Useful Fools

All this shows is a bias against Sen. Kerry personally and hence that is what your supporting documents show. They were selected to do so. Based on the lack of merit the so-called MSM doesn't think that the facts of the charges warrant the conclusion of the minority.

In short, reasonable viewers don't agree with you, for very valid reasons. And neither do I. I have a degree in biology, so I have been trained in how to think, but I've never published a peer reviewed paper, although I call myself a scientist. I'm almost done with a degree in journalism. I wrote a book. I know more about politics and science than anyone on this blog. My doctor assures me the always being right is normal, but he gave me Zyprexa because he said it helps me, a genius, communicate with ordinary people.

Mr. York:

Interesting post, especially the part about "reasonable viewers", which is to say, the people you agree with and the reverse, unreasonable viewers, the people we, I, agree with.

This may be unfair to you, because you might have explained it and I don't recognize it. What part of a "personal" or subjective belief becomes unreasonable in contrast to reasonable? Is it the part that has no objective reference, or the part that you disagree with. Or both.

I don't understand sentence three, paragraph one, so maybe the answer is there. What I do see is the ordinary and disreputable claim that can be summed up by "that's your opinion", the schoolyard defense when there is no basis to claim the opposite. As we grow we learn that all opinions are not equal, that some are wrong or uninformed and just silly. What "valid reasons" do you have for yours? Who are these "reasonable viewers".

At any rate, I don't like Kerry either, because apart from my experience in Vietnam, my intuition tells me that he falls short in many ways that have objective value. I don't care if you like Kerry. It doesn't matter to me in the least, but you ought to have a reason for doing so, and you haven't explained it. You've only discounted an opinion you've seen here, without cause. That isn't good enough.

Rhod, I guess some adults have not get out of the habit of hiding behind an authorative figure while voicing their opinions.

York:
A bias against kerry, where the hell have you been ? What basement have you been hiding in, kerry is his own worst enemy, even with the media bias against the President and all pro kerry crap the media keeps feeding the people, kerry with all his cosmetic surgery and botox injections he still looks like 'Lurch', why because he is. The democrats 'war hero', with all the pro-kerry help from the willing accomplices in the Alphabet networks nothing works.
You must be hiding in the same attic with Perots crazy old Aunt. Either that or you have a real problem with reading comprehension.

Mark

I've seen that York guy post on Mike Totten's blog, Roger Simon's blog, and at the Press Think blog, where I first noticed him.

Actually, and this is for sheer entertainment value, (since he put his website and resume up for everyone to see), one can infer much:

1) Doesn't like people in authority.
2) Can't complete a degree.
3) Can't write. (Go look at his book, you'll see what I mean).
4) Can't keep a job.
5) Thinks he's always right. But one could tell that from his posts.

The book turns out to be funny--a parody really--Xlibris? A vanity publisher? And the comments at Amazon: "...Reads like a stump filled hillside..." Heh.

It doesn't even have an Amazon ranking, which implies that Amazon has never sold a copy.

I looked his name up in IMDB, and nothing comes up, which does not surprise, although I suppose its possible that he used a screen name.

The guy is a bitter, failed, actor and writer, and comment sections on blogs allow him to vent at the world.

In the end, he's to be pitied.

York has a degree in Biology, the next boom field, and yet he is going for a degree in journalism, the field that blogs are killing?
My doctor gives me Zyprexa so I can understand those signals being beamed to me from Venus.

ERIC BLAIR!!

Never mind that I love your post, I loved all your books, too. Is that your real name?

Lan:

Usually it is an authoritarian figure.

I missed that part of it. Zyprexa is your typical Phyc. drug. Mainly used for Schizophrenia and acute bipolar mania.
This explains alot no wonder he thinks he is always right and misses what the press is saying. This is saying who our competition is, this is why all the hate for the President, they are all nuts.

Mark

All:
This again is the true left. Instead of dealing with the/a problem head on they medicate it, so the people around the 'case' can better deal with him.
An unruly child in school, where years ago would get a good 'whoopin', now gets medicated so the teachers and parents can deal with the child. However, the problem with that is these 'Doctors' who are so quick to medicate someone have no clue what the drug does to a person. In the long term, eg, Columbine, those kids were on Ritilin, for supposedly ADD, this works well for children, but the medical people never considered what the drug does when the child reaches puberty, and how this drug would interact with constantly changing hormones.
So what do they do they blame the gun manufactureers, instead of looking at the real problem that the whole damn country is OVER-MEDICATED. They completely ignore the real culprit, lack of medical follow-up and look for a cause-celeb to lay the blame on.

