the thing to do at the time... 8>)

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Mike's America: Trying to fit in (my words)

Mike would prefer that I keep the wordage down over at his blog. (I can appreciate his concern. I do likes to ramble...) I tried to reply to each of his points in one or two short sentences... ...and failed miserably. It's not in my nature. I always feel like I'm leaving the best part or most salient point out. So, I brought my wordy ass here. I'll give Mike a link, and he can pick & choose the points he wants to address, here or there.

Mike sez:
First, just a minor point, but you criticize Rummy for meeting Saddam with a "cheesy grin...looking like he was having such a good time with [Saddam]"

Have you blogged on the Pelosi photos of her smiling with Assad and wearing the veil?

Just looking for consistency here.
----------------------------------------
Keep in mind I'm responding to several comments on your blog, Mike. My mention of Rummy's trip was in furtherance of the conversation between Freedom Now & Art, and was meant to point out to you that Saddam was evil for a very long time before we finally acted. I asked you why you thought that was... (A question to which you did not reply, by the way...)

Were it not for the folks at your blog I was responding to, I would not bring up Rummy's trip, at all... While I thought it was a mistake for Reagan to send him, the only thing about which I disapproved as far as Rummy was concerned was the smile.

That said, I have never spoken in any forum about Pelosi's trip. (This is also the first appearance of Rummy, in any way, shape or form, on my blog.)
==================
Mike: Second, I'm assuming you attend these ANSWER events? On behalf of what group do you attend? Or what cause? If you want to give more details (considering the limitations of space) feel free.
------------------------------------
I attend peace events on behalf of promoting peace, of course. My UU fellowship has a group, and some folks in my old neighborhood started another, which meets at the local library. I have attended ANSWER events with one or the other of those groups, and I've gone to one (or maybe 2) on my own. I was ambivalent about our involvement in Afghanistan (I could appreciate both points of view), so I neither protested nor spoke in favor of our actions there. I am opposed to our actions in Iraq, as you know. I have written letters & whatnot about other conflicts (Darfur, Israel/Palestine) but never attended a demo about them.
==============================

Mike: Third: "It is not that our environmental, peace, and social justice orgs are focusing on US issues to the exclusion of others. It is that they are not focusing on the worst problems in the fields they claim to care about, wherever they may be. Have I got it, now?"

Nyet! It is because these groups are focusing on relatively minor and trivial actions by the U.S. yet ignoring the REAL EVIL which is of much greater magnitude than anything the U.S. is doing.
---------------------------
First first off... The distinction between what I said and what you said seems to be whether the actions are those of the US or not. Let's review:

I said "...not focusing on the worst problems..."
You said "...ignoring the REAL EVIL which is of much greater magnitude..."

I said: (or failed to say, but pretty obviously implied) "they are focusing on lesser problems"
You said "...are focusing on relatively minor and trivial actions..."

To me, they are VERY SIMILAR sentiments. Here is the difference:

I said "...wherever they may be."
You said "...focusing on by the U.S." "...ignoring much greater magnitude than anything the U.S. is doing."

If I'm mistaken, I guess I'm going to need more words from you.
Back to my rebuttal...

First off, "minor & trivial" & "REAL EVIL" are in the minds of the beholder. Second, I still think one does & should have more influence with one's own people & government, and should focus one's actions where they are most likely to affect change. Finally, should deal with the splinter in one's own eye, first. In some cases, you appear to agree. Without going back into the Imus issue, read how you end your blog post on the subject:

"Start by holding yourselves accountable to the same standard of conduct you daily demand of others."

It doesn’t say start with the most evil, or the least trivial... ...or even whether or not the US is involved. It says start at home.
I agree.
===========================
Finally, your last point: It may well be that some of these groups do object to abuses elsewhere. But they seem to reserve their ire for the United States. It wouldn't be too difficult to find examples of where they expressed environmental, human rights or peace concerns for the actions of U.S. allies either.

Harder though to find them protesting, if at all, U.S. enemies.
----------------------------------------------------
I think you're moving the goalposts here, Mike.

We already established that it is more difficult to find interest groups from the right or left protesting against the actions of other countries. One might say that the Minutemen are protesting the actions of Mexico, but then Mexico is not an enemy of the US, either. (That would be a group on the right protesting against an ally of the US.) The few other groups I can think of on the right primarily deal with social issues here in the US. It remains to be seen whether the Eagles will march for other country's soldiers, or against America's enemies. If they do, they will be among the first.

I say American interest groups protest the actions/inactions of our American government because they are the ones most likely to care & perhaps change. (We vote here, we donate here, we educate & therefore affect the attitudes of our fellow citizens here...) That's what I believe, and I think they are wise to do so.

I cannot help that you don't agree with my reasoning, or believe that US interest groups should focus on the issues that you (& yours) find MOST EVIL/least trivial/furthest from criticizing US policies and allies, and "back burner" the issues you (& yours) find least evil/MOST TRIVIAL/closest to criticizing US policies and allies (in whatever combination most suits you). We disagree, and it's possible we always shall.

You have mentioned the plight of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq several times. You obviously care about this issue very deeply. So, what actions did you take to help them? Did you go there? Did you form a group &/or attend a protest on their behalf? Did you write any letters to Saddam? Did you ask your government to intervene on their behalf? Aside using the issue now to club liberals, what did you do to change it?

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Too much death

Dan Bern - Kid's Prayer - Song Lyrics

Dan Bern wrote this song after Columbine. The words ring true...

Friday, March 23, 2007

I went overboard at YouTube

I've been debating some of the anti-peace protester folks on the vid pages, lately... It was going fine, at first, but what started out as one or two line replies started getting longer, needing 2-3 boxes. (500 character limit). Then today, I got scolded by one of the vid posters (a peace guy, no less) for spamming his vid.

Guilty as charged.

