Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Beyond Government

I’ve always thought that one of the big problems of government -- if not the only problem of government -- is in thinking that the government is all of society, culture and reality, rather than actually a small but critical, most visible part of it. I think most people don’t rise each day by government edict and conduct their lives by government fiats -- of how to think, what to do, whom to associate with, etc.

There is far more going on in that society than what the government actually does control. At best, the government sets a baseline standard -- that shouldn’t be regarded as the highest realms of human achievement and possibilities, but is the minimum expectations of a civilized society. In cultures that mistake the minimum for the maximum, all deviations are regarded as “crimes” against that political and moral rightness (conformity), rather than considering the possibility that deviations also include expressions of that objective, in ways that substantially exceed the minimum -- that they have no training to recognize because it may be the creation of that moment.

So it is that people think, that in order to do anything, they have to convince everyone else to do it -- before they can, themselves. It never occurs to them that those freedoms and liberties are allowed unless specifically (or generally) prohibited -- and not that there has to be a specific law on the books before they can ride a bike to work, plan for their own rainy day fund, make their lives better in all the ways possible. It doesn’t require a permit -- although some authoritarian figures, will try to convince everyone they can, that everyone else must live up to their expectations for how everybody else ought to behave.

The most famous of these are usually to be found as editors of the local newspapers -- but they are also plentiful at the schools and universities, where people regard those situations not as a trust, but as their personal fiefdom. They invariably claim special rights and privileges not granted to everybody else in that society -- by unilaterally claiming them in this way. As editor of the newspaper (president of a one-person organization, etc.), they’ll claim to speak for all the people -- as though that was their exclusive right guaranteed in the Constitution -- and not just the right, as every citizen has, to speak for themselves without the fear of persecution.

In fact, they will insist on their further right to speak anonymously or misleadingly because of their fear of persecution -- which enables them to evade responsibility and accountability for their expressions. These are obviously abuses and deceptions rather than the freedom to express the truth that was the intent of these guarantees that enable the flowering of humanity’s greatest achievements and possibilities.

So when we only talk about what the government (governor) must do to ensure our happiness and well-being, it undermines our own primary powers and duties to provide those things for ourselves -- as individuals, which is the ultimate power in a free society, in a free republic. The greatest fear of the founders of the republic about “democracy,” was this tendency to devolve simply into the tyranny of the majority, or the masses manipulated by a few.


At June 07, 2006 1:43 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

John Stossel: Not Afraid to Tell the Truth
Ed Sigall,
Saturday, June 3, 2006

Veteran ABC newsman John Stossel won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists and came to a chilling conclusion – the biggest threat to our well-being is often our own government.

The "20/20" co-anchor made a dramatic about-face when he realized that "less government is good government." He abandoned his liberal perspective, became a libertarian – and paid a heavy price, he recently told NewsMax in an exclusive interview.
When Stossel changed his political stripes, suddenly the awards stopped coming, once-friendly producers shunned him and the liberal establishment struck back with a vengeance. But now he's coming out swinging harder than ever at "monster government." His eye-opening new book, "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity," has recently been released has become a New York Times bestseller.

As a young reporter crusading on behalf of consumers, Stossel says he embraced the liberal mantra that "people should be pretty free to live their own lives but that wise government should tax people to make their lives better – and it should especially tax rich people to make poor people's lives better. That would end poverty and do all kinds of wonderful things."

The deeper Stossel dug into these complex issues, however, the more he saw that the regulators and bureaucrats who were supposed to solve problems were often at their very root.

"I had an unusual ringside seat on the regulatory state as a television consumer reporter," he explained. "I'm a little embarrassed about how long it took me to see the folly of most government intervention. It was probably 15 years before I really woke up to the fact that almost everything government attempts to do, it makes worse," Stossel confesses.

"Top-down central planning is never as effective as free individuals making their own choices, because free individuals will adapt to reality every second, but the central planners can adapt only when they get together to vote."

Stossel, a Princeton graduate, credits his own reporting and reading for his enlightenment, but says no single incident turned on the light.

