Skip to main content

Getting to be prom queen of the world is lame if everyone knows you're a slut.

This is my response to yet another comment (this one on neo-neocon's blog) claiming that Bush was the worst president EVER and Condi was a laughingstock in the world. (The Condi bit was somewhat unusual, I will admit. What wasn't all that unusual was that the commenter, IIRC, claimed to be reasonable.)

I'm reminded of that saying: Metaphysics - I'll see it when I believe it.

The force of WILL displayed is incredible. The belief that Bush is bad-evil-theworstever existed before he ever took the oath of office. The sore feelings that Bush was better at stealing an election than Gore was taken up by people who are professionals when it comes to the ultimate moral authority... outrage. Gore started out by displaying a petulant attitude and it's never let up.

And this was in 2000. When there was a limit to the damage that any president could do. The difference between a Dem status quo and a Rep status quo resembled the libertarian refrain "The Democrats and their clones the Republicans."

Before 9-11. Before the invasion of Afghanistan. Before the build up to the invasion of Iraq. Before any cowboy manners could offend any sophisticated Euro. Before all that.

When it comes to the belief that Bush (and anyone close to him) is the WORST PRESIDENT EVER, cause and effect are backwards. Since the belief existed before any possibility of evidence... I have to, logically, rationally, MUST question the belief.

And here's a clue... popularity != reputation.

Getting to be prom queen of the world is lame if everyone knows you're a slut.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
If they think Bush is bad... I wanna know what will happen when a Teddy Roosevelt/FD Roosevelt gets into power.

Will people like skep just shut up? Or will they eat their words? or will they pretend that everything they had said had never existed as words on the net?

I favor internal self-combustion. TO make it fair, we'll put the Roosevelt ruthless twins as a Republican progressive. That way, the Demos won't have their party to fall back on as a defensive measure against internal self-combustion.
2:35 PM
Ymarsakar said…
Here's a real example. Teddy Roosevelt would have stepped on Wilson Plame, hard. He would have never been seen in Washington socialite circles, he in fact might have "disappeared", for real.
2:36 PM
Ymarsakar said…
And here's a clue... popularity != reputation.

Perhaps a clue to the Daily Kos computer hacker programmer department?
9:10 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...
Post a Comment
Read more

Some times some people.

 
Post a Comment
Read more

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...
Post a Comment
Read more