Brain-Wash

I’m a Midwestern American with a taste for the odd, the oblique, and the absurd. Of course it’s my taste, so I make no warranties as to palatability. This blog serves a simple purpose: to be a cybertrunk for the internet flotsam I’ve discovered and enjoyed and wished to save and thereby, in some infinitesimal way, make my own.

I’m also a politically conscious Liberal, with strong views on many socio-political issues, particularly the unconstitutional and unwise intermingling of religion and government. So I do take time between my various entertainments and curiosities to exercise my spleen toward someone or something I feel is thwarting our evolution toward a more healthy, free-thinking society.

6 Responses to “About me and this blog.”

  1. Greetings! I’m the “factory-wrapped douche” your “Politically-conscious” liberalness deemed worthy of unprovoked insult a couple of weeks ago.

    Your expressed desire for a free-thinking society seems at odds with your inability to let someone with a different opinion express it.

    Since you appear to have qualms with religion (which is only normal, and which I probably share), why do you exempt your own religion, that of collectivism, from rational inquiry?

    • Huh. Who are you and in what context did I accuse you of douchebaggery?

      Furthermore, I don’t have “qualms” regarding religion – I emphatically dislike it.

      As to your presumptions that (a) I’m a “collectivist” or (b) that collectivism is a religion – both are incorrect.

      I don’t know who you’re arguing with here (it isn’t me or anything I believe), nor about what topic exactly, but judging from your shamelessly trollish behavior, I can’t wait to see how you prove that my initial insult was “unprovoked.”

  2. You insulted me within the context of comments left on the below article:-

    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2009/09/schools_out_rig.php

    Apparently, you have an aversion to the word “whilst” and to my opinion that government has grown too big when the executive wants to talk to schoolchildren.

    My rational inquiry proceeds as follows:-

    Your objection to my use of the descriptor “fascist” and to my standpoint on Obama’s broadcast, coupled with your unprovoked insult, suggest that you are not in agreement with me.

    Your willingness to thrown in with the spirit of the author of the article, and various other left-wing trolls, who joined you in insulting me, suggest that not only do you disagree with me but that you find even the mention of Obama in negative terms objectionable. Many of the commenters claimed that it is racist to oppose Obama and his ideology.

    Now, Obama IS a collectivist. Favreua does a good job of hiding it in plain view. Just count the number of references to “collective” this and that, and to the “responsibility” that people have for that collective. So there can be no argument about this. Obama is not a minarchist or constitutionalist, not even for a second.

    Next, there is very good evidence that the impulse for collectivism comes from the inculcation, over several hundred years, of Western culture by Judaism and Christianity. Whilst collectivism is not literally a religion, collectivism is as damaging to the individual as religion is. And while I share your revulsion for religion, as I have said, I object to being insulted for no reason. So you can see this as “one good troll deserves another”, if you like…but I wanted to make a point to you. If I am mistaken in my train of thought and you are neither a Democrat, nor an Obama supporter, nor a collectivist, then WHY would you have insulted me like you did? People say silly things like that when they’re being defensive.

    At least find a little bit out about someone before using terms like that. Otherwise you just make yourself look like a child, and that would seem at odds with the tone of this site.

    My 2p.

    • Allright, just for the sake of examination, here is the comment you posted on an edition of Roy Edroso’s Village Voice blog dedicated to the conservative uproar over Obama’s nationwide speech to schoolchildren:

      “Chris Blizzard says:

      Hey, great round up of the blogs! (and thanks for the mention)

      Whilst I appreciate that other statesman have addressed children before, no one has attempted anything on this scale. It’s the total lack of any humility in Soetoro that is really genuinely scary. If he had got his way, he would have broadcast directly into every classroom in America, and pushed as much ‘progressive’ (read: fascist) propaganda down their necks as he could fit in between their sessions of scheduled dumbfounding. Politics needs to stay the f**k out of schools and out of children’s minds. They are our future and we need to ensure proper protection!
      Posted On: Tuesday, Sep. 8 2009 @ 9:39PM”

      And here is my comment responding to yours:

      “mryoureonfiremister says:

      Fun facts I’ve gleaned from reading these comments:

      1) tkh is very, very concerned about who this Obama fella really is; and

      2) Chris Blizzard is the type of factory-wrapped douche who uses the word ‘whilst’, and while apparently thinking nothing of calling Barack Obama a “fascist”, doesn’t dare to actually type out the word ‘fuck’ like a real grown-up.
      Posted On: Wednesday, Sep. 9 2009 @ 12:40AM”

      I really fail to see how my insult was “unprovoked” as you repeatedly categorize it.