"It was really a slow epiphany," he admits. One factor "was watching The New York Times endlessly prescribe solutions and then watching them fail."

The mainstream media did not take kindly to Stossel's political conversion, which occurred about 20 years ago.

"They like me less," he says with his familiar deadpan humor, adding, "Once I started applying the same skepticism to government, I stopped winning awards."

He remembers how one news show ambushed him.

"The CNN program ‘Reliable Sources' had me on after I did my first special [in 1994], ‘Are We Scaring Ourselves to Death?' When I got there, I found that they had titled the program, ‘Objectivity in Journalism – Does John Stossel Practice Either?'"

Stossel's political awakening triggered mixed reactions from his ABC colleagues – including "bewilderment and lack of interest. I had to fight hard to get certain stories on the air."

But others approached his transformation with an open mind. "Hugh Downs was supportive," he reveals. "Barbara Walters was better than most of my colleagues. When a correspondent said in a meeting, ‘We've got to have a law to stop that,' Barbara said, ‘Well, we can't have laws for everything.' So instinctively she gets some of these ideas. She is very smart."

Stossel encountered most of his opposition behind the scenes.

"The on-air people are not really in a position to stop me or encourage me. It's producers who do that." And almost all of the producers have a liberal bent, he reveals. "Some were hostile. A few were curious."

And most, he says, were skeptical of his ideas.

"After the airing of my first special, two freelance producers quit, saying, ‘This isn't journalism – it's dogma!'" That led to a meeting with Paul Friedman, the executive in charge at the time. Stossel recalls Friedman saying, "Well, I don't agree with you, but it is an interesting intellectual argument that deserves to be made." Stossel says, "I give ABC News credit for that."

Like a political Robinson Crusoe, Stossel inhabits his own island of intellectual thought. Rather than trying to please any one political camp, he assails the weak points on all sides of the spectrum. And he has a lot to say about the initiatives of President Bush.

"What the Republicans in the administration have done is to increase spending more than ever. And I don't pretend to be a foreign policy expert, but I am very skeptical of nation building. I also think the drug war is a huge mistake."

Stossel cherishes personal freedom – but some feel he goes to extremes. "I don't think religion should be a part of government, and I think you ought to be able to burn a flag," he says. "I think homosexuality is not unnatural and not something that should be legislated against."

The outspoken journalist says conservatives impress him with their willingness to still invite him to conferences. "But the liberals just say, ‘He's icky,' and don't want to have anything to do with me," he says.

"Liberals have been so dominant in the mainstream media that they have grown fat, lazy and intolerant. Conservatives are happy to have someone in the mainstream media who will at least consider their ideas," the newsman adds.

Stossel reduces many sacred cows to hamburger meat. His new book is a powerful broadside fired across the bow of liberal thought and is bound to draw as much return fire as his previous book, "Give Me a Break."

Confronting the notion that drug companies are evil price gougers, he explains that the higher the price of medicines, the more good medicines we get.

While unions rail against the outsourcing of jobs, Stossel insists, "Outsourcing creates American jobs." The take-no-prisoners journalist has enraged teachers by declaring that part of the problem with our schools is that they are run by "a union-dominated monopoly." Five hundred teachers recently demonstrated outside of ABC in New York City and challenged him to teach for a week.

Stossel revealed to NewsMax he will take them up on the challenge. (For more, see his accompanying column.)

In his new book, the 59-year-old reporter cleverly marshals experts, statistics and fascinating anecdotes to make his points in a lively and entertaining manner.

To drive home how well-intended government regulation can boomerang, Stossel focuses on the pesticide DDT. Once widely used, it gained the reputation of being a "killer chemical," partly because of what he sees as media hysteria.

The real problem, he says, was that DDT was used indiscriminately and far too much was sprayed. But because of its demonization, DDT is rarely used anymore to fight malaria – despite its effectiveness and safety when used in tiny amounts.

And that's outrageous, he writes, because "malaria will kill more than 1,000 children before you finish reading this book."

With so many misconceptions and poor policies afflicting America, what are the first actions that a President Stossel would take?

