The Left Column

Politics for Poets

Politics off.

Wake up. There is ice on the car.

All of the conspiriacy theory idiots are making their unsubstantuated accusations out there on the Internet in the comments sections of major websites. Some people are sick, twisted, and with evil ideas that they banty about as if playing with dinomite is an OK thing to do. It blows up in their faces. They like the manufactured drama. They are bored, ineffectual. All that they can do is rant out things that seem like they might be true.

Is it recklessness or just malicious souls that make people spout out statements as if they are factual, when there is no proof of accusation. And these are not the kinds of things that people ought to say in a public forum without substantiating evidence. In the case of what might be capital murder, isn't it left up to the DA or Police department that has jurisdiction?

The things that peopel say ought not be nooses. Unfortunately, even if we don't use the stupidity that they display against them, I forgive them the stupidity, the fact is that I am rather magnanimous. And I have a moral guide that says that I resist not evil. Talking about evil isn't the same as butting heads with it. Evil doesn't want to be evil. It is just unloved. It can't accept the fact of God. It can't love you for being you because it isn't about all of that. And it will speak to you in vauge terms, right inside your own head! You will hear it's voice and sometimes think that these are your own thoughts! And you will do the wrong thing, if you are letting evil run you, fully knowing the moral corruptness of what you are doing. Let's hope I'm not describing you but, let's all face the truth, we all flurt with evil: evil thoughts, evil deeds, mean and hurtful words, vengeful non-substantiated blood-fued accusations.

People put themselves out there in the arena of public politics. There are nasty folks out there who will try and do harm to their political rivals. Some of these are merely using methaphors with seemingly violent or vengeful rethoric. Others are just spouting out junk to try and stir up the stuff (I often use the word 'stuff' when I would rather use a word that starts with 'sh'). Who are these people, these stuff-stirers? They could be just about anyone. Fact is that most people are not even close to the first stage of conversion: where they realize that we all eminate from the mind of God and owe our existance due to Him. And so, they might have this idea theoretically in their mind. But it isn't strong enough for them to not make affirmative statements when they don't really know. And the level of doing this is amplified by the use of the Internet. Some people make claims without proof, and with the force of the affirmative presentation that the blogger uses. There might also be a revenge soaked scree (typically in the comments section of a blog article). Some blogger will make statements of accusation against vauge political enemies of the great unwashed they. The great unwashed they is a fabrication of the poltically motivated mind of a tired or weak minded individual, maybe high on drugs so he/she free associates the brain-droppings of day residue that are being scrubbed out of his/her mind by the over abundance of whatever happy-pill molecule the person (who spews the affirmative statement which is probably untrue) has been perscribed or gets illegally.

Hey, I'm not putting anyone down for being on the pills that they think that they need. But, as far as hate goes in a blog, I don't forgive these people for doing it without considering what they might do to mediate such absurdity as the hate that they present. People who are in politics are obsentivly supposed to be trying to add to the civil discourse and augment the process of governance. Politics is supposed to be about doing what is good for the people. So how does anyone in a political blog have the audacity or the nerve to hint at the idea that some political rival should have harm come to them?

But we live in the real world. The hate is rampent. And the people who put it out there probably don't think it's any big deal to present moral repugnance as commentary in a political blog. If the stuff is said like that in a bar room, maybe someone calls them out on it. Maybe the bar tender doesn't serve them another drink. Or if they are saying in a debate amoung people on the street, maybe they get away with it for a second because no one has the stones to stand up and say "That's very hateful what your saying, and possibly libelous." There is an anonmity on blogs that means that people think that they can get away with spewing invective and vitrol, and murderous accusations.

So who are all those people who do this? It could be anyone. It is probably people who ought to know better. In any case they should be found out and called out for being idiots and inciting hate for making these false claims. That is what moderators are supposed to do. that is why the corporate owned propaganda sites (NYT, major news papers) now require that people register. I think that is correct. It does cut down on the peple who blog there. And it does mean that there will be a lot less interesting content at these sites, and it really is counter to free speach to have to do this but . . . the false accusers and the hate-mongers have made it so. That is why it is ever more surprising to still see the hate pop up so regularly. These are people with a focused agenda who feel that they must be heard to the point of logging in and then make false statements willingly (by typing) and then hitting post. Then they are usually presented with a 'do you really want to post this' button box and they have to further confirm their connection to these ideas.

We can't keep making excuses for these people. But the fact is that there are very many other people who are harmed by not wanting to deal with the seemingly 'big brother' aspects of always being known on the internet. There are very good reasons for being anonymous. Some bad. When you start capitalizing and owning a word, making it into a name, you change the meaning of the word. In my view of things people should never be totally anonymous to everyone. Anonymity is useful when it is used sparingly. When people become bullie, and try to herd other people to fulfill corrupt agendas, through the use of obvious propagandistic talking-point rethoric, and twist words and ideas to always make everything seem to coincide with some twisted view of the world, those people need to be called out on their lies. If these are honerable people, just having a bad day, bad ice-cube, then they can modify their views. When someone posts if someone else says the post is odd (possibly hateful), then ought not the poster have the option of reposting? Terms of use? But the poster never gets back to that page. He/she is off somewhere else.

I guess my conclusion: Let's keep it civil. If it's a political blog the hate should be checked at the door. It's not OK to use rethoric that implies blood fued. Let's get past this.

And so, anonymity? On the Internet? It doesn't really exist anymore. Let the haters grow up. Political posts ought not be knee-jerk. People should own their words.

And what if someone slips up? As long as they aren't really a hater, and they are just venting, then let them retract. But if they will not and keep up with false accusations, the accusaations ought to be put at the level of a statement to Police (if it concerns a possible crime) and they ought to be questioned as to why they feel this way if the accusations persist. Of course, where can we ever get resources to do this? We don't have the resources. So, if someone is a serial false accuser, then maybe they can be called out. If it is just a passing mistake by an emotional blogger, then let it go. If it is persistent lies from a serial rabble rouser: they need to be called out for the hate that they put forward.

But whose job is that to call out the haters? And with the excuse of it being to call out haters these rules about posting are applied where some people are given access to data about who posts what, and they then use this against the poster. The poster could be targetted for his/her views! that is why many people are so very opposed to governmental meddling in the privacy of blog posts.

Yes, the conclusion is to keep it civil.

I think I've blogged enough today.

Life goes on.

March 1, 2012

~ OK Now.

March 2012.
 
      What is that wind he hears 
                 as he is stumbling there
   goblet still full with 
         what he will need to drink
               when the time is neigh.
       and if the windstorm is 
                 not countered he may surly die
     hunched up against the 
                 darkening mind, the drakening sky
       at the top of the great devide, 
                              cliffs on both sides.
    No where to run, no one to blame,
                     no where to hide.