Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
I have a question for the Professor...
Look over yonder, in the sidebar.
Look under the masthead -- directly under it. See that graphic?
Aw, heck. Just so you can't pretend it's not there, let me post a larger version of it here:
See it NOW, Perfesser? See CONFEDERATE right there between the Proud and the Descendant?
Just didn't want you to miss it.
The professor has an interesting post up today:
Well, I guess precision is important, depending on who's doing the language. How precise is "a majority"? Fifty-one percent is a majority. So is 99 percent, but there's a very wide, potentially imprecise range between them.
So much for precision in language....
"Do as I say, not as I do," seems to be the blogging philosophy of these anti-Confederate bloggers.
I may come back to this post of his. I may not. But I may.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Even more interesting (and perhaps a bit disturbing) was her eagerness to conduct extensive research into the misuse of the United States flag: in particular it appears that Ms. Chastain is not above showing us that she’s quite familiar with some sexually suggestive sites (which may explain some of the passages in her publications). At least now we know how she spent Veterans Day.
That reaction aside, I have been completely astounded by the attention given three or four of the photos I posted. There are eighteen of them in my essay exhibiting violations of the US Code's laws regarding the U.S. Flag -- and what do Corey Meyer, Robert Baker and Brooks Simpson point out the most, if not exclusively? The "sexually suggestive" ones. How do you say "minds in the gutter" in academese?
Simpson even implies that I'm familiar with sexually suggestive websites. You know, for an academic and a blogger, he sure doesn't seem to know much about the Internet Haven't ever heard of Google, Perfesser? Google is our friend. I don't know anything about sexually suggestive sites, but Google knows a lot about them -- and all kinds of other sites as well.
Hey, dear readers. Is there anybody out there who can pinpoint the factors that indicate research has been undertaken with "eagerness" from only the results that are posted on the 'net? Yes, that is correct -- you'd have to be a witness to the researcher as she's doing the research to determine that.. Since he was not a witness to my research efforts while underway, perhaps the Perfesser consulted his crystal ball to ascertain my frame of mind and emotional state when I Googled the net looking for instances of trashing the U.S. flag... which took maybe an hour. (I guess Googling is what passes for "extensive research" in what passes for the academic world these days, LOL!).
Don't look now, Perfesser, but your crystal ball is on the fritz. Or maybe you called Miss Clio... or threw some chicken bones.... Or maybe you got the info from the voices in your head?
In any case, that passage set off the Pinocchiometer and I haven't even officially started using it yet! Oh, my, there it goes again, in reference to this:
Indeed, she seems to know exactly where to look when it comes to collecting images that involve the desecration of the United States flag, which she sees as the flag of the “enemy.” It’s funny to see someone who sees the US flag as the flag of the “enemy” complain about other people as not being good Americans.I don't see the U.S. flag as the flag of the enemy -- except in the historical context that the USA and the CSA were enemies during the Civil War. Do y'all reckon the Perfesser doesn't know the historical application of the term? Or is he ignoring it in order to, well, lie?
The perfesser goes on to say, "And apparently it’s bad form to show a baby wrapped in a US flag, but okay to do this." Actually, bad form or not, it's against U.S. law to carry things in the flag. Simpson says, "...Ms. Chastain highlights these images without being critical of them..." -- setting off the Pinocchiometer again, since I listed the laws, straight out of the U.S. Code, that were being violated in those photos.
Does it matter to me that Christina Aguilera violated US flag law? Not a bit. It was just fun to point out Corey Meyer's hypocrisy in expecting Confederate heritage advocates to turn into the Confederate flag police while he ignores the actual violations of federal law regarding the U.S. flag. That was the whole point of my photo essay -- a point easily discerned by reading it but one that the Perfesser somehow missed, leading me to suspect he either didn't read it, or he read it without comprehension...
