The Conservative Wahoo: Happy Halloween

Friday, October 30, 2009

Happy Halloween

My pumpkin may not be as clever as CW's post-frat-party pumpkins last week, but you have to admit...it's pretty damn inspirational.

18 comments:

Beyond Bibb's Store said...: I think I just threw up in my mouth a little...; October 30, 2009
Anonymous said...: After all these years, that pumkin made me relaize what disaster the "TRICK" in "TRICK or TREAT" could bring about.

God help America.; October 31, 2009
Goldwater's Ghost said...: That is THE scariest Jack-O-Bamalantern I've ever seen.; October 31, 2009
SamShapiro said...: I hope...you know how childish and asinine your comment is but then again, you never met a post you couldn't resist replying to.; October 31, 2009
Anonymous said...: atta boy Sam -- tell the idiot how much he lowers the standards here and probably in his neighborhood...; October 31, 2009
"The Hammer" said...: What's the matter Sam, hit a little to close to home for ya? Well I think you're being very parochial and I'm telling CW.; October 31, 2009
The Conservative Wahoo said...: GHD comment removed.; October 31, 2009
Greg "the Hammer" Fail said...: I nominate GHD as blog Grand Douche-bah. Do I have a second? Reading his posts makes me imagine he's Lt Hauck from Good Morning Vietnam for whom the ensuing years have resulted only in further alienation and marginalization. Yet, the General's assessment still ring's true. "That man is in more dire need of a b*** j** than any white man in history."; October 31, 2009
"The Hammer" said...: Jeez, can't we have a little fun on Halloween? Now I'm being stalked.; November 01, 2009
Anonymous said...: In a previous reply to a post; Greg "The Hammer" Dail said...
Jesus...SHUT UP! You sound like a freshman poly sci major fussing with his TA.

October 31, 2009

From what I read in his postings here, he must have had ample time to practice his prose while riding the short bus.; November 01, 2009
Anonymous said...: You're not being stalked, you're just annoying.; November 01, 2009
Anonymous said...: It must be aggravating to have people show such disregard for your intellect and even more aggravating to not know who they are.
But what is worse than lacking in intellect is to be so paranoid about their honest criticisms that you liken it to stalking.; November 01, 2009
"The Hammer" said...: Well it seems I've got my own "Cape Feare" thing going on. I'll just ignore the guy and maybe he'll find someone else to obsess on.

Look I'd like to apologize for my previous posting. It was meant as a humorous comment in the spirit of Halloween and of course I harbor no ill will for any of our hard working, honest and brilliant public servants.; November 01, 2009
Doc Milnamo said...: GHD - There is no such thing as a "humorous comment in the spirit of Halloween" where one wishes AF1 with the POTUS in it to explode in a fireball.

I am not a fan of our POTUS and his ilk and wish him a "one and done" - at the ballot box in 2012.; November 01, 2009
"The Hammer" said...: True Don. I should temper my remarks otherwise I'll probably get a visit from the Secret Service.
Let's see, I hope POTUS gets a bad case of jock itch. How's that?; November 01, 2009
The Conservative Wahoo said...: I was out of pocket for most of the weekend, and only ducked in long enough last night to delete GHD's incendiary comment. It clearly crossed the line of civility expressed sentiments the likes of which I want in no way associated with a blog that I run.

But when it comes right down to it--when GHD or anyone else for that matter--makes incendiary, ridiculous, over the top, racist, sexist, or whatever-ist comments--there are really only two people who suffer injury from it.

The first is the person who writes it. Most people who write on this blog know other people who read it, and when you put something stupid out there, you're opening yourself up to the inevitable real life " hey, wtf dude?". Much more of an issue than an online spanking.

The other person is me--someone who thinks hard about elective or appointed office at the federal level. I can just see sitting in front of a Senate Committee someday having to defend the inanity of someone who wrote in to my blog ten years ago. I will have NO PROBLEM defending my own words in such a forum--but you all know that's not the way it will play out.

But someone please tell me how GHD's words cause injury to anyone else, given that he tags everything he writes with his name--there's never any doubt about it. When he writes in--WHY NOT JUST IGNORE HIM if you don't like the things he says? Skip his inputs.

I don't know what it accomplishes to hurl anonymous taunts over the electronic fence--perhaps the poster's secretly sit at their computers with great smiles of accomplishment at having given GHD his due. But what it really does is drag the whole blog down by giving the comment more import than it deserved.