So, I apologised, and sent messages to the three "eagles" that I'm currently "involved" with. This is one of 'em.:

============================
After posting my reply (replies) to you, I realized that the guy who's vid that is (who's on your side, btw) is probably going to blow his top. He was moderating the comments so that folks didn't go nuts & post like crazy... ...like we've been doing.

So, I'm thinkin' that if we want to continue this debate, we ought to find a better forum & stop spamming the video pages. If you know of an unmoderated blog, (preferably one that is read by all sides) let me know. I do have a blog page, but I suspect that few actually read it... OTOH, I'd be glad to have you there to debate if you're willing:

www.whatdisay.blogspot.com

Either way, I'm going to try to avoid doing anymore long form debating on the YouTube pages for awhile... (I was scolded for the same thing at another vid today, too... A guy on the peace side, in that case. I realized he was right, which is why I'm doing this.)

So, either visit my blog or get back to me with another one if you wish to continue, or do nothing if you don't.

My whole ANSWER answer appears below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANSWER is a coalition of many smaller groups opposed to war & racism. It was founded by the International Action Center, who in turn, has strong ties to the Workers World Party, a Communist group. (WWP has since split, resulting in a smaller WWP, and a new group, The Party for Socialism & Liberation. PSL stayed with ANSWER, and the IAC/WWP folks went on to form Troops Out Now!

There are Muslim groups involved, but they had no part in founding ANSWER. Several other American & International Communist & Socialist groups are also a part of the coalition, along with civil rights & other left wing progressive orgs, many representing minority groups within the US.

The big question I have is, so what? While some of these groups do believe the US should adopt another form of government (& IMO, too often wastes valuable peace demo time saying so, rather than focusing on the issue at hand) the majority of the people who attend know why they are there, and DO focus on ending the occupation.

While many on the right like to point out the origins of ANSWER & other coalitions, they never bother to explain why these origins are important, or provide any evidence that anyone is being harmed because of ‘em.
=======================

(& yeah, I did actually post that whole last bit to a vid. Took 4 boxes. I WAS out of control.)

So, let's see if anyone comes a-calling... I left a light on for 'em...

Monday, March 19, 2007

Pro-war counter-protest fails to prove its point - Opinions

Pro-war counter-protest fails to prove its point - Opinions

Let's hope there are a few more articles discussing the behavior of the anti-peace protester folks. The descriptions (& more importantly, the videos) are starting to appear around the web, showing that there was a good bit of thuggery among the pro-war, pro-bush, crowd. If anyone was destroying property (mostly the signs or flags of the peaceful), it was these guys, not the peaceniks.

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Lost in a Sea of Thugs 3-17-07

YouTube - Lost in a Sea of Vets 3-17-07

I expect this is just the first of several vids that will expose the fact that some of the anti-peace protesters in DC were there to intimidate the anti-war folks with physical violence and destruction of property.

Tried to post the following at this vid, but it's moderated... Let's see if it appears...

The peace protesters oppose US government misdeeds in the hope that they can influence change. The "Peace thru strength" pro-war folks protest against other American citizens, in hope of keeping them quiet.

Just more "Bush the divider" in action.

The Impolitic: Who's protesting who?

The Impolitic: Who's protesting who?

Libby's point about peace protesters opposing government action (the invasion of Iraq, the mistreatment of veterans), while the "pro war" protesters oppose the actions of their fellow citizens (the peace protesters) shows a big difference between the sides. Peace protesters are all for differing opinion (mostly, anyway...), while those that support Bush's misguided occupation want to stifle divergent opinion, much like Bush's unitary government.

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Ilana Mercer: The "Idiocracy" Has Spoken! (About My Hornbeck Pieces)

Barely A Blog - Updated Again: The ‘Idiocracy’ Has Spoken! (About My Hornbeck Pieces)

I could go through this new post over at Ilana Mercer's blog paragraph by paragraph, but there's no point. It all comes down to this: She's apparently received several comments questioning her heartless opinions & speculations about Shawn Hornbeck, and her feelings got hurt, so she's lashing out at the "idiocracy" -- those of us who disagree with her -- & stamping her feet with all the righteous indignation she can muster.

Speaking for this "idiot," I'd much rather have Ilana beat up on me than on a kid who spent the last 4 years with the man who kidnapped him.

'nuff said.

* History Post * Ann Coulter Was Wrong

National Ledger - Ann Coulter Was Wrong

I was deleting old bookmarks, when I came upon this article about Ann Coulter from last June, not too long after she'd made those nasty comments about the Jersey Girls being harpies. The author, Cliff Kincaid, wrote in part

--------------------------------
"Coulter appears to be saying that she knows something that is both shocking and disgusting about why these women were acting they way they did. But she has no way of knowing that. Coulter may be offering only her personal opinion about what was supposedly going through the minds of these women, but she obviously has no evidence for her opinion."
---------------------------------
Does that bring to mind a certain mother/daughter "mind reading" team about whom I've been writing a lot, lately?

The rest of the article offers more commentary about making judgements based on fact, not supposition. It also talks more about the awful things Ann Coulter was saying about folks, including veterans who've spoken out in favor of liberal positions. Even now, 8 months later, it's an interesting read...

Talk about tying my recent posts together...

I have a bunch of older articles and posts gathering internet dust in my archives. I'll try to pull out one or two on the weekends, if nothing more interesting is going on...

Me, a hater?

The Redhunter: Videos: Leftist Anti-War Protesters Abusing the Troops

So, I was surfin' the net, just goofing around, and I decide to do a search for myself. Among the hits I get was a Right Wing blog called "The Redhunter."

