Thank you
Bookworm on Oct 13 2008 at 9:13 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
Periodically, after having read all of your comments, I just have to say thank you. I’m so blessed to have gathered here people who can argue passionately, but politely, who are knowledgeable, and who care deeply about what happens in America. You are all also wonderfully good writers, so that your comments are intelligible, which is the baseline for any decent discussion. Thank you so much, all of you, for enlivening my blog.
Email This Post To A Friend
14 Responses to “Thank you”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I spent the weekend in your neck of the woods. My husband and I had tickets to a couple of the movies shown at the Mill Valley Film Festival, so we stayed overnight at a hotel in Terra Linda. I was appalled at the quality of the articles in the Marin Independent Journal (the hotel gives guests a complimentary copy). Obama good, McCain/Palin bad. How do you stand it?
No, Book, thank you!
What a time we live in! We – ordinary people – now have the capability to express our opinions and connect with people on a broader scale than ever before. What a blessing (and responsibility!).
Thanks for supplying the forum and sharing a small piece of your life with us!
I join with Bob in thanking you…I read a lot of blogs, comment on a few. One of the things I look for on blogs that I choose to comment on is the presence – or absence – of trolls. You keep them under control, and that means discussion can ensue. There are some people on some blogs that I’d like to point this way, but to be honest, I don’t want _others_ on that blog to discover your blog. They are the disrupters. You had one of them here for a while – maybe more than once…he was “greg”, but commented on Betsy’s Page as “mark”. He still comments there, and if he does here – I suspect he might be at least one of the “dg” trio, maybe two – and he’s irritating but actually not bad as a troll. He’s dogmatic, but not nasty. Didn’t call the blog host names at least.
The definition of a troll on blogs can be a bit tricky, but I think the most common characteristic is the apparent goal of disruption of the discussion, with no real discussion input and a consistent drumming of the “talking points” without any willingness to support those points. In the end, though, what they are is rigid, hidebound ideologues who are on a mission to disrupt the opponent – whether the mission is an organized one or not is a question I’ll probably never have answered. I _do_ suspect, though, that there are some people actually paid to disrupt conservative blogs. Prevent cohesiveness…Y probably has a better grip on that than I do!
Funny, I was going to, at some point, mention that I spent much of September wandering around Mendocino, Marin, Sonoma and Napa. As long as you brought it up, kafir: I was highly amused not merely by the local papers, but also by the fact that at least three motels (”Gaia” [God help us all, which comes with a copy of "An Inconvenient Truth" in every room] in Napa, and the Vallejo Ramada, and another I’m at the moment not remembering somewhere in Mendocino) just simply do not have Fox News available on their cable systems. It’s just not there. CNN, MSNBC, CNNHN, CNBC; there they are – but not Fox.
Illustrating perfectly the liberal mindset: if you don’t like it, or if you disagree with it, you just simply don’t allow it. The liberal mindset, and the liberal inclination toward censorship.
And down in LA my own favorite little hotel has succumbed to the Hollywood viewpoint, and Fox (which was available there last year) no longer is on their cable system, either. (The hotel’s in West Hollywood, and has been a “hangout” since before WWII. Great atmosphere, lots of memorabilia; and writers still infest the restaurant, where many a script was writ and many a deal was struck. [Including Carolyn Jones agreed to marry Aaron Spelling - they both lived there.] It’s good fun.)
Funny kind of place you got there, Book. California. I’ll visit, but the list of reasons not to live there is now longer than my 37-inch sleeve arm.
Illustrating perfectly the liberal mindset: if you don’t like it, or if you disagree with it, you just simply don’t allow it. The liberal mindset, and the liberal inclination toward censorship.
That’s a naturally self-defeating business model or strategy for success in life. However, if you have government force on your side then everything changes. Then you can do as the Muslims do and lock away 50% of their talent pool and still have enough weapons to kill foreigners with. Just cheat, whether by oil or government tyranny or terrorism.
