You've Got To Be Carefully Taught
by Rodgers and Hammerstein, from South Pacific
You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!
New children's book teaches kids to hate gay families
Right-wing Christians in the US are pushing a new book attacking gay families, called God Made Dad and Mom.
The picture book by Amber Dee Parker and Hannah Sequra tells the story of an adventurous young boy, Michael. He prays for his classmate Jimmy and his two dads to learn ‘the truth’ about how God made them after a trip to the zoo where he’s told all animal families ‘consist of a male, a female, and their offspring’. There is no acknowledgement that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom.
And it’s endorsed on the back cover by the American Family Association (AFA).
Their President Tim Wildmon has in the past stated LGBT groups are ‘vile in many ways’ and gays are ‘immoral’ and ‘unnatural’. When it comes to gay families he has commented on same-sex marriage ‘it makes me want to throw up, the idea of two grooms – well that’s the way a lot of people feel’.
62 comments:
Amazon tells a bit more about this screed.
It seems that Michael finds out he's also adopted. I couldn't find out much more. We don't know if Michael prayed to thank God he was adopted by the good couple and not the bad couple.
Some of the Amazon reviews are humorous like "Best thing since "Bobby's Single Mother is a Whore"!"
I notice it ships in 1 to 4 weeks which is probably an indication that outside of the Friends of the Family bulk buy it's not much of a seller.
Ducky, this review was pretty funny:
God Made Dad and Mom---- Got science?, May 24, 2013
By Candace Ann Caldwell (Hialeah, FL United States) - See all my reviews
This review is from: God Made Dad and Mom (Paperback)
"I must inform you that God did not make Dad and Mom. God supposedly made Adam, who was male. God then took a rib from Adam and made Eve. However, the DNA in Adam's rib would have made another male-- so it really was Adam and Steve. Glory!"
The only thing we should allow ourselves to hate is hatred, itself.
The trouble is we often forget hatred works in all different directions.
This "Westboro Baptist Church Mentality" is like a sick joke. It's hard to believe that anyone outside an Islamic Republic or a savage, sub-Saharan African tribal redoubt would be capable of harboring such stupid notions in the twenty-first-century.
If you cannot advance your pet cause by promoting its positive aspects persuasively, you certainly aren't going to help yourself by denigrating others outside your circle.
If Denny has two daddies, our only concerns should be if Denny is being loved, cherished, educated and well provided for.
There are, of course, two sides to every coin, etc. but any ASSUMPTION that both sides of a particular, perhaps foreign, "coin" are dark, or that the "coin," itself, is counterfeit without close and careful open-minded observation and analysis of its real qualities is both perverse and degrading.
Polemics of any kind are not in order from any direction when it comes to the subtleties inherent in intimate human relationships.
____________________________
PS: God made DNA, and thus ALL CREATION, so cut the comedy. No one has issued an official edict lately saying you have to believe that on pain of death or anything half so dire, so please don't even HINT that I ought NOT to believe it. I will till someone comes up with a better explanation, and so far all they've been able to do is draw blanks. ;-)
"PS: God made DNA, and thus ALL CREATION, so cut the comedy. No one has issued an official edict lately saying you have to believe that on pain of death or anything half so dire, so please don't even HINT that I ought NOT to believe it. I will till someone comes up with a better explanation, and so far all they've been able to do is draw blanks. ;-)"
I think you missed the point of that person's review.
DNA from Adam's rib would have made another MALE, not remale. That was the humorous point. Therefore, there really was an Adam and Steve.
I don't know enough about this book to call it a "screed" (as Duck did).
Not having seen the book, I really can't say that it teaches hate -- unless one considers praying for someone with different beliefs a manifestation of hate.
Is Gay Star News an unbiased site?
Parents teach their children a particular value system most of time. How to "remedy" that?