Turns out, your humble host is a hater... Can you imagine?
According to this Redhunter guy, I hate the troops. Here's how I was outed as a hater:

The other day, I added a comment to a youtube video of Joshua "Spit" Sparling on Faux News. Redhunter saw it & obviously didn't like it, because he collected my comment, along with several others he disapproved of, and posted them on his blog, under an explanation that said:

----------------------------------
"...But if you want to get an idea of some of the hate that is directed at the troops who served in Iraq and dare to publically say that they support our efforts there, go to YouTube and look at some of the comments that have been left under the videos I posted above. Here's a sample of what was left in response to the last video above"
-----------------------------

Mine was the last comment on the list. It said:
----------------------------------
"Where's Ann Coulter now that this poor amputee is exploiting his victimhood in the name of right wing politics? Wonder what foul name she'll be calling him, and how soon that'll be? (If she actually ever did--which we all know will never happen--I'd defend Mr Sparling's right to speak out, just as I did Ann's other victims.)"
-----------------------------

Does that show my hate for the troops?
Is it even insulting or disrespectful to Joshua Sparling? (Not that I've never been disrespectful, particularly of Joshua's repeated victimization at the hand of peaceniks, but this isn't one of those times.)

And, after my post at the end of the list, "redhunter" writes:

"Can we question their patriotism now?"

I had to post a comment at Redhunter's blog:
----------------------
I fear you've misunderstood my comment about the video...

I fully support Joshua's right to speak out, though I do disagree with him.
I just wondered whether Ann Coulter would be intellectually honest, and rail against Joshua the way she did Max Cleland. (All that crap about trotting out the victims, blah, blah, blah...) If she actually ever was that intellectually honest, she would be as wrong about Joshua as she was about Max. And I would be among the first to say so...

You may question my patriotism, if it'd make you feel better (I've no need for a freeper seal of approval, anyway), but if anybody's got a beef with that comment above, it oughta be Ann Coulter, not Joshua or you...
--------------------------

Saturday, February 03, 2007

Still More: Ilana Mercer's Daughter Weighs In On Hornbeck

Barely A Blog - Letter of the Week: My Daughter Weighs In On Hornbeck

Ilana's daughter sez:
-----------------------------------------
If you’ve been participating in this here blog at all, you’ll want to read this. I have perused some of the antagonistic comments here and think there’d be more substance to my response if I didn’t comment about them. Instead, here are my impressions of the Shawn Hornbeck debacle. Straight from the horse’s mouth. The horse being Ilana’s daughter. And I’m not really a horse. I’m a person:

---------------------------------------

Ilana's daughter is wrong. I really didn't want to read another attack on Shawn Hornbeck and his family by anyone in the Mercer clan. Unfortunately, that didn't stop it from happening, again... I also question her personhood, a little.

---------------------------------------
That little shit. That is my reaction; it has little to do with what my mother taught me. This reaction has to do with my mother and how I feel about her.

-------------------------------------

I suspect that Ilana's reaction is no more based on reason than her daughter's, no matter what either of 'em says. This seems to be about their inability to sympathize with folks who aren't like them.

--------------------------------------
It is quite a thing, being my mother’s daughter, to read of her impressions of parenthood, and particularly in this article regarding Shawn Hornbeck. Bill-O is generally a man not good for one’s digestion, but I sympathize wholly with his low regard for this kid. And my mother’s, too.

I can see it now. This bathos ridden North American kid, quivering and gesturing at the keyboard. Still full of histrionics, even without an audience. To pen something so sinisterly anonymous to his parents, a simple sentence so torturous because it is coming from the child: “How long will you look for your child?” What kind of awful dramatic shit is that? How many crappy Hollywood flicks has this kid seen? How many books has he read in comparison?

---------------------------------------

No, miss Mercer, you CAN'T see it. You can create a version of events to justify how you feel or what you believe, but you cannot really know anything, any more than anyone else who wasn't there.

You imagine a child havin' a ball torturing his poor parents with anonymous cryptic messages. Other's imagine that Shawn was made to write it, under threat of violence, or that it wasn't Shawn who wrote it at all, but Devlin. Folks can imagine scenarios all day, based on whatever is or isn't in their hearts.

I think we ought to wait until we have more facts, rather than inventing these fictions, at all... But I ask you; If they're going to create these fictions, why are the Mercer's so willing to imagine the worst of Shawn and his motivations? What does it say about them?

--------------------------------------------
Here’s a basic guide to escaping the torment Shawn suffered through. You email your folks, you tell them where you are and you get your ass home. They’ll come get you; parents are good at that. They generally like to keep kid and kid’s possessions altogether under one roof.

---------------------------------------------

Saving yourself from predators is just that easy. So easy, even a child could do it. The fact that so many children are murdered or raped in these situations means nothing to miss Mercer. If they didn't save themselves by hoppin' on the old internet & popping off an email to mummy & daddy (like I would've)... Screw 'em. Who needs such weak willed kids, anyway? It's not like their parents can't make more...

Cold. Very cold.

--------------------------------------------
As a child partially schooled at a private elementary and middle school in Cape Town, South Africa, I have seen a different kind of child than the North American specimen. I was shocked to my core when I first stepped into a North American classroom. I was disgusted with and dismayed by my classmates, as they genuinely, unblinkingly quizzed me about the population of lions in my back yard, how come I wasn’t black, and, “Why did you leave a place that had such nice weather.” Not to mention the petulance and total lack of respect for the teacher, the teacher’s lack of discipline with respect to the feet on the desks, the eating in class, the idiotic guffawing and god knows what else I took in within 10 minutes of immersion with my fellow 12-year olds. ILANA INTERJECTS: [I recall you came back crying. You said: “Mom, the children in my class are retarded. Take me out of there.” So I did.] END ILANA This is the way fellow feelings are nurtured in North American schools and obviously in the homes, too. I couldn’t bring myself to act that way with my peers, even away from home.

I quickly skipped a grade and moved just slightly beyond the level of the stupid and ascended to the heights of mediocrity. That is about as good as it gets in the North American schooling system (sadly it has gone that way now in my place of birth, too).

------------------------------------------------------

Do I even need to say anything?