NOTICE: Censored Replies will either go offline or be moved sometime over the next couple of weeks. I've been informed by my ISP that they're discontinuing free webspace per each email account, due to lack of use by customers. Too bad. Meanwhile, you can see what may or may not be the final entry by clicking here:
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
I'll be putting the Pinocchiometer through its shakedown cruise, its maiden voyage, its test run, very soon. We'll submit statements by critics about me, this blog, the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook, the League of the South, the SCV, UDC, Southerners and Confederates in general, and whoever else they may choose to target with half-truths and outright lies. Come and watch Pinocchio's nose measure everything from the little white ones to the whoppers!
More coming soon, so stay tuned!
Monday, November 14, 2011
Robert's comments are in blue. Mine are in gray.
Robert: Your ardent defense represents your feelings about the flag.
Me: NO! Really? Ya think?
And if I could access the Facebook page again, I could provide you examples of.
Of what? People holding the Confederate flag "sacred"? Maybe. Probably just holding it in great respect. But look, what if there are people out there who fall down and worship it, and pray to it three times a day? WHAT'S IT TO YOU? Why is it any of your business? If you don't care about the flag or Confederate heritage, that's just fine with me, I ain't gonna tell you they should. But where do you authoritarians -- who are completely antithetical to American freedom, by the way -- get off telling others what they should and should not think?
I also use sacred as a loose term but if you want to divide it into religious gestures to make you feel better. Go ahead.
You used it as a "loose term"? What does that mean -- a term with no meaning? Sacred has a meaning, Robert. Look, did you mean to imply that Confederate heritage people put the flag on a plane with God, Jesus and religion, or not? Because I don't, and I don't see much of that on SHPG, either. I see a lot of respect for the flag and for the soldiers who carried it... But again, it's none of your business how other people see it.
1.) Your first point is trying to justify your defense based on the assertion that it is okay.
NO! Really? Ya think? Defense based on the assertion that something is okay? Who would have EVER thought of that! Am I breaking new ground here in human reasoning, or what?
Again, I've never said that nor has anyone. Yet you promote some of the very things seen above in the misuse of the Confederate flag under the guise of 'heritage'.
You've never said what? That Confederate heritage advocates are responsible for policing the treatment of the flag? Corey has certainly implied it on his blog, more than once.
2.) Why are you responsible? For your inaction.
Well, Robert, you find out who made the plastic Confederate flag truck testicles, let me know, and I'll go ask 'em to stop.
Your fervent defense of the flag i the face of opposition that are offended knows no bounds...
You're absolutely right because I think the vast majority of "offendedness" over the flag is phony, made up, without depth. It is not the result of somebody feeling offended, but of somebody wanting to tell others what the can and cannot do, what they can and cannot think. It is the result of authoritarianism trying to end free thought and force everyone's brain into the same mold -- a mental, cultural, historical Procrustean bed.
...yet your defense of the banana hammock stainless banner is non-existent.
There's a banana hammock stainless banner? The one I found on the Internet sure looks like the StarznStripes to me.
3.) He is not demonizing anyone. He is pointing out the hypocrisy of the defense you make (as I listed above) in contrast to the non-existent defense in cases such as that. Some of these examples have been pointed out in connection with that facebook group which I cannot see.
Pay attention, Robert. Corey is demonizing the Tampa SCV. He is implying that they did not put the big Confederate flag beside the Interstate as a symbol of Confederate heritage, but because of babes in Confederate flag bikinis (he sems to have a fixation on scantily clad babes, particularly if there's anything Confederate about their teeny, tiny apparel) and because of plastic truck testicles with Confederate flag on them. That is exactly what he implied.
Yes, there are proConfederate people who need to be educated in the proper display of the flag, but Corey's (and I daresay your) interest is not in educating them but in demonizing them.
If it is your business to tell Confederate heritage advocates that they must police, restrict, and stop the misuse of the flag (but then who would y'all have to demonize?), then it is my business to tell opponents how they must police, restrict and stop the misuse of the U.S. flag. Presumably, Corey considers himself to be a proud American, but I've never seen him defend Old Glory in situations like those I showcased on my blog.
