We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, September 30. 2011
We're pleased to announce that we're adding a new guest blogger to the assorted collection of drunken reprobates and societal misfits already inhabiting this place. I've grilled him extensively on the finer art of hog sloppin' and how to read the future from chicken scratchings and I think he'll fit right in.
His name is Bulldog. And, when it comes to 'bulldog grip', I can't imagine a better handle. He and I are still arguing about my Magellan post from last April. The guy just won't let go! His condition is so pronounced that we're actually offering up three Official Maggie's Farm Bonus Points if you can win an argument with him in the comments.
Also, like myself, he comes with a dire warning, given the hard turn to the political right this site has taken over the past few years. When I started talkin' politics again a while back, I quickly noted that I was a confirmed Centrist, which I define as hating both sides equally. Thus, when the next thing you know I'm desecrating your favorite candidate with nasty euphemisms that even a hard-core lefty site would have qualms about using, it's understandable. But Bulldog is even worse.
He's a Libertarian.
Which is, of course, why I invited him aboard. The banner does say 'politically centrist', right? So, with only poor little me to fend off the unmitigated horror of the constant outpouring from the right-wing propaganda machine that infuses this place (our president is a "idiot", Greenpeace is "indoctrinating" people, Planned Parenthood is an "abortion mill", the Boomers and/or Hippies are to blame for all your problems, screw poor people and their food stamps, etc, etc, etc), I thought throwing a for-real Libertarian into the mix would help keep that 'politically centrist' part of the banner from becoming the biggest joke in the blogosphere.
Ever the helpful one, I.
Using the strange, archaic moniker 'Rick', Bird Dog and I have already posted two of his pieces. He should have his own account set up by next week. His next post follows this one, but he quickly notes that it's just a throwaway piece; just something he wanted to toss out there. He's going to save the really cruel, biting, acerbic pieces about those gun totin', dawg-lovin', Bible-thumpin', war mongerin' Conservatives until he can get his own byline and take full credit. Libertarians are like that.
Welcome aboard, Bulldog!
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
We took a hard turn to the center, Merc. The center is a moving target.
It all depends on your perspective, Doc. What some call the center used to be the stark raving lunatic leftist fringe in the '50s. The center in the '50s was the leftist loon pond of the '20s.
A pattern seems to be developing...
With all due respect, I'll stand by the above quotes, and the recent glee you and Barrie took in posting the anti-food stamp videos. Remember, this wasn't 'just another post' for Barrie -- he actually bragged how he'd learned a whole new computer skill in order to post his own anti-food stamp video. The point is, screaming "FUCK POOR PEOPLE!" is hardly a 'center' stance.
And don't forget the Dr. Spock post. That dovetailed nicely with the insane anti-Boomer screed that was posted on Pajamas at the same time. Again, I don't think blaming an entire generation for all one's ills is coming from any kind of 'center' stance, especially since those aforementioned evil Boomers are probably making up most of it.
But you're certainly right about the center being a 'moving target'. It's gone now, but just this morning on one of the Washington newspaper sites there was some "So-and-so moves toward the center" headline. It's such a meaningless statement at this point that I don't even remember who it was about. "Moving target' was the perfect description.
Muds - Without spending 19 pages elaborating on it, there's a difference between "the center" and a "Centrist", just like there's a difference between a "Libertarian" and a "libertarian". Glenn Reynolds and Neal Boortz are both libertarians, Ron Paul and Bulldog are Libertarians. You and Bird Dog view "the center" as "more to the Left", whereas I, from the actual center, view the same move as nothing more than "a bit less conservative".
18 and a half pages to go. :)
As far as your comment on 'developing patterns', wait'll you see my post on O'Sullivan's Law (link to AVI's site yesterday). I started off the post just to elaborate on his law, then ended up actually redefining it. I'll probably post it next Monday. Like many of my posts, it won't be pretty.
It's my POV that a true "Libertarian" is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
I didn't view the EBT videos as "fuck the poor" at all. I do agree that it can be viewed as insensitive to their needs. But the problem is one of understanding what those needs really are, not one of denying them what they think their needs are.
In attaining a social/political structure that I'd view as reaching Pareto Optimality, we couldn't eliminate everything the government does immediately and start from scratch. I wish we could. But it's absurd. Ron Paul talks like this, but if you've really seen his interviews, you'd see he's much more practical and recognizes there is middle ground that has to be covered.
Libertarians are more supportive of the view "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him to fish and you feed him for life". Let's face it, teaching someone to fish is cheaper and has longer benefits. But we're also believers in "if the man doesn't catch a fish, that is an issue he alone can and should deal with. If others wish to help him, that is their choice. If others prevent him from catching his fish, or take the fish he has caught, then there are laws that should be utilized to fix this problem."
