Distress Call
I’ve heard that the American Flag was being flown at half mast and upside down in front of Badger Middle School in West Bend this morning. Today is the anniversary of the introduction of Act 10. Does anyone have a picture?
UPDATE: Both in the paper today and in an email to me, the Superintendent has said that this was a case of the top grommet on the flag breaking, thus causing the flag to hang upside down and lower because it was only hanging from the bottom grommet. Without any further evidence, I have no reason to doubt that explanation.
Even if you catch a picture…school district may say its honor to Whitney Houston, which may be worse than if it was done for Act 10.
Balancing the state budget, getting control over the out of control union rules and benefits for local units of government is now a tragedy?
If it is, the public school is truly failing to educate, just on this issue alone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 1640 hrs
The superintendent told me, “I checked into it myself and it turns out the grommet broke the clasp and the flag was hung only by the bottom grommet.”
He said it was fixed by 8am. My question is, isn’t the flag hung up new each morning? If a grommet was needing repair, why wasn’t it fixed before it was hung up this morning?
It all sound fishy, especially this being the one year anniversary of Act 10.
Without a picture, we’ll never really know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 1723 hrs
The school’s administrative secretary, Andi Pintens, told the parent “the wind did it.” Neitzke said a “grommet was broken.” What does a flag look like that is flying upside down, half staff? What does it look like hanging by one grommet? The two pictures are very different. Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by Ginny Maziarka on February 13, 2012 at 1731 hrs
My conclusion would be that the grommet broke the clasp and the flag was hung only by the bottom grommet. I’d take that man at his word versus that of speculation by those who don’t know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 1737 hrs
Can the flag be taken down if grommet was broken?
Why would one leave it up in a broken state?
Certainly violates the flag rules in my view.
http://www.legion.org/flag/code
Could be a learning moment for the children.
I’ll take it that it was not a nefarious agenda, but the timing is certainly very coincidental.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 1748 hrs
Most schools leave their flags flying all the time, with a light on them at night, or at least the public school next to me does. If it was fixed by 8AM then that means that someone noticed it when they showed up and it got fixed, probably after all the kids were in.
The Lutheran school across the street though, raises and lowers it every day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 1821 hrs
Seems to me it would be breathtakingly stupid for someone to do this on purpose. So, lacking evidence to the contrary, I believe the superintendent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 1916 hrs
Does the School have security cameras, that would show the flag area, and who did what when? If so are the videos subject to the freedom of information act?
Also, can we see the broken Grommet?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 1951 hrs
Well, this is the newest flag and flagpole in the district. So when you think about it….
Posted by Ginny Maziarka on February 13, 2012 at 1952 hrs
That’s the spirit Ginny, just assume the worst without any evidence whatsoever…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 2007 hrs
if it is the newest pole, it probably was cheap chinese crap and broke right away.
They have relaxed the rule about raising and lowering and lighting flags, as long as the flag is a weather resistant material.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 13, 2012 at 2022 hrs
Wow, this made today’s Daily News, and in a not so flattering way.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and nothing more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 0636 hrs
A flag purposefully hung upside down vs one that’s hanging from one grommet would hang differently.
It’d be the difference between holding a towel at one corner, or a towel at two corners. It would have been easy to tell which was the case if we had a picture or something. Since, however, all these lefties threw (and continue to throw) giant tantrums over all this, I’m going with “intentional” and the story by the Superintendent is CYA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 0715 hrs
As a matter of information, hanging a U.S. flag upside down is not any kind of official distress sign, just an act of disrespect.
I’m guessing that may be the reason for all the attention this issue received.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 0728 hrs
7.Seems to me it would be breathtakingly stupid for someone to do this on purpose.
And you don’t think that some of the Recall rable have acted breathtakingly stupid ?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 0739 hrs
Without any further evidence….
Maybe next time someone starts filing complaints by email, contacting Mark Belling, etc., and making the conservatives in WB look like fools, perhaps she could use the feature on her cell phone to take a picture - otherwise she has got nothing. Or, since there was a whole line of other parents dropping off their kids at the same time, any number of them could have been asked to use their phone to take a picture for evidence.
