Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Male and Female He Created Him (Not Feman and Shemale)

Today's commandment of nihilism is you shall commit adultery.

But before getting into that, Dennis Prager made a fascinating point yesterday while interviewing a moonbattress named Laura Flanders, an Air(America)head with a new book entitled Blue Grit. (Hmm. Pretty easy on the eyes, especially for a moonbat woman -- speaking of which, when did leftism become the movement of Cindy Shemales? Trust me, it certainly wasn't that way when I was a lad -- rather, it was come for the craven draft-dodging, stay for the willowy, braless babes. This explains much more about a young man's politics than you might realize.)

I'm sure you've noticed that speaking with a conservative is easy, since they are logical, coherent, clear, dispassionate, and able to explain exactly what they believe and why they believe it. You may not agree with them, but you will know exactly what they think -- i.e., small federal government, low taxes, school vouchers, economic liberty, don't make stuff up that's not in the constitution, etc. As humorously expressed in the play My Unfair Lefty, you might say that conservative (classical) liberals

are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a Democrat be like that?
Why does every lib do what the others do?
Can't a moonbat learn to use his head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?
Why can't a lefty take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

But why is it the opposite with illiberal leftists? Why can they never give a straight answer? Why all the evasion and double-talk that they confuse with "nuance?" That's what it was like during Prager's frustrating interview with this woman. At the conclusion of the interview, during his summary of the hour, he made the passing comment that the reason it is so difficult to talk to a liberal is that when you ask them for substance, they give you theory.

Ah ha! Not only does this explain a major aspect of the cognitive pathology that afflicts leftists, but I realize that it is actually a more widespread mechanism that many annoying people share. For example, I notice it all the time in conducting psychiatric evaluations. There is a certain kind of patient who will always answer a general question with a particular, and a particular question with a generality. For example, if I ask, "how often does your back hurt?," they might answer, "it hurts right now." Or, if I ask, "how has your mood been in the past couple of weeks," they might answer, "I've haven't felt the same since my supervisor started yelling at me two years ago."

In the same patients, there is often an inability to distinguish between the external and internal worlds. If you inquire about emotional symptoms, they will speak only of external events that are supposedly making them feel bad, whereas if you ask for an objective chronology of external events, they will tell you only how they felt about them.

Years of experience have taught me that this is an unconscious process, and that there is nothing I can do about it. I can politely say something to the effect of, "you're making this more complicated for yourself than it needs to be. Just listen carefully to the question. There's no need to answer beyond it. Don't worry, we'll eventually cover everything." But it never works. Somehow, they don't hear the question in the way it is posed, but instantaneously transform it into a different question.

I've never thought about it in this way before, but I can see that this cognitive style, if that's what you want to call it, is pervasive on the left. It is not just that leftism is felt rather than thought. We already knew that. Rather, they chronically confuse abstract and concrete, and internal (subjective) and external (objective). Furthermore, this is how they are able to make reality conform to their fantasies, for they can always identify exceptions to general rules. For example, it is a truism that America is the most wealthy and prosperous country because it has the most free economy. But how difficult is it to find a particular person who is not prospering?

Conversely, the leftist will champion a generality such as "universal healthcare," but entirely overlook the particulars -- that is, how the cruelty and inefficiency of such systems actually affects individuals who, for example, must wait six months to get an MRI while there is a tumor growing inside them. In fact, you might say that this is the secret that has allowed abstract leftist ideas to continue despite their obvious failures. Wherever the theory has has been concretely put into practice, it has been unworkable and usually destructive. But this has no effect on the leftist's belief in the abstract theory.

Now, does this have anything to do with the seventh commandment of nihilism, you shall commit adultery? Yes, I believe it does, but in a gnuanced sort of way. Here is a reminder of what I wrote about the actual seventh commandment last summer:

“You shall not commit adultery.” Like the other commandments, this one has an outward, exoteric meaning, as well as an inner, esoteric one. After all, adultery is related to adulterate, which means to corrupt, debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance. In this case, we are talking specifically about the purity of the soul, and avoiding activities that corrupt it.

This commandment goes directly to the heart of the mysterious bond between body and soul, that which distinguishes us from the beasts. According to Valentin Tomberg, “The power of mutual love unites soul and body. Life, which consists of the union of soul and body, is the marriage of soul and body. For this reason the commandment: ‘You shall not commit adultery’ follows from the commandment: ‘You shall not murder.’ For adultery is essentially a form of killing -- of separating soul and body, whose union is the archetype of marriage.”

