Short Takes

Holy Joe’s fall from grace, or at least from the favor of Connecticut voters.

So who’s emboldening the terrorists now?

It may be that Christianity has stronger redemption benefits than Buddhism, but as I remember the benefit doesn’t kick in until you repent. You can’t be redeemed until you admit you did something wrong, in other words, which means Brit Hume is damned.

Introducing the Manicheanism Alert icon. I figure it will save me time arguing with people. And we already have a winner!

20 thoughts on “Short Takes

  1. The Manicheanism Alert Icon is a winner. And the first awardee truly deserves it; he was interesting to read but I wouldn’t bother responding to him.

  2. PurpleGirl, I checked his link re Dems staying home for “the next election cycle” and found it was an old article from last October that referred to the election of Nov. 3, 2009. Most of Joe’s other points can be similarly destroyed with 60 seconds of research. Sadly, he’s not the sharpest crayon in the box. Maybe that deserves its own icon.

  3. I love the Manichaeism Alert Icon, but I’m having trouble pronouncing it. Joe is certainly a deserving and willing recipient.

    The Mary Sanchez article is spot on. Why is the whole terror concept so difficult for wing-nuts to understand?

  4. Maha, I liked your attempt at responding to Mr. Sprigg. I’m impressed with your clarity in conveying intelligent thought, and in your restraint in dealing with a mindless entity who has no capacity to understand what you are saying. Personally for me, the name “Family Research Council”is enough of an indication to know that any attempt to penetrate that stronghold of stupidity with the light of reason is futile.

  5. Holy Joe voted against the public option because “liberals were for it.” No comment.

    I admit to being a Johnny-one-note on the subject of the far-right or the far-left, BUT, their comfort zones – where they live, only want to live, can only reason – are windowless boxes. If it’s not in the ‘box’, it’s not only dangerous, it finally isn’t.

    When Plato’s freed prisoner returned to the ‘cave’ to tell his once-fellow prisoners that their concept of ‘reality’ had been completely wrong, he soon realized that if they had been free of their chains they would have killed him.

  6. Now if you could figure out a way to visually tag deserving comments with that icon – a cool enhancement to wordpress (or whatever software magic drives this site)…I guess you could manually edit in the html to display the icon within a deserving comment’s text body, but that’s tedious/wicked.

    I dunno about the Christian redemption thing. I look at it more like we reap what we sow – until we finally realize this, and decide to stop sowing weeds and pain. Why bring redemption into it?

  7. Hmmm, it seems a bit Manicheistic to divide commenters into light and dark.

    Wow, clever. I guess elementary schools are out all over the country today?

  8. Maha,

    I love your blog. I don’t usually comment or read comments. So I don’t know if there is some kind of commenting issue here.

    Funny, I had to change my IP to read the blog. In my profession, I need to preserve my anonymity and I’m not trying to abuse it.

    I apologize if I was too snarkish in my response as GMI. I have a propensity to give what I get, which is usually a bad impulse on my part. I don’t, however, see how my reply was any more rude than my being called a grade-schooler –which didn’t feel to me like the most reasoned appeal to debate. My original comment wasn’t meant to be clever in the least. I plead guilty to being cryptic, but the icon assignment (punishment?) seems to me as judgmental on your part as what you are protesting.

    No need to ban me again, I’ll retire from commenting here. Perhaps the site is not what I thought it was.

  9. Icon– you were the one who categorized comments as “light and dark.” Maha never did that; instead she was flagging a specific, currently very repetitive, and by now absolutely tedious commonality amongst certain commenters. She and others have wasted a lot of time responding to them. (You’d know this if you did read the comments.) And since it’s maha’s blog, she can flag tedious time-wasters however she pleases.

    Your initial comment did not offer any “reasoned appeal to debate;” its “reasoning” was specious and its tone was immature. In other words, you got what you gave, and then kept pushing. I’m not sure what you expect.

  10. Maha, regarding the insulting Manicheanism Alert icon…

    I guess you’ll now apply to any poster who dares to point out that Obama is selling out his base. Or maybe to any poster who just dares to disagree with you about anything. I suppose you find that funny, just like some people I knew in high school found it funny attach a sticky note to somebody’s back saying “Kick me!” or “Retard!”

    I’ve seen some pretty nasty right-wing blogs (no, I don’t even bother to post there), but I’ve never seen even one of them use a Manicheanism Alert icon. If they did, I would consider it a new low. So what should I think now that you’re doing this? But I’ll give you credit – it’s original.