Oh, I got the joke all right, Ma'am, but If it all started with Adam and Steve, how could we have ever gotten a little Adam or more to the point a little Stephanie? ;-)
I have strong feeling that right after The Beginning there were Adam and Steve and Eve and Jack and Jill and Bonnie and Clyde, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and Ishmael and Cunegonde, and Jumpin' Jehoshophat, and Romeo and Juliet, and Abelard and Heloise, and Tristan and Isolde, Shadrack, Meshak and Abednego and Daniel and Jonah and Sarah and Jezebel and Jerusha, Elvis, Pat Boone, Doris Day, The Righteous Brothers and David and Goliath ALL getting it on indiscriminately with a helluvalotta violent coercion against any reluctant or unwilling participants in the communal orgies. Then came the babies -- and pairings off, the families , the jealousies, the competition, and all the rest of it developing slowly, painfully, violently, hideously, brutally, viciously, until gradually after countless millennia the Dawn of Affection, Loyalty, Devotion, Sacrifice, Courage, Unselfishness came into the picture and changed everything for the better, though the Old Animal Ways still survive, despite all efforts to tame them into submission.
There's a logical explanation for EVERYTHING, except the weather, but once found it doesn't necessarily follow that the majority will accept and abide by it.
We've come a long way in God-knows-how-many years of earthly existence, but it's obvious we still have a helluva long way to go.
All we can do is hope for the best and wish each other good luck.
Life is an endless ride on a roller coaster with no seat belts.
remale? :-)
AOW: "Parents teach their children a particular value system most of time. How to "remedy" that?"
No one's suggesting that parents can't teach their children a particular "value system."
But when parents imply that a family with two dads or two moms are morally wrong, I find that offensive.
Why? Because the children who are taught that by their parents can then use that as a justification for bullying or treating those children from two-dad or two-mom families as abnormal and immoral, no matter how loving and caring the parents are. It diminishes the children and their families.
Why can't the parents just acknowledge that there are many types of families: two-mom families, two-dad families, one-mom families, one-dad families, and families that are headed by grandparents, aunts and uncles and people who open their homes to children who have no moms or dads.
To single out same-sex families as abnormal is just plain cruel and unworthy of people who call themselves loving religionists.
The fact is that there are many family configurations, and there is no guarantee that a mom and dad only family will produce perfectly adjusted children.
rightwingers justifying hatred of same-sex mothers and fathers on the basis of religious beliefs...God approves of defaming and denigrating families...hateful people...they don't like same-sex families...ignore them then...they don't have to degrade them to the children...disgusting...all of them...
AOW, a boy is in a stable, loving hoe made by two men and it serves some spiritual purpose to make him feel his home arrangement is immoral?
That's the purpose of prayer?
"If you cannot advance your pet cause by promoting its positive aspects persuasively, you certainly aren't going to help yourself by denigrating others outside your circle."
great. ft. explains why the people who wrote the book are jackassers. they denigrated others outside their circle...and hurt the children of same sex families...nice values the christ lovers have there...
I have strong feeling that right after The Beginning there were Adam and Steve
------
Or as George Takei said in a pretty funny retort to the "Adam and Steve" line, "I like the French version, Adam and Yves not Adam and Eve."
"Normal" husbands and fathers can and often do turn gay, but it never seems to work the other way round. It'd be interesting to find out why.
One Who Knows
"God made DNA" is simply a belief, not an explanation.
"One Who Knows,"
definition of "normal:"
nor·mal
/ˈnôrməl/
Adjective
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun
The usual, average, or typical state or condition
Homosexuality is not "normal" in the sense that it is not typical or conforming to the standard; but I maintain that it is natural, since it has been with us since we humans fell out of the trees; therefore, homosexuality is normal, but it is a minority sexual orientation.
"Normal" husbands and fathers who "turn" gay, were probably gay from birth but were forced, uhappily, by family and society, to conform to the standard.
Now that we are maturing as a species and understanding that homosexuality is part of nature, perhaps we'll see fewer husbands and fathers "turning" gay, but rather men who can accept who they are without the condemnation of society.
Ducky,
The French version is always more exciting.
Shaw,
To single out same-sex families as abnormal is just plain cruel and unworthy of people who call themselves loving religionists.
Some people, mostly certain Christians but other groups as well, are not going to accept gay sexual orientation as moral. Lack of acceptance is not necessarily hate.
AOW: "Lack of acceptance is not necessarily hate."
No one would complain if "lack of acceptance" stopped there. But it doesn't. Lack of acceptance often translates into denying people their civil rights, lack of acceptance often translates into shaming, shunning, and downright cruelty toward those who are seen as outside the "normal." Then there is the horrible occasion where "lack of acceptance" is justified by religion, and where cruelty, damnation, and death is acceptable because some religion's "God" finds homosexuality an "abomination" and an affront to the divine.
Lack of acceptance in some people, I agree, is not necessarily hate, but in too many cases, and specifically in religious cases, it is a justification to hate.
I just hate it when people hate.
BTW, AOW, on your blog, you've allowed your commenters to call me a "blithering idiot," "psychotic," and "deranged."
As you know, I do not allow anyone on my blog to engage in name-calling, but apparently that's a conservative value that is cherished.
You have not been abused by anyone here on my blog, nor would I ever allow it.
It appears that your commenters are intellectually unable to engage in civil discussions and need to make themselves feel superior by denigrating me.
Your blog has become hostile to other points of view.
For someone who prides herself on reading other pov, I'm puzzled as to why you allow that on your blog.
There's no reason for me or anyone else who has a differing opinion to visit places that allow that sort of infantile abuse.
Also, AOW, in the old Communist Soviet Union, when the bosses did not like what dissidents wrote or said, they labeled them "deranged" and "psychotic" and hauled them off to mental hospitals.
You friends over at your blog would do those Communists proud.
"In the twentieth century, systematic political abuse of psychiatry took place in the Soviet Union.
Psychiatry was used as a tool during the reign of Leonid Brezhnev to eliminate political opponents ("dissidents") who openly expressed views that contradicted official dogma."
What a twist seeing how large central government authoritarian control and central planning has historically been associated with big brother liberalism rather than small government conservatism.
So much for stereotypes. Yes, psychology can indeed be used for evil purposes. 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'."
this is what happens when you try to be nice to rats, shaw...they bite you any chance they get...especially when you hold out a hand in friendship...ouch!...never, never trust a conservative...they're hypocrites...and full of bile and hate...look how they've treated you...free stinke allowed an entire week of bashing you by his crazy friends...and now this aow conseervative...when will you ever learn....???
RN, the example quoted was to show AOW, who allows personal attacks on her blog and whose commnenters call people who disagree with them, mentally ill, just what sort of abuse they're practicing. The Communists`` engaged in it routinely.
Shaw,
My blog is, well, MY blog.
I rarely delete comments -- except in the case of trolls and copy-and-paste comments, of course.
It seems to me that those of us with differing points of view are cemented in those points of view; in other words, we aren't going to change others' minds or our own minds -- no matter how much dialogue we engage in. Maybe that's human nature, but it ain't particularly pretty.
The screeching scold against AOW is quite rich coming from you, Shaw Kenaw, whose blog is one long screed against those who think differently than you.
You and your chorus of extreme liberals shake your heads and cluck your tongues at those cavemen and cavewomen on the right, wondering aloud how people can be so stupid as to think differently than you.
One would think the publisher of such weblog posts would have thicker skin. Glass houses, throwing stones, and all that.
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
What is particularly “cruel” about selectivity -- i.e. non-acceptance, or outright rejection of any one, any group, or any thing?
Persecution is one thing. Intolerance is another. Lack of interest, or approval, however, is not the same thing as intolerance, neither does it qualify as persecution..
For instance, I may not be interested in dating blondes. I don’t have to have a reason or an excuse. I’m simply not attracted to them. I may even harbor some of the popular notions that blondes are inherently “dumb,” vapid, vacuous, vain, shallow, selfish, grasping, materialistic and with a beauty that’s apt to fade more rapidly than that of brunettes.
Because of my aversion, whether its strictly “justified” or not according to someone else’s “objective” standards, I may choose to avoid the company of blondes whenever possible.
Now, very possibly that makes me a “bigot” of a sort, because what is a bigot after all but a person in love with his own view of life to the extent that he is unwilling to consider what others think with others think and feel with any degree of curiosity or hope of learning something new, interesting, worthwhile, or possibly helpful.
Well, that may be too bad for the one with the limited outlook, but as far as I know it is still not considered immoral, illegal or reprehensible to feel no attraction for anything or anyone in particular.