"I would pass the Stossel Rule – for every new law they pass, they have to repeal two old ones. I would get rid of farm subsidies and the Education Department. That's a start," he says.

While the controversial newsman clearly recognizes the need for government, he defines its proper role as "limited."

"It should keep the peace and protect the environment within reason, run the courts, ensure a common defense and create a safety net, which competes with private charity, but doesn't exclude it. Otherwise," he says, "it should butt out of our lives."

At June 09, 2006 5:56 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Surprise: Old media downplay Zarqawi's death
Jun 9, 2006
by David Limbaugh

Before you assume liberals are acting in good faith in casually dismissing the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as "symbolic," don't forget their endless carping about our failure to capture Osama bin Laden.

Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's lead commander in Iraq, was arguably more important to the terrorist movement these days than Osama, since the terrorists' primary focus has been on Iraq, pouring the lion's share of their energies and resources into preventing the Iraqi people from succeeding in their quest for liberty and constitutional self-rule.

These perennial critics aren't the least bit sincere. Before Saddam was captured they complained of our failure to bring him to justice. When he was captured, they downplayed the event.

Liberal bloggers are unnerved, realizing it will be difficult to spin Zarqawi's death to deny Bush and the American military credit. If they truly supported the troops, they wouldn't be investing one second strategizing over how to control damage to their miserable cause, but rejoicing in this American military triumph. But don't be too hard on these amateurs. They haven't been spinning as long as their mentors in the Old Media. Maybe they should take notes and learn some lessons.

As if to show the upstart bloggers how it's done, the Old Media were quick to issue disclaimers so that the great unwashed would not read too much into this event, as if we red-state, reality-challenged militarists might be operating under the misapprehension that Islamofascists are motivated to kill infidels solely because of their hero worship of a particular leader. provides a number of examples of the media's lukewarm reception of the news. NPR's website hastened to caution that Zarqawi's death was symbolic and "may change little about the situation on the ground." Perhaps, but Zarqawi himself will not be orchestrating or performing any more beheadings or other murders, which will have more than symbolic significance to those Zarqawi would have murdered.

ABC's Diane Sawyer asked former White House adviser and Bush critic-at-large Richard Clarke whether Iraq was any safer and the war would end any sooner after Zarqawi's death. A glum Clarke said, "Well, unfortunately, the answer is no." He then said Zarqawi only commanded a few hundred people out of tens of thousands involved in the insurgency. Huh? Were the libs saying that before he was killed?

NBC's Tim Russert said the death would probably not "change things on the ground," noting that "foreign fighters are not the only threat that confront Iraq. There is this sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and that is separate above the killing of Zarqawi we're witnessing today."

Yes, Tim, but would it be too painful for you to acknowledge that one of Zarqawi's primary missions was to foment that sectarian violence? Indeed, the Washington Post just reported that, "The stated aim of Zarqawi, 39, in addition to ousting foreign forces from Iraq, was to foment bloody sectarian strife between his fellow Sunni Muslims and members of Iraq's Shiite majority … "

If Zarqawi's death doesn't impress you guys, how about the "treasure trove" of information about terror operations in Iraq that we acquired in 17 raids in and near Baghdad following the attack on Zarqawi? Is that symbolic?

How about the information that led to the attack, which U.S. Army Major Gen. William B. Caldwell IV said was acquired from within Zarqawi's network. Is that symbolic? Of course not, but the not-so-mainstream reporters found another angle from which to attack it. At today's White House press briefing, one reporter suggested that since Zarqawi was fingered by another terrorist, perhaps he wanted "to see Zarqawi dead so that [he] could move into the created vacuum." And they call us reality-challenged!

Similarly disappointing, though not surprising, was the reaction of not-very-hawkish-at-all Congressman John Murtha, D-Pa., whose destructive statements we have no right to challenge because of his military record. (See Ann Coulter's brand-new best seller, "Godless" on the infallibility and incontestability of certain liberal mouthpieces.)