Let's stop right there for a moment. You've probably never thought of it this way before, but thinking itself is a sort of marriage, or mystical union of opposites. Carl Jung certainly understood this, as did the psychoanalyst W.R. Bion. In fact, in the case of the latter, he actually used the abstract symbols for male and female in his theory of thinking. You might say that the female represents the general, while the male represents the particular. Obviously, it is impossible to think generatively without a "fruitful" interaction between male and female, general and particular, abstract and concrete, induction and deduction.

This is actually not too far off from Schuon's metaphysics, in which he says that the highest reality of which we can conceive within the realm of being consists of the Absolute -- i.e., male -- which is necessarily Infinite -- i.e., female. To say absolute is to say infinite: the one implies the other, just like male and female.

As above, so below. To say that we are "made in the image of God" is to acknowledge that male and female are not merely biological categories, much less arbitrary genders assigned to us by culture. Rather, they are sacred categories that reflect the very metaphysical structure of reality: So he created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Do you catch Rabbi Mo's drift? The passage speaks in the singular before it speaks in the plural: God created man, or the human being, male and female. Then he created them male or female, i.e., the particulars from the divine archetype.

Thus, proper thinking is "male and female." Now that you're properly thinking about it, you will notice that this sacred union is generally absent in the mind of the moonbat. Forget about their attack on marriage, for that is merely an inevitable consequence of their failure to respect the sacred union of male and female within their own soul.

Now don't get me wrong, for what follows obviously has nothing to do with any animus toward the anima. Just ask Mrs. G. But you are now in a position to understand why the leftist is just like a woman, only worse. In other words, their thinking is "pure female," or female-female instead of male-female. However, there is another form of distorted thinking that "supports" the left, and this would be the male-male varieties of scientism, atheism, materialism, empiricism, logical positivism, etc. All of these defective philosophies are way wrong because they lack the intuitive and interior feminine element that would make them complete.

Marriage is simply a sacred memorialization of God's own inner nature and activity (leaving aside the trinitarian aspect, which is the subject for another post). A functioning marriage will transform both members and make them more truly "whole." Perhaps I should emphasize that this wholeness is obviously not denied single people. It is just that they will have to pursue the spiritual marriage more consciously, whereas for a normal man and women -- and they must be normal, not weird aberrations -- marriage affects this transformation naturally, "in the course of things."

I know that this is how it has worked for me. In the course of our relationship, my wife has made me more masculine, while I have made her more feminine. But this dynamic, as it has played out through time, has made each of us more "whole" as a result of internalizing the wholeness of the union. Somewhat hard to explain, and I'm not sure I'm doing a good job of it. Suffice it to say that I could not conceivably be the person I am today without my wife and her transformative influence, and I am sure she would say the same. In her case -- which is probably true of all female Coons, or Herman's Hussies -- she has become much more masculine in the course of becoming more feminine, in that her thinking is just so much more clear and coherent than it was 20 years ago, but without losing any of its feminine qualities. Meanwhile, my mind has become much more... infinite and enveloping.

We can symbolize the relation between these two aspects of Supreme Reality by the following images: in space, the absolute is the point, and the infinite is extension; in time, the absolute is the moment, and the infinite is duration. On the plane of matter, the absolute is the ether – the underlying and omnipresent primordial substance – whereas the infinite is the indefinite series of substances; ...finally, on the plane of number, the absolute will be unity or unicity, and the infinite will be the unlimited series of numbers or possible quantities, or totality.

The distinction between the Absolute and the Infinite expresses the two fundamental aspects of the Real, that of essentiality and that of potentiality; this is the highest principial prefiguration of the masculine and feminine poles. Universal Radiation, thus Maya both divine and cosmic, springs from the second aspect, the Infinite, which coincides with All-Possibility.
--F. Schuon


Here is some more of what I wrote about the seventh commandment last summer (and you will notice that the number seven is important, as it symbolizes completion, specifically, the completion of a cycle):

Jewish tradition regards the bond between Israel and YHVH as a marriage covenant; similarly, think of the covenant between Christ and the church, or the mystical union between the soul and Jesus, or Shiva and Shakti.

Soul and body form a harmonious union, and the separation of the two in any sphere of activity is the equivalent of murder, since the higher life is not possible without their union. When we talk about the death culture, we are really talking about the soulless culture, because so much of our culture has become empty and soulless.

In adhering to the soul in all we do, we remain “faithful” to the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. On the contrary, if we transfer our loyalty to that which corrupts us, we will soon discover that it clings to us as much as we adhere it it. The death culture begets death.

