I believe that Spendius is deliberately being a bit cranky and argumentative. However that is no worse than the overstatements and posturing that equally infects the prose of those here arguing with him.
For myself, I generally try to find, in everyone I encounter, here and elsewhere, something that I like. I try to resonate with that and tease them about the stuff I don't like. If I can find nothing at all likeable, I generally ignore them. Like all of the rest of us, I am here to amuse myself, not others.
With respect to the issue at hand, I believe that Blatham is incorrect in the following;
blatham wrote:Quote:I sometimes wonder what you would do if Mr Bush told you to shove the White House up your arse and went back to his ranch to goof off. It is hardly imaginable that the thought has never crossed his mind.
My goodness. You cannot be serious.
One assumes, first of all, that thoughts do cross the fellow's mind. It wouldn't be a long traverse, after all.
Secondly, most americans and almost everyone else in the world would throw out a rousing cheer if the fellow did precisely what you suggest in the first sentence.
You seem an independent-minded fellow, spendi. Yet a consistent theme runs through your statements here. You are a toadie to power, to authority. One would expect an independent mind to make discernments, to enjoy making discernments. But you look much happier when you are just kissing those rear ends of the folks who like you kissing their rear ends (and then spreading the word at how good the taste is).
It seems to me that Blatham's characterizations here are far too categorical and unbounded to be taken seriously by a thinking, discerning reader. Further there seems to be a bit of projection going on here as well. If spend is, as Blatham asserts, "a toady to power, to authority" (an assertion which I doubt seriously) then surely Blatham has amply demonstrated that he is an even worse toady to the conventional revealed truth of the liberal American chattering class of self-appointed commentators (a group notable more for its criticism and categorical damning of those it opposes, than any affirmative proposals of its own.).
This mode of behavior of course immunizes them from ever having to account for or deal with the failure of their own analysis or thinking. They refer only to vague concepts of "correct" thinking which are themselves postulated to be beyond reproach, leaving failures in their application to the accounts of inherent evils in the world or the machinations of those that oppose them, "corporations" and the like.
I have had just enough experience of accountability and power to have some sympathy for the man actually in the arena, burdened with the inescapable imperative of dealing with immediate and distant threats, compared to his critics in the audience who deal only in the abstract and who know neither defeat nor victory. I suspect that is in part what Spendi is telling us.