      You declare that although two previous Republican presidents (George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan) also addressed America’s schoolchildren in the same manner as our current president did, somehow when the latter does so it amounts to fascism and a ” total lack of any humility in Soetoro that is really genuinely scary.”

      Frankly, just the fact that you refer to President Obama as “Soetoro” is enough to provoke accusations that you are acting like a total douche, regardless of your completely fact-free charge that Obama speaking to our nation’s schoolchildren about personal responsibility is an irrefutable leap toward fascism. But I digress.

      Then you state this: “If he had got his way, he would have broadcast directly into every classroom in America, and pushed as much ‘progressive’ (read: fascist) propaganda down their necks as he could fit in between their sessions of scheduled dumbfounding”

      What evidence to you have to support any portion of this insane sentence? Stating something emphatically does not make it so. The assertion by the rightwing that Obama was going to indoctrinate our nation’s youth prior to their collective fit of apoplexy has been completely discredited as groundless by their very own chief spokesman on the issue.

      Finally, this: “Politics needs to stay the f**k out of schools and out of children’s minds. They are our future and we need to ensure proper protection!”

      Huh? What does this even mean? How are you ensuring protection of the nation’s children by making them completely ignorant of politics? This statement is incoherent and illogical. In your defense, it should be considered that “People say silly things like that when they’re being defensive.”

      So, Chris, considering all the flaws in the comment you posted in response to Edroso’s blog, which I’ve enumerated, dissected, and countered with supporting citations, my question to you is how you could possibly think you were “insulted for no reason”? Sure, in my original comment I focused on the silliest aspects of your comment (i.e., “whilst” and “f**k”), but it was the substance of your statement (or the lack thereof) which I was truly attacking.

      In other words, I fully admit I insulted you and upon further review of our brief exchange almost a month ago in the comments section of a rather obscure political blog, I have no regrets over doing so. You acted like a douche and I stated as much in plain language. If that offends your notions of internet etiquette, boo-hoo. Ultimately, if you don’t want to get accused of being a douche, don’t publish statements as stupid and insane as those I took a good deal of my time to dissect above.

  3. “You declare that although two previous Republican presidents (George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan) also addressed America’s schoolchildren in the same manner as our current president did…”

    Untrue. I made no reference to the Republican Party. My point was, as I said in my last comment, that when the executive does this, then something has gone wrong. I support a minarchist system of government, and I find it worrying that any member of the political elite would want to, or could, address children en masse in this fashion.

    “Frankly, just the fact that you refer to President Obama as “Soetoro” is enough to provoke accusations that you are acting like a total douche, regardless of your completely fact-free charge that Obama speaking to our nation’s schoolchildren about personal responsibility is an irrefutable leap toward fascism.”

    As a child, BHO spent several years under the name Barry Soetoro. That is a fact. There is a big difference between calling someone by their old name, and calling them douche. As for “responsibility”, this is just collectivist ideology in my opinion. There are no responsibilities, only egos becoming enslaved to other egos.

    “Then you state this: “If he had got his way, he would have broadcast directly into every classroom in America, and pushed as much ‘progressive’ (read: fascist) propaganda down their necks as he could fit in between their sessions of scheduled dumbfounding”

    What evidence to you have to support any portion of this insane sentence?”

    I present as evidence the tenacity and determination to roll out his agenda which he has exhibited thus far. The fact that he said he would put bills on the internet, yet rushed ARRA through congress shows exactly what I’m talking about.

    “Stating something emphatically does not make it so. The assertion by the rightwing that Obama was going to indoctrinate our nation’s youth prior to their collective fit of apoplexy has been completely discredited as groundless by their very own chief spokesman on the issue.”

    I am not a spokesman for “the right wing” (whoever they might be to you), nor do I believe that such a grouping can have a ‘chief spokesman’, nor do I recognise your right to appoint such people for the benefit of your strawman argument. Why not stick to what I HAVE written, rather than your imagined subtext.

    FYI I would not have voted for BHO or JSM3, and have no affiliations with either faction of the one party system you have going on over there.

    None of this invalidates my write to opinion, and while I would support your right to free speech (though you would presumably not support mine), I wanted to call you out on your infantile behaviour. Surely you can disagree 100% with someone without name-calling?

    “Finally, this: “Politics needs to stay the f**k out of schools and out of children’s minds. They are our future and we need to ensure proper protection!”

    Huh? What does this even mean? How are you ensuring protection of the nation’s children by making them completely ignorant of politics?”

    Another strawman eh? Apart from the fact that it challenges a point I did not make, if your insinuation here were logically correct, then if the POTUS does NOT address schoolchildren then they are going to be ignorant of politics. I can see I am in correspondence with a diehard collectivist here, so I will bid you farewell.

    “In your defense, it should be considered that “People say silly things like that when they’re being defensive.”

    Indeed.

    • Chris, listen, you want to defend your comment on Edroso’s blog by injecting all this stuff you didn’t say in that comment. That’s not fair play, because it was that comment (and only that comment) which moved me to call you a douchebag. It’s great that you’ve dropped by here to further explain yourself and add a lot of nuance to what was a very dumb comment. You seem like a genuine person, and I appreciate that you feel hurt that I insulted you (particularly since you held on to this thing for close to a month), but you aren’t allowed to go past the four corners of your comment in trying to show that I was unjustified in issuing that insult.

      So, when you say something like “Untrue. I made no reference to the Republican Party. My point was, as I said in my last comment, that when the executive does this, then something has gone wrong”, that is not arguing in good faith. You said “whilst I appreciate that other statesman [sic] have addressed children before, no one has attempted anything on this scale.” It doesn’t matter whether you specifically identified the party the statesmen belonged to or not because you clearly are responding to Roy’s point that no one (either right, left, or whatever) said anything about Bush Sr. or Reagan doing exactly the same thing decades ago. Finally, nowhere in that original comment do you say anything about when any “executive does this, then something has gone wrong.” Rather, you clearly are worried about Obama making the speech because it reveals a lack of sufficient humility and a dangerous step toward “read: fascist.” If it wasn’t your intention to attack Obama as an arrogant crypto-fascist, then you failed to articulate that very well, and it is hardly the obligation of your reader to interpret some deeper, more philosophical point to your inflammatory rhetoric.

      “As a child, BHO spent several years under the name Barry Soetoro. That is a fact. There is a big difference between calling someone by their old name, and calling them douche.”

      Okayyyy…. but you’re not referring to Barack Obama as a child, are you? You are referring to him as an adult man who has utilised his father’s surname for years and is now the POTUS. It’s clear that you are using the name “Soetoro” to diminish Obama because you apparently resent him and his policies so much. You like to lecture others about acting childishly, but feel no compunction about referring to our President by something other then his given name in a cheap and transparent effort to knock him down a peg.

      “I am not a spokesman for ‘the right wing’ (whoever they might be to you), nor do I believe that such a grouping can have a ‘chief spokesman’, nor do I recognise your right to appoint such people for the benefit of your strawman argument. Why not stick to what I HAVE written, rather than your imagined subtext.”

      Um, Chris? I never declared you a spokesman for the rightwing. But whether you’re aware of it or not, what you said here:

      “If he had got his way, he would have broadcast directly into every classroom in America, and pushed as much ‘progressive’ (read: fascist) propaganda down their necks”,

      is THE talking point proffered by the rightwing against Obama making the speech in question. Furthermore, if you’d bothered to click on the link I provided for you, it would reveal an interview with Jim Greer, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party, who was the chief spokesman on this issue. I didn’t “appoint” Mr. Greer into that role, he appointed himself. Finally, it’s not a strawman argument to respond directly to your charge that Obama, if left to his own devices, would indoctrinate our nation’s children with “fascist propaganda.” Watch the clip I took the time to link to to support my counterpoint to your argument and you will see that Mr. Greer (like you) admits to having zero evidence to support his claim that had great patriots like him (and you) not intervened, Obama would have certainly filled our precious young children with the dark seed of “fascist propaganda.”

      “FYI I would not have voted for BHO or JSM3, and have no affiliations with either faction of the one party system you have going on over there.

      None of this invalidates my write to opinion, and while I would support your right to free speech (though you would presumably not support mine), I wanted to call you out on your infantile behaviour. Surely you can disagree 100% with someone without name-calling?”

      The fact that you did not support either the Democratic or Republican nominees for the presidency in 2008 is irrelevant to whether I was unjustified in calling you a douchebag in response to your original comment, which did not concern what political party you supported last fall. Regardless of your disdain for both the major party candidates, you still launched a completely unfounded assault upon Obama that was so stupid that I was wholly justified in hurling my insult in your direction. You might want to note that what you have done here (i.e., injecting a side issue which is unrelated to anything you originally said or that I originally attacked) is actually a far better example of a strawman argument then my direct response to your charge that Obama wants to indoctrinate our nation’s youth with his political views.

      I appreciate that you support “my right to free speech”, but again that sentiment is completely irrelevant to whether you said something worthy of being called a douchebag or not. I have no idea why you think I don’t support the 1st Amendment because I called you a douchebag, but regardless, since I’m neither a government entity nor a representative of one, your point is irrelevant as well, since I’m not bound by the 1st Amendment with regard to private conversations published on the internet. Therefore, calling someone a douchebag on the internet does not affect in any way that person’s freedom to speak freely. Furthermore, if I was so determined to deny you your 1st Amendment right to free speech, wouldn’t it be better evidenced by my not publishing your comments here? Do you see how incoherent and incorrect you are to say something as stupid as “you would presumably not support mine”? I’m sure you’ll say my challenging your basic understanding of how the 1st Amendment works is a “strawman argument”, since you seem to have about as clear a grasp on that concept as you do your constitutional rights.

      Finally, I don’t know how anyone with an ounce of self-awareness can accuse another person of exhibiting “infantile behaviour” and follow that charge with this plea: “Surely you can disagree 100% with someone without name-calling?”

      “Another strawman eh? Apart from the fact that it challenges a point I did not make, if your insinuation here were logically correct, then if the POTUS does NOT address schoolchildren then they are going to be ignorant of politics. I can see I am in correspondence with a diehard collectivist here, so I will bid you farewell.”

      Again, you really struggle with the concept of logical fallacies. First, when you make an unintelligible statement like “Politics needs to stay the f**k out of schools and out of children’s [sic] minds. They are our future and we need to ensure proper protection!”, you have not posited an argument because you have offered no support for whatever it is that you are saying. Notice how I prefaced my response with “Huh?” When you say something as crazy as “politics needs to stay the fuck out of our schools and out of children’s [sic] minds”, you don’t get to claim I have presented a strawman argument because I seek to clarify what exactly you are trying to say – i.e., “What does this even mean? How are you ensuring protection of the nation’s children by making them completely ignorant of politics?” In other words, my response was not a challenge to your argument, but an attempt to even understand what point you are articulating. Again, it’s not your reader’s obligation to parse out what your really meant to say when you spray some vitriolically insensible rant upon the internet.

      In the end, I think it is hilarious that you enjoy accusing me of being “childish” when you’re the one who published a comment which you should have thought out a lot better before hitting the “post” button, subsequently got called out on the stupidity of that comment, and here you are a month later still holding a grudge about being called out and twisting yourself (and human logic) into pretzels in order to explain what you really meant to say.

      Why don’t you just accept the fact that you posted something stupid on the internet and move on with your life. Show a little of that good ‘ol humility you demand so strongly of President Obama.

      One thing’s for sure: you’re certainly not going to wring any redemption out of baiting me into discussing a bunch of shit that you didn’t say in your original comment in a sad attempt to sound more thoughtful than the guy who wrote “Whilst I appreciate that other statesman have addressed children before, no one has attempted anything on this scale.” I’m sorry dude, but that is a totally idiotic statement, and you cannot demand that others respect it by calling them “childish”, “diehard collectivist”, or whatever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: