odd posts and just words
i got sick with the flu when i was in reno and am just now starting to feel somewhat human which is good because today is the first official taping of the SHOCK AND DUNBAR SHOW. hip hip hooray! kathleen and i are meeting for lunch to determine what we are going to talk about on the show. the network has given us a green light to talk about anything and everything; at first, if you remember, it was to be about "sex and politics" which is what we did the demo show on but since that one went so well we have been given the green light to go wherever we want. i am going to see if we can put a streaming audio on this website but have to clear it with the radio big wigs. i have also thought of taking a video camera into the studios and filming and then putting that on the website. we shall see, first things first, we gotta go blow 'em away again.
some of the comments i get on these posts are very odd; sometimes they have nothing to do with what i wrote, just a rant of whatever their pet peeve or political outlook may be. on the previous post i got comments about the evils of unions and the sanctiy of capitalists. you will be happy to know that if are a "worker" you are a DRONE. the writer, of course, did not post their name. oh well, always nice to hear from the folks.
on the obama flap about "just words" where he has been accused of plagarism but not by the person who he supposedly plagarized, let me point out that particular, for lack of better word or phrase, 'rant' has been used over and over throughout my lifetime and i have used it myself and have heard many others use it when talking about words and their meanings and motivations. it is an obvious point that can be made:
just words? is that what they are? just words? "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" those are just words?
"that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth." those are just words?
see, you could go on and on using great quotes and then asking, 'are these just words?' or do they somehow express a meaning even greater than the words themselves? many an orator has used this technique to make a point.
granted, con men can speak well. but speaking well does not a con make make. (and i might point out, those who are overly wary of the well-spoken among us usually do not speak well themselves....could it be jealousy?)
and for the 'lack of experience' argument against obama let me refer you to an editorial by george will in today's paper where he pointed out that the man who had probably the best resume ever to be president (10 years in house of representatives, minister to russia, secretary of state during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent and then minister to britian) james buchanan, went on to serve one term as president and is regarded by historians are maybe the all time worst president in our history. he was followed by an inexperienced fellow named abe lincoln. when you go to washington d.c. try and find the buchanan memorial.
here is some more "just words" for you........
"god will not have his work be made manifest by cowards."
r.w. emerson
some of the comments i get on these posts are very odd; sometimes they have nothing to do with what i wrote, just a rant of whatever their pet peeve or political outlook may be. on the previous post i got comments about the evils of unions and the sanctiy of capitalists. you will be happy to know that if are a "worker" you are a DRONE. the writer, of course, did not post their name. oh well, always nice to hear from the folks.
on the obama flap about "just words" where he has been accused of plagarism but not by the person who he supposedly plagarized, let me point out that particular, for lack of better word or phrase, 'rant' has been used over and over throughout my lifetime and i have used it myself and have heard many others use it when talking about words and their meanings and motivations. it is an obvious point that can be made:
just words? is that what they are? just words? "we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" those are just words?
"that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the face of the earth." those are just words?
see, you could go on and on using great quotes and then asking, 'are these just words?' or do they somehow express a meaning even greater than the words themselves? many an orator has used this technique to make a point.
granted, con men can speak well. but speaking well does not a con make make. (and i might point out, those who are overly wary of the well-spoken among us usually do not speak well themselves....could it be jealousy?)
and for the 'lack of experience' argument against obama let me refer you to an editorial by george will in today's paper where he pointed out that the man who had probably the best resume ever to be president (10 years in house of representatives, minister to russia, secretary of state during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent and then minister to britian) james buchanan, went on to serve one term as president and is regarded by historians are maybe the all time worst president in our history. he was followed by an inexperienced fellow named abe lincoln. when you go to washington d.c. try and find the buchanan memorial.
here is some more "just words" for you........