I read everything posted here, and I can assure you, as soon as I read GHD's deleted post, it was only a matter of time (getting from my PDA to a computer) before it was gone. In the meantime, we've had a little name calling and a little intellectual "mine is bigger than yours" going on here--but to what end?

I propose this--trust me (and my contributors) to police the site, and if we're not doing a good job, let me know. Or if you you feel like you need to criticize a fellow poster, keep the criticism above the level of the original foul.

I think we've got a pretty good thing here--let's keep it going, shall we?; November 01, 2009
ghost of Halloween Past said...: This is such a tricky one, CW. You may have removed GTHD's comment from your site, but not in time to keep it from propagating through the RSS readers -- so I'm stuck reading it. And that comment remains associated with your site.

You asked, and here's where I stand: I think GTHD has the right to continue to make foul and vicious statements, you have the right to remove them or not when they appear on your site, and we who are part of this community can denounce such comments, agree with them, or let them stand unaddressed, which might lend some tacit approval whether we mean that to be the case or not.

It's that same dilemma you described facing someday in the future. If you built an environment that encourages or doesn't actively discourage violent and demeaning words, are you associated with that, promoting that, or even liable in some way for anything that comes of that? I suspect self-preservation wasn't your only motivation for removing the comment. You know you don't have to pull the trigger to be complicit ...

I think that, while he has the right to post such things, advocating the violent kidnapping/death of the President and members of his administration, is deplorable and goes far beyond "a little fun on Halloween." Sure, he could express the same sentiments about wishing a fiery death for any of our families, any one of us could make anti-semitic, racist, sexist, dehumanizing remarks in this forum. But GTHD's right to be an ass doesn't stop the rest of us from denouncing such offensive behavior and I'm surprised, CW, that you take aim at those who took issue with the comment,and express only concern for the PR aspect of how it might affect your campaign.

"...please tell me how GHD's words cause injury to anyone else, given that he tags everything he writes with his name--there's never any doubt about it."

What does anonymity have to do with it? GTHD is as anonymous to me as the person who writes under the name "Anonymous." You may know the real identities of all of us commenting here, but your audience doesn't necessarily, I sure don't. I don't know if GTHD is dangerous and could be in a position to influence others, if he's playing a character on your blog, or if he is just some sad impotent freeper expressing rage from his basement.

I think words can be pretty powerful, that extremist, violent, overheated rhetoric can have dangerous consequences and can contribute to inciting physical violence. Again, I may just think of GTHD as an ass, but what if there's someone out there who follows your blog who actually listens to him, and takes action.

"When he writes in--WHY NOT JUST IGNORE HIM if you don't like the things he says? Skip his inputs. "

So, aside from that nagging ethical obligation to counter violent remarks some of us feel (or at least doing so out of a sense of self-preservation, if considering public office), it's very difficult to filter one individual when using an RSS feeder. Inevitably I feel like I've just stepped in something awful when I come across such offensive comments, but it's too late to undo it. It's really a shame, because at times he has a way of turning a phrase that I like reading. It's just that, well, to continue the metaphor, most often what GTHD is laying down is just so much offensive crap. But it's not always innocuous crap we can sidestep, it's often pretty toxic and not all of us are willing to wallow in it.; November 03, 2009
The Conservative Wahoo said...: GHP--as usual, very well done. A couple of things:

1. I realize RSS Readers let the comments slip through editing. But that still does not relieve you of the fundamental decision of whether or not to read the post. My RSS readers identifies the poster--if I had a consistent problem with a poster, I'd simply not read that person's stuff.

2. Your suspicion that self-preservation wasn't the only thing behind my removal of the comment is true. Add to that a complete and utter disdain for the sentiments expressed. But that's all--there is nothing deeper than that, your suspicions notwithstanding.

3. My point about his using his name on his comments was simply to raise the issue of skipping his input--his comments are tagged, and always are. It isn't a question of anonymity, it s actually quite the opposite. He uses his real name and associates it with everything he says. Makes it easier to ignore if you wish to.

But I take your basic gist--and that is (repeated for possible correction) 1. if you run a blog and allow comments, you just gotta let the chips fall where they may, even as you continue to exercise editorial discretion. 2. That I shouldn't discourage others from raising their opinions about extreme views.

On a related note--how would you feel if I eliminated comments altogether?; November 03, 2009