I will not be home nor blogging until tomorrow.
For the meantime, I invite you to go ahead and try my blogware, which is in the alpha-2 stage of development.
I will not be home nor blogging until tomorrow.
For the meantime, I invite you to go ahead and try my blogware, which is in the alpha-2 stage of development.
December 31 2003, 16:21 | Filed under: Blog news | 4 Comments |
Sgt. Hook would like to hit 50K visitors before the year turns over; go there and send him your wishes before he goes to Afghanistan.
December 31 2003, 14:29 | Filed under: General | Comments Off |
I do not know what has happened to Arthur Silber, but he has taken a turn for the vile:
I am embarrassed to admit this, but in the name of full disclosure, I shall force myself to do so. I was cowed, overawed, and struck dumb with astonishment at the sheer breadth, subtlety, nuance, complexity, and overwhelming sophistication of the charges leveled at all those who hesitated even a tiny bit to express only undiluted joy and triumph over Saddam’s capture. Those charges can accurately and comprehensively be summed up with the slogan which became the rallying cry of the warbloggers, those armchair generals who appear to delight in conflict, war and death — so long as it all occurs far from wherever they happen to be, while their fingers fly over their laptops, while they sip their evening drinks and watch their widescreen TVs in their oh-so-comfortable homes. And that rallying cry was, of course, the phrase “Coalition of the Pissy” — used to refer to all those who said anything on the order of, “Yes, it is wonderful that Saddam was captured. He was indeed a monster, but…”
Oh, no, cried the warbloggers! No “but” allowed! A single “but” — and you were consigned forever to Coalition of the Pissy hell. According to the brave, fearless, always-typing warbloggers, we had spread before us an old-fashioned morality play: on one side, we had pure, untarnished good — the noble, honorable, uncompromising United States, which stands only for truth, justice, freedom and liberty for all. And on the other side, we had a monster like Saddam Hussein — and anyone who expressed a “but” clearly had placed himself on Saddam’s side, and on the side of torture, the murder of innocents, the gassing of children, rape rooms, and innumerable other crimes against humanity. There was no middle ground, no complexity, no nuance here — it was one or the other. You were either on the side of the typing warbloggers and of Pure Good, or allied with the forces of Unadulterated Evil.
[...]
I want to state one thing very clearly and unmistakably for the benefit of any warbloggers who might read this — particularly those warbloggers and other hawks who strut their self-announced moral superiority and constantly shove it in the face of everyone else, and who act as if any disagreement with their historically ignorant views of the world constitutes some sort of treason. You are the enemies of America — just as you are the enemies of thought, of history, of ideas, of any conception of what genuine liberty means, and how it is to be achieved.
You are a disgrace to this once-great nation, and if you have your way, this nation will follow many others on the route of total self-destruction in a conflagration of military might strewn purposelessly and mindlessly around the globe, while an increasingly authoritarian government destroys what remains of freedom here in the United States. And I also want to make it clear that there are many of us who are not at all cowed by your moral blustering. Many of us see it exactly for what it is: the phony posturing of a coward who relies on intimidation in place of argument, who feels that shouting mindless slogans will silence any opposing viewpoints, no matter how well-reasoned, and who counts on the reluctance or unwillingness of his opponents to stand up to the taunts of an obviously ignorant bully.
Like that Abercrombie and Fitch shirt said: Two Wongs don’t make it white, Arthur. Talk about tone.
December 31 2003, 2:26 | Filed under: General | Comments Off |
Jessica’s Well has a resolution:
Resolved: This House (OK, this Blog) believes that the collective knowledge of the blogosphere is greater than the collective knowledge of professional journalists regardless of the subject.
The responses right now are all from bloggers. I wonder if we could get a journalist (take note, Journalist, not editorialist) to bring his hubris in to the discussion?
Check out my first group of Fives. On to more fun:
Singers/Artists/Musicians I never would have imagined I’d like but I did:
Songs I ended up liking after initial reservations:
Songs I wish were never conceived of:
Hair Metal songs you don’t want your 13-year old son to listen to lest he turn out like me:
Michele has hers here, Matthew Stinson has done it too. What a way to wind down for the New Year, no?
I’m not ashamed of admitting I listen to:
Songs that tend to loop all day on my puter:
Places I go to in order to treat myself (I am SO coming off as cheap with this one):
Games I obsessively play over and over:
More later.
December 29 2003, 23:02 | Filed under: General | 3 Comments |
Matthew J. Stinson, to the great disappointment of Sean Hackbarth, will not be having a sex change operation, as Shackbar speculated in one of his comments sections. Nor does he have SARS, nor is he going to marry soon.
Matt’s going China. I’ve known it for a while already. I’m quite the loudmouth myself, and I’m proud that I was able to keep mum about the whole thing.
In his post he discusses future changes in his life, a new direction for his blog, and a modest request for financial assistance. In a way I think I can imagine what he’s feeling; I hope he’s getting the same rush as I did when I got my visa.
I hope all will be well in the coming days of Stinsondom.
December 29 2003, 21:28 | Filed under: General | Comments Off |
I want to sue the country music industry for my alcoholism. I will be filing suit primarily against Toby Keith and Willie Nelson for their song “Beer For My Horses,” while I will try and slap another suit at Toby Keith for “I Love This Bar.”
I suppose I can pull it off; since now the Brits are blaming soap operas for glorifying rampant drinking. Trey Givens weighs in.
December 29 2003, 20:52 | Filed under: General | Comments Off |
The problem with assuming good faith is that you run the risk of being called naive.
The problem with assuming bad faith is that you run the risk of being called paranoid.
I’m sure there are other assumptions of faith out there, but between the two, which would it be, when tackling an issue?
December 29 2003, 17:43 | Filed under: General | Comments Off |
Recent comments