    Without a doubt, my postings would quickly earn me a Manicheanism Alert icon. The question I have to ask myself now is whether or not I want to stay here and be insulted. I’m not overly sensitive – I’ve been called some pretty nasty names and I shrug it off. But I wonder why I should participate in online debate when the blogowner has a policy of posting “empty-headed idiot alert icons” on those posts that he/she finds “not correct.”

    So, I will just go elsewhere. You won’t be hearing from me again. There, you got what you want – only posters who agree with you 100% of the time. I hope that makes you happy.

    But it’s a pity. I consider myself to be pretty liberal. Over the years, I’ve probably voted for most of the same people you have. But I disagree with you about simply rolling over and uncritically accepting whatever crumbs Obama and his corporatist friends are willing to throw to the rapidly shrinking middle class. And I’m hardly alone. There are by now literally millions of us disillusioned Democrats who are trying to decide what the next move should be. Some will stop voting, but I don’t think that’s wise. I am hoping that they’ll form a new party, or possibly rally around the Green Party (though the GP has its share of troubles too). If the Democrats want our votes, they’ll have to earn them.

    What I do know is that the USA simply cannot go on doing business as usual. The country is teetering on the brink of economic collapse. You will not be getting health care reform in 2014 because the USA will be like Somalia by then. During his first year in office, Obama’s policies have greatly contributed to the coming collapse. At the end of the day, he may well wind up doing as much damage as a President McCain would have done, with the difference being that now the Democrats will get the blame.

    But apparently you’ve decided that progressive thinking people like me are as empty-headed as Sarah Palin supporters. So I am wasting my time here. I’ll leave, and you’ll now have one less dissenting voice. You are now that much closer to your goal of complete conformity.

    And I am leaving peacefully. I never call people nasty names online, even when I sharply disagree with them, and even when they call me nasty names first, even when they post insulting “idiot alert” icons on my posts. It’s your blog, do what you want.

    Good luck to you all,
    Robert

  11. Joanr16:

    Again with the labeling…

    OK, one more to attempt to clarify.

    I’m not sure why all the hostility arose. You’re reading malice where none was intended. I don’t question Maha’s right to run her blog.

    I’ll try to elaborate: The “light and dark” phrasing comes directly from the definition of “Manichean” and from the look of the icon itself. It wasn’t meant as snark, it was meant to illustrate a parallel. (i.e. to label posters as judgmental requires one to be judgmental.) It was meant as a brief observation and I think at least freD took it as such (not trying to pull you in, freD). I didn’t think it was harsh. It wasn’t meant to offend or insult anyone, most of all Maha. Apparently it was too cryptic. And too obvious to discuss. Fine.

    • . to label posters as judgmental requires one to be judgmental.

      The issue with Manichaeism is not that it’s “judgmental.” It’s a particular type of irrational thinking. If you didn’t realize that, I guess it explains why your criticism made absolutely no sense to any of us.

  12. too obvious to discuss

    Obviously not. You said yourself you don’t read usually read the comments here. You missed the context, you sounded childish, you got called on it, you pouted. Not my fault, sorry.

    And ozonehole’s comment just makes me sad. It really is all-or-nothing with some, whether it’s appropriate to the situation or not. More drama that way, I guess.

  13. This all reminds me of a story. I worked in an office once where this guy had a habit of picking at his head all day long. Concerned, his buddy took a drawing program and made up a cartoon silhouette of him picking at his head with a big red circle and slash over it, and posted a large printed version of it on the column above his head.

    The picture stayed up there for almost a week before headpicker was tipped off and he removed it. The headpicking continued.

    Intrigued by his cluelessness to his surroundings, bets were placed over how long headpicker would take to notice a tuna fish sandwich slid into a crevice near his desk.

    The next Monday, a lady who sat in the far back came over to us and said: “He’s never gonna notice that thing. I’m sitting way back there about to puke. Get that thing outta there already!!”

    So we did, and fortunately for us, the boss wasn’t into Manichaeism.

  14. Ozonehole’s comment make me sad too. I saw only one uncalled for comment directed at him, so I think he’s being a tad too sensitive. I can understand the concept of not going where you don’t feel welcomed, but I’ve always enjoyed reading his comments whether I agreed with them or not. I hope he reconsiders his farewell and remains a regular at this blog.

  15. I’ll second Joan and Swami. I always read ozonehole’s comments; he frequently makes good points. All of the regulars do. This is a very intelligent blog on almost all sides and I learn from it. I hope ozonehole stays and continues to join the debate.

Comments are closed.