THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTH:

All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.



Monday, June 27, 2011

JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT

.
Well, it certainly seems as if my blog bit “ILLEGAL ALIEN INFESTATION” was a total bust.

I can’t say I’m surprised, as I’ve noticed the pattern over the years: when a blogger makes demands on his readers, you know, writes about deep, serious matters of great importance – matters that can’t really be adequately covered in a paragraph or two - and/or when a blogger posts a multipart video that will require an investment of more than a minute and a half, and which will require the viewer to actually think about and attempt to mentally absorb complex information, that blogger is in deep dog
doo-doo right from the get-go. [“Ouch! It’s making me think. It hurts! It hurts! Make it stop!”]

And when he further compounds the problem by including an obstacle like spirituality and introduces to the topic a respect for The Holy Bible and proclaims that Holy Book’s relevance to his subject matter, that blogger has essentially committed 'Blog Bit Hari-Kari'.

When will I ever learn, and just transform ‘Ferret-Faced Fascist Friends’ into a forum dedicated to cute cat stories, tasty recipes, and/or the dissemination of vital tips about how to create more believable characters and build better plots for the writers of Young Adult fantasy fiction, romance novels, and Sci-Fi adventure stories? When will I change the name of this blog to 'Bread 'N' Circuses'?

At that point - and only at that point - will this blog acquire a genuine readership.

You know what I think I’m gonna do then, just for the hell of it?

I’m gonna take THIS video, and I’m gonna post it right HERE. And you wanna know something? There’s not a damn thing you’re gonna be able to do about it.

Really.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v325wdgoFH4

~ Stephen T. McCarthy

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.

14 comments:

  1. Now stop feeling sorry for yourself. I give you more time than I give most bloggers, but sometimes a multipart long video that's like 40 plus minutes is something I have a hard time getting in. And there are so many other great things I'd like to watch, listen to, and read. And then there's other crap in life--like damn family obligations and stuff like that.

    And I agree about the dumb cat stuff. What is it with these cats! I can't stand cats and am not overly fond of pets anyway. To me these people who I see walking their dogs have that "Look At Me Syndrome"--dogs are like tattoos that you have to feed and clean up after. But I digress.

    I've yet to make a recipe that I've run across on a blog, though I must say some of them look pretty good. I've asked some of those bloggers to come over and cook them for me but no takers yet.

    And the other blogs I can't knock cause that's what they're into and I not going to condemn any of them any more than I'll say something bad about somebody who's writing a sports blog. I guarantee you though that I won't be reading any sports blog.

    So, there I've gone and spent a lot of time yakkin' my position, but you probably already knew since I've said it before.

    I've tried my best to steer other bloggers your way, so what else can I say. When I've had long and in depth topics (though probably not as long and deep as some of yours), I get readers and commenters by visiting a ton of other blogs to comment on their's first and usually will get a few to visit mine in doing so. Are you doing that? If you are and are not getting reciprocated visits then the bloggers either aren't interested or don't want to commit.

    I still think you should try experimenting with small doses of heavy medicine and cultivate your audience in order to entice them to read the big stuff. Small dose with a few leading questions to get the readers involved in the conversation. It's worth a shot just for experimentation sake, don't you think?

    That's it for now. And don't tell anyone what I said about cats and dogs. I'll get all kinds of comments and they won't be very nice ones.

    Still reading your blog along with those of many others.
    Lee
    Tossing It Out

    ReplyDelete
  2. The first time I drove through Prescott, I passed the courthouse and thought "I've seen this somewhere before."

    A few years later, I read that Billy Jack was filmed there and had the epiphany.

    Lee-better watch your back. I've got a bad-ass cat with a mean streak who doesn't like being called dumb. Now he's gonna come looking for YOU!

    LC

    ReplyDelete
  3. r-LEE BOID ~
    I WASN'T feeling sorry for myself. I was feeling sorry for those people who will leave this world at the age of 75 never having learned much more about it than they knew when they were 19 or 20 years old.

    By the way... I LOVE dogs. So you can take your anti-dog propaganda and stick it...

    ...in a dead cat!

    >> . . . I've tried my best to steer other bloggers your way

    I know you have, and I have sincerely appreciated your efforts on my behalf. ...SINCERELY! It's not your fault they failed.

    You've done all you could, my friend, and I don't expect nuttin' else from ya. It's all good wid us.

    >> . . . It's worth a shot just for experimentation sake, don't you think?

    I don't need to experiment with sake. I've been drinking that stuffs for decades. I know all there is to know about sake, and I likes it real well.