As we have mentioned before, depth is a dimension of soul, so that achieving depth is a pathway toward recognition of the soul’s existence. In the absence of soul, the world has no depth -- everything is of equal importance, or else simply has the importance our fleeting feelings attach to it.

This is why the postmodern strategy of deconstruction is not just bad philosophy. Rather it is murder, specifically, soul murder. And this is why, to paraphrase Richard Weaver, all attacks on religion inevitably result in attacks on the mind itself. Deconstruction is “intellectual crack,” as someone once put it.

In fact, any kind of radical skepticism -- the male principle run amok -- represents nothing more than an esoterism of stupidity: the lower mind’s ability to doubt anything is elevated to the central truth of our existence. It is the worst kind of soul betrayal, because it operates under cover of a counterfeit pursuit of truth.

Perhaps it should be emphasized that this commandment does not imply some sort of dry, austere, or anti-pleasure approach to life. Quite the opposite. In fact, in Jewish tradition, it is said that the first thing God will ask upon your death is why you didn't partake of all the permitted pleasures He so generously bestowed for your enjoyment.

The point is that existence is embodied, but not only embodied. There are two false paths; one is the descending path into hedonism, distraction, and other various soulless activities. But the other false path is the purely ascending one: going up the sacred mountain with the soul, but leaving the body behind.

This is a persistent message of both Judaism and Christianity. Both, in different ways, stress the embodied nature of existence, and the problem of how to sanctify our lives by remembering the soul in everything we do.

But clearly, if one stands back and looks at the historical situation from the widest possible vantage point, we can see a problem. Because the Judeo-Christian tradition regards the world as real and worthy of our attention, it can lead to an exteriorizing tendency that ends up severing soul and body.

On the other hand, if we look at the philosophies of the east, they have tended to regard the world as illusory, or as only maya, unworthy of being taken seriously. Historically they have made the opposite mistake of becoming too interior: “Brahman alone is real.” Thus, Buddhism and Hinduism have a bit of an interiority complex.

I do believe that the evolutionary task of our age is to bring these two extremes back together -- to fully reconcile soul and body and achieve the mystical marriage of a Life Divine in a monkey body. In truth, it is merely a matter of emphasis, for there is no question that this is at the heart of the uncorrupted Christian message.

Likewise, although Sri Aurobindo corrected Vedanta’s overemphasis on otherworldly concerns, he too was simply going back to the original message of the Upanishads: “To darkness are they doomed who devote themselves only to life in the world, and to a greater darkness they who devote themselves only to meditation,” says the Isha Upanishad. Rather, “Those who combine action and meditation cross the sea of death through action and enter immortality,” that is, through the sacred union of soul and body, spirit and matter, male and female, mamamaya and papurusha (for those who know their punskrit).

I once had a psychotic patient who took one look at my name--Godwin--and blurted out, “Godwin--is that like a combination of God and Darwin?” I thought about it for a moment and knew that he was right, for while he might have been crazy, he wasn't stupid. Because the whole point of my philosophy is to marry Adam and Evolution in such a way that they love hopefully over laughter, both aspiring and helping each other toward the same nonlocal goal 'til death deus part, but only for awhole. Like the song says, "We've only just begun..."


How feelings trump thought in the environmental movement: How about Ecomomic Progress Day instead of Earth Day?


cousin Dupree said...

Cool! Dear Leader is the neo-coon Wilber, which I don't think means what she thinks it does. Perfect illustration of today's post.

juliec said...

Wow, so now we've been elevated to clones? My husband won't be too pleased about that ;)

I suppose it's better than being a cultist!

NoMo said...

"...the leftist will champion a generality such as "universal healthcare," but entirely overlook the particulars."

Ahhh, because you know what's in the details...

a.k.a. Blandly Urbane said...

I don't know where to begin, so I won't even try. Although, I think that was my beginning.

Considering the male/female speaking. I've recently been discovering this in my relationship with my wife. More times than not my response to something is to deconstruct it and offer fixes or ideas or thoughts. While she is on an entirely different line of thought, that being more feeling.

We have often had discussions that become more argument, then return to discussions once we've gotten to the point of understanding what the other was talking about or meant. It may end up being that she was looking for the emotional or commiseration/empathy type response, but that was not my immediate response; and this can be confusing for the thick like myself.

Logically this doesn't make sense to me because it is illogical. Doesn't she want an answer to the specific issue we are talking about? No, she didn't/doesn't as she is looking for the emotional support.

