My name is Rusty Shackleford, and I'm a blogoholic.
I don't know why I feel compelled to blog. I'm married so I don't get any chicks this way. Is it just narcisism? Probably. Look at me! Read me! Love me!
Man. Am I really this pathetic? Yes.
Time for some self-therapy. First, identify the root of the problem. Ok.
Why did I begin to blog? It all started many moons ago when me and three friends from graduate school were arguing over whether or not Noam Chomsky really believed the stuff he was writing, or if he just hated America. So, picture this: Three guys on the right and one guy on the left sitting around yelling about Chomsky, but with the occasional reference to "pulling out" being giggled at in the appropriate Beavis and Butthead, "you said" voice.
One guy was a down the line Republican, but in the closet (about being Republican you mo-phos!). One guy was a paleo-con with more than a little love for Pat. One guy was a religious libertarian, which made him the only guy at libertarian gatherings not fascinated by the many marvelous uses of hemp. The other guy was a leftie, but unlike most lefties he was pretty pleasant to be around--except when you brought up Chomsky.
Which brings us back to Chomsky. Yes, give Noam Chomsky the credit for my initial forays into blogging. No, it had nothing to do with East Timor. It had everything to do with shutting our friend the hell up. Look, when you think about what Chomsky says it can really be boiled down to one thing: America is bad, mmm-kay.
Why do I say this? Well, a theory is supposed to tell you why something happens. Theories explain the connection between cause and effect, between X and Y. In science we call that thing which is effected the 'dependent variable'. The things which affects, or causes some change in the dependent variable, we call the 'independent variable'. Pretty simple if you think about it. The problem with Chomsky's theories, in my mind, are that if you take any dependent variable the independent variable is always the same: US foreign policy. This is problematic because it is no longer a 'theory' in the strictest sense, because a theory needs to explain differences. But if you ascribe the same cause to every phenomenon you have a serious problem.
Imagine, if you will, if I ask you why an apple falls? Well, gravity you say. Bingo. Now what if I ask you why an airplane flies? You say, gravity. See the problem? If I ask how come East Timor was invaded and you answer because Nixon was complicit I might say, well, ok. But then if I ask you how come Israel occupies the West Bank and you say, because of US foreign policy I begin to think, "broken record." Why did China invade Tibet? US foreign policy. Etc. If the same thing causes every effect then we no longer have a theory. What we have is a 'framework' or a 'world-view.' At a minimum, a theory must be able to produce falsifiable hypotheses. If a theory is unable to be falsified then you ought to begin to question the motives of the author of the theory.
Which brings me back to this: Noam Chomsky hates America.
So, what does one do when he wants to prove that Noam Chomsky hates America?
Google. And why did I want to prove that Noam Chomsky hated America? The most important reason why a man does anything: spite.
So I found a great website. A website that I had forgotten about.
Leftwatch.com. Let me tell you something. If you ever want to win an arguement about how Noam Chomsky is a so and so who hates America, check out that site. Well researched and well written.
Wait. Hold on. I thought this post was about blogging? Easy! You can go back to looking at pornquotes in a minute. I was getting there. '
So, it turns out that Brian Carnell, the author of Leftwatch also has a
blog. See how this works? So from there I start clicking around. Then I come across a blogspot account which advertises "free blogging." The rest is blogging history, so to speak.
I put up my first blog. Nope, My Pet Jawa was a later creation. My first blog is long gone. I must have put up, what? Like at least 15 posts. It was actually a group blog. Me and one other guy. Most of the posts, if memory serves me, said stuff about how the French should die and how America ruled--oh, and lots of giggling references to body parts.
So, let's get back to the initial question. Why did I begin to blog? Spite and Noam Chomsky. Big props go to Brian Carnell, though, now that I think about it.
Then. Just as it began. It ended. The blog sucked. Lost interest. Whatever. But, I continued to read blogs.
Pretty soon I clicked on to
LGF. From LGF I found
Allah, Misha's
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, and
Aaron's Rantblog. From Allah I found an advertisement for
The Politburo Diktat and a link to
Jihad Watch.
Grad school was over. My buddies and I all moved on, but one of my friends and I started an instant message thing. Compulsively. So instead of us sitting around and making jokes about Chomsky to piss our lefty friend off, we would sit around our respective offices and IM back and forth the newest ideas for pissing off our friend via e-mail. But now our conversations were less and less about Chomsky and more and more about the 'Clash of Civilizations'. We sounded a lot like Huntington, only with more references to male genitalia than is usually thrown around Harvard.
It was one day, I think in early January, when my friend started a blog back up. He was using a blogspot account to coordinate readings and stuff for a class he was teaching. He had also decided that maybe he needs to have a place outside academia where he could write polemics rather than peer-reviewed type junk. So he messaged me and suggested I start the blog again, too. Yup, I'm a copycat.
