Monday, April 20, 2009

Guilty With An Explanation: Defending My Indefensible Blog

You see? I told you they can't stand lighthearted ridicule. This one's a keeper:

"So long as you define 'funny' as laughing at someone rather than with them. How original! How clever! How... individual.

"How juvenile and ego-bound.

"As a bunch of back-thumping holymen, you coons sure are passive-aggressive and insecure, a sort of Amerikan Taliban, costumes and all. If you're so convinced you're all that, why aren't you peddling your hatred cum self-aggrandizement out in the world instead of festering in this islolated little pustule you've created? Oh, of course. That would be to profane the occult. (Tasty Kool-Aid, Gagdad Jones! Secret recipe?) Not to mention that your 'self-evident truthiness' won't stand up to unbiased discussion. Despite all the yipping about individualism, you jaccoons pack up more easily than teens on myspace.

"Unlike many postings here, little in this post carries the weight of truth or peace. Only bitterness and pride. Keep your noses to the ground, jacoons. You aren't in the clear yet, despite what your own leftist (gasp! who, ME?) packthink brain is whispering in your brother's ear.

"BTW, not that you are interested, but then again you keep asking: I come here as a field test for my own BS detector. There are few places where feast and feces are mixed so freely. It takes a real big ego to toss a salad with this much nutty flavor. Bon apetit."

****

I wonder if this troll even knows why s/h/it is so angry? Why waste one's time getting angry at an isolated little pustule such as mine, when there are so many larger pimples and carbuncles to drain? That being the case, this person must be in a 24/7 tantrum.

Nor will the world ever be short of "back-thumping holymen." However, to compare us to the Taliban, or to Jim Jones' leftist Peoples Temple, again reveals one of the ubiquitous features of the left -- that is, since they are so naive about the nature of evil, they elevate the patently non-evil to the status of evil. Imagine if leftists were as angry with the real Taliban, or with real torture! That's what's so ironic: they make excuses for the actual Taliban (or terrorists and other monsters in general) and then refer to us as "Taliban," as if that's a bad thing in their world. Why don't they really honor me, and call me a Palestinian, or Castro lover?

The cognitive dissonance with the left is always cranked up to 11. Just a couple of weeks ago, they were blaming conservatism for the murder of three officers in Pittsburgh, on the same day they were lamenting the cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal's loss before the Supreme Court. Every leftist knows him on a first name basis, but how many know the names of Daniel Faulkner and the widow he left behind?

As for why I'm not peddling my self-aggrandizement out in the world, that's a fair question. After all, being so self-aggrandizing and all, it makes no sense for me to prefer anonymity. Why not adopt the sophisticated marketing strategy of Peter Russell, which is the page the troll's name is linked to?

I read -- tried to, anyway, for it was tedium on stilts -- one of this man's unreadable books a number of years ago. I don't want to be mean about it, but it was called The Global Brain. Let's just say it's a mish-mash of Deepak-approved pneuma-babble and new-age cliches marketed to the bottomless self-regard of the baby-boomer generation. I guess I'd better resist the impulse to fisk the man within an inch of his life, and move on to today's post. Maybe some other time, when I'm in a more loving mood. Being that it's endorsed by Ted Turner, I suppose it's self-fisking anyway.

Speaking of "spiritual circumspection" and not tossing out what is holy to the dogs, HvB writes that "Merely knowing about something is never a sufficient reason also for unveiling it." For example, Christopher Buckley has written a "tell all" memoir of his parents. Why? Why is this not a matter for him to discuss with his analyst? Rhetorical question. Must resist impulse to fisk. Moving on. I'm sure it's endorsed by Ted Turner anyway.

The point is, merely having some sort of spiritual experience is never sufficient justification for broadcasting it to the world. For one thing, it must be given time to mature and really take root. But even more importantly, if it is not accompanied by a sense of deep intimacy and sacredness, then YUR DOIN IT RONG. It's like telling the world all about your sex life.

Which reminds me of something I once read by a very astute psychoanalyst writing about film. I don't have time to dig out the book, but he mentioned that if you notice the kind of sexuality that is shown in movies -- especially as they have become more sexualized -- it's not so much that they really depict only lust. Nothing is easier than depicting some sort of "edgy" sexuality, as that is about as emotionally threatening as a teenage boy looking at Playboy. It's titillating, not "dangerous." The point is, despite imagining that they are so open about sexuality, they never depict anything resembling real marital intimacy, because it would be "unbearable" to do so.

