Another Satisfied Customer
(The following is a comment from one of the current threads. I’ve urged commenters to provide 500 words to be put on the front page. With the exception of Stephen Lewis and his recent post headlined “Israel,” none have taken me up on the offer. The author of this comment is welcome to an additional 500 words. –Mitch)
Let me get this straight, you post extensive gibberish and wasteful satire in an inexplicable persistence to blame the ignorant for their ignorance, but I’m “Obsessed”?
Since you made the effort, I will enjoy responding to some of your other persistent absurdities:
#1) “I haven’t even looked for the IP addresses of your recent posts. There’s no need. You’re the obsessed guy.”
My recent post includes your quote to me…could it be more obvious? The image of you searching IP addresses on this little rural blog with dwindling persistipants is pathetic.
#2) “Why do I refer to you as KM? Because if I referred to you as “Anonymous,” it wouldn’t be as clear that I was responding to a single person.”
Why tell the truth when a lie will do?
You’ve responded to plenty of anonymous posters without pretending that further identity lends any additional clarity or credibility to your points.
#3) “How do I feel about “dialog” with you? Impatient.”
A curious complaint from a prolific satirist.
But, I didn’t mean our “dialog”. I meant, “how does it make you feel when you respond to an anonymous post by assigning another identity to them in response”? (An identity that the anonymous poster cannot also use due to Mitch-Law). Answer: It’s a tiny tyranny that gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling or you wouldn’t bother doing it.
Your obsession with “identity” and “personality” would make any reasonable person wonder why in the Hell you don’t rename this blog “Mitchaldo” because the modest, anonymous “Heraldo” with its local-focus for news is long-gone. Instead, 20-30% of your posts inevitably focus on you and your burden in showing how, “not all left wing viewpoints are deluded”…. like Sisyphus and his boulder!
#4) “Put together 500 words”.
Waving this around like a flag is not a vaccine to common criticism of what this blog has become.
#5) “But I’m also accepting of the reality that people are not interested (in Hedges)”.
Your penchant for making shit up rivals “High Finance”.
Once again, you know damn-well this nation’s most eloquent leftists don’t see the light of day in mainstream media. There is no debate, few alternative viewpoints…”Washington Week In Review” and most other media will feature the weakest leftists I’ve ever heard. No Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, or Chris Hedges…Did you already forget that milquetoast Bill Moyers had to scratch and claw his way back to PBS?
#6) “Being able to accurately characterize the flaws of our society is no evidence whatsoever that someone has a solution to offer. If people offer a convincing solution, in the opinion of the electorate, they’ll be elected.”
Hands down, this little keeper is one of the dumbest, simplistic and illogical assertions you’ve written. If true, then the opposite is true! “People will never accept solutions, convincing or not, when no one believes the ‘problems’ exist”!
Hurry, go tell Mr. Hedges how today’s institutions, education, media and internet offer enough information and truths needed to blame average citizens for their ignorance.
#7) “It worked for Barack Obama.”
Are you really that ignorant about politics? Money worked for Obama, as it does in most elections, to overcome the media bigs. There are few exceptions. Romney had a good turnout! The majority of potential voters have no idea what Hedges is talking about. It’s not that they are disinterested, it’s that there’s no confirming context repeated anywhere else except that interview, if they were lucky enough to see it.
Using words like “secrets” and “conspiracy” are you’re feeble attempt to discredit my opinion.
Grow up and debate like an adult…which is why anyone responding to your other rambling satire should have their head examined. Surely you can distill it into a cogent sentence or two without the buffoonery of incessant sarcasm.