The difference, Robert -- and do try to grasp this ... the difference is that I'm not holding him or you responsible for stopping the trashing of the Stars and Stripes. I don't have your gestapo mentality.
Also, don't use the war like it happened yesterday. You didn't fight in it. To pretend you have stake in it is to spit on everyone that did.
I haven't done that. What have you been smoking?
Finally, He did not set the standard. He commented on your lack of standard. You should know the difference.
Yes, he did. He's the one who started it, on his blog, implying that Confederate heritage advocate -- the SCV, the UDC, the Facebook group, whoever -- are responsible for anyone's misuse of the flag. Now, when the same standard is applied to him and the flag he presumably honors, both you and he are going through all kinds of nutty gyrations to pretend you don't know what I'm talking about.
Your last statement is sort of retarded. Sorry but it is. Union heritage advocates would include Southerners that fought in the Revolution, 1812, Mexican-American, Southern Unionists, Spanish American, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Persian Gulf, Boznia, Iraqi Freedom, Afghanistan and so on.
Sorry, that is not correct. "Union" in my usage clearly implies the North/feds in the War Between the States. Period. Besides, this country is not called "the Union" anymore. It is the United States.
So are you saying Southerners are responsible as well?
If they wanna be, why not?
Or maybe you should create the catch all that EVERYONE, including you with your ridiculous rants above, is responsible for the trashing of the flag. Got it now?
Sorry, no. I don't hold Confederate heritage advocates responsible for policing misuse of the Confederate flag (but I approve and applaud when they do) and I don't hold Union heritage advocates, or just run-of-the-mill Americans responsible for policing the misuse of the U.S. flag, but I would have no objection if anyone did. You authoritarians are the ones who assign responsibility to others based on YOUR beliefs (and misconceptions).
If you like I can put it in crayon using Grey with CBF stickers to make it pop
Nah, just try writing something that makes sense.
Today (Nov. 14) Brooks is holding forth about my pictorial essay on respect for flags. He managed to write almost 800 words while completely missing the point of the essay. In fact, he swerves more than once into irrelevancy without ever coming to an understanding of my blog post. Does it come as any surprise that I think his missing the point is intentional, simply a device for enabling the criticism of Confederate heritage advocates that he loves to wallow in?
As time and my schedule permit, I hope to answer his swerves AND remind him what the point of the essay really was (you know, the one that either went totally over his head, or that he intentionally ignored). But for now I want to address his claim that the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook "...contains members that embrace the desecration of monuments to Union heroes..."
I didn't remember seeing any advocacy for desecration of Union hero monuments but I don't get to visit the group as much as I'd like. Between limited time, Facebook's cockmamie way of operating, frequent overhauls and changes, its bugs and glitches, fast-moving entries and abysmally inadequate search function, I don't see everything that gets posted in SHPG -- or any group I'm a member of -- so I had no idea what he was talking about. However, I can tell you I viewed his claim with titanic skepticism.
It so happened that he had a link to a post that supposedly proved or illustrated his claim that members of the SHPG "...embrace the desecration of monuments to Union heroes..." so I followed it: http://www.facebook.com/groups/shpg1/323042707710946/
It took me to a screen that displayed this notice.
So the thread is gone, removed. However, I wasn't going to just drop the matter, so I messaged several officials of the group and conversed with them about it. With the permission of the group's leader, I post the material parts of that conversation here:
Connie Chastain: Brooks Simpson has a post up at Civil War Crossroads saying there are members of this group who "embrace" the desecration of monuments to Union heroes. He has a link presumably to a post advocating such desecration, but it takes you to a notice that the post has been removed or can't be loaded.
I know a lot of people think it's a waste of time engaging these yankee bloggers, and I'm not asking anybody to. I would just like to know if any one knows anything about the post/thread Simpson is referring to. I attempted to put the link in this message but Facebook won't allow it because it's an "invalid URL."