Typical Leftist-Liberals

mark

Rhod,

Pardon my lousy English (I smell something wrong on that one, and it's proven that a) I am a real Vietnamese for making so much grammatical errors, hehe and b) laziness doesn't pay whether in thinking or by neglect not using dictionary.com).

Yes, it's authoritarian figure like some kids when being confronted by others on the validity of their context, they claimed "... but my father said so".

Rhod: You're the first one to get the joke.

Lan:

Actually I wasn't correcting your English usage, which I think is wonderful. You have an original way with the language. Your use of "authoritative" was correct, also. I was just adding a word to take a bigger shot at them.

Eric:

It was really great to see your name back in print, and the post was up to your usual standards. We see a lot of Newspeak here and Two Minute Hates from our opponents. Thanks for helping me understand.

Just read a piece of Mark York's book, an excerpt entitled "Against a Strong Current", using the info provided by Eric Blair above. Amazon's description of York's prose is kind. "Stump-filled hillside" indeed, along with engine blocks, truck-tire planters, washing-machine wringers and other junk. Since the piece is about environmentalism, maybe, York's prose measures up as a pollutant.

This appears to have nothing to do with the media category here, but it does. We can thank Norman Mailer's "Aquarius" creature for the New Journalism we see in York's garbage, where the topic is always Me. It isn't actually solipsism, which has some theoretical pretensions. It is just always about Me, everything else be damnned.

York could be nothing but a leftist, with his diamond-like ego, social conceits and dazzling ignorance.

Here's a point about the media, and liberals.

An Irish-American Senator, having begun with a measure of charisma, potential, and personal power, ends in self-indulgence, paranoia, acrimony, a weakness for alcohol, senseless invective, and whose name forever becomes a Scarlet Letter employed by his ideological opponents.

Joe McCarthy of course, but the defintion lacking the symbolism of his name, is the same for Edward Kennedy. What's the difference? Years and years of partisan fermentation on the left, symbol refinement and dishonesty. McCarthy had a list of traitors in his hand, Kennedy has a list of liars in his head. And McCarthy actually had EVIDENCE, where Kennedy has only his lewd frustration and malice.

McCarthy gave anti-anti-communism a bad name. Kennedy can say anything and stroll among the ruins with impunity.

The times are certainly different, which accounts for everything. Anyone using McCarthy's name as a cudgel simply doesn't care much about the era in which he lived and sinned, or comparisons could be freely made to many, many other politicians.

And that describes the media. None of them cares anything about our history that can't be turned into a book. Or which couldn't be summarized by an unrehabilitated Soviet historian. Cookie-cutter liberalism and the bitch-goddess fame go well together.

Correction: ANTI-communism, not anti-anti-communism.

Kingsmill:
Stranger than fiction is that John F. Kennedy once defended Joe McCarthy, against an attack at Harvard(?). My how things change. Only problem is there was ONLY one Joe McCarthy, we need a couple more.

Mark

Mark:

My memory isn't too clear on this, but Bobby K was also an attorney on the House American Activities Committee, wasn't he? The Kevaufer Committee?

If we frame that period correctly, lying in the shadow of Korea, The Iron Curtain in Europe, China and Mao, revelations about Stalinism and the infiltration of The State Department and Department of the Army, Joe McCarthy made sense.
Oh yeah, there was also the successful Russian nuke program.

I still don't grasp The Left's fixation with it, because it revolves around something other than politics. What? Maybe some visiting Leftist can tell me. I expect the regulation answer that some playwrights couldn't play, some actors couldn't act and some writers couldn't write, at least as much as they wanted to. But if you review the names, we were spared a lot of tenth rate crap anyway.

Okay, blacklisting was vile and wrong, but the political system some of these people defended would have executed them for lesser things. I think McCarthy fell apart at some point, but there is no moral symmetry between "McCarthyism" and the monstrous thing he was fighting.