    I'm not sure what prompted your comment. Just for the hell of it, I posted a 48 second video for everyone to enjoy. What's more to say, Bro?

    ~ McStephen

    ReplyDelete
  4. LC -- Sorry I didn't mean to offend your kitty. But please don't post any cat pics on your blog or cute cat stories.

    STMc -- I loved the Billy Jack movie when it first came out. I watched it with my wife last year on our regularly scheduled Friday movie night. It's still kind of fun, but very 70ish--well that would make sense I guess.
    Dogs are okay if they're outside, but I don't like them in the house. And Marmaduke really annoys me.

    Lee
    Tossing It Out

    ReplyDelete
  5. >> . . . And Marmaduke really annoys me.

    Well, no argument from me there! Marmaduke is just a big pussy ...er, pussy cat.

    Gosh, Brother, the big blog bit I have in the woiks - which I have referred to previously on "Stuffs" and which I was working on at the same time you were composing and posting your last comment here - is all about (as ya already know) Los Angeles.

    And one category is going to be titled "I Wish They All Could Be California Dogs", and it will feature 3 photos of dogs I have loved (two that I belonged to, and one I just met one day on Venice Beach and fell in love with).

    You GOTTA love dogs! 'Cause dogs love ME!

    In my whole life there hasn't been more than a few dogs I couldn't win over... and I'm including three junkyard dogs from a Santa Monica auto body shop!

    Once, I gave the junkyard dog a steak and left a note on the window of the auto body shop telling them that they had better start feeding the dog properly (they were keeping him underfed to make him more edgy and angry) or I would report them to the authorities.

    Next thing I knew, they had acquired a new guard dog, bigger and meaner than the last. He was my buddy within about 3 weeks!

    Dogs LOVE me, and the feeling is mutual!

    ~ D-FensDOGG
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  6. Stephen-

    It seems that Arlee Bird is not taking the wrath of Chickenfoot very seriously.

    Chickenfoot is one ornery motorscooter....and Arlee has the word "Bird" in his name...

    This ain't gonna end well...

    ReplyDelete
  7. TODDFAN DISCMAN ~
    You are SO right!

    I know Chickenfoot; I've encountered Chickenfoot. Even on my best day, I would NOT want to tangle with Chickenfoot!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  8. Now you guys are getting Dog-gone silly! Okay I may have Bird in my name, but Chickenfoot has the word "Chicken" in his.

    What's a "Chickenfoot" anyway?


    Lee
    Tossing It Out

    ReplyDelete
  9. For someone who is slamming the delightful and entertaining universe of animal blogging, there is one hell of a lot of cat and dog talk in the comment section. Heck, a cat blogger could get several articles out of just this material.

    And, who are you to denigrate the tastes of the masses? If they like cats and prefer to read about them, you should not put them down and insult them as you did. This is supported by our Constitution, as you must have forgotten.

    The phrase “separation of cat and dogs” is but a metaphor to describe the principle derived from the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a cat or dog), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to cat(s) or dogs, (3) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of cat(s) or dogs, and (4), indeed, saying nothing substantive about cats(s) or dogs at all except in a provision precluding any feline or canine test for public office and the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys animal liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish specific cat or dog favoritism.

    Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Cathouse–as if that is the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Perhaps even more than Jefferson, James Madison influenced the Court’s view. Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between cats and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored cats or imposing a state dogma. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and cat-ness (e.g., “the appointment of veterinarians to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “catty proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of feline freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national pet boarding facility.”

    I got through all of Pet Sounds writing all this up!

    ReplyDelete
  10. BOIDMAN ~
    >> . . . What's a "Chickenfoot" anyway?

    I ain't sure zactly, but I think maybe it's when I kick my girlfriend's arse and little bits and pieces of her get stuck between my toes.

    Q: What's a metaphor?

    A: Cows to graze in.


    MR. SHEBOYGANBOY SIX ~
    Ha!-Ha! Deja vu, dude!
    Man there was something awfully familiar sounding about all that hogwash 'n' balderdash you posted there. Somethin' awfully, awfully familiar... Hmmm...

    Why is it that when it's YOU posting it, and the subject matter has been transformed into 'Separation of Cats And Dogs' it doesn't hardly piss me off at all it barely hardly don't?

    Heck, I barely don't hardly feel compelled at all to unload both barrels and roll around in the gutter a-scratchin' and a-clawin' in the mud and the blood and the beer. Uh... just to watch him die?

