The Left Column

Politics for Poets

filtering out disunity

Maybe I can come up with a new type of tag for columns that says if or if not a specific passage is of a particular type of political discourse. Of course I could. But aren't people already doing that? Don't you sometimes hate rhetorical questions because I am wasting your time? The problem with rhetorical questions is when the answer is a moral judgment and people 'get it wrong.'

What do I mean by 'get it wrong?' It means that the answer that the person gives to the rhetorical question shows that person has not been following along. Or that the moral decision is chosen to have the behavior suggested (by the person who answered the rhetorical question out loud, some newbie at the symposium where the smart people speak important words) be of a repugnant nature. It might get nervous laughter. Maybe people move away from the one who uttered such verbiage (whatever it might have been). And in lands-of-no-forgiveness (the libel media) where the 'message' must be maintained and a 'take no prisoners stance' is taken by those who take, I will mention no names, the question not answered in the way that the arbiters of such stricture of expression require to be accepted into the 'group' of whoever-they-ares; that very question, a question like that with an answer that is wrong . . . is the reason that the person who responds to such a question in a wrong way . . . well his (or her) 'bad' answer . . . is the reason for their ostercision. The libel media is all about stricture of expression: being 'on message', a phrase which seems to imply that falsehood is expected, if needed, and you are still a 'good' 'team player' and doing what 'folks' want for 'the middle class' and 'working families.' All of the single quoted phrases in the last sentence used to mean a very lot to a very lot of people. But now, as they are words used to evoke an 'operative response' in the audience and get them to flip over into altered states of affirmative affirmation of what ever thing that the redictatator is spouting on about . . . doesn't matter what it is. Any one who tells the emperor that he is nay-kid risks loosing his (or her) station in an autocracy configures as such as I have described with this paragraph here, in this 'essay' on the corruption of thought in authoritarian (and imaginary, fictional) societies.

The purpose of my exercise is not to jeer at or accuse those who might be involved in a group-thing with other people that seems similar to the way that is described in the previous paragraph. Instead I guess it is just an entreat to readers to be on the look out for such things. It's urban legend, perhaps, that such mind-sucking groups might exist, and that political rivals might be just like that: the bad party doing the bad things, "oh, aren't they evil". And if we look at other people, other political parties like that, maybe it is time to disenfranchise from them. If you really hate those people that much how could you ever give them fair governance? If they are that vile to you why should you get a voice in deciding how they spend their tax dollars to maintain their communities? Many more rhetorical questions. Things to ponder. And the answers to these questions? No one really wants to hear what you have to say about it if you really did hate people as much as some of the haters who post meannesses to the various response sections of on-line new-reporting websites seem to. But, in some sense, don't a lot of people know that the hate expressed in such blog-spots is actually just an anomaly of the anonymity of the posting? If you really are a murderer and you post threats can you get away with it? Or what if you are just trying to spice up an otherwise boring page and you put in "Constance Gardener" who jeers at the political opposition? Does everyone know that it is really Benjamin Franklin who wrote that piece? Such a poster is akin to the queen of the Hootin'-nannies (anyone who listened to Jerry Williams, the late-great talk-show host knows about her). Those in-your-eye posts are, perhaps, not even real at all: they are nothing, just a wisp of wind, a reflection of . . .

Well, at least that is what I hope, as a blog writer, that the kind of person who would really think that way is just a fiction and that such in-your-eye "Nayh nayh nayh nayh naaa" posts are actually . . . not even from real people at all. And if they are from real people those people are failing to 'be real.' Which means that they answered the question of 'what should be posted here to give an enlightened and unifying response to the ideas that are presented within the article for which this comments section exists'. They answer the question wrong and get ostracized (assuming that they are real). They are just phantoms, trying to jam up your day by getting you to auto respond with a fifteen paragraph essay that explains to the world how such people are irrelevant, while you (really me) constantly harps back to the idea that the poster of such dis-unifying hatred might just be an auto-blog process on some spam-bot machine designed to try and rip at the fabric of American culture by creating enmities between people that don't actually exist in the real world. Who knows? We really can't.

Maybe the people who run the site where the posts get made can parse through their logging files and see who it were that really posted these messages. Maybe there is some super-duper N-Essay program that allows trackers to know who real people are in the psuedo-anonymous webpages that exist in the public-webspace? They have these things to try and catch real creep-killer types, don't they? At least that is the 'talking point' that makes reasonable people not got bonkers when they think about how much money is spent on surveying the world of blog-snot posts by random keyboard tappers.

In any case why fret over any of it? It is, in fact, just noise, like TV commercials, not worth your attention.

But what if the nate-posters are real people? That paranoid thought is still there, isn't it? So, who ever is responsible for putting that mind-dung in those comments sections really doesn't have the readers' interests in heart. Should such people, if they were in fact real, have a say in the way that the others, at who they jeer, spend their tax dollars for governance and public order? Or should creeps who think that elections are about conquering others be prohibited from participation? Ah, these rhetorical questions should be left untouched. They are poison, any answer except that even creeps and those deemed counterlectual (people who don't ever agree or compromise) should be allowed to participate. The metric that we get from the 'creep-post' brain dung in-your-eye hate post is "if this person ever runs for office, consider hard and don't vote for him/her unless he/she can explain to you what this post was all about." At least that is how I see it. The creep-guy poster (if he or she is real) might some day run for office. That means that the creep-post ought to be a matter of public record: a public statement in a public symposium of blog-post comment section to a well-written and very-formally presented piece of information in the public stream of news, on a public facing page that is served the same (for the news parts) to everyone who goes to such a page. And young ruffian in the blog sphere who jeers at he polical opposition who now wants to run for Bus-Schedule delivery boy (soon to be the Speaker of the House) ought to have his blog-snot (that he blew onto everyone up there on the stage of his own importance) presented back to him: like it is CSI-blog. "It is our job here it vete the political candidates who we might vote for. And, so, Mr Rediquerrelli, we note that on February 25, 2013 you posted hateful things against [people of a specific political party] which is deemed mean and, though it is not a crime, per-say, to be a jerk, in this commonwealth, or they'd arrest all of the talk-show hosts and most of the weathermen, and almost all of the stupid commentators on Urgecentral daught calm, soo . . . but here it is" There is a choir off in the far away, like another feed, of a choir, and, like angels, the choir at the Baptist church "here it is. Here it is."

"You said, mr running for dog catcher."

the choir "Or Mrs. Or Misses. Or Msss."

"You said, and I quote, reference to actual political parties redacted. I quote."

"All of you [pejorative word] should admit that you lost and are loosers."

"But I was just . . . hung over that day and . . . thought it was funny . . . funny . . . funny.

The Choir: "Well, it was kind of funny. Kind of funny. He wrote a whole stupid essay. That no one will read. Except at maybe the N-essay. "

After all of that there is no guarantee that the public would vote for candidate Redicurrelli anyway. All of that attention might make people more likely to vote for him (or her).

The novel writer snaps of of his need to try and explain the hate that he found on another page at a different website. He realizes that there is snow to brush off the car. Head out to the highway and watch the snow dropping from the light poles, from fifty feet in the air. If it hits anyone, it wouldn't be a good thing. But it is not hate, is it? And that stuff, that crap that people post, that is not like falling snow. But is it hate or just propaganda designed to make us all feel divided? I do not know. And these questions can not be answered here, by you, dear reader, because I don't provide a comments link.

Feb 25, 2013 (2-25-2013)

well . . .

I think I've blogged enough today.

content goes stale.

~ OK Now.

Banish Nonsense was his scree. I'd have to delete this whole website!

There are new features here that are annoying at times but fun in some ways. This page is best viewed with firefox. Chrome doesn't seem to pick up all the rocking. This is very cool: angle spin gauge or John Barents Carousel. Because this page is rocking. Rocking rocking rocking. What it is, he said, what it is. The problem is, what it is. Span Rocker.Paper Sizes. envelope sizes. Look at this sample page and have some fun with it.

 

 I didn't mean 
 any hurt to you
  but would ask just
   that you'd explain
    what you're doing
     when you say that
          there so meanly.
 
  Praise God!
  








Wake up!