Look, kitten... Speaking strictly for my little parcel of North America, you're welcome out, anytime... Take your mom with ya...

-------------------------------------------------------
A combination of my experience in schools here and in South Africa and my home life lead me to this overall impression of Shawn Hornbeck’s behavior. It is mostly a gut reaction, hence the emotion. Yes, I accuse this victim for his total lack of care. If he hated where he was, he would have emailed his parents and told them where he was. If he was feeling the slightest discomfort he could have shuffled over to the computer and told mom and dad he was bored and was ready to come home now. He didn’t. He toyed with them. He cruelly toyed with his parents. How could you live with yourself? If you’re old enough to play a video game (I can’t even get them – they’re not as easy as they look), you’re certainly old enough to give a damn.

---------------------------------------------------------

Slightest discomfort?
Bored?

Is that what you imagine Shawn was feeling?

Like her mom, Miss Mercer has written a fictional story, and is railing against it, rather than facts. They have no idea what Shawn was thinking or feeling. None at all.

----------------------------------------------------------
Okay. So for a moment I linger on his selfishness. Then I can’t help but think of my mother in place of his parents. It breaks my heart. I can’t even let my imagination wander there without shedding tears. Tears of disgust with myself if I were to do such a thing. When my mom writes about life coming to a stand still for a parent in this kind of situation, I know she ain’t kidding. I’ve seen her concerned for my life and it is an earth-shattering thing to look at. One should feel privileged and fortified for being the object of such emotion. I can say with utter confidence that I would have felt the same way at age eleven or fifteen and will continue to feel that way until I am an old woman.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I can say with utter confidence that you're fooling yourself if you think that you would feel that way at 11. Despite your pretty words, I doubt you really have the ability to empathize outside of your little circle, even now. If you did, you would avoid adding to the hurt of Shawn and his family by keeping your vicious opinions off the internet, where they can see them.

You say you feel. Good for you. Why broadcast it to the world, when you know it's going to bring grief to all those victims and families who don't share your opinions? What is the point of needlessly hurting others?

---------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn could obviously access a computer and other people. That premise alone is evidence enough that that child could have done something. But he did nothing. He prolonged his situation unnecessarily. And why am I not surprised? My old peer group in South Africa understood the value of life and respected their families. No matter how belligerent we all were as teenagers, no matter how much we would push our parent’s patience and write horrid things about them in our diaries, we loved them utterly and would never give them cause to worry for our lives. No way. We acted out within known boundaries. We were grounded, sure. We had to do extra chores. Absolutely. And we had to shed the attitude, definitely. So what? Did it kill us? No. It just made us human with a value for our lives and the lives of others. We don’t require special tuition in order to learn how to give a damn.

posted by Ilana Mercer on 02.02.07 @ 6:27 pm |
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Shawn could access a computer and other people. That doesn't prove anything. It doesn't address what he believed would happen in his world if he took advantage of that access. Perhaps he acted badly. He most certainly didn't act the way a smart cookie like you would've at 11. But you have no more knowledge about why he acted as he did than I, or anyone else does. You think you know, of course. Your whole diatribe, like that of your mother's, is all about what you think you know about Shawn Hornbeck and his ordeal. You've written a story, and now you're punishing the bad character you created. It's fiction, dear. All fiction.

Your writing does not provide any evidence that you give a damn about anyone outside of your mom.

You certainly don't give a damn about Shawn Hornbeck, or his family. Because they failed to meet your standards, they mean nothing at all. At best, they're but a bad example in Ilana Mercer's preachings on free will.

What of other parents of children who failed to act as mother & child Mercer think they should've, and were harmed or killed as a result? What should they take from your words? Should they believe, as you do, that they deserved whatever they got?

From where I sit, your ability to give a damn is severely lacking. You & your mom live in a cold, heartless world.

======
And now, the comment I sent to Ilana's Blog , which she rejected, as usual.
======
------------
Ilana, I really like your daughter, at least in this one sense... Unlike you, she doesn't waste a whole lotta time with lofty theories... She speaks much more plainly about what you've been saying since your first hit piece on this kid.

Shawn Hornbeck was a bad child who deserved everything that happened to him, once he failed to summon the courage and reason required to escape the first time he had the chance. That little shit made his own damned bed, and chose to lie in it. (And if he was joined in that bed by some 300 pounder with a penis, well, he must've chose that, too...)

Given your belief in free will, I wonder why you (and now your daughter, as well) have chosen to write these articles about Shawn. I mean, even if you are correct about everything you've said, how does your saying it benefit you or anyone else? Do you fail to realize how your words will hurt Shawn Hornbeck and his family, or is it that--like Shawn failing to contact his mother when he had the chance--you simply fail to care? Like Shawn, are you not choosing to act in a way that will bring hurt and anguish to every victim and family who fail to live up to your standards? Never mind Shawn... What motivates your poor choices, Ilana?

As I said in comment one, I believe that you and your daughter lack compassion. I feel sorry for you both, as well as for all who share your cold, cruel world. I hope they choose better in future.
------------

Ilana Mercer has some disturbing fans...

It's the topic, I know, but still...

I've mentioned this once before in passing, but they keep getting... ...well, I'll tell you what.
I'll just do the Faux News thing. No commentary. I report, you decide.

From Barely A Blog: In Defense of Bill O'Reilly :
-----------------------------
Shawn was living a life that many children who live at home do - they play all day - going to school is just going through the motions for them - with social promotion.

Shawn’s life is what many children no doubt dream about - sort of like “Treasure Island” - going off on a ship and just playing games day and night.

Shawn no doubt was not a great student, or he would have missed school.

Has anyone suggested that Shawn “ran away” rather than that he was kidnapped?

By Frank Zavisca on 01.26.07 5:07 am

-----------------------------
I’m amazed that O’Reilly had taken this position. This is a man who agrees with the likes of Susan Estrich and Wendy Murphy that young men under age 18 are too young and innocent to consent to or knowingly initiate sex with adult females, describes such affairs as “rape” and “child molestation,” and believes the “victims” are “traumatized.”