Also, note that the pulley is locked, and very limited staff have access to the key, so if they would do something like that, it would be pretty easy to narrow down the list of “suspects.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 0917 hrs
Mary, Ginny and Kevin—glad to see you are inventing a conspiracy theory for something that is obviously an accident.
Mary—maybe you should go the WB School Board and file a formal complaint!!!
Get over it. No story.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1001 hrs
I just don’t understand why Mr. Neitzke would say that it is “sad” that people are questioning this situation. Why shouldn’t parents get involved in what is happening at the school their child attends?
Shouldn’t every parent look around to make sure the environment is orderly when they drop off their child, and if something looks suspicious, take action?
I wonder if something has happened in the past with the school administration that has compromised trust, and that is what this is all about.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1041 hrs
Mary,
Get over yourself. It is sad. Ted is one of you. He would not lie about something like this. It is sad—raising suspicions where none need to exist. You need a real life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1112 hrs
“Ted is one of you”.
Meaning what…..?
Rational?
Patriotic?
Understands basic economics?
Against socialism?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1121 hrs
A right wing Tea Party member. I just love that people have to find and create controversy where it does not exist. Don’t you have anything better to do?
And worse yet, Mary trying to cast and create doubt. Try reading the commandment about bearing false witness and then live it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1124 hrs
Fred,
I didn’t see where Mary was “bearing false witness”. She was indicating it’s wise to be mindful of what is going on at school…a U.S. flag flying upside down, at half mast, certainly qualifies as a concerning event at school.
When you say Ted “is one of you”, that is the witnessing I’m concerned about. Then clarifying he is “Tea Party”...it implies you may be on different team than hard-working, taxpaying, Americans.
Are you on a different team?
If so, what is you team, that seems to be against, hardworking, taxpaying Americans, paying attention?
(Just read WB News article. I found it slighty funny they printed my top post without confirming it with me.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1226 hrs
“I wonder if something has happened in the past with the school administration that has compromised trust, and that is what this is all about.” That is the bearing false witness I am talking about—suggesting that the school administration has a compromised trust. That is just sewing seeds of doubt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1234 hrs
She was indicating it’s wise to be mindful of what is going on at school…a U.S. flag flying upside down, at half mast, certainly qualifies as a concerning event at school.
Yes, it certainly qualifies as a concerning event & it was appropriate to let the school know that the flag was not in an appropriate position. However, when fisking the email sent by Mary Pat Roth, as quoted in the paper, it seems that any explanation less than that it was a political statement was not going to be an acceptable explanation:
“Consider this letter a formal complaint. I ask that you look into this situation, learn who the responsible person(s) are, discipline accordingly, and respond to this email with the affirmation of these requests. I await your response.”
This wasn’t an expression of concern, it was a demand that may have been based on a false perception.
And the more this is “spun” as anything less than that, the more ridiculous some people are looking. I would suggest just admitting that you made a mistake & hope this if forgotten about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1242 hrs
Fred,
Interesting. You clearly indicated the administrator is on the “Tea Party” team. We know a few of the more vocal teachers in the school system are clearly on the “Union team”...you don’t think Mary’s statement could possibly be astute political observation and inference with 2 different teams inside an organization?
I’m wondering if I could use your “bearing false witness” standard to protect and defend Scott Walker, and all the unfounded seeds of doubt, being planted by those not on the Tea Party team. So are the critics of Scott Walker, “bearing false witness” or conducting political observation?
I’d really like to know when political observation crosses over to “bearing false witness”.
Which team are you on?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1251 hrs
I saw the flags flying outside of Kevin’s Dairy Queen’s yesterday and they were both flying upside-down and at half mast!
Do I need any more proof to chastise Kevin? According to Kevin, Ginny, and Mary Weigand… no, I don’t.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1310 hrs
Kevin,
Get over yourself. 1)—Mary is a big girl. Let her defend herself. She doesn’t need your help. 2)—Typical of you—you take an observation—the one I made about Mary casting doubt on the Administration—and instead of addressing that logically and thoughtfully, you redirect the observation and turn it into a rant against those who do not support Walker.
