Ayn Rand Is Running The TEA Party

(Boston Globe)

There have been many valid questions raised as to just exactly who is running the much talked-about “TEA Party.” Is it Rush Limbaugh? Sara Palin? Glenn Beck? Joe Wilson? Rupert Murdoch?

Nope. It’s a dead author. An egomaniac novelist-philosopher that makes up some of the founding principals of libertarianism, but certainly was not directly involved with the conservatism movement in the least.

From beyond the grave, she now rules over the ever-pandering Republican Party and this so-called “tea party.”

—

Ayn Rand claimed to “individualism,” but had no interest in allowing for individual disagreement over her logic within her “inner circle,” and preached “objectivism,” but refused to be objective in terms of literary-criticism of her novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

Here is this new “ethic” born of Ayn Rand that we see dominating the political right:

1. If you are poor, it is always your fault.
2. Asking for and receiving help is always wrong and a weakness.
3. Drive all compassion out of yourself.
4. You and your view are perfect, and cannot be wrong about anything.
5. Greed is holy.

—

Before anyone thinks I’m making all this up, let’s take a look at Ayn Rand in the news:

Gentlemen’s Quarterly (GQ) has named Ayn Rand “Writer of the Year of 2009” and Andrew Corsello spoke in his article of the “youth appeal” to Rand and as to his own experiences with her writing that greatly mirror my own.

2,000 pages of you’re-either-a-lion-or-a-leech ideology, loathing over Shakespeare, Beethoven, Marx, government, “subnormal” children, “simpering” social workers, homosexuals, and all of it with no grace, no subtly.

Philandering Republican Governor Mark Sanford was hiking the Appalachian Trail with Ayn Rand in the November 2nd issue of Newsweek.

While Rand’s philosophy was based on individual’s absolute freedom, Rand herself exercised a dictatorial control over her followers. Her chief acolyte (and lover), Nathaniel Branden, once circulated a list of rules for Rand’s inner circle to follow; one of them read, “Atlas Shrugged is the greatest human achievement in the history of the world“; another said, “Ayn Rand, by virtue of her philosophical genius, is the supreme arbiter in any issue pertaining to what is rational, moral, or appropriate to man’s life on earth.”

Ayn Rand has shifted in and out of favor, but she may be more relevant today than ever.

Lastly, do not forget that the anti-reformist  TEA Party have long since adopted this mantra of “Who is John Galt?”

—

I feel I have the answer these people seek, as to the identity of John Galt.

It is rather simple:

“John Galt” is nothing but what you read now, something that came from the mind of another.

I created “Little Suzy” for the sake of a online discussion in regards to the health care debate in the U.S.

“Little Suzy” and “John Galt” are one in the same, yet different sides of the same coin. Pure fictions created solely for the purpose of enforcing a point of view. In the case of “John Galt,” he is a construct for the protagonist to encounter and in the case of Ayn Rand’s writing to promote the concept of the “individual capitalist.” In the case of “Little Suzy,” she is a collaboration of non-fictional individuals in the real world who have suffered at the hands of the for-profit medical insurance agencies and she exists as the protagonist and the insurance company actuary the antagonist in a story where she dies from treatable cancer after being exempted from insurance coverage.

Who is Little Suzy?

She is the little girl who died because anytime someone speaks of health care reform in the U.S. the hounds of arrogance and venom are unleashed by the nearly completely partisan right-wing, thereby serving no purpose except to prevent all rational debate and civil discourse over the facts.

Ayn Rand and her TEA Party enjoy saying statements such as: “Some opinions are just wrong.”

Completely false and obviously founded in high levels of hubris. Nobody can ever be “wrong” about their own opinion. You can, however, be inaccurate about the facts.

The rejection of all facts is not “objective,” nor is it representative of “individualism” so much as it is a practice of willful ignorance.

I am perfectly willing to debate differences in opinions about the role of government and the role of the private sector, but often those heavily influenced by Rand feel that they are justified in their self-critiques of themselves as “geniuses” and “gifted.” One Randite, who goes by the name Malice (oddly enough), spoke in the GQ article of how Ayn Rand appeals to adolescents who are feeling dejected and find that the words of Rand are a reminder that, “you were right and everyone against you is wrong.” I believe he phrased it quite well as to what the true motives and core beliefs behind this movement truly are: self-superior logic. If someone disagrees with you, they obviously are not as smart as you. Or some other perverted form of backwards-logic that truly only serves to allow for people to behave like fools and be smug rather than civil and then call that “sound logic” and “spreading the truth.”

—

I feel I must disclose that part of my distaste of Ayn Rand is more complex than simply that I believe she is over-rated and outright immoral; it how she very much resembles myself in certain ways.

I am a writer, but like Ayn I do not simply “write.” From one writer to another reaching out across time I must admit I feel some connection to this woman. In my more jocular moments I speak of how the real problem with the world today is that nobody is listening to me as how to get things done. In a strange way, I suppose I could explain her appeal to someone who was completely flabbergasted by the nature of all of it. But I laugh good and hard about how silly and arrogant I sound in those moments, whereas Rand was actually serious about similar statements. There is a big difference, in the end.

I am composing a piece of societal-commentary right next to the creation of my own philosophical foundations along with simply writing fiction and short essays. I am prone to start coining -isms and start throwing them around as if there is a movement going on. I am a “populist for peace,” a “realist for media-integrity.” And so on.

Perhaps most profoundly is that in haste and inflamed passion I might lean toward alignment with this notion that I am vindicated by some gift of intellect over any misdeeds I commit; that I can treat my opponents in a way that I would never wish to be treated and they are the ones at fault not I.

When one takes a hard step outside of the ideological boxes that people like Ayn Rand and myself tend to create around ourselves it becomes clear that the two of us did share some common bonds beyond simply both being fiction writers.

In the name of compassion and mutual understanding I have to come to know this piece of what I call “wisdom” as to Ayn Rand’s similarity to any person who strives to take their writing and use it as a tool to display what they see in the world.

—

Alan Greenspan was one of many Randites who have come to see the failing in their former logic.

Greenspan, to his credit, came forward in the height of the global economic meltdown to speak out against the exact same kind of “free-capitalistic” business practices that caused the crash. He clearly stated that he found “[a] flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”

Conservatives and libertarians greatly ignored and widely dismissed Greenspan and his unsubtle rejection of these “Ayn Rand Economics” or “Free-Market Capitalism” styled politics that he had once been a strong advocate of. I contend that these people do not care to explore flaws in their ideological stances and instead (in greater and greater numbers it seems) only seek to create an atmosphere of me-versus-you if any person is in anything but outright agreement if not an atmosphere of outright violence.

Ideals like “selfishness is a virtue” and “greed is good” above all else drove us into a lasting national recession while the GOP and the TEA Party continue to advance the abandoned ideologies of Greenspan that ultimately serve only to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

The disgusting and shameful element being that was the stated goal of these ungracious self-serving monsters to begin with: a ruthless war on the poor and the middle class.

Dishonesty and willful ignorance dominates the TEA Party, right along with the radical GOP, leaving me to assume that no less than Ayn Rand coming from beyond the grave is the one who is truly running the party.

The White House Blog: “On This Thanksgiving”

Posted by Macon Phillips on November 26, 2009 at 12:00 AM EST:

Happy Thanksgiving!

Given the holiday, we are releasing the President’s weekly address today.  In this video, President Obama calls to our attention the men and women in uniform who are away from home sacrificing time with family to protect our safety and freedom.  He also talks about the progress of health care reform, the Recovery Act, and job creation to ensure that next Thanksgiving will be a brighter day.

And let’s not forget that it was the American People themselves who put Barack Obama in office with our own donations and our own votes:

Obama’s victory in the general election was aided by his tremendous fundraising success. Since the start of 2007, his campaign relied on bigger donors and smaller donors nearly equally, pulling in successive donations mostly over the Internet. After becoming his party’s nominee, Obama declined public financing and the spending limits that came with it, making him the first major-party candidate since the system was created to reject taxpayers’ money for the general election.

 

Source of Funds:

Individual contributions $656,357,572 88%

PAC contributions $1,830

Candidate self-financing $0

Federal Funds $0

Other $88,626,223 12%

“ClimateGate” and the Biased Conservative Media

Have you heard the latest right-wing, anti-environmentalist talking point?

“ClimateGate”

Tony Hake of The San Francisco Examiner was one of the first to break the real story on the web:

Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics.

The electronic break in itself has been verified by the director of the research unit, Professor Phil Jones. He told Britain’s Investigate magazine’s TGIF Edition “It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

Update, 3:45pm MDT: In regards to the authenticity, not one report disputing the veracity of the emails has come out. Many sources have talked to some of the email authors and they have not disputed the messages.

Megan McArdle commented on the matter under pressure from her readers at The Atlantic:

I’d say that the charge that climate skeptics “are not published in peer reviewed journals” just lost most of its power as an argument against the skeptics.  But I don’t see any reason to think that the AGW scientists have actually falsified data to create a consensus reality which is known to be false-to-fact.  What I see is that the people who are the custodians of the currently dominant paradigm have an unhealthy ability to exclude people who might challenge that paradigm from expressing those views in important forums.  Powerful scientists using their power to marginalize anyone who might challenge the authority of them, or their views, is sadly not uncommon in the history of science.

That doesn’t mean their paradigm is wrong; rather, it means we need to be less romantic about the practice of science.  No scientific consensus is ever as powerful as its proponents claim, because no scientists are ever as perfect as we’d like to imagine.

Wired.com has covered the issue from mainly an internet-based perspective:

The stolen cache includes more than 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000 documents, some containing code. They were posted anonymously to an FTP server in Russia. The hacker then posted a link to the 61-MB file of data on the blog Air Vent.

The hacker’s message that accompanied the link read: “We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents.”

The e-mails, which cover a decade of correspondence, are getting a lot of attention among bloggers who point to statements in them that they say suggest the scientists colluded and manipulated data to support their global warming viewpoints.

Bloggers allege that an e-mail from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, suggests that reality contradicts scientific claims about global warming.

But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

The right-wing biased media sources and persons were sure to spread this around as solid truth, and most likely have no interest in considering the source of these emails as well the entirely of the body of science rather than a single entity.

To wrap a bow on the bias dripping over every inch of conservative-media from Fox News to Real Clear Politics here is a real-time political polling statistic from RCP:

Direction of Country — RCP Average

Right Direction

37.7

Wrong Track

57.2

Spread -19.5

The “wrong track” is getting more and more obvious to more and more Americans by the day to be the conservative ideology, and these numbers they reluctantly post are growing proof that I am right about this assertion.

When it comes to rushing to interpret the facts without any level of rational approach and spreading self-superior biased media they are still the all time champions.

Ayn Rand is Running the TEA Party

(Boston Globe)

Coldhearted novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand is Running the both the TEA Party and the GOP, her self-serving ideology the real backdrop of the modern political right-wing.

—

—

Alan Greenspan was one of many Randites who have come to see the failing in their former logic.

Greenspan, to his credit, came forward in the height of the global economic meltdown to speak out against the exact same kind of “free-capitalistic” business practices that caused the crash. He clearly stated that he found: “[a] flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.”

Conservatives and libertarians greatly ignored and widely dismissed Greenspan and his unsubtle rejection of these “Ayn Rand Economics” or “Free-Market Capitalism” styled politics that he had once been a strong advocate of. I contend that these people do not care to explore flaws in their ideological stances and instead (in greater and greater numbers it seems) only seek to create an atmosphere of me-versus-you if any person is in anything but outright agreement if not an atmosphere of outright violence.

Dishonesty and willful ignorance dominates the TEA Party, right along with the radical GOP, leaving me to assume that no less than Ayn Rand coming from beyond the grave is the one is truly running the party.

—

(will re-post with full essay when finished transcribing)

Open Letter to Harry Reid (Public Option)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Firedoglake has a section entitled “FDL Action” in which I found an easy way to send Senator Harry Reid a little bit of my mind on the health care debate & the matter of the need for a government-run public option intact:

I doubt this message will reach you Senator Reid but it is important to impress that I support reconciliation not as a matter of due course but as pertaining to the current circumstances. The Republican filibuster must not be allowed to further mire the process and they surely intend to continue to pander to anti-government fears using misinformation tactics.

Reconciliation is needed, we cannot proceed without a public option.

Join in the cause to fight for reconciliation!

Also please join with me & Public Option Please (POP) in getting out the word that we need comprehensive health care reform in the U.S.

==========================================================

reconciliation: a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster.

filibuster: a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a proposal by extending a debate on that proposal.

All Hail the Corporate Empire

 

All hail the Corporate Empire.

Poison-pushers and war-mongers rejoice; your neckties have absolved your sins.

The rusted wheelchair left to rust by the riverside finds a new owner.

A lonely overpass serves its intended purpose: a home for American families.

A toxic watershed refreshes a dry throat.

Blessed are the war-makers; gifted are the clever thieves.

Someone, somewhere, made note of the misery and went wholly unnoticed.

Crying for the dream we all lost, she spoke of her true feelings.

Striving for the world we envision, he came to know his heart.

An exchange of blood for money; the transaction making us all a little bit evil.

A maniac takes his pound of flesh; just another day living under the Corporate Empire.

==============================================

Inspired by “Praise to the Highways” by Roberto Bolaño appearing in the December 2009 issue of Harper’s Magazine.

“Perhaps You Will Believe” (Mark Twain)

“Perhaps you will believe with me that civilizations are not realities, but only dreams.”          

                                                                             – Mark Twain

 

The Fearmonger-in-Chief is Glenn Beck of Fox News

The Anti-Defamation League has joined with me in trying to raise awareness over a violent propagandist spreading anti-Americanism on a low credibility network.

Here is an excerpt from the ADL report:

Glenn Beck’s linkage of Hitler’s plan to round up and exterminate Jews with Al Gore’s efforts to raise awareness of global warming is outrageous, insensitive and deeply offensive. Unfortunately, his remarks are just the latest example of a troubling epidemic on the airwaves, where comparisons to Hitler and the Holocaust are becoming all-too facile.

It has become almost commonplace for talk-show pundits to use comparisons to the Holocaust and Nazi imagery to attack people whose views they disagree with, whether the issue is global warming or immigration, as we witnessed when CNN’s Lou Dobbs recently suggested on his program that immigrant rights groups use tactics similar to those of Nazi propagandists.

The six million Jewish victims and millions of other victims of Hitler deserve a measure of respect. Their deaths should not be used for political points or sloganeering. Every time a radio or television personality takes that unique event in history and twists it for their own political agenda, it cheapens the public debate and distorts and trivializes the Holocaust.

It is more important than ever before to speak openly about the culture of dishonesty, fear and violence promoted by the likes of Glenn Beck and held in place by the likes of Fox Broadcasting Company.

The element to understand here is that there will always be some wild shock-jock to spread falsehoods, incite fear and violence, scare the public with fabricated theories, and just plain be an unpatriotic American.

The problem lies with making the radicalism and fervor of the fringe of any movement the mainstream of the same movement. Glenn Beck accomplishes this everyday with the help of the pseudo-credibility of Fox News (television) and Fox News Talk (radio.)

A Leggy Sara Palin Newsweek Cover

Politically-speaking I could not disagree with Sara Palin any more.

However, I would like to say that this woman has taken an amazing amount of hard-blows from the left. It would be more impressive in her own personal character if she refused to play the victim over the matter, but there is no doubt these things occur.

I am for focusing on the facts, as I see them at this time.

The fact is it makes no sense what Sara Palin said to Oprah about her reasons for leaving the governor’s office in Alaska.

This notion that her political advocacy would be hampered by resigning from office due to fact that ethical violations would have been filed is absurd.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from her statement is that her political advocacy would promoting something widely recognized as unethical due to fact that if your cause is just and more motives only non-violent advocacy of ideals you have nothing to fear in defending your case should you be called to question for your actions.

The Governor of Alaska has many, many times the ability to effect social change and promote political advocacy of a private citizen relying on namesake leftover from the 2008 Campaign.

The facts of the matter are that the former-Governor of Alaska still refuses to give a cogent or logical reply to a simple question.

Sara Palin also retains that the simple question, “What do you read?” is somehow an insult on her.

This was a great opportunity for Sara Palin to promote her local newspaper and other press outlets that may go under-looked. She instead continues to only be vague about rather simple questions.

Now putting all that aside, I don’t think that taking an image from Runner’s World on the cover of Newsweek was a very wise move.

This just feeds into the false notion that Sara Palin doesn’t get a “fair shake” in the “liberal media.”

If anything the “liberal media,” which is a misnomer, doesn’t get enough objective critics who focus on facts where many are clear to raise.
In a previous post I said that people should pick up a copy of that Newsweek with the Anna Quindlen and disgraced Governor Mark Sanford to read, so you could get a grip on what the heck is going on right not in politics.