She'll say, I had to do this or that with our daughter today, but it didn't work. I'll then spout off suggestions; she then feels as though I'm putting down her attempts or feel that I don't think she is doing a good job with the child rearing. We have two now and I couldn't possibly deal with half of one all day long and do the absolutely wonderful job she is doing with making them into little people on their way to being big ones. I've told her this too, so I get points for that, although it was not said to acquire points (but I'll take them).

Long story short; I see what the h-e double hockey sticks you're talking about.

Without formal education on various aspects on life I have found something you mentioned odd on my own; or at least something you averred to with regard to "So he created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

That being the need for some to be offended by the use of the term "man." For certain feminists of the Femi-Nazi variety (based upon a number of run ins with Womyn's Studies Majors years ago), I did not understand the need to change the language to reflect a difference between woman and man. Like the word "womyn" when "man" and "woman" can be pieces of the word "human."

Well I have work to do. Thanks alot for these mind overtaking posts. I can't get jack done!!!

One last: I once made the error of seeing a bunch of "womyn" that I knew out on the town and remarking "girls night out, eh?" I think you can imagine it didn't go over too well. Aren't there enough things to be offended about or bothered by that we shouldn't need to create them?

Gagdad Bob said...


Yes, ironic, isn't it? There are thousands of "Wilberians," but there will never be a Gagdaddian. At least one hopes.

WBJ said...

Bob wrote:

"However, there is another form of distorted thinking that "supports" the left, and this would be the male-male varieties of scientism, atheism, materialism, empiricism, logical positivism, etc. Each of these defective forms of thinking is way wrong because they lack the intuitive and interior feminine element that would make them complete."

Dude, you don't like empiricism? What's the deal? I took about 32 hours of science in college, and I got to tell ya that empiricism came in handy.

Otherwise I loved the post. The male-female thought process in particular. However, I'm sure I missed the point.

OK. We have a healthy husband and wife. An issue arises. Husband processes the issue first using male thought, then considers female thought. Wife does the opposite, starting with female thought, then considering male thought.

Husband and wife discuss. This way, each has the benefit of two original and natural perspective that can be translated into each individual's perspective. OK, I'm not communicating this well.

As in, the female naturally, or perhaps reflexively, first thinks female. Then she considers male thought, like a person first thinking in English, then translating those instinctual thoughts into, say, German.

So, when the wife explains her female perspective to the husband, who has already attempted to "see" from the female point of view, she can confirm, deny, or flesh out his attempts...

I'm just going to stop typing now.


juliec said...

"I once made the error of seeing a bunch of "womyn" that I knew out on the town and remarking "girls night out, eh?" I think you can imagine it didn't go over too well. Aren't there enough things to be offended about or bothered by that we shouldn't need to create them?"

Of course there are - it's just that they don't want to see/ think about the real dangers, (true evil is beyond their ability to comprehend and deal with) so they make up straw dangers that they can tackle, defeat, and ultimately feel better about, while having accomplished nothing good or useful at all.

I mean, unless of course you were coming at them with a burrito while dressed as Captain America, in which case they were totally justified...

robinstarfish said...

Fossil Record
tincan trilobite
godwin finds the missing link
can you dig it man?

cousin Dupree said...


Bob was obviously speaking of empiricism as a metaphysic, not a method.

cousn dupree said...

The moonbat in my first comment prefers the subtle poetry of William Irwin Thompson to the B'ob's hateful rants:

When first did Americans
become consenting addicts to deceit?
Did it start with FDR’s feigned surprise
in his famous day in infamy’s speech,
or back with Wilson’s “war to end all wars”?
Or did it begin with our own sinking
the Maine and blaming it on the Cubans
so that the American Empire could
set its ramparts out from Puerto Rico
to Hawaii and the Spanish Phillipines?
Or should I go farther back to Lincoln
“the Great Emancipator” who did not
want to free the slaves but only ship
the inferiors back to Africa?
Honest Abe was our first Imperial
Bismark suspending habeas corpus,
to forge the industrial nation-state....

exo-man said...

Great post Bob.

I note with pleasure your reference to the images of marriage in God's relationship with man.

I firmly believe that we didn't get this far for God to save a few coons. His gospel is for everyone and is not locked up in Schuon, Bion, the Upanishads, Meditations on the Tarot etc. etc. I am not putting them down. There is a huge amount of wisdom therein but the work of salvation is to evangelize the word of God and to offer everyone a relationship to God and open up the eye of their understanding.

The Way manifests itself through the Church -- unadalterated by our spiritualizing of it. Christ ordained Twelve. He calls us to unity of faith through apostles and prophets evangelists and teachers with Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.

Obviously there are many asocial people who want to trivialize this so they can live their spiritual fantasy life but it will not do. The Supper of the Lamb will be served to the Church and the church is a body of believers who share a unity of faith and receive a measure of his grace through the authority of the church.

Gagdad Bob said...


I agree with what you say, except to emphasize that not everyone is identical and that religion is not just for intellectually average or inferior men.

River Cocytus said...

Dupree: Ugh. Retcharific. Since America really hasn't changed that much, if it is imperialistic now it must have always been so!

Also, hot-babes theory? Totally on. One thing (that may get me in trouble but I'll say it anyway) that is important to note is that how 'hot' a 'babe' is depends a lot on how she treats herself, and not as much on predetermined 'babeness'. There are few women who are so unbelievably gorgeous that they will look it no matter how they dress, and there are very few on the other extreme.

And how a woman treats herself is also reflected in how men treat her.

So the hot babes theory reflects something about the men as well.

I recall this poem, just for a moment:

Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths,
Enwrought with golden and silver light,
The blue and the dim and the dark cloths
Of night and light and the half light,
I would spread the cloths under your feet:
But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.

To wit, dreams are the cloths of heaven. And the ladies love fine clothing :)

sawdust said...

Posting with a heavy heart today, my mother has just passed away, as we say in the South. I can't be too sad, my parents were the perfect example of the male/female union, married for 50 years without so much as a cross word, ever. Dad died 10 years ago, she was ready to go on to whatever awaits. We never had much in the way of material things, which I lamented back then but appreciate now. Most people have probably never experienced what is commonplace for me; a gathering of 40 or so family members (I have 5 sisters), and the prevalent sound is laughter, never any fussing or refusing to talk to someone else. What a woman.

Well, I have to go tend to the things that must be tended to, be back in a few days.

River Cocytus said...

exo: not to put you down, but you seem to consider this an either/or situation. It never was. This is not a have cake/eat cake proposition. It is a "Anyone can drive a car, but knowing the theories and inner workings of all cars does not prevent successful driving."

But, I know exo basically ignores this since I don't 'follow the authority of the church' being a Protestant. In truth, sometime around the 60's, protestants finally began to realise that their individual sub-denomination was not the only one 'saved'.

Of course, parishoners realized that long ago. But who argues with the purveyors of salvation?

Are we saved merely to save others? Is that it? That sounds like a the ICC or any other cult. No, we saved to live a life more abundant. The 'Great Commission' is a part of Christian life, but is by no means all of it.

Narrowness begets narrowness.

Lisa said...

So, it's safe to assume that the divorce rate of a Leftist mind is even higher than the actual divorce rate of married people in this country?! Too bad the lawyers can't get involved in this kind of divorce. Edwards would make a killing!

juliec said...

Sawdust, so sorry to hear about the loss of your mother. It sounds as though she, along with your father, gave you the kind of family life that most people truly wish they had. May God be with you and yours as you gather for the last goodbye.

Joan of Argghh! said...

I can see that this cognitive style, ... is pervasive on the left.

You mean this cognitive style?---

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. But the LORD God called to the man, "Where are you?"

He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid."

And he said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?"

The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it."

Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?"

The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."


So, the cognitive style you speak of is merely called, "hiding." Adam and Eve begat left-speak! (And blame-shifting, too!)


exo-man said...

Bob, I understand the ironic reply. There are esoteric opportunities and possibilities to exotericism. But when one starts with esotericism and makes that one's life then the end is just a fantasy.

If the world is to change and leftism is to be defeated by righteousness it will be because of the spread of the gospel through the Church. For all his wisdom, the unknown friend won't have much to do with it.

Gagdad Bob said...


I don't know why you thought I was being ironic.

Also, ideas, both good and bad, have far-reaching consequences that you do not -- cannot -- appreciate. Which is fine. It is not your fate or your calling to do so.


You make Herman proud for speaking the naked truth. You are entirely correct that leftthink was prefigured in Genesis.

mogollon rim said...

To add to the male/female debate, there is an axiom about people that is counter-intuitive but should be factored in:

1. People want "trouble" and seek it out.

People create drama in their lives by any means possible, because the first rule of living is that "shit has to happen."

A woman will confront a man with logic is he is emotional, and emotions if he is logical. The whole point is to be contentious. An argument is its own reward.

A spiritual man will seek out a non-spiritual one with whom to spar, and vice-versa.

The right winger craves the leftist like a lover. Without her he has no warrior spirit to motivate him.

Without the hated industrio-military complex, the leftist feels hollow and vapid.

People will pursue peace and happiness, but once they get them they will always let them go so as to return to the pursuit of them again.

Boredom is the ultimate pain.

The "take home" is to keep in mind that deep down we don't want the Kingdom of Heaven and all that it entails. We only love the process of getting closer to it.

We don't want peace.
We don't want harmony.
We don't want universal love.
We don't want everyone to be "correct."

That is the real reason to "love thy enemy as thyself." You better believe you need her.

Next time you face the femi-nazi, celebrate her within even as you joyously smite her down.

Van said...

"But why is it the opposite with leftists? Why can they never give a straight answer? Why all the evasion and double-talk that they confuse with "nuance?""

For the eggheads, Ol' Kant set the trend and codified it into policy for all who followed, I'm afraid. Check him out. Where he sets out to show "What" you see, he instead diverts you into 'How' it is that you don't really don't see thing's, but the noumena-poumena-loseYaSoonEnoughHa gyrations of his maximum density Tome.

Ask him "How" you should behave, and you get unwavering particular categorical imperatives.

Just part of the requirements for sleight of hand - ask any con-man or magician.

For the rest of the non-egghead followers, as Joan of Arrgghh! mentioned:

So, the cognitive style you speak of is merely called, "hiding." Adam and Eve begat left-speak! (And blame-shifting, too!)

Basically, if you want to hide what can't be hidden, you just divert attention and continue on pretendin'

MizzE said...

"The universal sign language of babealiciousness

cousin Dupree said...

This is a stupid question, but what are tags and how do they work? Will they just bring more unwanted traffic from the Uncomprehenders and give me more work to do?

cousin Dupree said...

Mizz E:

Ha! That's what I call the ultimate pyramid scum.

Smoov said...


Blogger tags allow you to manually customize your blog template. There are many options available for getting exactly the layout you want, and ways to indicate that certain information should be presented (such as the blog archive).

Most folks who are not HTML savvy will opt for one of the pre-fab Blogger templates.

Tags as defined by Blogger probably won't affect traffic one way or another. For that you would want to promote the blog on other blogs, etc. For example, I found OC via Wretchard.

Van said...

I think tags are supposed to be useful thingys to help find related topics. Being that I've been a programmer for over 10 years... I haven't figured them out yet.

I think Ricky Racoon is.

River Cocytus said...

To my knowledge you 'tag' an article with what the subject matter pertains to, so that searches on that subject through blogger (and trickling through google) will have a greater likelihood of linking to that post.

So todays might be tagged like,

"Philosophy","Theology","Nihilism","Seventh Commandment" (etc.)

That is, at least, I THINK how they are supposed to work.

Van said...

Ahem. Including any links containing high resolution pictures of Helen Thomas,Helen Thomas mind you, on a page that is likely to be read around meal times... well, it seems a bit negligent, that's all.

Smoov said...


What you are describing are are meta tags which can be used for any web site, not just Blogger. Blogger tags are far more extensive, however they can be used to include categorization and keywords as well.

Here is the inside scoop if you're interested:

Template Tags: defined

Smoov said...

Blogger's definition of tags:

Blogger makes Web updates easy. At a minimum, all you have to do is write a post and click "publish" to see your page updated. When you submit a post to Blogger, it gets saved to our database and this is where Blogger tags come in. Blogger tags tell our blog publishing program which information to fetch from database and put on the page. "Please put the title here, the post right underneath, and then the date and time go here and here. Thank you." It's all very polite.

Smoov said...

Not to flog a dead horse, but meta tags (description & keywords) have been deprecated in recent years. Google for example ignores these tags and generates its own page description. Google rankings are determined mainly by how many other sites link to your site, which is why Wikipedia is near the top of almost any search for things like "theology", "esoteric Christianity", "Cousin Dupree's rap sheet", etc.

wv: kosefen (WARNING: may cause drowsiness)

juliec said...

I think that Del.ici.ous is also a tagging database-type thingy; it works with whatever blog program you're using, so anyone who goes to their main site and clicks on a particular tag will get a list of links from all over the blogosphere that are labeled with that tag.

Van said...

Thanks, but my problem is more of actually doing it. I don't know about you, but working on Html/XHtml/Xml/Xsl/Css/Asp/Wsdl/C#/Vb/Sql///... all day seems to drain me of my interest by the time I get home. The question of "Use it or kluge it" always seems to fall into the Use It column.

The first time I looked at the Blogger template I said "Oh heck with that, I'll just write what I need... but first I'll use theirs ... for a little while..." That little while's approaching a year now. I'm starting to feel like the ace mechanic with the clunker in the driveway.


NoMo said...

MizzE - What Van said! I didn't linger there for more than a moment and I'm still recovering from the shock.

Appropriate link warnings are in order.


Joan - Beautiful illustration of the original "victim".

wv: ulfbqrn (Don't talk with your mouth full!)

MizzE said...

Perhaps you may think me negligent for not writing sooner, but I have just returned from picnicing, and as I would not care for anyone to think of themselves as forgotten by some careless person, I now address and express regret to those who may have experienced any unpleasant consequences resulting from my lack of forethought with regard to effects such a vision might induce in the recipient, in other words - Ximeze made me do it.

jwm said...

As Bob has said, your position, that there is no salvation outside the [Roman Catholic?] Church, is respected here.
Why the hostility?
You want to encourage people to agree with your position? Start out by calling them fools if they disagree. It warms up the audience.
You aren't stupid, and I don't think you're shooting from the hip when you sling a metphor comparing solitary Believers to masturbators, as you did yesterday, or as "asocial people living a "spiritual fantasy life", as you so kindly did today.

Insult (complete with sexual innuendo, at no extra charge!).
Contempt, cleverly masked behind the "great post, etc."

Yesterday you mentioned rejecting certain religious ideas, and confirming your chosen faith in high school. High school. It must be difficult for you to imagine the length of time that the process of spiritual awakening may take in other people. Or the spiritual distance that some must travel. You know- I used to be pretty darn hostile toward religion. Hated it as a fatter of mact. In my case, bridging that distance is a process that began decades ago. It has been quickened (to use Will's favorite term) immeasurably by my daily attendance here. Some are called to the vinyard early in the day. You seem to be sneering at those of us who may be getting the call later on in the afternoon. The wages, if I remember the story, are pretty much the same.


Van said...

MizzE said " other words - Ximeze made me do it."

sigh. shoulda known. sorry MizzE.

Mistress Argghh! Your novice is at it again!

i swear this is wordverif:

hoarhey said...

Speaking of divorce, Alec Baldwin is supposedly divorcing himself from the U.S.A.


If it turns out to actually happen, I'll credit Bob's posts for shining the light.
What else is a clone to do?

I'm sorry for your loss.

Ricky Raccoon said...


Thanks for the complement.
Not a programmer.
But I play one on TV.
(Animator joke. Buhdumbum – tishhh…)

I wish I had a nickel for every time I wished I knew one.

Tags? English smokes, I think.

juliec said...

Hoarhey, I hope it's true, I'd love to break out the good beer and have a party in hizzoner.

JWM, you stole the thought from my mind. If Exo really wants to bring people over to his church (whichever it might be), he's going about it in exactly the wrong way. To borrow another Pragerism, if you want someone to join your church, the best thing you can do is be a happy, pleasant person. Exo comes across as neither, thus far, and frankly whatever belief system he espouses is not a good match for me.

Way to win converts, Exo - keep it up, champ!


juliec said...

I'm reminded of some "good Christians" I've known in the past, exactly the types who made me happy not to be a part of organized religion; one used to tailgate and otherwise vehicularly harass other drivers who had Darwin fish on their bumpers. The other proudly wore a WWJD lanyard, while talking about how he destroyed someone's camera for taking his picture (and just generally acted a royal prick).

Ricky Raccoon said...

Julie, Hoarhey,

Don’t start celebrating yet.
He will still be too close for me.
Heard he’s been looking for a place here:

For Sale, Handy-Man

Ricky Raccoon said...

Saw a pretty good bumper sticker the other day. Among a handful of other placards, and bumper stickers jammed on the left side of the car’s trunk:


(What would Yoda Do)

On the right side of the car’s trunk, all by-itself, place of honor spot, was the Jesus Fish.

Was a girl driving, maybe 18. Made my laugh out loud by myself – but laughing with her. By the style of the car and other things attached to it it seemed it was her car.
Was nice to see that lighthearted combination from someone her age – for a change. I don’t see that much here in lefty/libland.

Anonymous said...

Oh, no - I can see it now: Planet Baldwin. The inhabitants would probably resemble a horrifying mix of Klingon personality and lounge-lizard fashion sense.

juliec said...

That was me :)

River Cocytus said...

Just wanted to link one of my favorite comic artists 'A Little Birdie Told Me'

Funny stuff most of the time.

Anonymous said...

Van said...

What the... how the heck did I get here? I made a left turn, and...hee haw! hee haw!

corporeal shadow said...

And now, a word from our sponsors:

Troll traffic too light? Status quo gotcha down? Go do a little evilngelizin! Tell someone who criticises your thin skin that they're full of...consumed ether! Always room for anonther non-cloon off Gagdaddian's Isle!

margolane said...

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow gnos!"

Van said...

Poor 'annonymous' shadow, not even able to stand a slight tickle on your site (that Cuz linked to in the first comment above)?

Do you really equate a light ribbing with the persistent nastiness you dwell on?

How terribly sad.

Ok, now you can add the full weight of your intellectual onslaught... oh why wait, here, I'll do it for you: "hee haw! hee haw!"

I swear this is wv:upxdfu
sometimes I really wonder about that thing. 2nd wv:oekwz

Van said...

P.S. Still laughing.
(how could I do otherwise?)

River Cocytus said...

Hmm... because, shad'oh, obviously we're drones at B'ob's command!

Yes... must defend Bob's honor... beep!

Worth a chuckle.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I know what you mean, Cuz, Van,
et al (et al sounds cool doesn't it?).
Firstly, he doesn't even know the difference between a Coon and a Neo-Coon.
Secondly, we don't do the color-coded Wilber waltz.

I could go on, but why bother?
Clearly, this troll is wacked out.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Stepford Coons.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

CCCOP= Cloned Coon Cult Of Personality

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Send in the Cloons

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

My condolences.
May God's peace be with you and your family.

Sally said...

I, otoh, am a lovely person, so let me try:

There is only one reason to be a Catholic and that's loving obedience to Jesus, the Lord.

Who, we believe, set up a specific and visual Church with some fairly precise operating instructions, that He wants everyone to belong to.

Due to various circumstances, people, even some devoted Christians, find this hard to accept. These might be ignorance, deeply ingrained prejudices from childhood, exposure to terrible Catholics, past and present, personal agendas - there's lots.

Are there other groups out there that have a handle on Truth? Sure -something that Universal has to resonate in the spirits of people through time and space. Just not all of it.

Which, if you don't believe Jesus was who He said He was, does sound incredibly arrogant. But, if He wasn't, then we, as St. Paul said, are of all men the most miserable.

But if you do believe, then we're back where we started, with loving obedience.

Like most things Christian, it's very simple and incredibly complex.

Today's the 20+ anniversary of my reception into the Church. Trashed my life, enriched my life beyond gnoing - all at the same time.

Sawdust - prayers for your mom and your family. "Her children rise up and call her blessed" - what a worthy remembrance.

Van said...

Oh Ben, quite Clooning around.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Sorry Van-...can't...stop...somebody...
please help me.
Must...break...the Da Dinki Cloon Clone Code!

Van said...

Not much I can add... we all go - what matters is what kind of life is lived while here, and obviously both your Mother and Father lived theirs right and full.

There's always pain at parting, but just as obviously, you will all be able to temper that with much joy over remembering.

Van said...

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...
please help me. Must...break...the Da Dinki Cloon Clone Code!"

Snap out of it man! (slap, slap) Why break what's already broken?!

Adjust that tie, wash those hands, Straighten that bandit mask.


USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Thanks Van.
That was a close one!
Now I must find...the albino troll.

corporeal shadow said...

Geez, I didn't even have to say "Send in the cloons." They came all by themselves.

Webutante said...


You certainly say a lot in these posts. Good thought provoking stuff. I don't agree with everything, but certainly a lot of it I do.

I have something to say that I've thought about for years. Perhaps this post is the where I can deposit it.

Have always thought the sexual revolution of the sixties essentially masculinized women with respect to our sexuality. Women were willing to have sex more often outside marriage until it became de rigueur. Then women were taught to have meaningless sex. Today, women are often the sexual aggressors. This is a role reversal and has often had the effect of feminizing men who no longer have to be the aggressors. They can now sit idly by and let it come to them. Maybe that's why there's so much sexual dysfunction in both sexes--women have become like men and men more passive like women. But the soul knows the way God made us and it won't be fooled.

How that applies to not being adulterous? Maybe one automatically commits adultery when he or she moves out of the role we were naturally designed to fulfill.

eric drewes said...

leave the nihilists out of this, okay bucky? we didnt do anything to you, jerk.

Gagdad Bob said...

Yes you didn't! You did nothing to nobody!