Murtha admitted Zarqawi's killing was significant, but refused to concede to CNN's Carol Lin that it wouldn't have occurred if U.S. troops hadn't been on the ground in Iraq. He also used the occasion to complain about the monetary cost of our continued presence in Iraq and reiterated his claim that Iraq was engaged in a civil war of which Al Qaeda was only a small part. "I think they'll settle this themselves, just like we settled our civil war ourselves. … We've diverted ourselves from the real war on terrorism to the war in Iraq."

The libs can spin it any way they want to, but this was a big, big day for our side.

David Limbaugh is a syndicated columnist who blogs at He is also the author of Persecution and Absolute Power: The Legacy of Corruption in the Clinton-Reno Justice Department.

At June 09, 2006 6:04 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Spinning Their Way to Defeat
June 9th, 2006

The first reaction that most Americans had to news that the Jordanian born terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi was killed in a precision bombing raid by the United States Air Force yesterday was one of elation mixed with a grim satisfaction that a huge obstacle to bringing peace and security to Iraq was permanently removed. It was one of those moments that has occurred so rarely in this war; a triumph of good over evil and a clear cut victory for the United States for which all Americans should be thankful.

Not so fast, say many on the left. Former Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich was one of the first to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of “a growing anti-American insurgency” and that it’s time to get out.

“We’re there for all the wrong reasons,” Mr. Kucinich said.

Although the initial reaction to the news by the Democratic party leadership was suitably positive – Senate Minority Leader Reid was particularly fulsome in his praise of the military – as the day went on, a curious thing happened; al Zarqawi shrank in size and importance until by about mid-afternoon, many on the left were asking the question “So where’s Osama?” This Reuters headline was echoed a thousand times on liberal websites and left wing talk radio shows:

“Zarqawi found, but bin Laden still eludes US.”

That the media began to spin the story every which way from Sunday was no surprise. In any other context, their desperate attempts to deflect attention from the death of Zarqawi and put the emphasis on the unsuccessful hunt for bin Landen could be seen as a pitiful attempt at comedy, so riotously off kilter their killjoy attitude became by day’s end. It makes one wonder what kind of headlines they would have generated during World War II following the death of Hitler:

“German Chancellor dead: No Effect on Quagmire in the Pacific Seen.”

In truth, it became de riguer on the left as the day went on to not only try and downplay the death of al Qaeda in Iraq’s most visible and violent terrorist but to actually posit the notion that the bloodthirsty jihadist was an invention of the US government, that he really wasn’t all that important a cog in the insurgency’s machine of death, and that the Bush Administration used him to try and connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda.

The Huffington Post gave this theme a nice boost:

Well, for one thing, Zarqawi was an invented menace. Before the great “Iraq experiment” in democracy delivered not by necessity but by bullets and bombs (as well as WMD pretexts), Zarqawi was about as popular as Carrot Top. No one knew who he was, kind of like no one knows who else besides Kobe Bryant is on the Los Angeles Lakers. As terrorists go, he was what sportswriters might call a scrub. But once he got in the way of the Bush administration’s crusade on the banks of the Tigris, he quickly became public enemy number one. Or as Iraq’s prime minister Nuri al-Maliki explained, a “godfather” of terrorism.

Also particularly helpful in this effort was The Atlantic Online which published a curiously sympathetic profile of Zarqawi that had been in the works for weeks entitled “The Short, Violent Life of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”, a typically earnest liberal effort to “humanize” the enemy while downplaying his significance in the insurgency. The 5,000 word article reminded one of similar efforts to “humanize” death row inmates in the United States by touring their hometown, talking to people who knew them when they were growing up, and trying to get at the “root causes” of their violent actions.

The problem, of course, as with death row inmates, is that there are no “root causes” to the actions of people like Zarqawi. They are dead inside; empty husks of humanity without a glimmer of conscience or a flicker of compassion. They are sociopathic monsters who deserve the worst that we can do to them.Generating sympathy for such a bloodthirsty killer was an admittedly daunting task which is why the press and the left then turned their attention to the notion of Zarqawi’s insignificance and the idea that he was a creation of the Bush Administration’s efforts to make al Qaeda seem more dangerous than it really is. In this, they were aided by the father of one of Zarqawi’s victims, Michael Berg whose son Nick was beheaded by the terrorist in 2004.