By Michael kuehl on 01.26.07 4:28 pm

-------------------------------------
Given his comment about “a NAMBLA offshoot for women,” James Casper obviously believes that adult women who have sex with young men under age 18 are “child molesters,” “pedophiles,” and “rapists.” And because pubescent teenage males under statutory age are fundamentally indistinguishable from prepubescent girls of 10 and 11, such “victims” are “children” and “little boys” who are “traumatized” and “scarred for life.”

What nonsense! Biologically, pubescent teenage age males under age 18 are not “children” but young men. They don’t have the minds and bodies of 10- and 11-year-olds, nor do they have the bodies of underage adolescent girls of comparable age.

Almost invariably, in affairs and dalliances between adult females and young men under age 18, the “child” and “victim” is much bigger, stronger, more aggressive, more physically intimidating, etc. than the adult and “victimizer.” For this reason alone, it’s ludicrous to define such liaisons as “pedophilia” and “child molestation.” Yes, women are “pedophiles” and “child molesters” for having sex with young men as old as 16 and 17 who might be 6′4″ and outweigh them by 50-150 pounds!

Moreover, for abvious anatomical reasons, women can’t “rape” anyone in the pure sense of that word. “Rape” signifies not only violence but penetration -and, with female victims, possible impregnation. Ergo, even to describe such intrigues as “statutory rape” is objectively inaccurate and thus absurd. In such encounters, the “victim” penentrates, and possibly impregnates, the “criminal.”

Lastly, under the law, teenage males under age 18 are old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to commit felonies, and often “waived into adult court” if they commit violent crimes. Obviously, if young men under age 18 are old and mature enough to know what they’re doing, legally and morally, when they commit aggravated assault, murder, and rape, then they’re old and mature enough to know what they’re doing when they consent to or initiate sex with adult females.

By Michael kuehl on 01.28.07 6:29 am

-------------------------------

From In Defense of Bill O'Reilly:
----------------------------
5. 1/31/2007 - 4:16:31AM
BY: Brian
I think everyone who believes this "mind control" theory are just naive. This was a man/boy love relationship and Shawn was a willing participant. Do your research on the dynamics of that type of relationship and then go back and look at the FACTS! I'm not supporting that type of thing, I'm just saying, that's what it was. PERIOD! I can't believe how stupid people can be and the lack of common sense, especially when the facts are right in front of your face. All you people claiming there was some brainwashing or mind control are so out of touch with reality it's insane. You are all just so hell-bent on putting the nail in Devlin's coffin you've become blind to common sense and reality. I'm not supporting Devlin, but Shawn is a lying little deviant.

--------------------------
9. 2/2/2007 - 21:56:58PM
BY: Ex-runaway
I'm not going into the legal format of the case,but what do you people think a person turns 18 and a sex drive is installed! I remember 13 an 14 year olds getting married. Wjether it's a good decision could be debated. I know of one 16 year old that runs his own dairy farm. I do believe we are keeping our children as helpless babies to long. We all want our children to have a good future but sometimes we seem to keep them in a bubble for much too long - and then let them loose dumb and unable to deal with the reality of life.

-------------------------

April, 2011: (I'd update that second comment link if I could, but it seems the Free Market News Network (FMNN.com) has pulled up stakes and no longer has a cached version that I can find and link to... The article was there though, posted 1/30/2007: Contributors Archive - Free Market News Network

Friday, February 02, 2007

O'Reilly's comment not a factor for fundraiser - Naples Daily News

O'Reilly's comment not a factor for fundraiser | naplesnews.com | Naples Daily News

Very disappointing... I thought John Walsh was a better man. I expected him to stand up to Bill, not let him get away with verbally abusing this child.

Damn.

Ilana Mercer: Hornbeck and the tyranny of low expectations

Guess who's back...

That's right, Ilana Mercer, with another article explaining why we shouldn't treat Shawn Hornbeck as anything but a selfish, willful child who is responsible for his continued captiv... ...no, wait... Ilana doesn't believe Shawn was held captive. I think she called his situation a "predicament" in one of her earlier articles.

In Defense Of Bill O'Reilly
Hornbeck: Too Busy Playing Dragon Ball Z and Gears of War
In Defense of Bill O'Reilly

Let's take this latest article one paragraph at a time:
(Apparently, I lack the correct browser to change the font or style of the letters, so I'll have to use lines to set Ilana's words apart from my own - I'm sure neither of us wants to be mistaken for the other.)

Ilana writes:
-------------------------------------------------
Note to Keith Olbermann: some things are true, even if Bill “Orally” says them. The adorable Olbermann launched yet another coruscating attack on Bill, because he promised to do a segment on kids who, unlike Shawn Hornbeck, mustered the strength to escape their abductors. As I did in last week’s column, where I also defended O’Reilly for opposing the therapeutic establishment in its efforts not to diminish, but to trash, the concept of individual responsibility. (Bill must be hanging out at his old haunt, WorldNetDaily.)
------------------------------------------------

While it is true that Shawn did not escape his captor, we don't know whether unmustered strength had anything to do with the reason he did not. Perhaps his 11 - 15 year old reasoning told him that to do so would endanger himself or someone else.

I know that Ms. Mercer does not subscribe to very much psychology, and she seems particularly hostile to any psychological thinking that might mitigate or take the place of personal responsibility (particularly when it entails placing blame), but the fact is, threats are effective. (In fact, a little further down in this article, Ilana explains why her daughter would find a way to call home, no matter what. The reason? The threat of what Mama Mercer would do to the girl once she returned home, if she did not call.) If Shawn believed that Devlin would kill his family, or anyone else, for that matter, even cold hard reason might tell him that behaving as Devlin told him would be the smartest course of action.