You have no idea what “side” I am on. You just like to hear yourself talk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1319 hrs
Your point is confusing.
1.) There WAS a flag flying at half mast, upside down, at Badger.
2.) Any flag flying at my business would not be half mast, upside down, since I do not own a flag pole.
Point #1 is a fact. A flag alleged to fly half mast under point #2 is not a fact. Opinion about why #1 happened is valid political discussion. Opinion about why #2 happened (when that event was impossible) is “bearing false witness”, since it did not happen.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1325 hrs
It’s not bearing false witness against Scott Walker to note that he has a propensity to hire close aides with checkered backgrounds who later get prosecutred for theft and doing campaign work on the public dime.
Posted by Northern Pike on February 14, 2012 at 1330 hrs
Fred,
I said your point was “interesting” and thoughtfully tried to understand your logic for using the “bearing false witness” label.
I re-read reply #25 and fail to see how it is a “rant”.
Would the word “rant” be “bearing false witness” about my comment in reply #25?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1338 hrs
So then, Piker, is it not false witness when people say Obama has a propensity to associate himself with mobsters, police-killers/terrorists and people who hate America?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1342 hrs
Hey Northern Pike, insert pretty much any elected State or National official in place of Scott Walker and your statement is still true over 90% of the time. For the most part it is logic, emotion or indoctrination as to which names you believe guilty and which ones you believe innocent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1351 hrs
Kevin,
A flag flying at half-mast and upside-down implies that it is fastened that way intentionally and securely. Nobody here knows that to be fact since there are no photos. You/Ginny/Mary are assuming it is fact because it fits your narrative of the teachers union being overpaid thugs.
You don’t have a flagpole? Ok. I saw flag being used as a doormat one of your DQ’s last night. Oh, I don’t have a photo to prove it? Doesent’ matter I guess - according to you I don’t need any because it fits my narrative of you enjoying trampling on the rights of others to marry who they choose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1405 hrs
Grandsons4liberty
I can clear it up…it was the flag of the former Soviet Union being used as a doormat. It was proper homage, (as well as great for dust and mud control), of the former Soviet Union, the ash-heap of the “progressive” political religion in practice.
Thanks for bringing it up. Its my way of celebrating the USA winning the cold war.
I had to throw it out after a while.
I was thinking about replacing the doormat with the flag of other darling Marxist, progresssive, basket case countries, like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or possibly Illinois.
If we are going to have a political conversation, let’s have some fun with it!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1421 hrs
Thanks to a friend for sharing this. It is an appropriate response, in my opinion.
Badger Middle School
US Flag at Badger Middle School:Many stories are circulating about how the United States flag was displayed outside of Badger Middle School on the morning of February 13, 2012. First off, I want to thank the parent who called the school to make us aware of the condition of our flag. As soon as I was made aware of the situation; school staff took the flag down, repaired the top grommet, and disp…layed our flag in a respectful manner. The top grommet had broken, causing the flag to hang down by the bottom grommet only.
Flying the US flag in any fashion other than code is disrespectful; however, this was an accident caused by a broken grommet. I apologize for offending anyone who saw the flag hanging this way. Badger Middle School has requested to fly a new flag from our local VFW Post and they have graciously responded to this request. We have a strong partnership with our local VFW Post and look forward to our continued partnership with the VFW Patriot’s Pen student essay contest and Loyalty Day Assemblies.
Sincerely,
Kurt Becker
Badger Middle School - PrincipalPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1439 hrs
I hope some of you never serve on a jury.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1818 hrs
Nobody is going to call Kevin out for his bullshit in assuming that anyone who isn’t part of the Tea Party isn’t a hardworking, taxpaying, American?
This is why people roll their eyes at the Tea Party, Kevin. Just because I disagree with and won’t join your hissy fit that conveniently arose after the Republican President left office, doesn’t mean I’m lazy and don’t pay taxes. Get over yourself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1830 hrs
I’m pretty sure this is the most controversial grommet ever.