I had just been reading
Nicedoggie.net (Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler) and had just seen the episode of South Park about Osoma bin Laden. If you remember the episode, you would have noticed that the subtext of it was a tribute to WWII propoganda cartoons. There was considerable debate buzzing about Cartoon Network's refusal to show some films that were patently offensive to Asian-Americans. I was so pissed. Of course they were offensive! They were supposed to be offensive! Numbnuts. You think it is easy to kill people who are just like you? You think you will support a war when memebers of your family die just to kill some loveable fuzzballs who are 'misguided'? The WWII generation understood the value of propoganda. We do not.
So, it was in this context that my buddy and me were messaging back and forth about how we were a bunch of pussies and that we lacked the backbone to truly paint our enemies in the worst light.
So, what is the most offensive thing you can call Muslims? Hmmm...let's see...oh, yeah, Jawas. Or as Cartman says, "Jawas. You know, sandpeople." Whoa. Pretty damn offensive. A good start.
But there is something worse than being called stupid biggoted names. It is to be patronized. What could be more patronizing than saying something like, "Sit jawa sit. Good jawa!" Not much in my book. Hence, the first version of this website is
Nice Jawa (apologies to Misha!). That website lasted all of five minutes. There had to be a better name. Something that was equally offensive....hmmm, my pet jawa! Nice. My buddy and I both liked the ring to it. Offensive? Check. Patronizing? Check. Over the top? Absolutely.
Check out my first real post
here where I said:
So far I have ellaborated two assumptions that go into writing this trifle of a blog:
A) The war against Islamists threatens the short-term security of the US and the long term survivability of Western culture.
B) The root cause of Islamism is Islam. Not poverty. Not oppression. Not Zionism. Islam.
Last, and really the gist of this blog is this:
C) In a real war, against real enemies, we need some good old fashioned, sweet down-home, funny, bigotted propoganda. Tell me, what would the "greatest generation" think of liberal wusses cringing at words like "kraut" and "nip"? Remember all those great bugs-bunny cartoons demonizing the Nazis? "Nazis is zee craziest people!" Rip-roaring fun with a message: the enemy is real and we are better than they.
So, poke fun at Islam. Make fun of Muhammed. Paint our enemies in the worst light possible. Tell jokes about them. Create art that ridicules them. Sing songs not suitable for prime-time. Offend people that need offending.
We will have no WILL to fight if we do not beleive that are cause is right and no STOMACH for the horrors of war if we do not beleive that our enemies are real.
Ah, to be filled with youthfull idealism again!
Since this isn't a history lesson, but rather an online effort to pshycho-analyze myself won't you get to the point! The point? Oh, I had rather forgotten about that. Let's see...what was the point. Oh, yes! Why do you blog? Chomsky. Spite. Carnell. South Park. Misha.
Whew. That wasn't so hard, was it? Now that the first task is finished what do you propose to do to end this addiction? Hmm. How a bout a 'Chomskyesque' solution? You know, get at the 'root problem'. So, kill Chomsky, Carnell, Misha, and Parker and Stone. Buy any book recommended by Oprah to get rid of spite.
Whoa, hold on a second fella! Let's not go to extremes. There's no need to resort to reading anything that Oprah recommends. Calm down buddy.
Ok. Calm.
Now what do you intend to do to stop this thing? Hmmm. You know, it has been the
Commissar who has been my biggest supporter. He, more than any one else, has given me the most encouragement over the past several months. Maybe what is needed is not a Freudian model of discovery, but rather a behavioral modification program. I'm in a mutual dependency cycle!
You know, who cares what the root causes are, what enables you to continue with the behavior now? The answer: All the bloggers who continue to support me in my bad habits. Biggest enabler of them all?
Commissar.
Solution? Kill
Commissar. Great idea. Two-birds with one stone, really, what with the whole 'kill a commie for mommie' thing and all.
Still a little drastic. Why don't the enablers get together for a blogging intervention? Hmmm. Interesting. But how will that work online?
Commissar,
MB2,
Iowahawk,
Ace,
Jane,
Grand Vizier,
Maximum Leader,
BRD,
Bill,
Simon,
Rum Crook,
Iron Bear,
Cameron, and the rest--all the blog-enablers....all of them get together for what, a teleconference?
"You know Rusty, we think it would be in your best interests to stop blogging...."
"Me stop blogging? Me? What about YOU GUYS? How about getting me a Pepsi? All I want is a Pepsi!!"
You're right. Never work. Could turn ugly. Sigh.
I have a better idea. Keep blogging. Neglect all your academic work. Get fired. End up working at McDonalds. No time to blog anymore. Cured.
Yeah. That's much better. I like that one.
No, this isn't denial. This is a 'long-term solution'.