Have I any proof that Devlin threatened Shawn? I do not.
Does Ms. Mercer have any proof that Shawn was simply too lazy to muster the strength, or lacked the will to escape? She does not.
Does she imply that Shawn was responsible for his continued captivity because he failed to act? Indeed, she does.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ilana Blog update 2/2/07 : 9:45pm: I submitted a comment to the blog version of this article about 30 minutes ago. Deleted. I get the feeling Ilana doesn't value my comments, anymore. I'm going to submit it again, on the off chance it was a malfunction.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ilana continues:
--------------------------------------------
So here’s another angle for Bill. With the “Hildebeest” adding her voice to the deafening din about “Our Children,” how about sparing a thought for Hornbeck’s poor parents? This really dates me, doesn’t it? First I submit that teenagers have a modicum of free will and an ability to tell right from wrong. Next, I venture that the boy wasn’t exactly finely tuned to his parents’ anguish.

A parent in this situation is beside himself with worry. All he or she can think of is, “Is my baby alive; is he warm enough.” And, “Please God don’t let him suffer.” As a parent, I’d be driven to distraction by thoughts of my daughter in agony. Daily life would come to a stand still. I also know this:

I’d be furious to learn that my daughter posted a message on mom’s website, but failed to notify me she was alive. Recall, in a forum on the Shawn Hornbeck Foundation Web site, the boy posted a note asking his parents how long they were planning to look for their son. (Shawn also had a Member Profile on a website called “MindViz.com.”)
---------------------------------------------

I got nothin' on the "Hildebeest" bit... (Good to know Ms. Mercer is not always the intellectual she plays, and can wallow in the filth of personal attack with the rest of 'em, though)

How does Ilana know what Shawn thought or felt about his parent's anguish? She doesn't. Ilana's got her scenario, of course, but it's one she created, and it may or may not bear any resemblence to actual fact. Ilana believes that Shawn had the ability to end his parent's suffering. Maybe he did. She also believes that Shawn knew it, and chose to let them suffer. To her, Shawn was a bad child.

Fortunate for Shawn, Ilana Mercer did not give him life, and the woman who did does not appear to be furious with her son for not clearly notifying her of his whereabouts. Fortunate for Shawn, his mother prefers to give her child compassion rather than recrimination, even if it does make him soft and weak. I shudder to imagine what Ms. Mercer would do if Shawn actually were her child. While she--and her daughter, it seems: My Daughter Weighs In On Hornbeck--are convinced that it could never've happened to them, I am far less sure that all her teaching about free will and the irrepressable spirit of humanity would make a dime's worth of difference, when the monster meets the intended victim.

Ilana, continued:
-----------------------------------------
There Shawn’s parents were, dying a slow death every day—because, face it, kids have that effect; they burrow in your soul like no one else. So these folks are pining away, and the little so-and-so can’t bring himself to append this to his message, “Your son is alive, don’t sweat … like, whatever. Sorry gotta run; I have a game of Dragon Ball Z and Gears of War on the go with my buddy Tony.”

Then it dawned on me that my girl, who still checks in with me even though she’s an adult, would have let me know she was alive. She’d be too scared not to, on the off chance that she’d be returned to me one day. And because she was brought up to think rationally, she’d know better than to try this line on me: “Mom, I was suffering that syndrome the nice lady on TV said I had, and that prevented me from calling you for 4 years.” Thin gruel, indeed.
-----------------------------------------

Ilana writes as though this little so-and-so--Shawn, the child who was kidnapped--was a teen away at summer camp who neglected to get in touch with the folks, rather than what he was; an 11, 12, 13, 14 year old kid who was taken from everything he'd ever known, against his will, and made to live with and rely on this guy who probably didn't have the best of intentions. I somehow doubt that Shawn's life with this guy was all video games and cookies.

Though Ilana makes with the cute, cutting commentary as to Shawn's attitude toward his parent's whilst "away," the fact is, something caused Shawn to act as he did. We could speculate, like Ilana, that Shawn found paradise with Devlin, and just didn't give a damn about those people he used to live with... Hell, why bother with them, when there were video games to play, and school to miss?

We could also create an alternate scenario... One that might also explain why Shawn might stay right where he was, not doing anything to upset the delicate balance, smiling, so that no one knew, so that Devlin wouldn't...

Yeah, we could make shit up, like Ilana, to explain Shawn's behavior, but I prefer to let Shawn, and Ben, and the police, & Devlin tell us what really happened. They were there... They know far more than we do about the circumstances.

I'm sure Ilana's child(ren) was brought up far better & more rationally than Shawn. Hell, to hear her & her daughter tell it, their upbringing was better than many of ours or our children's. I would expect nothing less. I wish all of Ilana's children well. But no matter what Ilana believes, there are times when fear can kick the shit out of rational thought & good breeding. There are many things a person will do when they know the gun is at their head. There are almost as many things a person will do when they aren't sure, but think it might be.

At what point does it become irrational to do whatever you believe will save a life (yours, or someone else's)?
What if the gun is at your head?
What if it's at your mom's head?
What if it's not at your mom's head right now, but you've seen pictures of the man with the gun in your mom's house?
What if your told "I know where your mom lives, and I will kill her?"
At what point do you stop believing someone will die?

What if your not _____ years old, but 11 or 12?

At what point does it become rational to take a chance with your mom's life?

Do I know that Shawn was threatened? I do not, any more than Ilana knows Shawn was NOT threatened. We haven't the facts, either of us. But only one of us is passing judgement without them.

My point is, does Ilana believe there is nothing that motivates behavior besides personal responsibility? Does emotion play no part at all? And if it does, are their no psychological factors that affect one's emotions? I guess I know what Ilana thinks, but I don't buy it.

As far as syndromes, we differ. I believe in some of 'em, I could probably be convinced either way on others, and there are some that're bunk. It means little that Ilana and her daughter share a distrust of psychology. Her article is about Shawn, and his parents. If she cannot tell us what they believe about psychological syndromes, Ilana's story about her daughter "knowing better" is useless.