"god will not have his work be made manifest by cowards."
r.w. emerson
posted by Ron Shock | 10:07 AM
11 Comments:
Change isn't a message. Change isn't a plan. Change is a word. It's easy to promise, because after the fact, it'll be impossible to define.
anonymous above
what you said
wish to thank drone person. I know have a name.
true. terror is just a word as well, as in the "war on terror." we have declared war on a word.
change is just a word. but we will know it when (and if) we see it. to describe just how many things need to be "changed" would take up all of the alloted time of the speech so obama (and mc cain and clinton) use just the word. obama does name some of the things he would change...the war on iraq for one. bring the troops home. that would qualify as CHANGE. don't you think?
I just love that one, Ron. I roll my eyes every time I hear some government bozo say "the war on terror".
Excuse me? You declared war on a tactic? What are you going to declare war on next? Dynamite?
This would be a lot like FDR declaring war on aviation because the Japanese used airplanes to drop bombs on Pearl Harbor. I can just hear Roosevelt now. "That tears it! I'm going to rid the skies of all the airplanes so this never happens again." Congress would have looked at him like he was a total idiot.
Did he do that? No.... He declared war on the Japanese, not Mitsubishi Zeros.
And on d-day when our soldiers landed on the beaches at Normandy was that "the war on tanks"? I seem to remember Germany having something to do with it.
Terrorism is a method used by the enemy not the actual enemy.
It is equally stupid when used in the "war on drugs". When is the last time you saw a drug leap up off the table and force itself up someone's nose? Help! Help! A syringe is chasing me! Save me!
Words have meaning. I wish politicians would finally learn how to use the right ones.
And while we're at it, would somebody please tell Bush that there is only one U in nuclear. If he says "nookular" one more time I swear I'm gonna......
OK. I'm better now.
Last night I watched Obama and Hillary Clinton debate here in Austin. At least when Hillary spoke I could understand what she was saying. Obama, on the other hand, was full of double talk and empty rhetoric. It was like he was engaged in a political version of psychobabble. I really couldn’t understand what he was saying, and after a while I just didn’t want to listen to him anymore. That any sensible person could be taken in by these pseudo-eloquent ramblings is beyond me.
This is certainly a consequence of a failed educational system, where the people can no longer distinguish between clear, intelligent ideas and an incoherent hodgepodge of fancy words.
Obama has stated that he supports an individual rights view of the second amendment. However, he's also said that he supports the DC gun ban, and local governments should be able to regulate guns as they see fit. I don't see how you can call it a right if the DC ban is constitutional--That ban requires that guns be non-functional at all times, even when someone is breaking into your house.
It is only guns, I suppose, but what if he feels the same way about the rights that are important to you? The forefathers didn't foresee mass communication, so free speech doesn't apply to broadcast or amplified speech--If you use a microphone to increase the power of your voice, you must be licensed. There's no infringement, you are perfectly free to do your act in small clubs where amplifiers are not necessary. Freedom of religion, but only government recognized religion--Everyone knows that Wicca isn't a real religion.
Gun rights are somewhat important by themselves, but they are also a canary in a coal mine that indicate how a politician will respect the rest. Civil rights are another--Do laws apply equally to all, or just straight white men? I'm tired of politicians that think the constitution is a la carte, and they can pick which parts they will support.
A politician that publicly supports the Pink Pistols will more than likely get my vote. There is an excellent chance that he is honest and supports the entire constitution, not just the parts that further his agenda.
Nice to hear about the show. What union will you become a member of? Will you still stay with the union you are a member of? Will you have a choice? What union are support staff a member of? Please let us know
wow.
After reading your recent replies, I have been struck by one defining truth
Obama scares the ignorant.
Oh, and I'll gladly sign my name to my opinion.
Hey brad,
Uh...exactly what is your point here? (Nice to have you and your insipid comments back again.)
This will be my last Troll-Feeding:
My point is, as evident in the post to those who have at least attempted a secondary education, is that those who are "ignorant" ( i.e. not-informed )are scared ( terrified, alarmed, all pussied up ) at the prospect of an intelligent, passionate, world-travelled man of color uniting our country and attempting to fix some of our problems.
or to put more simply:
FUCK YOU.
Fuck you right in your head.
Ah, eloquence.
-Brad- Still not afraid to leave my name.
Post a Comment
<< Home