Generally speaking, I'm not enthusiastic about removing posts or threads, unless they are just over-the-top -- filthy language, sacreligious, etc. I'm especially disappointed when we censor threads such as the one Robert Baker figured prominently in several weeks ago, just because it got a little heated. But if that is the consensus of the leadership, I'll accept it. Just so you know, I am a strong advocate of freedom of expression whether I agree with it or not. I think ideas we disagree with should be met with counter ideas, not removed.
In any case, if anyone knows what that post/thread said and who made it, could you let me know? If you don't want to respond here, email me at email@example.com. Thanks.
JS: Gary posted here a couple of days ago, along with an apology, the picture of him joking around at Grant's monument in San Francisco. It created a firestorm. This group does not encourage the desecration of yankee monuments we have to be a cut above those that desecrate our monuments!
CR: I should say not, far from it! Only the Left and people like the Woodsboro Baptist Church advocate the destruction of soldiers monuments to American heroes.
KR: Connie, I do not know what he speaks of, but will be glad to take a closer look at it. I for one do not advocate desecration of any marker, monument, or gravesite, whether it be Confederate or Union. nor am i a believer in censorship. We can debate (even heatedly) as long as it does not fall prey to name calling or insulting anyone's intelligence or educational background.. stick to the subjects involved. First amendment guarantees the freedom of speech to me even if i deem it offensive or not, the individual has a right to say it. i have a choice to react or not react
BE: Connie, When there is an independent audience or neutral turf, then it's a joy putting them through the wringers, but if they are going to control the environment and even "Edit" your Posts, it's time to gather up your keyboard and go home.
CC: May I use these comments on my blog? ... I just want to put up an explanation for how abysmally stupid Simpson is being if he zeroes in on joking around as desecration while monuments and memorials to Confederates are removed or targeted day after day...
JS: You have my OK Connie!
Okay, so I vaguely remembered seeing that photo but I didn't read the thread. So, perfesser, was that the one? Gary pretending to take a leak on Grant's monument? ONE freaking member posting ONE freaking photo of himself JOKING AROUND at Grant's monument? THAT is how you define "embracing desecration of monuments to Union heroes?" One person out of 1,224 members, one photo out of 2,401 photos? A joke that creates a FIRESTORM of protest from other members?
Lemme ax you something. Why did you mention the offensive post of ONE MEMBER but not the FIRESTORM of protests from others? Why didn't you mention that the "guilty party" APOLOGIZED for and VOLUNTARILY REMOVED the post?
Does your dishonest approach to the SHPG in general and this post in particular begin to dawn on you?
BTW -- when was the last time you enountered anybody APOLOGIZING for advocating for the desecration/removal of Confederate monuments, memorials and symbols?
Gentle readers, this is not the first time Perfesser Simpson has attempted to smear the whole group of hundreds of members based on what a tiny handful post. Last time, he was disdainful of a few posts that showed disrespect for the U.S. flag -- but judging by his response to my recent pictorial essay on flag respect, presumably he's not REALLY offended by the disrespect Americans show their flag so long as they're not Confederate heritage advocates.
You know what it is when somebody smears a whole group by the negative words or actions of a few, don't you, dear readers? Yes, it's called bigotry,
As I said, when/if I have time, I'll address the other bits of idiocy he brought up in order to keep from seeing the point of my photo essay -- that SHPG members claim slavery "wasn't really all that bad" -- and then I'll address his completely pointless comments about the essay itself; and it's gonna be a doozy. So stay tuned.
Note: KR's sentiments that even heated debate is okay so long as it does not fall prey to name calling or insulting anyone's intelligence or educational background apply to the Southern Heritage Preservation Group on Facebook -- not my blog. Here, I will call bigotry what it is. I will call mendacity, hypocrisy, evasion, missing the point and poor reading comprehension skills what they are -- even when they're exhibited by a lofty academic.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Not allowed for a Confederate flag. Okay for Old Glory.
Isn't it odd that people who mm-mm-mm over the trivialization of the Confederate flag (see HERE, HERE and HERE) virtually ignore the trivialization of the U.S. flag -- and it a flag of sovereignty -- like the examples at the end of this commentary?