As long as my aversion to blondes doesn’t lead to my attacking them physically, mounting organized campaigns of harassment and intimidation against them, robbing them of their belongings, vandalizing their property, denying them their rights of inheritance, or otherwise systematically depriving them of opportunities to better themselves, I am well within my rights to avoid the company of blondes.
Also, if I happen to be a business executive, I should be able to hire someone with whom I instinctively feel the closest affinity and the greatest degree of trust and confidence to work as my executive assistant or other business associate with whom I must come into close personal contact on a daily basis.
In plain English that means if I don’t want to hire a blonde to work as my secretary -- however irrational that may seem to others -- no one should ever be able to assume the authority to force me to go against my better judgment.
That would be nothing more nor less than TYRANNY.
______________________________
I get that Shaw. What I wrote actually supports what you said. And as I said a twist on the conservatives belief system. IOW's, as much as I dislike your anon coommenter and his remarks directly above he is right about the hypocrisy.
Guess I'll have to be more direct maybe :-)
Ms. Shaw, as you know, I have defended you and done everything possible to shield you -- and my more respectable readers -- from the torrent of mindless, untoward observations, foul language, and other forms of abuse targeted at you by zealots and hate-filled morons simply because I have made every effort to develop something of an entente cordiale among those with radically different views. My reward for this was to receive a great deal of invective and accusatory rhetoric directed at me, personally, and at my blog.
I'm not sorry in the least that I try to maintain standards of decency at my place, but as I'm sure you know, there are subtler, crueler and far nastier forms of insolence and denigration than simply shouting four letter words or spewing childish, generic insults with little-or-no basis in fact.
Trite as it may sound I still believe:
Sticks and stone may break my bones, but names will never harm me.
This modern obsession with proscribing the use "names" to the point where in some places and certain select cases it is regarded as a criminal offense misses the point of the First Amendment and denies Freedom of Expression generally.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I would defend -- to the death -- your right to say it."
Remember that famous line from Voltaire?
Here's another from John Stuart Mill (1806-1873):
"We can never be sure that the opinion we wish to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."
And finally from a famous liberal:
"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those that agree with us, but freedom for the thought that we hate."
~ Oliver W. Holmes (1841-1935)
As someone who has made it abundantly clear that you resent and reject criticism of the way you choose to run your blog, may I politely suggest that is absurd that you should be critical of AOW -- or anyone else -- for the way they run theirs?
Your criticism of AOW, who is the very soul of honesty and decency, and certainly one of the most tolerant, fair-minded people I’ve ever met, is unwarranted and unfair. Dont you realize that it carries a heavy implication that your personal standards should be adopted by everyone else, if they don’t wish to be the object of harsh criticism, and withering scorn?
DOUBLE STANDARDS are DEPLORABLE.
Harlan,
What you fail to understand is that I disagree with and call out the POLITICIANS and PUNDITS and TEEVEE AND RADIO PERSONALITIES who are fair game.
I do not allow personal attacks on my commenters.
You apparently have no understanding of the difference.
And every single conservative blog I've visited attacks liberals, liberal politicians, pundits, and personalities.
So please I suggest you get off your very high horse.
I would have no problem with defending "freedom of thought" and "ideas," Mr. Free Thinke, but when people write comments attacking others, that is nothing close to "freedom of thoughts and ideas."
It's just plain bullying. And there's absolutely no need for it, unless the people who allow it enjoy seeing people who they don't agree with bullied and called names.
It also shows a lack in the ability to form intelligent arguments when all one can do is tell the person he disagrees with that she's mentally deranged.
Why do people on comment threads sink to that level?
I agree with what KP has said so often: when commenters are here or on anyone else's comment thread, they should behave as though they were sitting across the dining room table from each other.
I don't agree with your defense of bad manners. I'm surprised you defend them.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
And Free Thinke, there is no double standard here.
I don't allow personal attacks on commenters.
Oh Mr. Harlan, you went running to AOW to report me?
How old are you?
Plus, I did NOT attack AOW, I simple said she allows people to attack her commenters.
That's a statement of fact.
You are a piece of work, running to tell the teacher about me.
LOL!
Shaw Kenawe:
How droll! I believe AOW is indeed a teacher!
And I see your censorious finger has confirmed my suspicions of you.
Bravo! Stomping out conservative rebuttal one deletion at a time!