If your culture is naturally self-defeating, then you just need to cheat, steal, exploit others to ensure that you don’t fall as you should and as you deserve.
My strategy for commenting is like a skirmish/battle. First get there first with the mostest, then try to keep a lock on enemy tricks and actions, and then collate the data to form attack or defense plans.
I need fundamental philosophical assumptions from the people I am arguing with or otherwise I know any argument will simply stale most of the time. There will be no victor for each of us will not have pit our strongest pillar against each other: the pillars that uphold all of our arguments and beliefs.
Some people will provide you their philosophical assumptions out front. Those are easy to talk or argue with. Other people hide them unconsciously or believe political policy differences are more important. Those are harder to argue with since you have to probe for their real beliefs, not just the superficial Democrat vs Republican or pro-abortion vs anti-coercion crowd.
Trolls, however, aren’t ignorant of how their fundamental assumptions differ with others. THey just use deception and manipulation ploys to ensure that others stay ignorant of the true differences while raising up smoke screens about minor differences. For example, the Left only started talking about “insane rage” when they thought they could use it against Sarah and McCain. When it came to covering the insane rage of the Islamic JIhad as they tried to kill civilians and Americans in Iraq, then it was all about freedom fighters and militants and criticizing America, not the insane ragers. When it came to criticizing Dan Rather for the insane rage that brought about the end of his career, then it wasn’t about Dan Rather’s anger at Bush, it was about something else entirely. Something far more preferential.
Democrats talked about counting all the votes. In reality, Democrats didn’t feel the need to count all the votes between Obama and Hillary. Democrats talked about honesty and transparency and how Bush is bad because he doesn’t have either. In reality, Democrats engage in deception and dishonesty, Obama, with about as much worry as we use to decide which shoe to put on first each morning. Democrats talked about Bush killing civilians in Iraq. In reality, when it came to saving civilians in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Iraq, the Left and their Democrat allies couldn’t have given a fig.
That is trollish behavior.
THe counter argument from them is that “you guys have these people and have done such actions too and with far greater frequency cause you guys are coordinated n the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”.
my answer is “we execute people like Timothy McVeigh, Zarqawi, and Saddam. You protect and succor them with your anti DP and anti American propaganda”.
That’s a fundamentally basic difference there. And it is that type of fundamental difference that once exposed, normally ends an argument one way or another. If it is just between he said she said like with the Fannie M debacle between Dems and Republicans, there is no resolution. It is only ever actual actions and the actual beliefs that powered such actions that end debate.
Leadership ends debate simply by deciding on things and then doing it. Talk is always cheap compared to somebody that will go out and do things, like Sarah Palin.
Y,
I like everything you said above in #5 but can I ask you to clarify your conclusion?
You said,
> Leadership ends debate simply by deciding on things and then doing it. Talk is always cheap compared to somebody that will go out and do things, like Sarah Palin.
Are you really advocating action for action’s sake alone? That corresponds to the driving philosophy of the “real” and popular fascism that led to the horrifying excesses of Benito Mussolino, Adolf Hitler, Nikolai Lenin, and to a still-horrifying but lesser degree than the first three, Woodrow Wilson. (And how many of you are aware of the complete whitewashing that oh-so-Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson has received? A person of thoroughly vile political philosophy AND action. A man of his times! “Not as bad as Mussolini, Hitler and Lenin” is hardly high praise. But these were all men of action – action at all costs! )
When you refer to Sarah Palin, I assume you’re referring to *principled* action – action based on a core set of well-defined principles. That core set of principles is what enables trust in a leader, isn’t it?
Action that is based on core principles, not action itself, is why I trust Sarah Palin; I believe it is why you do, too.
Are you really advocating action for action’s sake alone?
There are two phases to decision making. First you have to recognize what is true, meaning what is feasible and not just fantasy wishing. This is part of Machiavelli’s life experiences before he started recommending things to Princes in his treatise The Prince.
So that part is totally separate from “advocating action” for any reason.