In other words, there is a veil around that level of real intimacy that would actually be "creepy" to intrude upon -- like watching your parents have sex. No one would want to see it. They would prefer to see most any kind of perversion than to have to bear witness to real sexual intimacy. It's called the oedipus complex, and it is still the Law of the gLand, especially in those who imagine they are immune to it. People who imagine they are the most sexually "free" are usually just dancing to the tune of old Mister Oed: lust as a defense against intimacy.

So the above-referenced troll is surely on to something when he makes reference to the dangers of spiritual communication, but he is again inconsistent in criticizing us for being circumspect about it.

As HvB writes, before unveiling oneself before the world, one must naturally ask if it is serving any "other purpose than to proclaim one's own superiority." The troll is also surely correct that such a disclosure can actually have covert motivations, including the desire to wound others "under the mask of innocent remarks.... Often we present roses while we really mean the hidden thorns."

Indeed, I think it's entirely fair -- mandatory, really -- to ask what the B'ob is getting out of this exercise. Money? No. Fame? No. The esteem of his colleagues? No. I could have published half a dozen books by now if I had wanted to. The adoration of his minions?

Well, perhaps a little, despite my continuous efforts to deflect attention from me to the real source(s). It reminds me of when someone -- I think it might have been James Cutsinger -- went to Schuon to be a student. Far from being any kind of new age cult, Schuon required all of his students to be members of orthodox traditions. In this case, Schuon asked the person what his religious affiliation was. "Orthodox Christian." "Good. Then Christ is your master."

Christ is your master. Or Torah. Or the Vedas. The point is, despite -- or perhaps because of -- his spiritual luminosity, Schuon did not wish to be "worshipped," to say the least. True, he wanted people to approach him with the proper attitude, but that is simply a matter of objectivity, not self-aggrandizement. "Humility" has nothing to do with underestimating oneself, but accurately estimating oneself -- and others. So I do want to be "accurately known," most especially to myself.

It reminds me of my best teacher back in graduate school, who said that he didn't allow patients to call him by his first name. Rather, it was "Dr. P----," not because he was "full of himself," but for the patient's benefit. That is, he did not want patients to reduce the relationship to one of "equals," which conceals a subtle defense mechanism in which the child elevates himself to parent (or reduces the parent to a child, which in turn always leads to anxiety, as you might well imagine, what with no adults around).

Ah, here is a beautiful point: "We are not speaking here of falsehood as the perversion of truth but the abuse of the truth itself through lack of love." In other words, as Bion also described, there is truth and there are the uses to which it is put, which are two very different things. For clearly, the truth can be in the service of the lie, as the left never stops proving.

So before you blather on about spiritual matters, by all means do ask yourself why you are doing so, "for every unveiling that does not serve love is comparable to an exhibitionism that offends against the intimate laws of love" (emphasis mine).

That about sums it up, does it not? Talk about a "BS detector," or a spiritual discernment mechanism. More: "This point makes it clear how the truth serves love, while love embraces and transcends truth. Truth is the unveiling of being; the laws of love are its limits and measure."

Again it reminds me of Mrs. G., who one day made the conscious decision to resist the idea that I had any desire to hurt her, and to simply assume that I meant her well, irrespective of how it felt. Like magic, the clouds dispersed. Of course, this is not to suggest that you should open yourself up like this to "just anybody." Rather, you must be sure that the person has no personal agenda, and that they only have your self-interest in mind -- which is none other than love.

So in the end, love can be the only adequate excuse for inflicting one's "spiritual truth" upon the world. For love never "forces," nor does it invade or coerce the other. True, I sometimes perform surgery, but it is always elective surgery. In my case, I just put the scalpel out there. It's up to you if you want to plunge into it. I have no desire to make the trolls so angry, for if I did, I would seek them out. Rather, they are the one's who seek me out, and then complain when they get cut.

Well, that's about all the time we have left for today. We didn't get far, but I think there are some sharp points in there. So don't cut yourself on them unless you want to.

59 Comments:

Anonymous Martin T. said...

My children call all adults by their last names. I hate it when kids call me "Martin". There is a certain respect owed age- no matter how stupid I am. Even triple when my clients call me "Martin" instead of "Dr. T.." (DVM). inevatably the line between buddies and client blur and they are hurt to find i'm not a "buddy".
Oh yeah, it helps protect the children from unwanted intimacies...calling adults by their last names.

From my Treo without spwll check.

4/20/2009 08:39:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"You see? I told you they can't stand lighthearted ridicule. This one's a keeper:

"So long as you define 'funny' as laughing at someone rather than with them. How original! How clever! How... individual. "

Always fun when they try to explain why the joke wasn't funny.

Still laughing.

4/20/2009 09:34:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

>> . . for every unveiling that does not serve love is comparable to an exhibitionism that offends against the intimate laws of love"<<

Yup, I'm always cautious about violating the Silence. I remind myself that, in a sense, the Creator violated His own Eternal Silence in the act of Creation, but did so, could only do so, out of love. Thus we, made in the image of the Creator, can create in a way that compliments, even enhances the Silence.

I have tried to write Paradise

Do not move

Let the wind speak

that is paradise.



Let the Gods forgive what I

have made

Let those I love try to forgive

what I have made -

(from a canto by Ezra Pound) (and forgive me, mtraven, for quoting a fascist)

In any event, I think a spiritual enterprise's outreach runs along invisible channels that extend globally and, for all I know, beyond. And there are always divine Sponsers who spur the outreach on.Though relatively few may be consciously aware of its existence, a genuinely spiritual enterprise affects *everything*, even nature her very own self. Hey, for all we know, if OC ceased to be, a quake could swallow Oregon.

Anyway, the day will come when the invisible channels become visible and the true significance of all genuinely spiritual enterprises will become known.

4/20/2009 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

The adoration of his minions?


Of course we adore you, Bob - but only because you're so good at pointing in the right direction, in such a way that we can move that way as well (after all, how many raccoons have become more orthodox since reading here? Isn't that like allowing someone else to intercept the mind-control rays?). Maybe I'm wrong, but it would be more surprising if we didn't love you for that. But this isn't remotely like, oh f'rinstance, the cultish adoration of the big O. As evidence, see the utter lack of your ability to convince all the ring-tailed robots that Scott Walker is really great.

Although if the troll really wants to know, I think the secret Kool-aid ingredient is Splenda.

***

...if you notice the kind of sexuality that is shown in movies -- especially as they have become more sexualized -- it's not so much that they really depict only lust. The point is, despite imagining that they are so open about sexuality, they never depict anything resembling real marital intimacy, because it would be "unbearable" to do so.

"for every unveiling that does not serve love is comparable to an exhibitionism that offends against the intimate laws of love"

I was thinking something along those lines this weekend, being in Vegas and thus awash in sexual imagery from almost every conceivable angle. I was thinking about the harm that must be done to true sexuality by the proliferation of porn. How many people spend hours watching clinical and heartless acts and believe that mimicking what they see is the path to fulfillment? The idea of "making love" is portrayed for the most part as archaic and hopelessly naive. There must be legions of people who know every possible camera-ready combination of gonad wrangling, and yet haven't the faintest idea how to actually touch each other. Much less know each other.

Hand in hand with that, our current culture's ideal of feminine beauty seems to be more along the lines of corrupted innocence than anything else, a surface "prettiness" (I use quotes because mostly, I find it hideous) that only barely covers a calculating, jaded desperation to always resemble a teenager anxiously awaiting her first appearance on "Girls Gone Wild". Even if the woman in question is obviously old enough to be a grandmother. Women strive to look like porn actresses, at least in my part of the country; I was joking a few weeks ago about "hookerware," but let's face it, we're already pretty-much there. Porn star is the new chic, which is all well and good if you're a flatlander, but for pureverts it's purely horrifying. They may look like they're always ready for a good time, but all the plastic can't hide the fact that most of them emit waves of either abject misery or outright soul death.

4/20/2009 09:42:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

"Ah, here is a beautiful point: "We are not speaking here of falsehood as the perversion of truth but the abuse of the truth itself through lack of love." In other words, as Bion also described, there is truth and there is the uses to which it is put, which are two very different things. For clearly, the truth can be in the service of the lie, as the left never stops proving. "

Falsehood as the abuse of Truth... hmmm... makes me think of those situations where the abuser defends himself by shouting when caught that it was their fault that he had to hit them.

"So before you blather on about spiritual matters, by all means do ask yourself why you are doing so, "for every unveiling that does not serve love is comparable to an exhibitionism that offends against the intimate laws of love" (emphasis mine)."

Goes well with last weeks(?) question for the indulgence of ones mind parasite 'who does it serve?'

I kid you not - wv:
meeknese

4/20/2009 09:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

vialtimHmmm, funny is as funny does, eh? Bob finished writing his blog at 7:48, and I click-ended at 7:46 my polianish-sounding God's Mandate musings --- (even tho in the last comment I make sure it 'ain't perceived as such.)

We live in different time-zones, so what's up with that?
And no, I didn't first read this blog before scribling mine. Go figure?

At any rate, knowing what I know, I would be ashamed to promote myself as "superior" to others, without - at the same time - asserting my "spiritual maturity." Like it or not, this is my Duty, my Mandate to do so in order to represent the Cause of God.

So yah, those who can't stand reading Bob's blog, don't have to.

(In case anyone is interested spiritspeaks-theofilia.blogsopt.com)

Theofilia

4/20/2009 10:10:00 AM  
Blogger QP said...

Anyway, the day will come when the invisible channels become visible and the true significance of all genuinely spiritual enterprises will become known.Talk about a keeper! Thank you Will.

Back to the silence.....

4/20/2009 10:37:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Quote from HvB I almost used:

"In the silence of love, which veils both itself and the truth, there is more truth than in any loveless surrender."

Gotta get some work done...

4/20/2009 10:40:00 AM  
Anonymous theofilia said...

mtraven,

Come to my bosom and be healed of your afflictions.

4/20/2009 10:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmm did I messup blog-times? ohwell, no matter.

Julie, you chose to spend the weekend in the "sin city" what else did you expect?

I don't know who "girls gone wild" are, but then I don't follow the trends and the what nots' of the "cultural insanity", that's why 17 years ago we wanted to live in peace in the forest, but it didn't pen out. So we lived in the country simply like country bumpkins as the next best thing.

The fact there are so many women who think their "male-attracting power", their whore-like behaviours and so on, is because of lack of genuine role-modelling in their lives.

Their desire for love got arrested, got stuck at the second chakra. Which is a long ways away - esoterically speaking - from their heart chakra. And this is where they're at. Spinning its wheels of sexual-desires at the 'animal' level . .

Theofilia

4/20/2009 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous mtraven said...

I don't know Theo, that 70's era picture of you on your blog is pretty trollopy.

4/20/2009 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger Robin Starfish said...

In my case, I just put the scalpel out there. It's up to you if you want to plunge into it.

morning sacrifice
to take up my cross daily
and seek the first love

4/20/2009 11:12:00 AM  
Anonymous lame duck said...

Martin, I completely agree with you on those points, too. And also with your comment from yesterday.

"The point is, despite imagining that they are so open about sexuality, they never depict anything resembling real marital intimacy, because it would be "unbearable" to do so."

Wow. That's powerful.

Reminded me immediately of what John Paul II said about pornography -- "it's not that it shows too much, but that it shows too little."

With regards to the complaints you receive... I personally don't see how this place could be seen as a cult, a club, or whatever else. Even the Racoon tag is so apparently tongue-in-cheek (besides I've already sworn myself to this quackish group.It really does make me wonder why anyone would subject themselves to reading something over and over that they seem to so vehemently disagree with and in turn, cause them so much anger.

For example, I can barely stand to even open the home page to the Kos, let alone visit there regularly, absorb the darkness into my being and then take the time to post comments knowing exactly what the result would be. You'd have to be a masochist or addicted to drama. Either that or the message is getting to you and beginning to win you over. You're just resisting it.

As for the comments section here, other than being that of expressing something pertinent about the post, I find it to be also somewhat of a market place good ideas and thought. Those that stink don't make it or get tossed out with the trash, while those that are good are either celebrated or passed around by the others. Doesn't matter who makes them. Seems fair to me.

4/20/2009 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mtraven,

You don't know about "that 70's era picture" ?

Well then, allow me to 'splain then. . . I was a very happy mommy of 4 on that picture and it was certainly not the 70's era.

Know something else? I was at friend's place for Christmas party (last year) seated in a brightly lit room, that couldn't look any brighter when the host-friend asked an old woman to guess my age. (She insists I haven't changed in all the 25 years or more we've known each other).

I jumpped in and said my age, not wanting to play coy... The woman seated next to me gave me a second glance and earnestly said "I would say you were not older than forty".

In case you didn't know - staying young-looking and healthy is one of Shakti gifts.

Theofilia

4/20/2009 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mtraven,

I pressume you read my blog and the only thing you can say is to make a comment on my foto-pic?

How conviniet, eh?

Theofilia

4/20/2009 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Off topic slightly, Miss California (of all places) stirs controversy for standing up for the truth.

4/20/2009 12:27:00 PM  
Blogger mtraven said...

The spiritually aware denizens of this blog are demonstrating their enlightened natures by forging comments under my name. It looks like blogger may be smart enough to not let them link to my site, so if the name mtraven doesn't have a link to http://omniorthogonal.blogspot.com, it's not from me. I don't expect to be spending much time commenting here in the future; it seems like a waste of energy.

4/20/2009 12:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Satan said...

Sorry about that one, my pretties. I'll soon send a more adequate foe.

4/20/2009 12:58:00 PM  
Blogger River Cocytus said...

I recall Fr. Alexander Schmemman wrote in his journal that his wife and he didn't 'talk' much - i.e, have deep discussions or relationship-babble; he said it would ruin the whole thing. Guess he had that figured out, right?

4/20/2009 01:10:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

In a flatland of comraderie, nobody smiles. Funny how living in a communist utopia and perceiving almost everyone as equals doesn't make everyone happier.

4/20/2009 01:15:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

In therapy, talking can often be a defense against something deeper. It dissipates the anxiety, and inducts the therapist into a kind of "rhythm" that must be resisted (of course, there are other times when it is important to resonate with the rhythm).

4/20/2009 01:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

mtraven,

Glad you posted at 12:49, that's I'm withdrawing both of my comments directed to you.

Theofilia

4/20/2009 01:33:00 PM  
Anonymous lame duck said...

North Korea...that's pretty creepy.

I noticed Jackie Chan said he believes that the Chinese need to be controlled. That freedom causes chaos...

4/20/2009 01:37:00 PM  
Anonymous mtraven said...

When you do come to my blog, you'll see my posting of "With God on Our Side' featuring Joan Baez. Even though I hate God and am in league with Satan. I'm consistent like that.

4/20/2009 01:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Petey said...

For the leftist, since the individual is a "law unto himself," he can only be restrained by a state that is a law unto itself. This is entirely in contrast to the political implications of an intrinsically relational godhead bound by freely exchanged love.

4/20/2009 01:43:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

As a bunch of back-thumping holymen, you coons sure are passive-aggressive and insecure, a sort of Amerikan Taliban, costumes and all.

He says that like it's a bad thing. I'll bet he really freaks out when the Shriners are in town.

4/20/2009 01:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Bob, I have a recurring dream of stuffing a large, manure-filled sock into Joan Baez's piehole. What does do you think it means?

4/20/2009 01:50:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It means you are normal.

4/20/2009 01:50:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Mushroom - I bet he'd find this guy positively terrifying.

4/20/2009 01:57:00 PM  
Anonymous hoarhey said...

Bob,

Do you have a diagnosis for when someone spits in your face and then comes back the next day and tells you how great you are?
Obama seems to be doing alot of that in the last 100 days, and confining it to U.S. residents. Maybe a family trick he learned from Stanley?

4/20/2009 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Excellent -- Cheney calls the Messiah's bluff:

“One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.”

“I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven't announced this up until now, I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country.”

“And I've now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”

4/20/2009 02:21:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Awesome. Cheney's my new hero.

4/20/2009 03:29:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

It's amazing what the left has done to Cheney. Some day it will be used as a case study in projection.

4/20/2009 03:38:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I was trying to think what I knew about him; besides the shooting incident, very little - on the one hand, of course the whole eeeeevil Haliburton connection comes to mind, along with the kerfuffle over his daughter being gay, but on the other (er, true) hand there's pretty much a blank.

4/20/2009 03:41:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Prediction:
Cheney’s request will be “ignored” …and then filled in the very big folder labeled “We Won”.

4/20/2009 03:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Big Bruduh said...

He means "filed".

4/20/2009 03:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Cousin Dupree said...

Yes, it's already filled.

4/20/2009 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

“The point is, despite imagining that they are so open about sexuality, they never depict anything resembling real marital intimacy, because it would be "unbearable" to do so.”

As you say, “there will be exceptions”…
I thought the “love scenes” in The 300 seemed very real in this sense; in the context of when and why they took place. I’m talking about, too, the “love” scenes where the couple often portrayed their roles as “of one mind”, complimentary halves of one person, really.

4/20/2009 04:01:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Yes, since I rarely see contemporary films, I was speaking from pure principle and psychological truth. In other words, I was taking a shot in the dark.

4/20/2009 04:08:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

I hope you could tell I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Because I wasn’t. I was just sharing a little good news. I mean, these portrayals were a welcome change. BTW, by “love” scenes I was talking about the scenes when they were simply together. By “love scene” I meant the one scene in bed. Both were the lasting kind.

4/20/2009 04:21:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Ricky, you're right about that one. A rare exception, indeed.

4/20/2009 04:28:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

“As HvB writes, before unveiling oneself before the world, one must naturally ask if it is serving any "other purpose than to proclaim one's own superiority."

This is another of those warnings that is also a gift. I’ll tell you, there seems to be as many warnings as encouragement to the serious seeker. They all make sense and with good reason, of course, if not at first. It must be as delicate, difficult and dynamic a balance for the teacher as the seeker, just from different perspectives or angles. And who would give this type of gift if it wasn’t love.

“But even more importantly, if it is not accompanied by a sense of deep intimacy and sacredness, then YUR DOIN IT RONG.”

This is like the question: how will I know when I am in love? The answer is: you’ll know.
I wonder if you even have a choice but to not treat it that way; as sacred. It comes with it, I think. Or both are simply overlooked or don’t register.

4/20/2009 04:32:00 PM  
Anonymous word veri said...

Hola, pards; Britain's Got Talent does it again. Hope all the attention doesn't backfire on the kid, though. Today's pop culture does love to see innocence destroyed...

4/20/2009 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Julie,
This may be my favorite love scene from the movie right here.

4/20/2009 04:55:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

I love it. No words pass between them, and barely even any body language, but the message is perfectly clear.

Good call, Ricky.

4/20/2009 05:06:00 PM  
Anonymous word veri said...

Though as an aside, I do wonder if all those bodies would poison the well water?

Just askin

4/20/2009 05:08:00 PM  
Blogger Nolanimrod said...

Brevity is the soul of wit.

s/h/it? very nice!

4/20/2009 05:48:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

I remember that picture, Julie. It was probably what caused that comment to bubble up.

4/20/2009 06:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Skully said...

How can anyone not love Dick?
Like John Bolton he tells it like it is and he is much more generous than any Donk when giving to charity.
Bravo, Mr. Cheney! Don't listen to those "moderate" weenies who wanna shut you up.

Outstanding post, Doc Bob!
Just what the doctor Ordered.

4/20/2009 07:46:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Ace of Spades:

"Will Obama do it and risk people thinking, "maybe this wasn't such a bad idea after all?" If they don't do it, then the argument becomes, "there must be something so valuable they can't talk about it." Which again means, it worked.

"It seems all the Obama administration can do is ignore this or they better find some contemporaneous memos that say, "this isn't doing any good."

"Either way, well played by the Dark Lord and Master. God, I miss him."

4/20/2009 07:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Skully said...

"BTW, not that you are interested, but then again you keep asking: I come here as a field test for my own BS detector."

Hey Mtraven-
Yer BS detector would work better if you weren't already full of BS.

4/20/2009 07:55:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

Believe me, I hope I’m wrong but, call me if this is still a story in 5 days.

4/20/2009 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

“or they better find some contemporaneous memos that say, "this isn't doing any good."

Better yet, type one up and hand it to Dan Rather.

4/20/2009 08:14:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Again it reminds me of Mrs. G., who one day made the conscious decision to resist the idea that I had any desire to hurt her, and to simply assume that I meant her well, irrespective of how it felt. Like magic, the clouds dispersed. Of course, this is not to suggest that you should open yourself up like this to "just anybody." Rather, you must be sure that the person has no personal agenda, and that they only have your self-interest in mind -- which is none other than love."

That was Beautiful, Bob. Thanks.
Truth, trust and Love. Therein lies Goodness.

4/20/2009 08:44:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Completely off topic, but this is just good to know.

4/20/2009 08:48:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

The Cheney interview is on Fox now, for anyone who may have missed it earlier.

4/20/2009 09:01:00 PM  
Anonymous Mike O'Malley said...

Barack Hussein Oleader = the anti-Bush?

Joe (Robinette) Btfsplk = the anti-Cheney?

It's going to be a long 4 to 8 years. I hope we all survive.

4/21/2009 03:03:00 AM  
Blogger Ricky Raccoon said...

This just in...Sandy Berger has been placed in charge of tracking down the Cheney memos.

tick tick tick tick tick...

4/21/2009 07:09:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In all honesty, the pustule commenter had a point there. There is leftist thought lurking in Bob's screed. You can just tell.

Perhaps this is why he relentlessly attacks--he's unable to slip the leftist remnants inside of himself.

4/21/2009 11:44:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home