As for this issue of Newsweek, I suggest instead buying a National Inquirer instead.

MediaMatters.org has covered this issue quite well:

Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo — “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?” — presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, “Maria,” in which nuns fret about “how” to “solve a problem like Maria,” a “girl” who “climbs trees” and whose “dress has a tear.”

Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin’s exercise habits.

I don’t believe Sara Palin is a viable candidate for any major political office.

Her disinterest in facts and honesty being the reason for this.

Call me strange, but I don’t think Sara Palin’s legs are “news worthy.”

I’m just saying that things like this Newsweek cover are fodder for all these false-news hounds out there painting on their wild canvas.

R.I.P. Tyler Tenorio

The Santa Cruz Community has suffered a great loss. A young man taken from us in his prime.

Whatever the circumstances, this horrible violence has touched me and I don’t feel I conveyed the depth of my thoughts on the matter when I spoke of it previously.

When I was sixteen, I was really stupid. I didn’t know Tyler, and I have recently discovered some of my friends in fact did know Tyler or his family. I am making an assumption that perhaps teenagerist stupidity was at play in this stabbing based on myself, not Tyler.

I feel what must be said is that I believe in my heart of hearts that Tyler Tenorio rests in peace with God.

This young soul taken from us before his time.

My heart is with all those who have lost loved ones.

I apologize if any person took offense from my previous post in regards to Tyler. I was awarded an “Editor’s Pick” on Open Salon for my efforts, but in retrospect I should have expressed my emotions on the matter rather than pure dispassionate conjecture.

Emailing Alan Colmes of Fox News

I doubt anyone cares but I spent a bit of time on this email and perhaps there are some interested in hear about all this:

“You’ve Lost a Customer, Not Like One Customer Ever Mattered”

Alan Colmes,

You’ve lost a customer, but not a friend or a fan of your witty radio banter.

I will not be renewing my Fox News Talk podcast subscription when it ends this year.

I have always believed that one votes with their money in a capitalistic society and I will not “vote” for your program any longer. I have to retract it like I was saying that I believe strongly in ethical journalism and would have resigned from Fox, were I you, in the ACORN racist-crusade. You make your own career decisions, but broadcasting inaccurate information was what I trying to avoid by subscribing to your show out of the Fox News Talk selections.

In 2008, with W. in the White House, you were absolutely right about Fox News in regards to the straight-news being honest and you served to clear up misconceptions spread on the internet or by commercialized news-media.

Things change, my friend. Just as the NY Post has made it their singular agenda to “destroy Barack Obama” this is also true for Fox News as evident in endless cases of failure to report facts.

If you, as a broadcaster, refuse to do any research and refuse to look at any objective data on the matter then you have no credibility on the issue. Period.

As an example: you said on the air that you never get vaccines but you never advocated against getting vaccines on the air. Do you understand? If you had done the latter I would also be unsubscribing in the future. All this political crap we all talk about is no different. You and everyone else can believe whatever the **** you want, but when you spread inaccurate information as “fact” you can bet you drive the intelligent / educated people out of the tent and you also drive the loudmouth assholes like me crazy as hell.

This mindless defense of Glenn Beck (he should have finished college if he was going to claim to a “historian“ on the air) and of Fox News as a network when the line was crossed many lines between individual bias and network bias then you are not standing up for the truth.

There was a time you were not making crap up and when you didn’t know one way or another you would say as such. Now you have several times lied on the air and the only reason I don’t call up tonight to grill you on it is because that would serve to feed the right-wingers that are trying to destroy what is left of your credibility.

By the way: the credibility scale is internet then radio then television then print. You have three and I have barely two. I should just pornography in between paragraphs and you have an existing audience, no matter what network you are under.

I like to save your credibility and enhance your lack of credibility but now that I have had it out with your producer and thought on it more than that childish angry-email I first sent: I would only like to inform you that it is an accurate statement that you have “lost a fan.”

The only real difference I can make, other than speaking out, is to not feed into the process any longer.

I like the show, and your internet-work.

I just demand honesty, outright with no exceptions. I refuse to tolerate corporate lies coming from you or anyone else.

