« Silence | Main | No nukes! »

May 11, 2005

I'll be back soon

...honest. Things are still pretty hectic, but I've got a few posts I want to make and I'll try to get to them by the end of the week. I'm impressed with many of the suggestions that were made in the "I seek a challenge" post and I hope to do at least one or two.

May 11, 2005 in Weblogs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference I'll be back soon:


tax evading chickenhawk

Posted by: Bubba | May 11, 2005 8:02:10 PM

Well, here we are. It's been almost 4 long years since 9-11 and closing in on 5 years since Dubya took office. The way I see it, we are not any safer than we were before 9-11, the federal surplus has been squandered, we are back in deeper debt than we ever have been, and we have less freedom from search and seizure and intrusion into our lives by the government. Almost everything the government does is shrouded in secrecy due to National security concerns. If this is "compassionate conservatism" then I have had just about as much of it as I can stand. How anyone can sincerely say that Dubya and the republicans are good for the country is beyond me. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was raised to believe that things are supposed to get better, not worse. It just seems to me that things are not getting any better under this current administration. Things seem to be not just getting worse, they seem to be getting MUCH worse. I can almost see things getting worse every day. The price of gas is reason enough to not reelect any of the current administration/lawmakers.

Posted by: gobba | Jun 7, 2005 7:22:13 PM

Haha, "The price of gas is reason enough to not reelect any of the current administration/lawmakers." I thought the Iraq war was a war for oil? So if gas was 30 cents a gallon you'd be content with the current administration?

I can't wait till VoR comes back to tear this whiney sensationalist crap apart far better than I can.

Posted by: warn3rboy | Jun 7, 2005 10:57:29 PM

Nice flame, If you can call posting a quote and asking a question being able to "tear this whiney ""apart", then you are right on the mark. I heard the U.S. Army needs some sharp men. Perhaps you will consider asking if you are able to be one.When I was in the service, you could not reach a pay rate of over E - 4, now they are offering a pay rate of E-6 in a first four year enlistment. Enlistment rates are down. What about the minutes of the meeting of Blair in Britain? Are these "fake documents" like Dan Rather produced? Or should the be "retracted" like the times article. People are getting sick of the Right Wing Republicans and the GIANT steps at the romoval of the freedoms of all americans, people just like you and me. Their attempts to control the information americans read and hear, false promises, Naming key initiatives one thing while they accomplish the exact opposite of what their name implies. Making the Patriot Act PERMANENT REPEAT PERMENANT. He/They say they want to "renew" the patriot act. Pay attention to the bills that are being introduced by the Republicans. They intend to do much more than "renew" the PATRIOT ACT, They intend to quadruple the POWERS of the PATRIOT ACT, FOREVER. Thats right, I said"FOEVEVER". Now I've quoted myself. I wonder if I can say I flamed myself if I ask myself a question? I just did. Nice Flame. I sincerely hope everyone is happy.

Posted by: Heat Shield | Jun 11, 2005 9:51:22 PM

If you couldn't make a rank over E-4 in your first term of service you were either in a low density MOS or not applying yourself hard enough. I've been in for ten years and I've had no problem getting promoted.

Posted by: TehBadPlace | Jun 12, 2005 12:43:05 PM

Okay, VoR, you've neglected us long enough. Please come back soon and update your blog.

Posted by: Mannequin | Jun 28, 2005 9:04:36 PM

You know, I'd never heard of this out-of-the-way blog before today, yet here I am.

The only reason I found my way here was that I'm an occasional visitor to William Rivers Pitt's "truthout" website and I saw something there earlier today that really floored me, which eventually led me to you.

The post I saw there was Pitt's personal homage to a man named Andy Stephenson (whom I'd never heard of prior to today). I couldn't believe that there are many people out there who would attempt to suggest that a terminal cancer patient's illness was faked. Unless, I wondered....if perhaps it really WAS faked. Truth be told, I also couldn't believe there were that many people out there who would fake a terminal illness - especially amongst a community of fellow activists - just to garner sympathy and fleece others out of money.

So I checked.

And yep, here's the obituary:


That's the point at which - having never heard of this whole story before today - I stop checking. Is it possible that this news weekly was duped by a con man into printing that a man who was in fact quite healthy was actually dead of pancreatic cancer? Sure it is, I suppose. But I kind of doubt it.

What does all this have to do with you, you might wonder? Well, as you may know by now, Pitt's homage to Stephenson links to a post from you on the FreeRepublic site: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1439010/posts

I must say, I was initially heartened to read your admonitions to not jump the gun, and the dismay you say you felt when the stories that this all might be a scam began surfacing. "it kind of makes those who jumped the gun look a little foolish, not to mention petty and heartless. May a lesson be learned."

That quote in particular made me think that you might be one of the few on "the other side" that still thought of your opposition as simply fellow human beings with whom you have a disagreement on certain issues, rather than as "traitors" (as Ann Coulter has alleged) or victims of "a mental disorder," as Michael Savage's new book purports. But then I read numerous responses to you, and I also clicked through the links from the obit to see some of the earlier posts that had Stehpenson's disease figured as a scam. And it was not the fact of that conclusion which chilled me - everyone makes mistakes, and under the right circumstances, people can make some awfully big mistakes with little provocation.

No, what really got me was the tone of the posts, the slavering contempt for not only Stephenson but anyone who agreed with him, and for anyone whom the poster imagined DISagreed with him. That and the (successful) attempt to delay PayPal's disbursement of the legally collected money raised for Stephenson's operation. What kind of person, I wondered, does THAT? Even if they have made an honest mistake and thought there might be something fishy going on? "Petty and heartless," indeed, I thought.

And then I came upon the following reply by you:

"The point is that we're the good guys. We're supposed to be better than they are. If a group of FReepers gets blinded by politics and attacks a sick, dying man, it's no defense to say, "well, the DUmmies are worse." Of course they're worse. We're better. Or should be."

No, you're not. But hearing you say so sure makes me believe that you don't really believe the platitudes you espoused at the top of the thread, except insofar as you think that being proven wrong publicly on something as unsavory as this would reflect badly on "the good guys." You're not better - you just have different ideas. Better ideas, by your lights. But even if you were right, that wouldn't make you better people. Who is "the bad guys" and whom "the good guys" (if we're to pare it down to such a cartoonish oversimplification, at any rate) is determined much more by our actions and our words - how we treat each other - than by our political ideas. And on that standard, both the people who perpetrated this cruel idiocy and those who knew about it but either silently supported it or simply allowed it to happen (and only you can say which of those you are), don't stack up very well.

"The good guys"...that phrase stuck in my mind for a while, until I realized why it did: did you ever see the movie "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas? If so, you'll remember the climactic scene, on the Santa Monica pier with Douglas as "D-FENS" offering up a shocked realization: "you mean *I'M* the bad guy?"

That image has begun to remind me, more and more, of the modern Republican party, especially it's farther right wings, like the denizens of FreeRepublic and similar websites. Only I don't know how many of you will actually have that moment of clarity about your words and actions.

Posted by: Phenobarbarella | Jul 11, 2005 1:57:32 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.