    Hmmm... I may be mixin' my Man In Black "Cows to graze in".

    [Didja get all that? If not, use your Little Orphan Annie decoder ring.]

    ~ McStephen

    ReplyDelete
  11. Was Sue in Folsum Prison also?

    In reading my comment, how long did it take you before you decided whether you were puzzled, pissed, or pleased? Or perhaps apathetic? DId you recognize the pompous piety promptly?

    ReplyDelete
  12. >> . . . Was Sue in Folsum Prison also?

    You got it! Sue was the warden! And always bustin' a bra strap about one thing or another.

    puzzled = Not fer a second.
    pissed = Never.
    pleased = Pronto.

    Or perhaps apathetic? = Nope. Very, very glad to see ya make an appearance.

    >> . . . DId you recognize the pompous piety promptly?

    Ladies and gents, we has a new King O'Alliteration!

    How promptly? I recog-o-nized the pompous piety even faster than it took me to realize that bloke weren't no lawyer and didn't know diddley 'bout what he was professin' to know.

    More specifically? I was on to where that originated from before I got to "(3)" in the third paragraph (i.e., purdy dern quick for an old bastard like me with a failing memory).

    And I was thinkin' to myself: Oh, Mr. Six, you sneaky, sneaky White boy!

    That was most clever and I enjoyed it immensely!

    So, you musta read all of my exchanges with that non-lawyer, non-atheist, non-Constitution-knowing-about dude, eh?

    Was I too strident? Too over-the-top? Too... "too"?

    Nappy gave me a two thumbs up approval rating for my responses, but then Nappy always loves a fight, and particularly loves to see a Lib gettin' a beatin'.

    I'm not sure that I myself approve of my handling of that situation, but he DID begin to piss me off, and at least I never resorted to out and out name-calling.

    And... I will sheepishly admit that I did kind of tickle myself when I came up with that one line that went something like: I wasn't so much teaching you as slapping you.

    I gotta give God some credit for that one though, because I think I see a trace of Divine inspiration in that line.

    I'm terrible. You don't need to say it - I knows it.

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete
  13. HA! I started off feisty with my own comments, and so I knew they would lead you into that pedantic bastard's b.s.

    Of course I knew you'd get it quick... but I thought I might be making you mad for at least a few seconds.

    One detail I wished I'd switched, though, was his "Everson v. Board of Education"... I shoulda made it "Everson v. Animal Control".

    As for how you responded to "moose-face". it has been since the immediate time that exchange went down that I've read the whole thing - for the snippet here I only grabbed the beginning. But I thought your response to that chowderhead was excellent, through and through! I thought you toasted him.

    And I liked Anieeeeeeee's (how many e's now???) comments as well.

    But you answered specifics, pulled his pants down with logic, and exposed his atheistic bias that he claims isn't there. I mean, COME ON!

    I am with Nappy: TWO THUMBS UP on bitch-slapping the "lawyer" with the shovel.

    ReplyDelete
  14. MR. SHEBOYGANBOY SIX ~
    >>...but I thought I might be making you mad for at least a few seconds.

    Nah, I was enjoying it right from the get-go.

    >>...One detail I wished I'd switched, though, was his "Everson v. Board of Education"... I shoulda made it "Everson v. Animal Control".

    Well, none of us is without his regrets. I wish I had continued the quote up to the period: I wasn't so much teaching you as slapping you, but let us not quibble over vocabulary.

    I am VERY pleased to learn that my responses met with your approval!

    I tried to fake a facade of civility toward him in the beginning because it is not my intention to discourage debate and opposing views being posted in the comment sections of my blog bits.

    However, when he kept returning but not adding anything new - merely rewording the same crapola he had already said - crapola that I felt had already been dismantled and proven false by the very text of the blog bits themselves, I finally lost my patience with him.

    I'm assuming you also read the Declaration/Constitution analysis by Edwin Vieira that I posted last in that series. Man, wasn't that DYNAMITE STUFFS?!

    Hell, all of my commentary wasn't really even necessary because Vieira nails it in a perfectly logical, unassailable way. Every point that "Lawyer"boy tried to raise, had already been torched by Vieira's brilliant examination of the Godly bond that ties the Constitution to the Declaration.

    I first encountered that article by Vieira in a 2008 edition of The New American magazine, and he immediately became my hero.

    And by the way... thanks for backin' me up there, Bro!

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

    ReplyDelete

--> NOTE: COMMENT MODERATION IS ACTIVATED. <--
All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.