Check and mate. You are so clever!
Harlan from LeftWatch (Somebody's gotta keep 'em honest!)
awhile back RN said;// I just hate it when people hate. //
well... I just hate broccoli. it is a vile veggie.
Harlan, you are too, too eager to prove your misguided point. All your comments have been posted.
But I will delete any other comments from you that have nothing to do with this post.
Now run along, little one, and report that back to the teacher
okjimm, there are things that are more vile than broccoli.
Believe me.
Broccoli is vile? I had no idea.
shaw...you are deceived by the conservative bloggers...they are not your friends...friends don't let other people bash you...free thinke allowed a week of bashing you...and he enjoyed it...don't let him fool you...he hates people like you..just a warning...from a real friend...
The conservative bloggers trash and bash Obama and liberal ("libtards") on a daily basis, Shaw.
p
But when you call out conservative hypocrites, they can't stand it, and they call you names.
Can't you see what this is about?
Both Free Thinke and AOW are concern trolls who come to your blog to spread their conservative lies and are using your good will to do it.
They allowed people on their blogs to condemn you and trash you.
THEY ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS. THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO HATE THE PRESIDENT, AND THEY HATE YOU!
LEARN SOMETHING! SHAW! THEY ARE FALSE FRIENDS.
Sometimes people have to be crapped on to understand who their true enemies are. They are not Ft or AOW, shaw. Seph is right. They're using you. The worst one is Free Thinke. He used you to get people to come to his blog and shit all over you. Wake up. our rYeal friends have watched this. It's a disgrace.
the conservative haters are piling on you again, shaw, over at AOW's blog...another piece of evidence of how they cannot abidea...anyone who does not drink their kool-aide...free thinke and now AOW have called their syncophants to slander you...that's what you get for allowing their kind to come to your blog and say anything they want...
Thanks for the heads-up Anon, Sephiroth, and Twinkie Toes, but I don't have the time or the energy to deal with this sort of pettiness just now. There are other more pressing and important things happening in my life to spend any time on this nonsense. But thanks anyway for your concern.
One other thing: "We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." --Oscar Wilde
What is said on other blogs about Shaw says much more about those blogs than it says about Shaw. She is right to stay above such pettiness.
Jerry, what those people over at AOW and FT blogs accuse me of is b.s. I do not allow my commenterS to attack other commenters. Period. They have different rules on their blogs and choose to allow personal attacks on me and others, like Ducky.
My attacks are always on conservative POLITICIANS, PUNDITS, AND TEEVEE AND RADIO PERSONALITIES. I am a liberal and make no apologies for it.
They put up posts all the time that criticize and denigrate liberals, but when I do the same to conservative pols and pundits, they feel aggrieved and victimized. You figure it out, I can't.
FT and AOW have not been personally attacked on this blog--criticized, perhaps, but no one is allowed to call AOW or FT mentally deranged or any other such nasty thing.
Their friends can't see the difference, I can't help them with something as clear and simple as that.
It's says something about their choices, not mine.
shaw...like ft did to you...aow is doing the same...she's hosting a shaw...hatefest...you rightly took aow to task for allowing...people to trash you...and she allowed her harpies...to lie about it...and turn on you...she loves to think of herself...as some kind of saintly woman...but SHE allowed her rightwing...haters!...to slander you...she gets off on it...don't kid yourself...i hope you learned your lesson...i've never read such filth on a blog...as i read on aow's...she is shameful as ft and what he allowed...and encouraged...for a week! shaw...when will you learn...we're your liberal friends...they delight in...tearing people down...sorry friend...it is true...stay away from the devils...they only know destructive talk...ugh!
Anon, Ms. AOW has stated that she runs her blog as she wants to. It is her decision to allow people to slander and slur me. That has never happened to her here.
Those are her values, not mine. But I do give Mr. Free Thinke credit for not allowing his blog to sink to that level. I think I understand what he tried to do when he had his Hate Week for Shaw.
People have the right to run their blogs as they wish.
And we have the right not to visit those blogs that allow and encourage others to engage in calling people vile and filthy names.
End of discussion.
Shaw, I know you have said "end of discussion" but I hope you will humor me.
