Extremely interesting once again. This post is too good for me.

Thank you once again for mentioning my name. I wish my name was Spiro Agnew or Reginald Firehammer, but I'll stick to the name on my birth certificate for now to honor my ancestors.

What has humor to do with empathy or compassion? Most humor is satirical, sardonic, sarcastic, sadistic, and/or disgusting. Mine is anyway, what little of it I may have, and most of the humor that I have encountered. Very few Leftists today have the slightest scintilla of empathy or compassion (except for terrorists) or humor. Most Leftists today are too busy glumly looking for signs of "oppression" in Western culture to permit themselves to laugh at anything, and certainly not to laugh at or think about the innumerable fallacies in their own ideology. There is pure "nonsense" humor such as puns or the kinds of paradoxes found in Alice in Wonderland, but those, it has been observed, are enjoyed mostly the more traditional types of people, e.g., G. K. Chesterton.

Myself, I am subjectively and objectively anti-terrorist, and opposed to all collectivism, moral and amoral. While I see things from the perspective of Wanda as well as of Dawn, I am an absolutist. Polytheistic Godliness, Selfishness, Sexiness.

Steven thank you. I put more work into that post than the "throwaway" about Mick Jagger, and now I'm watching that one draw all the hits. Nothing fair about it.

I'm glad it pleased you. (I consider you one of the wittiest denizens of the blogosphere.)

Dear Eric:

Thank you!

As for my wit, though, I have to say that Egyptian joke about the lettuce is getting a little old (about 4000 years old!).

To paraphrase some of the late-comers to Totten's discussion of Wolcott, I wouldn't mess with Wolcott if I were you. I mean, that guy can write.

All utter crap, of course, but he's got skillz. So be careful, he might say something dismissive about you.

After waking up a bit, I'd like to strike the "all utter crap" bit above, and replace it with something to the effect that writing utter crap with excellent technique still doesn't address the odor problem.

I don't write for a living, so with me you get your money's worth.

Wolcott's a much better writer than I am, and I'm sure that if he wanted to he could write more dismissively about me than I could about him (although I'm equally sure he considers me beneath his dignity -- not even up to the level of a gnat.) Barbra Streisand is a much better singer than I am (and John Lennon was a better writer AND singer). Possessing skills is not the same thing as possessing the truth, or of being right. Not that I have any illusions; for example I could never hope -- either musically or verbally -- to counter the nonsense in the song "Imagine." But that does not make "Imagine" right. And Wolcott's writing ability doesn't breathe truth into what he writes.

"Possessing skills is not the same thing as possessing the truth, or of being right"

Ah. the soft bigotry of low abilities rears its unpretty head.

Not possessing Wolcott's writing ability is also not a virtue, Eric, nor does it give you a unique view of the top of the Mountain of Truth. Not possessing Lennon's song writing abilities doesn't make you the one person on the planet capable of delivering the unimpeachable verdict that a song by him is "nonsense." What is "nonsense" to you is not objectively nonsense by definition. You would have it otherwise.

So, it's an odd thing, but in this stalemated world of words and ideas, the leg up in the battle for hearts and minds tends to go to those with the better skills at communication. Doesn't make them right, just more likely to be listened to.

I'm afraid you're disputing words and ideas that aren't mine. I didn't I say that "Imagine" was "objectively nonsense by definition." Nor did I lay claim to a unique view of the top of the "Mountain of Truth."

And while I don't claim to be fighting "the battle for hearts and minds," I don't think that characterizing a simple, logical statement as "bigotry" is the best way to get your "leg up."

Then again, maybe it is.

Oh my, what gibberish.

1. Did you say that "Imagine" contained nonsense or not?

2. Has the expression "The soft bigotry of low expectations" been used in the past few years?

3. Is that an offensive or acceptable construct for you?

3. Could it be possible that I was using a similar construct as a cliche (already hackneyed) and an attempt, albeit poor, to communicate while also entertaining?

4. Isn't anyone who makes arguments one way or the other fighting a battle for hearts and minds at some level? Or do you do it exclusively for your health?

That's my shot at a leg up this time, just to ask some questions seeking honest answers.

I should have acknowledged that you did not claim a unique view of the truth.

I'd note however that the form of your comment on Wolcott might be read to suggest that if Wolcott doesn't own the truth by virtue of his communication skills, maybe you thought you did.

And fwiw, don't sell yourself short. Your communication skills were good enough to get a rise out of me, at the least.

Too many questions!

1. Did you say that "Imagine" contained nonsense or not?

Yes, but my assertion that it contains nonsense is a far cry from saying it's "objectively nonsense by definition." I would never assert such a thing, as I could write hundreds of words hoping to prove that it contains nonsense, and that would still not prove it to any objective standard.

2. Has the expression "The soft bigotry of low expectations" been used in the past few years?

I'm well aware of Rodney Paige's speech, and President Bush's references to it. The idea is that it harms children to expect little of them, and presumes their defectiveness (a form of bigotry). I didn't think you meant to attribute such a mindset to me, but if you did, then I must object even more strenuously, because I think that it's wrong to treat children that way.

3. Is that an offensive or acceptable construct for you?

Offensive? I wouldn't go that far; I just didn't like the argument. Acceptable? Hey, in this blog the only stuff that's unacceptable is the stuff that would get the blog content filtered. (Seven or so words.)

3. Could it be possible that I was using a similar construct as a cliche (already hackneyed) and an attempt, albeit poor, to communicate while also entertaining?

Could be. I do stuff like that all the time, as a lot of people have reminded me.

4. Isn't anyone who makes arguments one way or the other fighting a battle for hearts and minds at some level? Or do you do it exclusively for your health?

I'd hate to think of myself as doing that, because if I battled for (and won) other people's hearts and minds, I might incur a dreadful responsibility.

But my health? Come on, now. I do 120 pushups and fifty chinups a day -- but mainly so I can stay healthy enough to blog.

:)

Eric, I appreciate the response.

One additional comment. I fully agree with you about actually winning hearts and minds being a dreadful responsibility. But, every time we communicate, we are attempting to do just that, whether we realize it or not. Your noting the awful responsibility it carries is encouraging--I think if more people realized that along with the fun comes the responsibility for our words, we'd choose them more carefully.

So, thanks for allowing me to scattershot complain into your blog. I'll stick around and keep reading if you don't mind.

Thanks for coming, and I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. (It happens a lot on the Internet....)