They got even with us, though, with a generation of kids forced to read overrated crap like "The Crucible", and other stuff like it.

The journalistic plunge to the bottom was begun with the anti-McCarthy coverage. Welch and his "...have you no shame..." was raised to divine revelation when it really was just a "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" statement. Journalism came a long way from Ernie Pyle to today's pretty boys. All downhill.

Yeah Welch was a real moron, it was McCarthy assistant that was grilling welch, and he finally broke down. But when the left found out that McCarthy assistant was 'Gay', there was Homophobic bashing like you have never heard of. All this from the party that brings us diversity and the Kum by ya singers.
McCarthy was purged though when they Soviet Union imploded. But the damage to McCarthy had been done and became almost irreversible.
There was a document (cant remember the name, from the Soviets) that exonerated McCarthy, but made no difference to the left the document also re-inforced that Hiss and the Rosenbergs were indeed guilty but of course the left didnt want to hear the truth. For that matter Roosevelt defended to the death Hiss's innocence and Truman was no better.
But it is documented in Ann Coulters Book 'Treason'.
Beyond me why they are so fascinated with communism, but Hanoi Jane is a big supporter of the communists as WE know too well.
But what amazes me is they spew their venom about how great it is from the safe confines of the United States, whereas in any other country they would be locked up and promptly forgotten.

Mark

Mark:

I think the documents you refer to are the Venona Tapes. Why they're called tapes, I don't know, but they are Soviet documents and support a lot of what we already know and The Left denies. Hiss, for one thing, and the Rosenbergs, but lots of others too.

Each of your posts on 'McCarthyism' are fantastic, and right to the point. The left reviles R.M. Nixon not because he 'ordered' the Watergate break-in, nor because he didn't end the war in Vietnam both in the time frame and fashion in which he promised as early as his '68 election, but, simply, because he was 'the other half' of the much-despised McCarthy investigation tandem. Like Rhod said, most everyone--former Soviets included--understand Hiss' and the Rosenbergs' guilt, but only the American left has yet to openly and rightfully acknowledge their foolishness in upholding these traitors for so many decades.

I could go on and on about 'McCarthyism,' but this is a subject that truly gets my blood boiling. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: McCarthy, for whatever he was--right or wrong--understood Hollywood's political motives, even if easygoing Ike and aging Harry Truman didn't (or didn't 'care' to understand or admit).

Judging by the effluvium that's been freely flowing forth from Hollywood for at least the past two decades, I'd say that McCarthy ought to be 'rehabilitated' as a national hero, and posthumously awarded a presidential medal of freedom. I used to go round-and-round with my old undergrad' professors on this issue, and I recall how they so haughtily sniffed each and every time I asked them, "So you're telling me McCarthy was a witch-hunter, and therefore had no bases' for his charges?" Every time I forced 'em to confront the facts in the Hiss, Chambers, and Rosenberg cases, these same academic genii hemmed-and-hawed and bobbed-and-wove and ducked--and--covered, but never once admitted the truth. At the end of every such argument my red-faced, humiliated mentors always spat in so many words--in keeping with the philosophy of today's leading lefties--"Well...it simply wasn't right that the US had the bomb while other freedom-loving peoples' didn't!"

I say, if our country were actually to receive the 'justice' we deserve due to liberal stupidity, we'd all be sitting behind the electric barricades of some long-forgotten Soviet or Red Chinese gulag.

Man, does it ever give me satisfaction to think how those old professors must be squirming on their scorched red arses' now!

--"The truth is a shining sword that will conquer any tyranny," said former Red Army artillerist Alexander Solzhenitsyn. And how right you are, Russian brother!

Rhod:
You are right, the Venona Tapes, thats it. From what I have read, and not just Ann Coulters book but during the early 60s I remember reading a book 'None dare call it treason', and went on to explain all the stuff we have been talking about.
anyway thanks for the info.

TangoKiloSierra

Mark

Update on our friend Mark A. York. He's posted his journo-grades on his resume:

Journalism Training: Reporting News-B;
Intro to Mass Com-B;
Reporting Government Agencies-A;
Article Writing-C+;
Diversity and the Media-D;
Europe-B;
Graphics (QuarkXPress);
International News Media;
Law of Public Communication.