Ilana, some more:
----------------------------------------------
Small children during the Holocaust performed amazing acts of bravery, such as smuggling food for their families in and out the ghettos. Some were shot on site by the Nazis. In a story titled "the brave children of Afghanistan,” the BBC tells of the heroism of poverty stricken, severely malnourished, war-damaged kids in Kabul. They shine shoes to support their families, earning $1 a day. Asked “how he felt about his situation,” the one little boy replied: “I am happy and not happy. Happy because I work, but not happy because I cannot earn enough to bring my family everything they need.”
----------------------------------------------

There is no debate that there are heroic children in the world. Even if Ilana can convince others that Shawn isn't one of them, so what? What is Ilana trying to prove, anyway?

Personally, I'm glad Shawn survived his ordeal. There are many kidnapped children who are found dead. There are many others who are never found, at all. What does free will and personal responsibility tell us about them? How many tried to escape or get help, and were killed for it? Should we judge them heros for trying, or fools for failing? How many accepted their fate and died weak and in fear? Are they just more children like Shawn, who didn't muster up the strength to escape? If we're going to judge Shawn, shouldn't we judge these children, as well?

And what of all the children who're being abused by one of their parents? Are they to be judged for not getting out, too?

Where does all of Ilana's judging of the VICTIMS of crimes stop?
At what point does she blame the criminal?

More Ilana:
-------------------------------------
Yet people claim that the lad in question, Shawn, was incapable of contacting his hapless parents for 4 years, not even to let them know he was alive. Come now! I’m not here advocating such a developed—or defeating, to some—sense of duty in small children as evinced by the Afghani kids. Nor am I implying children are miniature adults; they are developmentally different from grownups. But neither is a teenager an ameba. The human spirit is irrepressible, in children too.
--------------------------------------

Speaking for myself, I only say that he didn't contact them. I don't know why he didn't, or whether--given his predicament--he believed he could've. Perhaps Shawn or his parents will talk about it one day... In the meantime, implying that one knows he could've contacted them, or that one knows Shawn believed there would be no physical or emotional cost for doing so, is just more guessing in the abscence of facts. Why guess?

Ilana says the human spirit is irrepressable.
What does that mean? Does an irrepressable spirit give a child wisdom or physical maturity? Does it make him understand human nature any better, or give him anything other than a will to live?

Shawn Hornbeck lived. His irrepressable spirit is intact.

My point when I first asked Ilana about children being minature adults was for her to explain what role child development might play in Shawn's situation. (For my money, Ilana is treating Shawn as though he was her. Not an 11-15 year old child, but an adult with a firm life philosophy that enshrines free will above all else. Both here and in the first article, Ilana fails to answer the question, except to say kids are not adults. While that is one tiny step, Ilana needs to explain how children are different, and what a free willed 11 year old with an irrepressable spirit really knows about escaping from a predator.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ilana Blog update 2/3/07 : 12:38am
Second submission deleted. Ilana is too cowardly to defend her thoughts on her moderated blog.
Too bad...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ilana, the last of it:
--------------------------------------
An anonymous sage said that “expectations tend to be self-fulfilling”: expect nothing and you’ll get nothing. In the United States, if kids so much as dial 911 in an emergency, they are decorated for bravery. Mitchell Hults, the boy who gave police the description of the perpetrator’s white truck, has been hailed as a hero by the sheriff and showered with awards and gifts. This, for merely reporting what he saw! If the consensus in society is that doing the bare minimum is an act of supreme courage; then failing to perform basic obligations must be considered the norm.

In The Constitution of Liberty, Friedrich A. Hayek insisted that “The assigning of responsibility is based, not on what we know to be true in a particular case, but on what we believe will be the probable effects of encouraging people to behave rationally and considerately.” In other words, don’t fall for the tyranny of low expectations; let your teenagers know you expect them to behave rationally and considerately.
--------------------------------------

While I think it was a little much for Mitchell to get a free truck, I am glad that his actions were rewarded. Yes, in a better world, children (& adults) wouldn't need rewards for performing a civic act like calling the police with information they witnessed, but in a perfect world, no one would be shameful enough to verbally revictimize a child who recently spent several years with his kidnapper, for... Hell, I can't even figure out what it is Ms Mercer is getting out of writing these diatribes about Shawn... Frankly, I though libertarians believed the right to tell a person how to conduct their business stopped at the end of their most protrusive body part. "You judge you, and I'll judge me, and we'll both get along just fine."

Unfortunately, we live in a place and time where one can easily be second guessed for stickin' one's neck out, so some folks need a little reward to remind them to do the right thing. All the expectation in the world isn't going to help that, as long as there are so many judgemental folks...

With respect to Mr. Hayek, I don't believe that one need give up on the facts of a particular case (as Ms Mercer so willingly seems to've done) to have high expectations in all cases. Responsibility shouldn't be assigned based on ideal situations, because ideal situations do not exist. Responsibility is a fact based, not faith based.

+++++++++++++++
Ilana Blog update 3
If Mohammed won't come to the mountain...
I'll drop Ms Mercer an invite
+++++++++++++++

UPDATE: This is the comment Ilana rejected twice over at her blog.
------------------------------------------------------
I understand that you don't hold much regard for the psychological theories that some use to explain why Shawn Hornbeck failed to meet the standards you set for him. In their place, you believe in the immutable truth that this child is endowed with free will and a sense of right and wrong.

But your comments talk about Shawn as though you believe he used his free will to choose, and chose wrong. You write as though you’ve somehow divined his motives for acting as he did, judged him, and are now telling your readers he is a bad child.

I contend that you do not have the requisite information to know why Shawn acted as he did, any more than “that nice lady on TV.” Like her, you have very strong beliefs about the nature of man’s relationship to his world (call them immutable truths, if you prefer), and like her, you are making your beliefs fit Shawn’s predicament.

