fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
It's Nothin Personal
Published on June 11, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

as fiercely as it disputes the left being the political faction which represents all mankind, in the depths of its frozen solid stone heart, the right knows this to be the truth.

the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.

as those on the right stagger from one episode of debilitating overwhelming outrage to the next--an infliction that seems to strike on average seven times in any 24 hour period--a little-undestood autonomic self-preservation mechanism kicks into overdrive causing them to rapidly transfer as much of the overload out into the atmosphere where it's instinctively focused onto any convenient target that comes to mind.  it's an amazingly simple process yet should it somehow malfunction, it means an obliterative death by spontaneous concurrent explosion and implosion (somewhat akin to the sad end visited upon the wicked witch in 'wizard of oz' only a lot messier). 

as the median age of the us population increases, more targets are required...thus explaining the ever increasing number of screeds, rants and vituperative harangues directed at 'wacko leaders' (sic) of the left.

sadly 99.99999% of these misperceived targets aren't leaders of any type, even in the broadest sense of that term.  of the remainder, only about 1% are even mildly wacko.  those who've studied this phenomenon find it wryly amusing that an estimated 30% of  those who most frequently characterize the objects of their rage as being 'wacko' are, themselves, certifiably so (a figure that jumps to nearly 3 times that rate for their own official leaders).

one obvious consequence of all this wildly discharged antagonism can best be summed up in the venerable aphorism which claims that 'everyone is a wacko left-wing leader but me and thee...and i have my doubts about thee'.   should this trend continue, the most conservative (heheh) projection is that everyone in the world will have been condemned as one of the 'left's wacko leaders' by sometime in june 2006.

this leaves the left with very few individuals to whom they can vent their frustration without being castigated as 'mean-spirited' or accused of 'ad hominum' attacks.   fortunately the 2004 elections ensured at least a dozen individuals whom, by virtue of having been voted into office, are legitimate wacko leaders.  chief among them is george w. bush.  others include dick cheney, donald rumsfeld, paul wolfowitz, richard perle, john bolton, tom delay and bill frist.  additionally there are those who pull their strings such as the rev jerry falwell, pat robertson, bill kristol, the guy who funded the swiftboat liars for truth and some lighweights such as rush limbaugh and the fox news pundits. 

in conclusion, should you discover yourself conferring unwarranted 'wacko leader' status upon some celebrity, please take a few moments to 'get real' as the kids say on the street...and remember, sooner or later some other wacko is likely to condemn you for being one too.

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Jun 12, 2005
I wish the left would stop bashing Bush already. It's time for them to accept the FACT that he was elected democratically by the American people.
Instead of the bashing... let's see some lobbying for what they think might be better. If not, prepare for another Reublican victory in 2008!
on Jun 12, 2005
I wish the left would stop bashing Bush already. It's time for them to accept the FACT that he was elected democratically by the American people.
Instead of the bashing... let's see some lobbying for what they think might be better. If not, prepare for another Reublican victory in 2008


maybe i over complicated things. my point (and it was intended to be a humorous one) was this: when movie stars, athletes, musicians, bloggers, etc. say or do things, it's silly to bash them as 'leaders' of anything...or to use that as the basis of a claim a party or faction believes or doesn't believe in something. no matter how inane it may be to bash real political officials, at least they are actually representing their parties.
on Jun 12, 2005
I read the article that I suspect inspired this rant, wherein Sean Penn was described as a "whacko leader of the left" and I understand your point


you suspect correctly

Sometimes, (oh my gosh!) these specious celebritized whacko leaders of the left (or the right, they arent immune, not by a long shot) take steps to legitimize their influence by (oh my gosh again!) running for office and getting themselves elected! Need I mention Jesse Ventura, Arnie Schwartzenegger, Sonny Bono, and the 8th wonder of the world himself, Ronnie Reagan?


as soon as they toss their hats or wigs or whatever into the ring, they become fair game. otherwise i think you may be overestimating their influence. on the other hand, i remember seeing voters on the news here admitting they'd voted for arnold and thinking...jeez it aint bad enough you feel a need to tell the world you're an idiot, you gotta waste your 15 seconds of fame in the process???

I suspect you are just having a bit of fun here, and more power to ya!


exactly...and thanx!
on Jun 12, 2005
king, I have become convinced that you are the mastermind of a well thought out plan to drive all conservatives to the point of insanity so that we are not available to vote in the 2008 election; we will all either be dribbling idiots in an institution or will have committed suicide to escape your insanity inducing diatribes.

I know I should just not click on a blog authored by kingbee, but it is an indescribably impossible temptation to resist.