Yep, I'm impressed.

There is a peculiar continuity between Robert's post and TRS's info on Mark York's transcript. University life is super weird in its isolation from reality. McCarthy is unexceptionally bad, pseudo-studies are good.

York registers a 2.6 at a diploma mill, in courses pertinent to his chosen profession and BRAGS ABOUT IT? What he is NOT telling us?

Femminist Perspectives in Stump Removal - D-
Photographing Silt Ponds - F
Foaming Agents in Slave Societies - D+
Marxism and Septic Tank Rehabilitation - A
McCarthyism and Forest Fires - C-
E.B. White on Pencil Sharpening Systems - C
Alger Hissian Theory on Pumpkin Production - F
Dos Passosian Uncertainty Certainties - D -
Left Perspectives on Alaskan Sandbox Drilling - C

...the list goes on...

Wow now I am impressed. How did he do on, Numerical Methods for Differential Equations ? Sheesh talk about 'soft-ball' courses. What it sounds like is he never showed up for the courses and took the obligatory D, because they dont flunk anyone any more the may mess up their self-esteem. What a joke that is.

Mark

Mark:

The NMFDE course is no longer offered. Students started calling it "Numb for Days" and didn't take it seriously. It's unlikely York took this course anywhere.

Just happened to have a syllabus from the E.B. White course. It's foundation is Marx's Labor Theory of Value. White never wrote anything down; it's all anecdotal.

White mused on the shear forces and energy loss necessary to sharpen by knife, using Case, Swiss Army, Kabar and regulation Boy Scout. Other topics are abrasive qualities of sandpaper of different grit, and finally, the satanic capitalist tool mechanical pencil sharpener. All these means ultimately employ or unemploy people. It's very Marxian

There's a brief about Henry David Thoreau, who invented the graphite pencil, and HDT is a great socialist improver. That's High Definition Television, not Thoreau.

Kingsmill:
Well that explains it, anecdotal, thats makes it possible to make it up as they go along. This runs parallel with the theory of entropy. e.g. on a cool fall morning you will see a mist from the pond escaping into the atmosphere, this energy release is called entropy. There are liberals out there trying to find ways to harness this form of energy. They have this notion that they can defy the law of conservation of energy, which says, "You dont get something for nothing". Sort of like all these wind-mill farms and solar energy, there models look good on paper but empirical results are always disappoiting because they tend to forget this basic law. Instead of the simple solution drilling for oil, in Alaska, they would prefer to waste money on Stupid inane projects that yield little but makes them all feel good, when in the meantime the jprice of gas keeps rising.

There logic makes no sense because it is NON-sense.

Mark

Mark:

This is about the media, too. Was there something entropic in Dan Rather's tryst...I mean interview...with Bill Clinton? Clinton got Rathered, to say the least (Was there a blue Gap sportscoat on Rather?).

Your principles are indisputable except when it comes to Clinton, where nothing generates huge amounts of amorous instability in liberals everywhere, especially among The Media.

Amorous instability, yeah I like that, it is amazing though how they have defended clinton that it was only sex and so what if he lied.
NOw with his new book "My Lie" er Life, the truth comes out that after the Monica affair he had to sleep on the couch.
Where is the media to question the press conference when he FLAT OUT DENIED, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lowinsky" But in his book he tells all,, blah blah.
To me the bottom line is this , Bill Clinton disgraced the office of the president, he disgraced the country, although lie beralls claim him as their hero, and now he wants to give advice to George W. on how to run the Iraq War, where the hell was Bill (BJ) Clinton during his 8 years when he had many chances to take out Saddam,(yeah I know he was in the closet with Monica.) What gets me is how can these people be this Friggin' stupid to believe this crap, from a convicted felon. Bill Clinton is a liar plain and simple. NOw John kerry he wouldn't know the truth is it was standing next to him.
Where do these people come from, and how did they get here in such large numbers, it defies logic, their cant be that many lunatics in one country. Can there ???