Why judge Shawn or his behavior, particularly so soon after his release? Devlin will go to trial. Shawn and Ben will tell their stories. Why guess as to why Shawn didn’t write an e-mail to his parents? Shawn will probably tell you, in his own words. When he does, you are free to scoff at his foolish excuses and poor reasoning. But at least you’ll be scoffing at Shawn’s description of his experiences, which makes far more sense than scoffing at the events as you imagine them.
------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Political Tests & Quizzes: Have you been tested?

Earlier today I stumbled into an online argument about Fascism. The "debate" occured here: News Hounds: Dennis Kucinich Debates Hannity And Colmes On The Fairness Doctrine (in the comments section), but there is really no need to follow the link, fascism-wise, anyway. Pretty much the whole "debate" was downright silly. A few right wing trolls began tossing out insults & whatnot, and few of my fellow lefties--who I gather had some time to waste--returned fire. (Ok... I admit that I've been sucked in to these kinda things once or twice, myself... But my contributions usually consist of a single good(?) one liner that I'm compelled to type & post. These newshounders were makin' a COMMITMENT, as though they were defending... (I don't know... What would we crazy liberals be willing to fight real hard to defend?) ...the right to spit on Sparling. What I'm tryin' to say is, they were really goin' at... My usual view on these things is, "Don't feed the trolls, and they won't multiply.")

So, anyway... Somewhere in the middle of this melee, someone accuses the opposing political philosophy of being fascist. (Yeah, I could go check the transcript so as to be more precise, but my head hurt just reading it the first time. Besides, a representitive of the aggrieved political party pretty quickly suggested that no, it was the accuser's party that're really the fascists, so it doesn't really matter. If the trolls/lefties didn't say it first, they said it second.) The Communists were added to the battle, followed quickly by the Nazis. It was a typical troll-induced mess. (I'm convinced that political trolls--regardless of their outward political philosophy--secretly ARE Nazis, or at least employees of a promotion firm out to increase everyone's exposure to the Nazi party. Were it not for the trolls, how often would anybody discuss the Nazi party on the internet? But with 'em... Well, have you ever seen a trolling that didn't involve the Nazis? Me, neither.)

As the original topic was the Fairness Doctrine (government control of the diversity of political speech over the broadcast airwaves), the folks doing the arguing above were not completely off topic. As with much troll-induced verbiage, they were streching the topic to it's illogical extremes.
The Fairness Doctrine will give us one state run radio station, offering one point of view.
No Fairness Doctrine will give us many radio stations, all owned by one corporation, offering one point of view.

Between the "who's the real fascist?" argument, and the control factor (state or corporate) inherent in the Fairness Doctrine topic, I got to thinkin' about political philosophy. All this talk, finally, brings me to my actual topic...

When I first started crawling around political newsgroups & "egroups" (remember them?), someone started talking about how the spectrum of political thought is really more than just left - right. That scale describes economic political thought, but says little about how one feels about government power and control, the authoritarian - libertarian scale. S/he says s/he got the idea from this site: Political Compass (It's been upgraded at least a few times since I was first there). And along with the thinking, there's a quiz you can take to determine where you fit on their political graph. (As many have pointed out, including the political compass folks themselves, there does seem to be a bias to the questions. But it's still kinda interesting...)

Here's how I scored on Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -7.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.30

These scores set me pretty far LEFT and fairly LIBERTARIAN. It's difficult to compare myself to others, as I've only had 2 occasions:
1) when I heard about this test (see above), many folks took it, and posted their scores on whatever group it was, and
2) more recently I saw a whole list here,
but I can say this much;
On the left - right scale, I've seen relatively few (-8's), and only 2-3 (-9's) that I can recall.
On the authoritarian - libertarian scale, (-5) or (-6) was/is more common, both then and now.

If you want more info: Political compass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

While I was redscovering the Political Compass, I found other political tests and quizzes. I won't describe them all; you can check 'em out for yourself.

Political Survey. (Follow the "Take the Survey" link from this homepage.) ((Not crazy about this one, myself.))

My scores:
left/right -5.1350 (-0.3091)
pragmatism +0.5082 (+0.0306)

(Hard to tell what they mean, really... But there they are...)
=====================================

OkCupid! The Politics Test

According to this test,

I am a Social Liberal (75% permissive)
an Economic Liberal (10% permissive)
& best described as a: Socialist.
====================================

Moral Politics - A Morality-Based Political Test (Long version)

My Score:
-2 on the Moral Order axis and +3 on the Moral Rules axis.

Matches
The following items best match your score:
System: Socialism
Variation: Moderate Socialism
Ideologies: Social Democratism
US Parties: No match.
Presidents: Jimmy Carter (84.07%)
2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (80.24%), John Kerry (77.47%), George W. Bush (53.02%)
Statistics
Of the 280620 people who took the test:
0.6% had the same score as you.
12.9% were above you on the chart.
82.4% were below you on the chart.
48.6% were to your right on the chart.
30.5% were to your left on the chart.
=================================

World's Smallest Political Quiz

According to this test I am a LIBERAL
LIBERALS usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Your PERSONAL issues Score is 90%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.
================================

Millennium: Social Attitude Test

My scores:
Radicalism: 80 percent
Tenderness: 39.5 percent
Socialism: 62 percent

These scores indicate that you are a tough-minded radical; this is the political profile one might associate with a liberated atheist. It appears that you are cynical towards religion, and have a balanced attitude towards humanity in general.

To round out the picture, your attitudes towards economics appear neither committedly capitalist nor socialist, and combined with your social attitudes this creates the picture of someone who would generally be described as left-wing.
======================================


If I'm not mistaken, that's all of 'em. If you want still more info (Believe it or not, some political spectrum theories don't have a quiz.), go here: Political spectrum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My advice; get tested. 8>)

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)