You have handled this situation with character and class. Your response has reminded me of a wise boss who often said during times of stress and unfair judgement to "rise above it", you have, in your response to both your supporters and distracters RISEN ABOVE IT.
Well done my friend. And thank you for your indulgence.
Hi RN,
Da nada.
Hope you're having a peaceful Memorial Day. I am. I had a lovely walk with friends through Boston Common where American flags were placed by the Massachusetts Military Heroes Fund. Each flag represented a Massachusetts service man and woman who gave his/her life for his/her country since the Civil War.
It was very beautiful.
BTW, if you're ever in Boston, let me know. I'd be happy to show you around the neighborhood.
shaw...AOW encouraged her fan club to trash you because she delights in slandering liberals while pretending to be oh so fair minded and saintly...she opened the gates to her dim-witted friends who tripped over themselves to respond like jackals with the sort of hate that free stinke started...it doesn't take a genius to see free stinke used his "experiement" as an excuse to give coveer to the asshats who trashed you for one week...it was cruel to the limit...i've neveer seen anything like it before...and AOW is no better...she's a wolf in sheep's clothing, that one...with her sanctimonious claims that no one can trust liberals...
it was TWO conservative bloggers who allowed the attacks on you personally...not you...and no one has picked up on the fact that you did not say anything about this on AOW's blog...one of her little lackeys came here copied and pasted your remark into her blog...you did nothing wrong...and they did everything disgusting...because that's their default...attack and destroy anyone who is not like them...take heart...you are better than them...you are a liberal
Shaw, I cheerfully congratulate you on putting everyone who comments at AOW into a total spittle-flecking froth. I haven't yet sorted through all the comments in this post to see which one had them all so hatred-spewing irate, but it must be a goody and I'll be sure to find and read it before I log off your site.
The torrent of invective directed toward you that I read there seems to be entirely because you bad-mouthed AOW, or so they say, rather than your personal views, but that really doesn't matter. What does is that you've exposed very clearly how those people rally 'round their master.
Logic, debate and reason have no place on AOW any longer. That used to be a conservative blog, when it started out years back. I was there, and I know. But now it's a Far Right Fringe blog with extremist views and vile, hateful people both running it and regularly commenting on it.
I'm a conservative and while I disagree with a lot of liberal ideas, I'll still listen to them, consider them and offer my own pros and cons, and as I recently posted, whether anyone likes it or not, America is trending more toward liberalism. Those who deny it are wearing blinders. Like the folks at AOW.
Okay, I read them all and this seems to be why the AOW sycophants were all shrieking that you "trashed" Ms. AOW:
"It appears that your commenters are intellectually unable to engage in civil discussions and need to make themselves feel superior by denigrating me.
Your blog has become hostile to other points of view."
It has, in actual fact. It was Sam Huntington's insults of me that ended with my further comments being deleted, but I can't blame him much for that since I fed him back as vile as he gave.
Sam stated in an article that Sufi's were associated with terrorism. I pointed out that actually no, they never have been, Sufism is a mystical offshoot of Islam that seeks enlightenment much like Zen Buddhism. They've never been connected with terrorism.
Sam didn't like that and rather than admit that he misspoke, insulted me pretty grossly instead. At that point, I demanded an apology. If you noticed that comment moderation was enabled there for awhile, it was because I loaded up all the articles with rude comments.
Of course, that stopped the immediate back-and-forth snap responses that pad out their comment page and comments dropped off a lot. It was pretty funny, really.
Now I see that their page forwards to "flashclocks" if you don't hit the stop button and I'm wondering if the site has been hacked or if I'm the only one who gets that?
My own most recent post is "Blog Wars", a response to all this silliness.
Have a great Monday.
Anon and Black Sheep,
I had hoped to end this annoying controversy, but both of you saw through the nonsense, and I'd like to respond to you both.
I made a mild complaint ON MY OWN BLOG about being called mentally deranged, and some other invective. Instead of engaging in a discussion of ideas, AOW's friends called me vile names.
Now they claim I deserve this because I attack certain conservatives on my blog. True. And those conservative pundits and pols I attack are usually people like Beck, Limbaugh, Mark Stein, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, etc.
I have never attacked AOW or FT personally, nor do I allow that sort of invective.
