Transterrestrial Musings

Defend Free Speech!

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« More Media Bias | Main | There Are Lies »

Why I Have A Blog

To get past the gatekeepers.

I put up a(n admittedly semi-snarky) comment at Keith Cowing's place yesterday, and he chose not to publish it (his comments section is moderated) for whatever reason. His blog, his call.

It was in response to "NASAAstronomer's" comment that:

...if McCain and Palin win, we'll be teaching creationism in our science classes, so how likely is it that space science will get funded?

My (unpublished until now) response:


Right. I'm sure that will be one of their first acts, to mandate the teaching of creationism in science classes.

Can you explain to me how that works exactly? Will it be an executive order, or what?

This kind of Palin derangement is amazing. Lileks noticed it, too:

Here's your Sarah Palin overreaction of the day. Presumably she took out the entrails, dried them, and used them to lynch librarians. It's really obvious, isn't it? She wants to kill Lady Liberty and all she represents. The plane is included in the picture because she personally shoots polar bears from above, like she's GOD OR SOMETHING. The comments have the usual reasoned evaluations - she's a PSYCHO, a LUNATIC. That picture is so sad and so true.

I don't know if anyone's stated the obvious yet, but this might be the first time people have become unhinged in advance over a vice-presidential candidate. Not to say some aren't painting McCain as something the devil blurted out in a distracted moment during his daily conference call with Cheney, but a Veep? It took a while for people to believe that Cheney commissioned private snuff films with runaways dressed up to resemble a portion of the Bill of Rights, but Palin is She-Wolf of the Tundra right off the bat. And god help us she can use email, which means she will control the government. The most Spy ever did with Quayle was stick him in a dunce hat. By the time we reach the election Oliphant will probably draw Palin sodomizing by an oil derrick with guns for arms. I have to confess: I think Palin is an interesting politician, but the people she's driving batty are much more fascinating.

Imagine twelve years of this.


Well, we've survived eight years of BDS. I suspect that we'll pull through a swamp of PDS.



Jonathan Goff wrote:

Yeah, that was over the top for sure. But if Obama wins, I'm sure we'll see plenty more Obama Derangement Syndrome instead. Cause we all know that the first thing Obama is going to do after getting sworn in on a Koran is to make sure that all Kindergartners in the US get education on how to use condoms....

Mindless Obama Sycophant wrote:


Thanks to Jon for a burst of sanity at this echo chamber.

Jeff Mauldin wrote:

I seem to recall that before BDS, there was a large group of people who seem to loathe Clinton to the extent that it seemed unbalanced. The prior one term Bush was pretty much rolled by congress (No new taxes!/Look! New Taxes!), led a popular and short battle in Iraq, and then lost reelection--so nobody ever got around to really loathing him. I was younger during Reagan and not paying as much attention, but he was well hated too, I believe. Seems to be a time-honored tradition for two term presidents now.

For nominated first term vice presidents, on the other hand...

Bill Maron wrote:

Anon POS, way to mindlessly echo.

Jay Manifold wrote:

If Obama wins, we get four years of accusations of racism at the slightest opposition, or even questioning, aimed at anything he says or does. If he loses, we get accused of racism once for not electing him. It's almost enough to make me vote for McCain.

Carl Pham wrote:

Cause we all know that the first thing Obama is going to do after getting sworn in on a Koran is to make sure that all Kindergartners in the US get education on how to use condoms

The only problem with this is that the first has not been suggested by anyone even remotely associated with the Republican opposition, and the second is actually not that much of a stretch.

On the other hand, there are pretty respectable Democrat voices delivering Rand's sarcastic example of FUD.

You folks on the left keep doing your best to propagate the meme that we're all evil here folks, everyone's covered in slime, you're no better than us. I can understand why, since you are better in the gutter than the opposition, and if the contest ends up there you've got a better chance.

But I don't think the meme is taking off. I think folks in general can see that when it comes to personal slime and FUD, astroturfing, spinning and editing the truth, and even flat-out inventing stuff -- the 2004 TANG memos, Governor Palin banning Harry Potter from the public library a few years before it was written, and so forth -- these are the favored and well-used tactics of the left.

Hardly a surprise, really. Your hard core are all "ends justify the means" people, intellectual Stalinists (if not actual Stalinists), for whom no method, no matter how degrading and inhuman, is out of bounds in their quest for the unlimited power necessary to drag humanity into your personal utopia.

Karl Hallowell wrote:

I have to say this does seem to be a trend with a lot of flaking out all over the political spectrum. What I wonder though is to what degree the current bout of hysteria is cultivated by self-serving opportunists. I mean how else can you explain the fuss over Palin. It's not even three weeks. How can she become Darth Mudder in that short a time?

I wonder what will happen to internet discourse over the coming decades. A more sophisticated approach might even have bloggers start off advocating for their opponents (doing the "I'm a lifelong member of party X, but I have some concerns about these rumors I keep hearing" trick). Eventually through a very public conversion process the blogger advocates the candidate that they really back. Seems to me things could get really messed up if so many of the arguers are plants for someone. Not that that would happen to us here. ;-)

Bill Maron wrote:

Anonymity is the biggest culprit for the polarizing and vitriolic discourse that takes place. There are exceptions like Markos and Amanda. You wouldn't talk to your neighbor or someone at a bar the way people talk on the internet. There is no sense of the personal. Everyone can be a psychopath. Even if you have a name for a poster, you rarely have a face. The commenters are usually more rabid. I know a lot about Rand from his posts but I have no idea what he looks like. How strange.

Rick C wrote:

I remember what we could today call Clinton Derangement Syndrome, but I don't think it quite rose to the level that modern BDS sufferers have reached. For example, I had a co-worker who kept a printout in his desk of that list of 30-someodd people Clinton was supposed to have killed, but I don't remember people frothing at the mouth.

And of course in the case of CDS it took a long time to develop. BDS, which came on faster, didn't have nearly as short an onset time as PDS.

Cowardly Moron And Obama's Dog's Felcher wrote:

PDS would hardly be flourishing if not for the string of lies emanating from the serial liar Sarah Palin, and the pathetic excuses provided to boost her - for example, she can see Russia therefore she has foreign policy experience, or the fact that her husband was a separatist but due to his skin color gets no flack for it.

PDS is still in its infancy. Trust me on this, even though you don't know my name or haven't seen me. You ain't seen nothing yet.

The only reason McCain might win is because he is white. If a black POW was as much of a buffoon as he is, he wouldn't be even close to a white Obama. Look at the breakdown in the polls of people who simply will not vote for a black guy.

Yes you will see PDS. Damn right you will.

Lederhosen Soaked To The Cuffs From Terror wrote:

And for those who insist that Palin is a libertarian, read on:

Go ahead, delete this post too. Hey it's Jake Tapper, you know, deranged with PDS.

Wake up, echo chamber.

Lying On Back To Drink Koolaid Directly From The Messiah's Emmisions wrote:

Good God.

Now McCain is repeating the Bridge Lie. And now this:

At taxpayer expense?

Band of liars the two of them. Elect McCain-Palin for the next depression. Phil Gramm comes for free.

T.L. James wrote:

You know, it's worth suffering the moron's comments just to see what alternative names Rand will come up with for him/her/it.

Lying On Back To Drink Koolaid Directly From The Messiah's Emmisions wrote:

Hahaha. Heh-Heh.

Keith Cowing wrote:

And, of course, there is no Obama Derangement Syndrome whatsoever in Rand's post titled "Wile E. Obama"

Gimme a break.

You tried to post 3 times. Get a hint, Rand? I moderate so as to avoid idiotic off topic threads such as the one you were clearly trying to provoke.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I moderate so as to avoid idiotic off topic threads such as the one you were clearly trying to provoke.

That's a joke, right, Keith? "NASA Astronomer" wasn't trying to provoke an "off-topic thread"?

And I didn't try to "post three times." I submitted two posts (the first had screwed-up HTML, and you have no way to preview or correct).

And then I quit, and waited to see if you'd allow it.

So you're complaining because I bypassed the gatekeeper? I already said you had a right to moderate your blog.

What's your point? Why come over here and whine about it?

Keith Cowing wrote:

Rand, You tried to post three times. The text is identical.

How desperate.

Oh well, back to "Wile E. Obama", I presume.

No bias there. Oh no.


Keith Cowing wrote:

P.S. "Why come over here and whine about it?"

Duh you tried to post on my site 3 times, nutcase.

Cecil Trotter wrote:

Why look, Rand is letting Keith have his say on his blog. What a concept!! You could learn from that Keith.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Keith, you make it sound like I was either trying to put up multiple posts, or continuing to attempt to post after you rejected it.

No. Here's the reality. I posted it once, and before it even returned a page, I noticed that I'd screwed up the close tag on the HTML, so I fixed it and posted again, assuming that if you approved it, you'd delete the first one. I don't know how the third one occurred, but perhaps it was because your commenting software has a delay like mine, and I made a third attempt. This all occurred in the space of a couple minutes.

And I've never made any secret that I'm biased against Democrats (from long experience), though I don't "hate" them and I'm not "for" Republicans. I just don't want Dems in charge of the country.

Keith Cowing wrote:

You posted the same thing 3 times, Rand.

2008-09-15 16:18:29
2008-09-15 16:19:40
2008-09-16 08:53:09

Nothing wrong with the HTML in any of them. Nothing wrong with the software. All comment posts show up in real time. No one else has had duplicate or delayed comments. No one else has complained.

Nice try.

Have a nice day.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Whatever you say, Keith.

[rolling eyes heavenward]

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on September 16, 2008 6:07 AM.

More Media Bias was the previous entry in this blog.

There Are Lies is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1