That corresponds to the driving philosophy of the “real” and popular fascism that led to the horrifying excesses of Benito Mussolino, Adolf Hitler, Nikolai Lenin, and to a still-horrifying but lesser degree than the first three, Woodrow Wilson.
If you discard the truth simply because your enemies used it successfully or unsuccessfully in their goals, you are doing you and your people a great disservice. It is never wise to accept that simply because other people had philosophies you didn’t like that they weren’t able to recognize the truth of manipulating people, their desires, wants, and values.
That corresponds to the driving philosophy of the “real” and popular fascism
So no, the truth and its use does not correspond to popular fascism. Much as a person’s use of a firearm or killing blows does not correspond to murder.
many of you are aware of the complete whitewashing that oh-so-Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson has received?
He helped to create the League of Nations, predecessor to the United Nations. That says a lot by itself. And unlike Truman, Wilson hadn’t dropped two nukes to demonstrate his seriousness.
But these were all men of action – action at all costs!
And the only way to stop them was action. Or did you think the debates about peace slowed down Hitler? No, you don’t. Nor do you think Obama’s propaganda actions will be slowed down by Republicans getting together and talking about how wrong it is. When theory and talk does not translate to action in an individual, like Sarah Palin, then you are helpless before men of action.
Leni Riefenstahl, for all her focus on propaganda, was still a woman of action. She translated the theory of the art of propaganda into actual propaganda operations, paid and produced, for the Nazi regime. There is a fundamental reality gap between the truth and talking about the truth.
When you refer to Sarah Palin, I assume you’re referring to *principled* action
If I was talking about principled actions, I could have used Bush instead of Palin. What matters is that you act. Principles only matter because it helps decide who is the victor and the victor decides everything.
While I agree with Sarah Palin’s principles compared to an Obama, a Helen, an Oz, the son of Buckley, the son of Reagan (not adopted), or even a George W Bush, Mike, it has little to do with the main point I was raising about the difference between acting and talking about acting. Between reality and the illusion crafted by words and claims. Between the truth and the propaganda perceptions people have.
Leadership ends debate simply by deciding on things and then doing it. Talk is always cheap compared to somebody that will go out and do things, like Sarah Palin.
As for a clarification of what you quoted, since that is what you highlighted and I cannot guess as to what else you wanted a clarification on, here it is: leadership is independent of the ethical values of good or evil. Talk is still talk regardless of whether it is competent or incompetent, good or evil, stupid or intelligent. Action is still action regardless of whether it is a good action, a bad action, a stupid action, a wise action, or an evil action. It is still an act, still an action that places it mark on reality.
All leadership ends debate by acting. This is regardless of whether it is Sarah Palin as Leader or Hitler or Clausewitz or Obama or von Stauffenberg.
Talk is valuable because it can lead to actions but they are not the same thing and I wouldn’t want to conflate the two as if they were the same.
One example is President Lincoln when he went ahead and suspended Habeas Corpus because of Democrat and Southern sabotages and various other shenanigans going on in the North without asking Congress for permission on it first. Instead, Lincoln suspended HC and then asked Congress to acknowledge the validity of his actions. Lincoln asked forgiveness, not permission.
Once you have acted and placed an irrevocable mark in reality, a reality totally separate from people’s propaganda perceptions, then you have changed the odds of the game. Whereas before, if you had asked Congress for permission they would have tried to conjole, make deals with you, accept bribes, use bribes, fall prey to intimidation, and any number of inefficient actions that would have messed up Lincoln’s duty to the Union Now that you have already done it, you have already suspended HC and made it de facto, though not de jure, then what can Congress do except plead and try to convince you to reverse HC? The balance of power from the first scenario to the second is totally different.
This is the power of leadership and all leaders must know how to use it or you end up like Bush. Hamstrung as the most powerful individual in the history of the world, Mike. The office of the Presidency, currently at war and right now, provides the sitting individual in that office more power than all of the Emperors of history combined, yet he is still hamstrung. Not due to lack of power, but due to lack of willingness to use it. A lack of motivation, a lack of desire, a lack of a justification.
But the Left never needs any justification to use power to trample the weak or their enemies, Mike. And if people want to defeat the Left, they had better start realizing that leadership doesn’t just mean convincing people in a debate.
Thank you, Bookworm. I gotta watch the watchers (who think we are “weasels”).
I’m going to have to study your arguments for awhile and mull them over, Y. This is probably the first time in my two or so years here in Book’s domain that I’m in disagreement with you based on an initial perusal of your arguments.
(The disagreement is not over talk vs action – talk has its place, but endless talking accomplishes nothing, we agree. The disagreement is over the concept of “action for action’s sake.”)
I’ll get back to you!
The disagreement is over the concept of “action for action’s sake.”
Your definition of “action for action’s sake” is not very clear. You mention Hitler but Hitler wasn’t action for action’s sake. His was action to take power and kill people’s sake.
Y (#11)
It is difficult, and I’m rather a novice at rigorous debate. My concept of “action for action’s sake” is embodied by the Nike “Just do it” ad, which always struck me as twisted. Lately I found Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” a rich source of material, though I disagree with the basic premise of it – progressivism is founded more in the robust Statist ideas and philosophies that preceded official fascism by decades.
Ok: “action for action’s sake”. Let me try. Mussolini, when asked what his programs were, apparently stated, “I have no program. My program is to govern.” A clearer statement of “action for action’s sake” could hardly be pronounced.
The “great” FDR: “Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.” Above all, bold experimentation, devoid of principle or guiding philosophy, was the most important criteria for worth.
“We planned in war!” was the guiding principle of those who came out of WWI with power during the rise of FDR’s solution-based experimentation. “But, what kind of planning?” never seemed to enter into the argument. Planning was all that was important, not the ideas or philosophies behind it. Planning and then doing. Period. Now, these people were Statists through and through, but that’s not what they said, that’s not how they presented it, and they may in fact have simply thought of themselves as “action people”.
In truth there is no such thing as “action for action’s sake”, because it makes no sense except as a philosophy of someone who is blind to their own motives, or is deliberately deceiving his audience.
I don’t know if this helps. I’ve got plenty, plenty more thought and digging to do.
In the personal sphere, I bet we all know – and are beset by – people who constantly intrude in affairs they’d better left alone. “But I couldn’t just sit there and be silent, I had to say SOMETHING,” is the usual lament of such people, when they’ve intruded and set off a conflagration. “She deserved to know of the affair that her dastardly husband was doing.”
In the geopolitical arena, you often hear, “But we’ve simply got to do SOMETHING”, by which they seem to mean *do anything*. Something, anything, just do it. We can’t just sit by and do nothing. But the law of unintended consequences is damning. Wisdom – a guiding philosophy that is *worthy* – and that drives the action, is critical to me.
Now, I cannot stand anyone who states “Well, let’s form a committee and investigate the matter further”, without offering concrete proof of why this is the best approach. I *hate* kicking the bucket further down the road. But “action for action’s sake” is simply something that I disagree with.
It’s worth revisiting what prompted this debate in Y’s#7:
M for Mike, Y for Y himself!
M: But these were all men of action – action at all costs!
Y: And the only way to stop them was action. Or did you think the debates about peace slowed down Hitler? No, you don’t. Nor do you think Obama’s propaganda actions will be slowed down by Republicans getting together and talking about how wrong it is. When theory and talk does not translate to action in an individual, like Sarah Palin, then you are helpless before men of action.
Y: Leni Riefenstahl, for all her focus on propaganda, was still a woman of action. She translated the theory of the art of propaganda into actual propaganda operations, paid and produced, for the Nazi regime. There is a fundamental reality gap between the truth and talking about the truth.
M: When you refer to Sarah Palin, I assume you’re referring to *principled* action
Y: If I was talking about principled actions, I could have used Bush instead of Palin. What matters is that you act. Principles only matter because it helps decide who is the victor and the victor decides everything.