Why do you suppose that is? Well, it's not hard to figure out. The purpose of criticizing trivialization of the Confederate flags is, quite simply, demonization -- and the people who do it absolutely LUST after demonizing Confederate heritage advocates in specific, and white Southerners in general. They have NO desire whatever to demonize U.S. Americans, who are no less guilty of the same things -- and sometimes worse things.
F'rinstance, Corey Meyer posts repeatedly about how the SCV doesn't properly honor the Confederate Flag but makes a LOT of illogical, off-the-wall ass-umptions in order to do so. HERE, he writes, "I see the SCV have place the world’s largest confederate rag along the interstate down in Florida, and I wonder if this was really about heritage or not? When the SCV placed this flag here do you think they had the following two images in mind as well? For the Neo-Confederates to hold the rebel rag so dear to their heart, I must say that, well no pun intended, to put the rebel rag symbol on a pair of testicles takes balls!!"
Pardon me for pointing it out, but it's a stupid question. Why would they have these two images in mind, just because you do? Yes, Corey YOU are the one who has these two images in mind -- that's obvious by your inclusion of them on your blog -- but because YOU do, don't imagine every one else does.
Now, a quick question for YOU. When you put that picture with the big-arse American flag front and center on your blog, did you have the following two images in mind?
Besides, what has putting a Confederate flag motif on a pair of plastic truck testicles got to do with "neo-Confederates"? Are you implying that neoConfederates did this? Where is your proof? Just tell us WHO did it, and how you know. Otherwise, you owe a lot of people an apology -- though I'm sure hell will freeze over first.
Look, when you and Kevin Levin and Brooks Simpson and Andy Hall and all your myrmidons take on the responsibility for policing the trivialization and trashing of the U.S. Flag, THEN you might have a case for holding the SCV, or Southern Heritage advocates, responsible for policing the trivialization and trashing of the Confederate flag. Until you do, you are outting yourselves as hypocrites, liars and demonizers ... not to mention truly bad examples of -- and unfortunate excuses for -- Americans...
Dear Readers, when you scroll through the images below, keep in mind these words from the U.S. Code. (The "flag" referenced is, of course, the flag of the United States... Old Glory ... the Stars and Stripes....)
TITLE 4 - FLAG AND SEAL, SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE STATES
CHAPTER 1 - THE FLAG
The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free.
The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations.
The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
Are we to assume, Corey, that the SUV or any other patriotic Americans have the stuff below in mind when they run a U.S. flag up a pole somewhere?
Reckon the patriotic pair above will need one of these before the night's over?
Such honor to Old Glory!
At least it's colorful!
Hey! A flag you can kick around, Corey...
Might wanna wear one of these while your doing it. Website sez, "Great for 4th of July parades and patriotic events." (Like presidential candidate debates, maybe?)
How about Flag paper plates, so you can smear Old Glory with food goo, and then toss it in the nearest dumpster?
Just what every red-blooded, pro-American, anti-Confederate blogger needs to be truly patriotic! An American flag doo rag!
Ooooh, gonna need a super gonzo Pledge Fabric Sweeper For Pet Hair to keep Fido's American Flag Pet Bed up to U.S. Code standards!
Oops, Corey! Call Christina quick -- tell her the U.S. Code sez No carrying things in flags!
Aw, how cute! American flag-motif diapers for little American Patriots behinds... Reckon Christina stocked up on these lofty symbols of American Flag respect?
Reckon our blogger friends have one of these in their blog offices?
Wanna WEAR the flag? U.S. Code is easy to ignore, when flag clothes are THIS goodlookin', huh, antiConfederate blogger fellers?
Love them "Patriotic polar fleece pants", don'chu?
More patriotic American flag junk that critics of the Confederate flag will surely dig, here: American Flag Wall of Shame
Gentlemen, methinks you need to get your own house in order before you start criticizing others'. Remember ... pots and kettles, motes and beams, and all that.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
The hits from the State Department are a bit more intriguing. Why on earth...? I mean, I don't even own a passport....