Mark

Fear not, Mark:

Clinton is shrinking away like the ratings for the three major networks, in a group die-off. A major extinction is underway. The last Algore expired a month ago with the pitiful brute baying in pain. A couple years from now Clinton will be the size of Beetlejuice...with Hillary setting the Chappaqua model on fire.

just click on "the truth about pollution" below and You will know

The above post is from another one of the lefto-fascists from other locations. Between roughing up elderly Jewish storekeepers and stealing from homeless people, the syphilitic idiot had a moment to visit here. Ignore him.

Top Gun (I know you need such medications for your virility)

Sounds as if that placental gonorrhea really had an effect on you.

The other day, I had the displeasure of listening to a "conservative" Middle East "scholar" ramble through a lecture on the potential receptivity to democracy in places like Iraq and Iran. His thesis, once I mined it from a wandering trail of endless dead-ends and unanswered "what I mean is..." utterances, amounted to the following: culture, specifically that of the Middle East, is irrelevant to a nation's capability of accepting democracy as its form of government.

He cited examples of various dictators who have already felt compelled to have "democratic elections", thereby demonstrating that the need to have a veneer of democracy is sign enough that a free government could be sustained.

Here is the root of the first problem: the equating of democracy with freedom. Democracy is simply the rule of the majority. In a democracy, the minority gets fucked. When the minority complains about said fucking, the majority tells it:

"Fuck you, it's in the 'public interest' that you get fucked. Therefore, shut your trap, get in the voting booth, and let us fuck you once more."
Sure, democracy might be acceptable to any existing culture in the Middle East. Where you might have a problem, however, is trying to talk to some of those guys about things like constitutional republics. I.e., governments based on objective law that uphold the rights of the individual. Instilling that in the Middle East might not be so easy.

So, here we had yet another Republican who had absolutely no conception of the relationship between ideas, culture, and forms of government. He was actually asserting that dictatorships could be transformed into "democracies" with the simple application of "external pressure". That pressure coming from (a) military force, or (b) diplomatic "pressure".

Evidently, whether your culture makes it a habit of stoning people to death for social faux pas like adultery has no bearing on whether or not your culture will appreciate a government that protects individual rights.

There are two possible courses we can take to be safe in the long run. The first, contrary to the aforementioned horseshit, is to be cultural imperialists. That is, eliminate religion from the fucking planet and maybe teach a few people that suicide bombings aren't the ideal course of action for a human being. The second possible course of action is to keep the barrels of our guns pointing directly at any two-bit dictator and let him know that he will suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein should he support or harbor terrorists.

So pick your solution. Personally, the cultural imperialism thing is an optimistic choice, but frankly I don't know if we can handle it. Regardless of what we do, we're gonna need our finger on the button anyway, so frequent threats of mass annihilation in the Middle East will probably be necessary, and maybe sufficient.

But never mind that. Let me get to the punchline.

After the above limp-wristed conservative finished his tedious sleep-inducing speech, I felt compelled to ask a question. How, I asked, can you argue that culture is irrelevant? How can you argue that "pressure" is enough to change an entire government in the long-run?

His answer?

"I wasn't really arguing. I was suggesting."
Yes, he followed that up with other equally pussified language. But that was the only statement that stayed with me. And I was actually ready to semi-forget that statement, or at least not write about it. Then I turned on the news tonight.

On two cable news stations, I heard the following from two paid "experts" in defense of their supposed positions:

"You can make an argument for that."
Granted, this isn't as bad as refusing to "argue" in favor of "suggesting", but Jesus Christ, it's still pretty goddamn bad. Either make the fucking argument, or don't make it. What the hell does it even mean to say "you can make an argument for that"? Doesn't it matter at all what kind of argument you make?

For example, what if the only kind of argument you could make for it was a completely shitty argument? An argument devoid not only of facts, but of all common sense whatsoever? Would it really be relevant that you could "make an argument" for it?

Don't tell me that some random moron could make an argument for something. And sure as fuck don't tell me that you're only "suggesting" something. Either say it, or don't say it. If you don't have the balls to stand up for your own ideas, then either shut your mouth, or hire a ventriloquist who has the gonads to "argue" them for you.

Though, come to think of it, I guess in either case you'd need to shut your goddamn mouth. (I like to be accurate.)

The spammers are trying to advertise a site owned by painter1984@hotmail.com

I came across an article in the NYT this morning
which is worth reading

with Tony Blair

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: