_________________
In recognition of his work, the National Headliners Club, composed of newspapermen throughout the county, in 1938, awarded to him a silver plaque for the finest piece of news reporting in the United States.
It was his editorial achievement that raised the hue and cry throughout the nation for a Congressional investigation of subversive movements and un-American activities. In the face of these repercussions, the Department of Justice, through its Federal Bureau of Investigation, ordered a series of probes of the Nazi movement and its findings substantiated Mr. Metcalfe's revelations.
________________
It's an interesting contrast, because the Old Press can hardly wear a lapel pin with an American flag on it now, let alone do an exposé on radical Islamists in the American University and elsewhere in America. For the intolerance of that! (Although Bill O'Reilly and others in the New Press have done so a little.)
The Old Press seems to feel that the more like inanimate objects they are, the more "objective" they are as mere data recorders. That's simply not the case, instead, the objective is something worth fighting for and investigating.
9 comments:
It's a way of pointing out how some people try to make their moral judgments about Good and Evil through associations and buzzwords like intolerance. There is a pretentious arrogance in the creation of your own version of Good and Evil. It is far off compared to arguing for admitting to self evident truths and Natural Law. There is humility in being limited by and trying to seek and find a true version of Good and Evil.
But there are the nebulous code words like intolerance or hate that represent a hidden Leftist code of ethics that I like to draw out into the open. They don't actually make their judgments clear.
Probably because the average person would see how perverse they are, too soon. Are they intolerant of "intolerance," hateful of hatred or tolerant of indiscriminate discriminations? Contradictions, and don't you just hate that? Wait....hate?!
And so on. These little minds can be woven all around their Selves. How can you see things from all sides, is that not a side,inside?
The simple fact is, they are not using words in a conceptual or rational way and rely more on emotions. So take John Kerry, he reads like a mind in contradiction of itself. But ironically, it really does make perfect sense to him, inside. So he does not think that he lied, even if his words do.
I found you saying this on another weblog...
"Instead, they cannot seem to make up their degenerate mind on whether having an American soldier's arm blown off is good or bad and this sort of thing.
"In free countries, people have the right to see pictures like these and make up their own minds."
No? Really?
"In the US freedom only still exists in cyberspace."
Bullshit.
In the US, freedom exists to call you moral degenerates, moral degenerates, because that is what you are."
Tisk Tisk...
"Tisk Tisk..."
Do you have a link on that? Did I say bullshit or was that someone else? I probably shouldn't say bullshit, if I did, in fact, say bullshit. It does look like I did. I was wrong to.
As I recall, that blog was pictures of American soldiers with their arms blown off, children, etc. And some on the left were saying that maybe as far as the soldiers went it was good because they were probably Republicans.
And so on. That was the sort of thing at issue.
It is interesting that he removed the whole comments section after only a few comments by me. Of which you are trying to pick the worst things to tsk about. Then he put the whole thing back, but apparently he only lets certain people comment now. (Last time I was there, anyway. Probably a month ago by now.....)
There is the censorship on the Left, they'll say any idiotic thing on their blogs but then have a problem with being answered. I'm going to keep calling moral degenerates like that, moral degenerates.
It's a tough job with prissy Christians around but someone has to do it.
As to the other things, I'm probably not going to kill my words by making them all scholarly and serious all the time. I can write philosophy but what I prefer is satire. I only do philosophy when I can't think of a satire, you see.
I do both and I see no reason not to, you have given none. (As if it is some self-evident truth that a sardonic comment is wrong?) The method and mode of what is communicated, is communication too.
The more pointy a point is, the better, you have yet to show why people would more readily miss a pointed point.
A comparison, these are similar except for one thing.
Your profile,
On Blogger Since March 2004
Recent Posts 19
Avg Posts Per Week 4
Posts Written 143
Words Written 37,176
Outbound Links 74
Profile Views 219
My profile,
On Blogger Since May 2004
Recent Posts 91
Avg Posts Per Week 3
Posts Written 92
Words Written 48,643
Outbound Links 43
Profile Views 479
This blog started in November, I believe. How is my point being undermined? Some people seem to want to know what my point is. To have a point, you have to make a point.
"It is pretended, that I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true."
(William Lloyd Garrison 1805-1879, The Liberator)
One of these days I hope to write a truly good Jeremiad. I have not yet begun to write.
But you are welcome to argue the point, if you have one. I can be philosophical if that is the issue. If you are looking things up, see Icon's comments and my comments under the section Freud's Plague.
(This silly DSL keeps fading on me. Oh well, hope this posts.)
Looking at those profile numbers, they don't make sense.
So nevermind on that point.
Hmmm...speaking of "Uncovering UnAmericanism," if you post that link then people will see some.
But I would not recommend going to that blog, especially if you personally know soldiers in Iraq.
"I wasn't the anonymous person by the way. I didn't write that."
Did someone else get on your computer and write it?
Hehe...and Collin isn't childish? Anyway, I am open to all criticisms and I should not have said bullshit. That was my visceral reaction creeping in, certainly. Not very sublimated, that's for sure. Again, it is probably best for most people not to go to that blog.
I'll probably take your advice. For the sheer diversity of that!
Well, I will take it, some. It's probably best to mix things up a bit, for even more pointed points.
Who or name does the evolutionist you are talking about go by? Now I am curious. I do have some old pals, after all. Just like you.
"...it was posted by anonymous! Not me."
Hehe...do you run your own blog? Any good with computers? [Delete]...it was a smart birdie.
(I just wrote a satire and deleted it. See how nice I am? That's real nice!)
But anyway, that trademark goes way, way back. Back to 1999 when I realized that a gay athropologist was always saying that his supposed "gay group" were Victims©. (How is the group defined, sexual desires, behavior, sociopolitical identity? Etc...)
So eventually, after a while I put a little copyright on it and started making a satire of it. For flatulent people are Victims© of discrimination too. Flatulent people, they just are not tolerated! Yep, it's an intolerant culture, and probably phobic of stench too. What about the intolerance towards flatulent kids? Those stinkers, are they so stinky?
Hey Bertie, you might appreciate this. I came across this:
Bertie, on butt boring...
I appreciated that very much...haha, very amusing.
~Bertie
Post a Comment