But recently, doing a quick check of my visitor log, I noticed something really, really interesting. Here are the entries that caught my eye the past two days, from a screen grab of my visitor log. I've had to truncate some of the info and scrunch them up a little...
I wonder who's located in Gilbert, Arizona, and other locations in and around Phoenix... where the University of Arizona's various campuses are located... I've received visits from IP addresses in Scottsdale and Tempe, too... Hmmmm...
And who in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would be interested in little ol' moi's blog enough to visit ... 107 times! (West Roxbury, huh? Seems like I've read about that place not too long ago... Oh, yeah, I remember: http://cwmemory.com/2011/07/09/civil-war-memory-in-my-backyard/
But the most mystifying are the visits from two IP addresses in Galveston, Texas.... 108 visits from 22.214.171.124 and 146 from 126.96.36.199 (apparently an IP address of the University of Texas)...
So, does this mean One-Eighty is developing a ... following? Or what? LOL!
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
High drammer, as my Daddy used to say. Pore widdle Keffin....
I don't mind linking to his blog, or Perfesser Simpson's or Corey's. I don't mind folks seeing for themselves what those people are up to.... I pretty much don't pay attention to Andy anymore, since he's the only one who's stuck by his statement to ignore us. (The only caution I'd have about his Dead Confederates blog is to knock back some No-Doz or Vivarin a half-hour or so before you visit.) As I recall, Levin didn't make such a statement, Perfesser Simpson did, and broke it in a matter of days -- or was it hours? Corey held out the longest before his obsession with us Lost Causers and Mechanized Cavalry babes broke through and made it onto his blog screen....
boys don't have education enough to admit when you're wrong.
At any rate, something like about three hours after I posted the poll, Perfesser Simpson is bloggin' about it (and he calls ME obsessed, LOL!)
Vote Early, Vote Often …. But Vote!
For those of you who don’t like Kevin Levin, here’s the poll you’ve all been waiting to see, prepared by a blogger whose obsession with other bloggers is legendary, judging from the contents of her blog.
Maybe now that some folks have gotten that out of their system, we can move on.Why is humor soooo much funnier when it comes from the humor impaired? I mean, Perfesser, you could move on regardless of what I do or don't do. You realize that, don't you? Unless you're acknowledging that I have some ... power ... some hold ... over whether you, or your blog, or your comment thread satellites, can move on....?
Speaking of comment threads, there are only four following the Perfesser's post as of this writing, but they're even funnier than the original “Vote Early, Vote Often …. But Vote!” post itself! Take a gander:
November 1, 2011 @ 1:13 pm
Wow! Nobody has participated in the first three hours of a poll that will be online until December 31? Oh, woe is me!
I see nobody has participated in the poll as of yet—i guess when her blog only has a handful of followers there isn’t much participation.
Brooks D. Simpson
November 1, 2011 @ 1:40 pm
So, twenty-seven minutes after Charlie posts, Perfesser Simpson suddenly finds there have been thirteen respondants. Whoops. I guess being able to count is what separates the perfessers from the sycophant comment-posters... The perfesser continues:
When I visited to get the link, a grand total of thirteen people (one for each star on the CSA flag) had voted. You have to poke around the poll to discover that.
I think it’s an “unfortunate circumstance” that the poll’s results are not readily visible without a bit of poking around. :) That said … Kevin gets his own poll! Rats! :)*And Charlie responds:
Charles PersingerWhew! Good thing he didn't hang around. Doesn't look like he has a whole lot of brain cells to lose!
November 1, 2011 @ 2:13 pm
I should have looked harder but I’m afraid i will lose brain cells if i stay to long.
James F. EppersonWhy thank you, sir.
November 1, 2011 @ 3:56 pm
This woman keeps finding ways to exceed herself …
*(More about the "unfortunate circumstance" reference here: http://members.cox.net/180dts/CensoredReplies.html)