I'm fond of pointing out that Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor. He stole from the government and its allies, which had already stolen from the disenfranchised and downtrodden.
assorted collection of drunken reprobates and societal misfits
HEY!!! I am neither a drunken reprobate nor am I a societal misfit. Don't be projectin' your latest LSD induced therapeutic self-analysis on the rest of us. :>)
Oh, brazen words, old friend! While we read what you AREN'T, what we note is that you aren't saying what you ARE -- which can only lead us to believe that you're worse than a drunken reprobate or societal misfit and are simply too ashamed to admit it.
We wouldn't admit it, either. :(
"Plain awesome" is an oxymoron.
Good try, though. :)
[pleyn] Example Sentences Origin Like this word?
1 [pleyn] Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, adverb, noun
1. clear or distinct to the eye or ear: a plain trail to the river; to stand in plain view.
2. clear to the mind; evident, manifest, or obvious: to make one's meaning plain.
3. conveying the meaning clearly and simply; easily understood: plain talk.
4. downright; sheer; utter; self-evident: plain folly; plain stupidity.
5. free from ambiguity or evasion; candid; outspoken: the plain truth of the matter
As in plain (clear or distinct to the eye or ear, clear to the mind; evident, manifest, or obvious, conveying the meaning clearly and simply, downright; sheer; utter; self-evident, free from ambiguity or evasion) awesome - which I am.
So - oxy this you moron. :>)
Plain - trite, boring, eminently forgetable
Awesome - just the opposite of trite, boring and eminently forgetable
By the way, are there prizes for the winner? I mean, not that debating things with you is trite, boring and/or eminently forgetable, but that new 'Bulldog' guy is offering actual M.F. Bonus Points, and that's nothing to sneeze at. Hey -- maybe you and I can gang up on him and split the points!
"actual center" I like that! :-) As I said, it's all in your perspective.
I remember in the '50s and early '60s, when the government wanted to spend money in certain ways, it was argued (rightly or not) that it WAS NOT a subsidy so fervently that my young ears figured that it was a dirty word. Now, they are all over the place for everything and everybody's fine with that. I don't think people fifty years ago would even consider some stuff we take for granted. Remember the uproar over New York City's request to Pres. Ford for a bail out or loan guaranties for Chrysler? Those were extremely controversial then. They happen every day and the biggest reaction we get is a yawn... That's just the money side of our life but there are other governmental and social changes that have evolved that are antithetical to conservatives back then (and some now).
Your point about Upper and lower case descriptions are well taken.
I look forward to your post on Sullivan's Law!
"actual center" I like that! :-)
Well, as near as I can get. :)
If you'd like to see some 'Centrist' works, check out some of the articles on this page. You'll note that it isn't viewing them as a Lefty would, with animosity and hatred, but as an outsider would.
And then, when you've read those, read this.
A handful of articles condemning her to hell and back, and then a love poem.
Thus is the balanced maintained.
Uh, Tom...you could have just used the term 'fricking' instead of 'plain' and this argument never would have happened. Not that I have an issue with your usage. Plain awesome, FTW. Sorry Doc...truth, justice and the American way and all that.
bastiat is alive and well on maggie's farm!
there is nothing like swimming upstream to make you feel alive.
eet make da leetle grey cell work very har. ça, c'est bon.
Hmm, tough guy, eh?
You look at a woman and think, "My, what a plain face."
You look at another woman and think, "Wow, her looks are just awesome!"
So, your contention is that these are the same woman?
Janet Reno and Jessica Alba look the same? Quick! Get this man some LSD!
However, "that woman is just plain awesome!" sounds pretty hot.
That gets 'comment of the week' in my book. :)
The sentence "I'm just plain awesome," is substandard usage, though it has gained some purchase in today's vernacular. Plain, used as an adverb to modify "I am" would be acceptable. E.g.: I'm plainly awesome.
Worse, look at the word "just". I'm "just" awesome? That's not oxymoronic? I'm "just" the most magnificent person in the world? Aw, shucks, everybody, I'm just the most incredible human being who's ever been born?
Maybe "oxymoronic" isn't the word.
I agree in it's oxymoron when read literally. I also think, as a colloquialism, "Aw, shucks, everybody, I'm just the most incredible human being who's ever been born" is the intended meaning. It's a braggadocio delivered in a conversational style.
To go far afield with an analogy, AK-47's are reliable because they're manufactured with low tolerances. They're know for that reliability more than for accuracy. Language in its colloquial form is much the same, in that you can get your meaning across without overly concerning yourself with precision. Also, as evidenced in Tom's expression, it's more convenient in bringing layers of meaning to the dialogue without painstaking elaboration.
But I know this is about more than grammar and usage. You're just plain giving Tom crap.
I'd make one small correction to your synopsis. I'm giving Tom awesome crap. :)
Anyone want a free AK-47? Just sign up!
why thank you, Dr. Merc, since according to some the rest of my comments have just been plain awful.