Mr. Berg, a genuine pacifist and liberal activist didn’t disappoint. He was widely quoted as comparing George Bush to Zarqawi saying

“His death will incite a new wave of revenge. George Bush and al-Zarqawi are two men who believe in revenge.”

Berg is running for Congress on the Green Party ticket in Delaware and one could rightly question not his motives, but the motives of the press in seeking out his sure-fire anti-Bush response. I suppose this is what the press refers to as “balanced reporting.”

But in order to have balance, there have to be two sides presented. By the end of the day, there were two sides alright – the side that said that Bush was a monster and the side that presented the President as incompetent liar. The latter theme was helped along by a story circulated by NBC News that prior to the war, the Bush Administration “failed” to attack and kill the terrorist mastermind:

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

The story points out that the military had drawn up strike plans 3 different times to take out Zarqawi’s lab but was blocked each time by a White House who believed that any military action would undercut their efforts to build a coalition to take out Saddam’s whole rotten regime.

Still spinning furiously, the left advanced the theory that Bush’s “rush to war” prevented us from killing Zarqawi in 2002. Leaving aside the notion that killing the terrorist at his lab would have been any more successful than President Clinton’s efforts to kill Osama Bin Laden by bombing his training camp in Afghanistan, one notices the flip-flop by the left immediately; if Saddam had no ties to terrorists, how is it possible that we “missed” anyone? And if he did indeed have ties to terrorist groups, doesn’t that justify the invasion and subsequent liberation of Iraq?

If I were you, I wouldn’t say any of that too loudly in the presence of a liberal. His head is likely to explode.

The clear message by day’s end was that the death of Zarqawi didn’t mean a tinker’s damn. Representative Pete Stark led the charge, calling the killing of the jihadist, in effect, a political ploy:

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.

“This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer” for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. “Iraq is still a mess—get out.”

Stark and Kucinich evidently didn’t get the memo on how to react to the good news of al Zarqawi’s death. For in the end, the Democrats’ downplaying this victory could cost them dearly at the polls.

Just yesterday, an AP-Ipsos poll was released showing support for the war at an all time low. One wonders what that same poll might be saying now that the news of Zarqawi’s death has spread far and wide as well as the equally good news that the Iraqis have finally gotten their act together and finished forming a government by naming the Defense, and Interior Ministers as well as the chief National Security adviser. I daresay that the American people are a little more upbeat about our prospects for total victory in Iraq now that these two very important pieces are in place.

It won’t be a large bump in the President’s numbers, but it will probably be significant. And this, of course, what all the spinning and backtracking was about in the first place. Any rise in the President’s poll numbers will give the lie to the left’s talking points that Bush is finished. And with the Iraqis now ready to finally try and get a handle on the admittedly grim internal security situation, there is a very real chance that by November, significant improvements will be visible thus undercutting the Democratic critique of the war substantially.

What will the American people make of this effort to downplay such a significant victory? One would think that they would reward the Democrats for their loyalty by refusing to give them the responsibility for winning a war whose prospects for victory took such a large step forward yesterday.

Rick Moran is the proprietor of the webiste Right Wing Nut House, and a frequent contributor to The American Thinker.

At June 09, 2006 6:19 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Why is Old Media becoming irrelevant?

For the obvious reasons that they are so used to spinning the facts and opinions that they’ve lost their own capacity to discriminate the significant from the trivial, the true from the false. It’s a lot like the con-artists who are so successful at propagating their deceptions, that eventually, they fall victims to their own lies -- as their greatest victims.

So it is very important for every citizen, and especially every thinking person to distinguish for themselves, whether what they believe is what is true and verifiable, rational, logical -- and what it is the writer/reporter/editorialist wants us to believe.

That is the most critical faculty of these times -- actually being developed on the Internet because of the greater challenge to distinguish the manipulations from the authentic. The Old Media exploited this trust the most -- and so when everything was brought into question, was the most vulnerable to these challenge that the truth always must be able to stand alone -- and not just the authoritarians demand that we believe and obey them -- as the exclusive source of all truth.