Her visitors haven't the intellectual ability to see the difference. Since I criticize conservative extremists, they claim I therefore deserve the slander and insults they throw at me.
(BTW: I often quote David Frum and many other conservatives who manage to state their cases with intelligence and legitimate criticism when writing about Mr. Obama and his administration. This means nothing to those people.)
When someone allows attacks such as were written about me on her blog, one can only assume that people like AOW get some sort of satisfaction at seeing people slandered. It is passive/aggressive behavior.
AOW is a teacher, I understand. I wonder if she allows her students to behave in such a barbaric way toward students they don't agree with. I'm guessing she reserves her own passive-aggressive behavior toward only liberals. Hiding behind the excuse that people who blog should expect rotten behavior from others is execrable, and I'm afraid, a cowardly way to excuse oneself for not standing up to blogging bullies.
Black Sheep: You're welcome to comment here and express your opinion so long as you do not attack and demean others.
However, pundits, politicians, and personalities are fair game.
I'd really like to end this, as I said before. We have more interesting things to discuss.
BTW, Black Sheep, you state the country is trending toward liberal? I'd like to know why you believe that is true. Could it be just another fluctuation? The country tends to drift in one direction, then self-corrects? and is now listing to the left?
One last piece of evidence:
From AOW herself:
"Here's why....Shaw got her feelings hurt by a comment or two here at Always On Watch. But she CANNOT EVEN SEE that she basically called Sam a liar when she wouldn't accept his own experience as evidence related to the point under discussion.
When one person calls another a liar, the one doing the name calling is likely to get slapped. Oh, well. This is the blogosphere!
AOW writes that I "basically" called Sam Huntinton a liar? Actually I asked for evidence for something he claimed. Evidence.
AOW leaps from saying I "basically" called S.H. a liar to this:
"When one person calls another a liar, the one doing the name calling is likely to get slapped. Oh, well. This is the blogosphere!"
You can't reason with people who misrepresent others. And, in her own words, that's what AOW does to me in the above. She misrepresents, deliberately or not, what I wrote.
Actually calling someone a liar (which I did not do) and insinuating that a person hasn't given enough evidence to prove a statement ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
She can't see that what she's written actually proves their treachery in twisting and misrepresenting my words.
It's a microcosm of why so many liberals and conservatives are unable to communicate with each other.
Since you ask... Stop by my blog for a few moments and read my post on the national movement toward liberalism. It's the third one down from the top. You might find all 3 interesting from a liberal point of view (and disagree with them, of course) but if you don't want to be bothered, just click here http://newsbleat.com/2013/05/23/accepting-reality/ to go directly to the post in question. You may also disagree with that one but at least I think it's objective.
AND..... as for Miz A missing the point, she's been getting worse at that for awhile now. It's like she's either getting Alzheimers, and I'm serious, or she deliberately obfuscates and spins. I would post about something and she'd comment about anything except the actual point of the article, and likewise during comment exchanges. She twists everything totally out of recognition.
Frankly, I do think her mind is going. She's well along in years and has been hammered by personal, health and financial blows. She used to come for me for advice back when we were still on good terms, so I know about her problems. I think it's just gotten to be too much.
Pyschoanalyisis is a temptation far too many engage in without possessing the qualifications to do so, wouldn' t you agree Black Sheep?
It's Monday, and Harlot from Left Watch is still bleating on about this.
He can't leave it alone; he's obsessed by the left, but especially Shaw...
It's like his therapist says: He needs to beat it like he beats other things he loves...
Notice how often he visits Shaw's blog and then runs back to AOW and reports, just like a little brown-noser...And how seldom he posts anything thoughtful on anything anyone is remotely interested in...he can't keep away from Shaw's blog...his frequent visits prove his obsessive compulsive disorder...
He's even repeating what others have said about him, like he's so bereft of friends and anything important in his life, that he needs to come back to Shaw's blog to sniff around and find something to piss his pants over...
He can't keep away...he can't keep away...watch him come back...again and again...because this is how he pleasures himself...
Harlot from Left Watch Needs to Expose Himself...For What He Is...LOL!
LOL Anon, no more. Really. No. More.
But that IS funny. LOL!
Thanks for the email and the tip.
Post a Comment