It would be kinda fun to put it up on eBay and use it for a fundraiser.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1840 hrs
So Mary,
How about an apology for assuming the worst?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 1956 hrs
Hi Fred,
Re-read my posts. Not sure what you mean, but have a nice evening. Happy Valentine’s Day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 2007 hrs
Vapolitico,
That is some pretty spirited commentary. I did not say non-Tea Party Americans were not hardworking. This all started when Fred started to divide us up into teams. When Fred said “Ted is one of you.” I asked what that meant. Fred said “Tea Party”, which simply means hardworking, taxpaying, Americans. To work against the Tea Party team is working against hardworking, taxpaying Americans.
I’m certain you are welcome to describe whichever team you are on as “hardworking, taxpaying Americans” as well. Owen, unlike the Motely Cow, actually allows free-flowing, unrestrained, debate on an issue like this.
I was only describing the charachteristics of my fellow Tea Party team members.
Is it “verboten” to accurately describe the Tea Party team as hardworking, taxpaying Americans?
If not, I’ve seem to have misplaced my Daily Kos memo on that one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 14, 2012 at 2058 hrs
Seriously, Fred? Mary should apologize for her thoughts? Puhlease.
Posted by Ginny Maziarka on February 15, 2012 at 0603 hrs
No, Ginny and Mary, Mary should apologize for stating “I wonder if something has happened in the past with the school administration that has compromised trust, and that is what this is all about.”
She is painting the school administration in a negative light to serve her own twisted purposes. She is trying to cast doubt. But she is too self absorbed to understand that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 0732 hrs
Fred,
Should you apologize for using the word “rant” to describe reply post #25?
Your answer will determine whether you hold yourself to the same standard as you seem to hold Mary to.
This issue interests me greatly because it seems any criticism from Tea Party members always demands an apology from the non Tea Party Team, but yet no one from the non Tea Party team EVER apologizes to the TEA Party team…or even thanks them, or is grateful for all the TEA Party’s hard work, and taxes, the Tea Party team constantly pays.
Its time the taxpayers have at least as many rights as those that want to continue to raise taxes and increase regulation! One of those rights being, the ability to freely describe the political dynamic inside the public school system Tea Party members pay for.
Personally, I don’t expect you to apologize for your first amendment right to use the word “rant”, no matter how wrong you are. But if you expect Mary to apologize on the basis you feel she is wrong, I expect the same thing from you as well…in the interest of fairness.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 0802 hrs
Kevin,
No apology needed for my use of “rant” because that is what I still feel you did. You need to take a chill pill.
BTW, how come you posted “Owen, unlike the Motely Cow, actually allows free-flowing, unrestrained, debate on an issue like this” and neglected to include WISSUP in the same statement? That blog functions exactly as the Motley Cow—in fact is is more strict—Motley Cow allows dissenting opinions some time. WISSUP just closes its eyes to anything that does not fit its world view:)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 0936 hrs
Fred,
So your “feeling” counts as valid political opinion, no matter how wrong, but Mary’s “feeling”, or opinion, has to be apologized for?
Mary was much more closer to the mark in her school district analysis than you were in your analysis of reply #25 as a “rant”.
I’m sorry for not openly criticizing that other liberal blog censorship. I honestly don’t find that blog interesting. I do find Motely Cow mildly amusing with its massive contradictions, pretending to be academia inspired.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1015 hrs
Kevin,
Did you just suggest that WISSUP is liberal?????
I just find it hypocritical on your part that when liberals are involved in censorship—your word—you criticize. When conservatives do the same thing, you are silent or you say it is not as interesting. Call WISSUP what it is—conservative censorship of dissenting opinions.
And BTW, my feeling of rant is directed at you as an individual—Mary’s suspicion or feeling casts a negative light on public officials. No one other than you is impacted by my use of rant, but Mary’s suspicion is raised in a public way to cast a negative light on public officials.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1111 hrs
Mary’s suspicion or feeling casts a negative light on public officials.
Awwwwwwwww, those poor misunderstood public officials…........
WAY TO GO MARY!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1142 hrs
Fred,
My bad, for some reason, I was thinking “WALLAH”, a notoriously liberal blog.
I have not looked at WISSUP for a little while. I’m less critical of of hardworking, taxpaying Americans on the team believing in less government an individual freedom. I am more critical of big government, raise your taxes, regulate until all private sector jobs are dead, “progressivism”.
It just makes sense, as someone who values the natural right to be let alone, I am naturally critical of those deepening the intrusion of government into our lives.
My fault for confusing the 2 blogs in my mind..and you are right, WISSUP is not liberal.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1153 hrs
Kevin,
Yet no acknowledgement that what you condemn in Motley Cow you let slide in WISSUP.
Gotta go. Since you do not take the time to understand, why waste my time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1159 hrs
WISSUP has never failed to post my comments.
Motely Cow fails to post my comments all the time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1205 hrs
It is interesting that they posted Kevin’s Boots and Sabers comment in the paper without verifying it. Can’t anyone sign a post as Kevin Scheunemann? I guess there is only one way to find out.
Signed,
Not Kevin Scheunemann
P.S. is Scott Belling = Mark Belling?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1558 hrs
Mark Belling was massively critical of West Bend News for getting his name wrong when they RUN HIS COLUMN in the paper!
That one is funny.
The actual Kevin Scheunemann
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1610 hrs
In West Bend, we not only sweat the small stuff, we also sweat the “You are joking that this is on the front page ,above the fold of the WB News “stuff.
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”
And sometimes a broken flag is just a broken flag.
Mark Maley
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 1631 hrs
Mark,
Thanks for your common sense voice.
OH Kevin,
You still have not responded. WISSUP censors dissenting opinions. Why is that OK and Motley Cows censoring wrong? I know WISSUP publishes you—you agree with her.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 2037 hrs
Fred,
WISSUP doesn’t openly claim to be a “philosopher with Socratic attitude”.
The Motely Cow does claim that.
Last I checked, that means a claim toward dialogue and free flow of ideas.
With Motely Cow, its about truth in labeling.
That is the distinction in why the Cow deserves separate criticism.
We can agree that Boots and Sabers has more dialogue and expression than the other blogs mentioned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 2049 hrs
Ginny does call WISSUP “a place where Wisconsinites can get vocal”. She really means “a place where Wisconsinites who agree with me and don’t make me look too silly can get vocal”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 15, 2012 at 2225 hrs
Kevin,
Censorship is censorship. And grandsons4liberty is correct. WISSUP Calls itself a place where Wisconsinites can get vocal—so it should be held to the same standard.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 0615 hrs
Fred, grandsons,
I could take the typical progressive tactic and call your responses a “rant”, or tell you to “get over yourself”, but I’ll address it on an intellectual level.
I don’t criticize WISSUP because I don’t look to criticize those that are willing to challenge big government progressives and the social destruction caused by economic liberalism . It’s the same principle on how the Journal/Sentinel operates when it fails to mention Tom Barret, and decades of failed socialist/liberal policies when it comes to MPS’s 58% drop-out rate, Milwaukee’s 50%+ black male unemployment rate, Milwaukee’s high infant mortality rate, high rate of broken homes and families, and the Milwaukee City Hall fiasco.
So my standard is no different than that of the bias of the liberal media.
Is that attention standard, which is the exact same standard the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel uses with Tom Barrett, a problem? Or will we throw out this standard now, and finally get incredulous about the immense failure that is Tom Barrett, and destructive liberal economic polices, as well?
Isn’t this better than the progressive debate tactic of crudely dismissing someone by telling them “to get over” themself, or using the word “rant”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 0733 hrs
WISSUP will more than likely bring this incident of public school, progressive, liberal intolerance, to light:
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/139432188.html
Bringing the incidents of the massive Christian oppression and censorship in the public square to light is very important, and deserves a lot less scrutiny than an alleged academic “smarty pants” blogs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 0747 hrs
Kevin,
Not holding WISSUP to the same standard you hold Motley Cow to exposes you as what you are—plain and simple—a hypocrite.
Since your mind is closed, I have better things to do with my time. I am done on this thread.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 0927 hrs
Fred,
You mean copying, and applying, the same journalistic standards of radical progressives and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (apologize for redundancy), only in favor of the Tea Party team, does not make me a “patriot” in the eyes of the “progressive” movement?
In other words, the progressive team can play hardball, but the Tea Party team can only play softball in your eyes.
I’m shocked. Just shocked. (Sarcasm surplus intended.)
Conservatives can use Saul A. tactics to. In fact, its long overdue!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 0941 hrs
The fact that you think conservatives haven’t also been using “Saul A.” tactics for decades shows that you either have no idea what “Saul A.” tactics even are, or know very little about how anything gets done in politics - on either side. Or both. I’m going with both.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 0951 hrs
I’m not disputing, that once in a great while, a conservative will use a creative political tactic.
However, what we have seen from protests in Madison, just this week, and the Chief Tubbs video, conservatives are mere rookies next to the Saul A. professionals of the progressive movement.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 1018 hrs
You’ve never even cracked a copy of “Rules for Radicals”, have you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 1041 hrs
I have.
It’s not evident to you, based on the comments I made about non-TEA Party team member comments, I use some of the tactics in favor of the Tea Party team?
I don’t rise to the level of rudeness of many Saul A. zealots in the radical progressive political religion, but its clearly enough to get your dander up when I use it in favor of the Tea Party team.
Is that a problem?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 16, 2012 at 1106 hrs
I always get a laugh when I read complaints about so-called blog censorship. Governments censor, Kevin. If Motley Crew doesn’t publish comments of yours everytime, perhaps you might want to stop writing tripe. Any blogger has the
right to police their own blog ... especially for known trolls like you.Posted by Tim Rock on February 21, 2012 at 0957 hrs
Tim,
Doesn’t a blogger with “Socratic attitude” have a moral obligation to post all comment and dialogue in the Socratic tradition?
Its not much of a problem, for me, for a blogger to restrict comments on THEIR blog, however, the Motely Cow is really the “anti-Socratic attitude” in practice. That’s my beef with the Motely Cow, its false advertising and label.
As far as “troll” comment, I don’t consider myself that, but…aren’t “trolls” people too? Do you discriminate against tolls? Aren’t progressives supposed to practice some of that alleged compassion and tolerance for trolls? If discrimination against so called “trolls” is part of the progressive political religion, could you forward me the formal doctrine on it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1012 hrs
Kevin, they have no moral obligation to post your comments. Of course, it belies that a Socratic attitude is indeed being used on the blog, but there is no moral obligation involved. A Socratic method would oblige the blogger to find holes in your theories to help you find a tenable answer. A Socratic attiude then assumes that both of the interactors could/should patch each other’s theories until both are on solid grounds.
If they do not accept your arguments as holes and/or they cannot answer the holes you put in their arguments, a Socratic attitude is false advertisment, but it is no more than that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1118 hrs
Some thoughts:
1) If Kevin didn’t comment at Motley Cow, there wouldn’t be any commenters. He accounts for about 99% of the comments.
2) Liberals must have a different definition of troll - I haven’t seen any instances where Kevin has engaged in internet trolling behavior. I suspect the definition of troll at Motley Cow is someone who disrupts the thought process by ‘going off the plantation” with comments or questions that don’t agree with the post. If anyone has a specific example of Kevin having engaged in trolling behavior, please provide a link.
3) Mark Peterson, Motley Cow, is probably his own blogs “troll” His posts are usually just cut & paste topics from other blogs that support his worldview, and he is incapable of articulating coherent perspectives. So, when Kevin comes along with his comments, part of the problem is Kevin might be addressing the blogs subject, and Motley Cow is unable to defend it because it isn’t his original thought.
4) Who is the real “troll” here?:
In fairly typical fashion Kevin, for once not complaining sarcastically about the effects of the Enlightenment, calls out middle school teachers for being the race-baiting unionizing commies they are by associating them with, yes, Whitney Houston.
The Great West Bend Flag Controversy! Commies suspected.
So, Motley Cow is saying that this post is racially motivated? Sounds like troll-like behavior to me. It also shows how Mark Peterson really has no thoughts of his own - he is just echoing the standard Democratic “racial” dog whistle - he is good “soldier” for the causs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 21, 2012 at 1213 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134033
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:50 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 109
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 07:10 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).