Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Why I Haven't Been Doing What I Had Been Doing

I acknowledge a gentle rib there in my reference to a recent post by my pal Jonathan Carpenter. If you don't find J-Carp as humorous as I do in his quixotic relentlessness, I don't know... go rent "Borat" or something and have a little snicker whilst you sip your Beaujolais Nouveau. But call me Sancho; I can't help laughing at all the bloggers doing post after post with feigned indignation, the obligatory paranoia about so-called "cyber-stalkers" and the ironic advice to ignore "trolls". Well.. so long and thanks for all the hits.


Back to me. I'm not dead or anything that serious. I just have a new situation whereby I can't blog as much. It would be kind of like, well, oh I don't know... OK. Say I got a job as a garbage collector... not that I did get that job. But if they didn't give it to me because they thought I couldn't drive that stupid truck or lift those big cans they're idiots.... uh, a better example would be, uh, say I was elected Game Warden and had to investigate cases of satanic animal immolation and they offered me a bunch of money to do a TV show about it, you know, like COPS -- oh, I suppose you don't have a fantasy job, Mr./Ms. Grocery-Packer!

That reminds me, for several reasons of this recent Moonbones post about Amy Welborn's blog, which might be worth commenting on if that old Beaujolais piece from Slate left a sour taste in your mouth.


And that, my friends, is one flippin' sweet Volvo front-loader. What do you think? Email me or post your comments to this blog.

4 comments:

  1. LOL, Pauli, you are as mad as a hatter. And a lot funnier.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks foor the support. You are very funny.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read the post. I think the circumstances surrounding that whole outing episode were kind of funny.

    Stalker seems to be a term used to describe people who don't fit the general tenor of the blog they are frequenting. It is sad when you claim that you are a conservative yet you cannot find common ground with fellow conservatives. The blog’s title is probably misleading.

    When you attempt to change people’s consciousness about certain subjects you certainly don’t tell them they are wrong. Most people are pretty rational about what they do. For example, the food topic should be presented from the perspective of health, and not style. Housing should be presented from the perspective of thrift and frugality, and not greed and selfishness--likewise for consumption. We should be advocating for persons of virtue to enter big business and public life, not discouraging them. I like the notion that prosperity could be concomitant to virtue.

    I want to hear that a virtuous man like Paul has a couple million dollars to invest someday. I’d love to hear that Kathleen and her husband were able to bankroll all their children’s first homes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I sincerely hope it happens.

    Too many people come to these topics from jealousy and not really from rational concern. They either don’t have the capabilities to earn a McMansion or are too lazy to try. So they criticize them because they are jealous. I suspect that if they suddenly found themselves with a pile of money, they’d be living in a McMansion.

    If the discussion was framed in the language of virtue rather than sin, I suspect that there would be fewer conservatives feeling duped right now. I don’t think I’ve offended you guys even though I have some pinko tendencies, like taxing for public education and aggressive public investment in science. I confess I would tax you for it. But if you voted against my ideas I would not blame you one bit. I’d think you were wrong, not foolish, and I would try harder to convince you.

    ReplyDelete