King, I will never agree with you on the color of the sky, but damn you intrigue me.
on Jun 12, 2005
I wish the left would stop bashing Bush already. It's time for them to accept the FACT that he was elected democratically by the American people.
Instead of the bashing... let's see some lobbying for what they think might be better. If not, prepare for another Reublican victory in 2008!


Therein lies the problem sir. They have no ideas apart from criticizing Bush. Well, kingbee does think we should let all the terrorists go and keep tabs on them as well as we do with the mafia. Hey, agree or disagree he's the first liberal I've seen to come up with an alternative. The viablilty of his alternative is questionable, but he offered something other than sheer contradiction.

I think kingbee should just stick to the project "drive em all crazy by 2008".
on Jun 12, 2005
Tell ya what.

I'll set up a podium in my front yard, and I'll personally call every news service that I can get in touch with. Then we'll have a head count and compare my response with what Tim Robbins or Sean Penn gets when they want to "effect change".

Like it or not, these people can get attention, and their drones listen to them. That's why activist organizations get them to speak for them. That's why they end up on the stage at the Democratic convention, or sitting in the Presidential box by Carter.

Like it or not, Hollywood is a 527 of substantial influence. Nitpick over the word leader if you want, but they have to be addressed in some fashion, and people do follow where they lead.
on Jun 12, 2005
We just need Bush to see what he is doing is NOT solving our problems. The things that were in need of fixing when he took office have gotten worse (trade for example) and things that were not a problem (like the budget deficit) have become a BIG issue. It is not bashing Bush but to get him to adopt policies that make things better.
on Jun 12, 2005

my point was simply it makes slightly more sense to jump on real elected officials or party operatives than film stars, novelists, your neighbors, some guy you work with or another blogger whose names have not nor are likely to ever appear on a ballot in this lifetime.

And in that, you have just followed the cookie cutter response.  And left leadership out of the equation.

on Jun 12, 2005

sic semper tyrannis spellorum!

Quit Stealing Va's motto (a solid red state BTW).

on Jun 12, 2005
eye juss luv itt wen yer irreverent, after all you be da king.
on Jun 13, 2005
Call me silly, but I read all that and translated it as: "Yeah, we're angry but we don't know why and can't really justify our anger in any rational way, and that's why it's okay to direct our anger at the president. He may not really be responsible for the the things we're angry about, and even if he was we're having real difficulty proving that he's repsonsible, but dammit, he's the President, and that's reason enough to focus our anger on him!"

Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out what your real problems are, identify the root causes of those problems, and then deal directly with those root causes? This whole theory of "we don't even bother blaming the politicians first anymore, we just get angry at them because they're such handy targets" doesn't really do much for me.
on Jun 13, 2005

Call me silly, but I read all that and translated it as: "Yeah, we're angry but we don't know why and can't really justify our anger in any rational way, and that's why it's okay to direct our anger at the president. He may not really be responsible for the the things we're angry about, and even if he was we're having real difficulty proving that he's repsonsible, but dammit, he's the President, and that's reason enough to focus our anger on him!"

Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out what your real problems are, identify the root causes of those problems, and then deal directly with those root causes? This whole theory of "we don't even bother blaming the politicians first anymore, we just get angry at them because they're such handy targets" doesn't really do much for me.

Yes it would make more sense.  No they will not follow it.

on Jun 13, 2005
when did the left represent all mankind? I never got that memo!


sorta a play on words that relies on 'represent' having more than a single meaning.

in the following example, you = every member of the set of all humans currently alive.

if whenever someone other than you does or says something with which you disagree and which can possibly be construed as being rooted in liberal or leftist thought,it's inevitable the left will ultimately represent everyone.

it's merely an extension of one parent asking another: 'do you know YOUR son or daughter is engaged in __________' (fill blank with whatever infraction you wish)
on Jun 13, 2005
eye juss luv itt wen yer irreverent, after all you be da king


better irreverent than irrelevant. (what's grey, has four legs, big ears anda trunk? ats irright )
on Jun 13, 2005
Call me silly, but I read all that and translated it as: "Yeah, we're angry but we don't know why and can't really justify our anger in any rational way, and that's why it's okay to direct our anger at the president. He may not really be responsible for the the things we're angry about, and even if he was we're having real difficulty proving that he's repsonsible, but dammit, he's the President, and that's reason enough to focus our anger on him!"


silly stutefish. you shoulda uploaded some of the comments previous to yours into the translator. or perhaps i shoulda just come out and said: there are plenty of official wacko leaders of both sides that it hardly makes sense to appoint more. unless one is authorized or licensed to do so.
3 Pages1 2 3