I want to be clear: I am not pandering to get back on Liberaland. I used my knowledge of psychology to make an awful, mean-spirited joke on Joel’s expense and I was so out-of-line I myself think I should be banned. Any rational person would agree.

I just want you, as the author of this blog, to understand that I thought every-goes because you posted words like “f***” and allowed endless verbal assaults on other users through an obviously moderated site.

I was under the false impression it was like my blog with Net-Neutrality intact. A simple misconception on my part.

So I’ll be enjoying the show via podcast and surely call in sometime soon (statistics show I‘ll call in the next few months or years after listening for about three years at this point, every night) but I’m not going to keep paying when I’m done with this round.

It’s kind of funny because you are the “clean-up crew” on almost every single other issue I can think you that you bring up on the show.

But I’d just be the caller that would hound you about “Fox-this, Fox-that” that actually had the capability to go out get a degree in Media Studies.

Basically, I’m not f***ing around. I thought you weren’t either but I was wrong and it doesn’t change your value as a broadcaster but your value as a social activist.

When I create a network out of thin air like Fox did in ‘94, I’ll hire you. I’d bring you in as Senior Staffer even on the first day.

I get it by the way. I know you just don’t want to attack fellow broadcasters and people in the news-room. It’s just crossed that line, my friend. It’s fully inaccurate to make any case for credibility from Fox Broadcasting as a corporate entity, and if don’t I think the facts are working against you that’s fine. But it’s like the tea-baggers, if you just shove your head in the sand we have nothing else to talk about and I have to just talk over your shoulder.

I believe I’ve said it before: If you are a liberal and not so angry you can barely stand it right now, then you are just not really paying attention to politics.

My suggestion is to have a full segment, perhaps reoccurring, dedicated to previous-guest Joe Conason of Salon talking about matters pertaining to Glenn Beck and Barack Obama.

I have the feeling he would not start screaming in talking about the racism being spread by both your former partner on television and this “rodeo clown” Glenn Beck.

I’m talking about shaking hands with the devil and still trying to make a better case than that. Joe Conason has it wrapped up, you need to talk to him.

“Truth to power.”

It was very cool when I first that in a promo for your show was impressed by your ability to tackle radical right-wing extremism with tact and intelligence. But my real enemy are the corporations and those who promote lies, or dishonesty, in the guise of “journalism.”

The truth comes out, with or without you aboard.

You do your thing, great radio entertainment, and I’ll do mine.

I am not here to question your motives, only to state mine: I follow the guidance of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in that I feel I must speak out rather than remain silent about racism and bigotry.

Those evil idiots who tried to spread lies about you and your “Radio Graffiti” are an example of what qualifies as something I will continue to fight against. But just like you told them “learn your Radio History and call me back” it’s pretty much the same thing here except to you.

Learn your Modern-Media History studies a little better and then we’ll talk about me continuing to promote your product online, and buying it at future dates.

November 16th 2009

Why Does Thou Bloggist So?

I’m The Mad Hatter, as I explained in a previous post, and this is free-flowing cognitive-internet instant-publishing a.k.a. “blogging-for-nothing.”

For those of you who are highly against internet / blogger-net advertising let me tell you a little story:

I once wrote more than one very thought-out essays that were duplicated from my own websites and posted elsewhere on the web with no authorship included, and of course ads all over it.

I gave up on this notion of “internet purity” on that day.

Anything and everything you post on the internet you completely lose the rights to, end of story.

As long as I don’t have the rights to it I guess it really doesn’t matter if I fully “monetize” all my three-platform blogging. So far it’s been two out of three and I don’t really want to put ads on WordPress. I like the site just like that, but in all reality: “If you are not making at least some amount of money on this post you are being screwed.” That is, if you put a piece with any amount of work to it that is only backed by your personal credibility.

I had mixed feelings about being “word-jacked” at the time, and I still do.

I have spoken of a sense of “duality” about myself before. This whole issue expresses it well.

Part of me was angry, nobody will ever read something else of mine if they wanted to and only saw the duplicate, and the other part of me was pleased.

I am the “most imitated.”

Imitation is the highest of flattery.

Thank you, random internet spam-bot / scammer, you promoted my analytical essay on society and politics to a website that most likely obtains far greater hits than I do.

Yay!

As to another topic, the topic in question here:

Why does Eric blog, anyway?

Surprisingly, I’m sure, it’s a dual-effort.

One part of me is on here to “just have fun” as my About describes on WordPress.

The other part of is sitting around going: “Hey! I have rarely spoken point of view and the inside-line on certain elements of hearsay and what have you. I gotta get out the word!”

An example?

The Afghanistan War should have been handled like a police action from the beginning and we should have been out within a year or two, and of course not invading Iraq in the first place. What we have now is this term “quagmire” I am sure we are all familiar with by now.

The Politics of War has to stop. The Politics of War-for-Profit might have taken a heavy blow with the absence of Republican John McCain in The White House and the re-naming of Blackwater to “Xe” but the peril remains in continuing to feed to war machine.

Something like that, probably.

Another example?

Maybe my anecdotal tale of Lockheed-Martin military bunkers and firefighters and explosives and wildfires.

I’m not saying: “I rule.”

I’m saying: “Somehow I don‘t totally suck.”

I have been going through here and “enhancing” my blog-posts. Not taking things out, that’s not it. I have deleted one post, because I was so vague it was upsetting to me to actually read it. It was one of the first posts I did. I like to add links, correct typos / bad grammar o’ mine, rambling sentences, and images / video.

I would like to point out to fellow bloggers that we have a problem here: Nobody, and I mean nobody, goes backwards on the blogs. (I mean even I forget to go backwards and I love blogs!) It’s all running through the cyber-forest at top speed. It’s impossible to write nothing but trying-to-be-impressive-learning-stuff when something random you posted is just so damn interesting to people and nobody reads the items more to the nature of my thoughts on overseas conflicts. That’s my point, the credibility has to come first here in my case. Unfortunately so, since I am trying to expose false-credibility and bad business practices.

There are a rare pack led by Ezra Klein that have obtained a high level of credibility mainly by value of their online-work alone, but I present to you that these people may be some of the great minds of our times. The bar is far too high.

I have the utmost respect for Ezra Klein and his work. I have only neglected to “blogroll him” because of sheer laziness. His work in researching the health care bills should not be overlooked.

—

I am the soothsayer of the internet!

I spoke of “astroturfing” prior to Nancy Pelosi and prior to Keith Olberman attaching it in front of every word he says.

I didn’t say “astroturfing” but I couldn’t remember that term or the book in which I had read it before, so whatever.

But hey!

I’m running Congress from my laptop over here! Does anybody know this!?!

Now you do!

I’m totally convinced that (not really) that major figures across the nation in media and politics are reading this blog on a regular basis!

You should too!

I hold the Liberal Movement is in palm, where I go they go.

They back me about Fox.

They back about astroturfing.

Before they go there, I have to go there first.

You know what I mean?

The “trend-setters” be known by their own arrogant volition.

—

It’s writing practice. I have a few novels on the back-burner. When I just completely stop blogging for awhile it’s probably because I am writing a lot.

Those pieces of writing I posted on Open Salon are what I call: “dead ends.”

That’s the “real-life” response when I am asked this question.

I am just practicing my writing and at first everything went online and now if I do something really good I probably shouldn’t post it and just hang on to it.

Some pf the stuff I am working on behind the scenes is that which is designed to be very “internet-draft” but still well composed and substantial.

I saw an ad in Harper’s Magazine that caught my eye and I apply the concept to blogging rather than news magazines:

“100% Content Free”

How much of blogging is just “content over substance” and do we give proper regard to those who have substance?
I merely pose the question without pointing any fingers or giving any examples of low-credibility internet publishing.

I’ve always invited people to “fact check me” as Monique C. did when I made the declarative statement that “tea party people did not vote in 2008.”

I believe I still have neglected to reply due to internet-swamping but she was right to point out that I have no statistics.

I don’t. I also say in the body of the blog where I am basing it off of though: people who are either blogging under their own credibility on the right wing or those who espouse on open forums like talk radio / internet domains.

So it is just an assertion of mine and she was right to point out that I probably should have just said upfront that I have no figures or numbers of any kind to back it up, it’s complete web-punditry.

—

I dunno. I proposed a health care bill over here … I mean, I feel like writing one out just so people can see it’s not magic fairies from pixie-land. It’s called “legislation,” and for some strange reason I can read it.

Strange places this blogging journey is taking me.

Editorializing … everything!