When that monopoly disappears, that invincibility turns to invisibility -- and the people point out in passing, "The editor has no clothes!"

At June 09, 2006 6:36 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The worst move Old Media ever made was to allow anything under partisanship -- giving the greater advantage to the most unscrupulous liar, in the defense that the other part could lie too.

So the honest person of integrity, has this tremendous disadvantage in this kind of media to begin with. And then the editor will further edit out the truth so that all that remains are the lies.

Gee, we should all be paying a premium for the privilege to be deceived, manipulated, abused, misled daily? In what reverse universe?

At June 10, 2006 6:51 AM, Blogger Mel said...

John Stossel's "Stupid in America" on 20/20 was the best report I've ever seen on the top heavy, bloated public school system.

At June 10, 2006 8:09 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The fact of the matter is that “education” is one of the primary functions that can be done completely and way better on the computer now -- but what are we going to do about letting go of all those people at once who have no other skills in life but to “teach?”

At June 10, 2006 8:27 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

By the way, “Mel” has recently created some terrific-looking and thinking blogs:

They’re probably the most aesthetically-pleasing blogs yet created in Hawaii (maybe anywhere else for that matter) that I’m familiar with -- maybe a new standard for publications. Good work, Mel.

Mel also has astute observations on the political scene in Hawaii that may be forthcoming in future posts.

There's a lot of talent and ability that have been suppressed by the old traditional media -- hoping to hang on to their exclusive monopolies that have been germinating and are obviously poised to burst onto the scene in full brilliance and maturity -- and overrun the old traditional media that really looks shopworn, tedious and boring.

At June 10, 2006 8:34 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

That's profile number 6375920 -- or click the "Mel" link in his comment above. It's worth a visit -- to see what a beautiful blog looks like.

Bloggers recognize that every blog-reader who is also a blogger is worth at least 10-100 reader points.

At June 11, 2006 7:14 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

When there is good and wise government (leaders), culture and society flourishes -- rather than the oppressive fer of having to conform and obey to the dictates of the authoritarian figure.

That model of society and culture is dying under the new leadership that does not exploit those fears and paranoia as their only means of remaining in power.

Tht's what the old society and it's handmaiden, the old media (propaganda machine) did -- create incessnt fears, anxieties, divisions and conflicts. So always, in every communiction, there was this urgent sense of coercion -- rather than the flowering of free expression, not just by the powers-that-be who wished to remained always so, but for everyone.

That is a big part of the story of the proliferation of such blogs -- especially among the Republican/conservatives now that there isn't the strict adherence to political and moral correctness as dictated by the unions, newspapers, schools and universities.

Tht is proof of "a more perfect society" -- and not just changing the names at the top, while having everything else remain the same. That is not progress -- no matter what they call themselves.

At June 12, 2006 8:56 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Liberal blogs are basically unreadable.

The only reason the mainstream media touts them as examples of the blogging movement while ignoring others, is to discredit the whole blogging movement as a threat to their old legacy media. If the liberal blogs are the threat, then of course no intelligent person would take them seriously.

So the real threat of credible blogs and forums are ignored, denied, suppressed. But that's not going to make us go away -- just like the bogeyman (terrorists) will if they just close their eyes and pretend not to see them.

Liberal blogs are basically all these alienated and isolated people who each think their demagoguery has never been heard by the world before -- and so they are the new messiahs of the Democratic Party, which encourages their delusions.

The real damage being done, and the emerging force, are the blogs of the "right," which is the cutting edge of thinking and writing in the world, that foolishly ignored, is allowed to mature to where it has already surpassed the proficiencies and influence of the mainstream media, which in turn, fights the battle they can win -- with the liberal blogs.

While is technically a forum, if one accesses any particular individual's "forum" contributions, they are essentially an interactive blog. That dynamism of thought is fairly unique in the blogosphere (the collective consciousness) but the mainstream media hasn't created radars to detect such decisive onslaughts of developments.

While their heads are exploding and imploding, they look for liberal bloggers to kick around -- knowing they are defenseless, deluded, dysfunctional and manipulable.


Post a Comment

<< Home