suzyrice.com

I’d originally thought I’d withhold sharing my thoughts (here, elsewhere) about the ongoing and exceptionally tedious Leftwing Spit problem that besets those on the Right (reasonable report based upon my experience) and every website (reasonable estimation based upon reported experiences) that contains content that is outside the Leftwing spittle margins of information that sends the Left into illogical tail-spins, ever downward. Followed by their spit, it you don’t bucket-up the spit and save it — I don’t, no website I know does, except the worst kind, the stuff that is infectious to a point of defamation and other threats.

I watched the O’Reilly broadcast yesterday (11-15-09 broadcast) evening and thought it was among one of his very best.

One issue O’Reilly addressed, while discussing Leftwing negation of Sarah Palin (and other persons among the Right who maintain a media presence), was that his, O’Reilly’s, policy is to not respond or comment on specific negating remarks and messages directed to and about him, with the exception being the most offensive kind (I presume O’Reilly is referring to defamation, libel and/or mortal threats, which, certainly, all should be responded to in punitive measures).

His guest, Bernie Goldman, agreed with this behavior: ignore the internet chatter, tune it out, don’t provide it with any degree of attention, and — as O’Reilly and Goldberg both said, continuing — though at some point in the past it bothered both on a personal level, they’d learned to stop taking it personally and to “just ignore it”.

Everyone who has been reading and who listens to so much as a smidgen of programs broadcast from the Left is well aware of the ongoing onslaught by the Left on Sarah Palin (as upon all individual Conservatives and Republicans who express their respective opinions) — there is no reasoning displayed in the Left’s actual statements other than they display pretensive efforts to emotionally deride those they target (and they appear to target anyone who does not ‘run and hide’) — and it’s almost always done by the Left using false identities or the ever-handy “social network” where they can’t be identified by IPA or provide any public contact information, so it makes their actions exceptionally cowardly). The Left in this regard displays an ongoing, emotional need to destroy others by whatever possible can be said and repeated, regardless of reason, reality, truth or ethics. In my experience, again, it’s almost always, also, quite irrational, lacks reason, can’t be responded to or commented on as it is, literally, an ugly stream of something akin to ‘word vomit’ by whoeveritmightbebywhateveridentitypossible.

On a higher-profile level than my experiences, of course, is the onslaught upon Sarah Palin. Her experiences in media and on the internet, as she’s repeatedly targeted by just about everyone on the Left and a few embarrassing, angry people on the Right, unfortunately, is a substantial example of that destructivenes by the Left; whether you support Palin’s politics or don’t, most of us, nearly all of us who are not among the Left, can easily see how utterly indecent the behavior by the Left is as it’s directed to and about Palin, as also how the experiences sit to each of us as individuals when we — predictably at this point — also receive similar denigration. What I’d call a shower in Leftwing spit if you let it affect you or so much as try to engage it (you can’t; again, in my experience, such always degenerates quickly by the Left source into defamation, threats, whatever pejorative they can summon; meaning, conclusion here, they can’t reason, there’s no point in their criticism but to destroy who they presume to target).

Take one listen to the likes of Anita Dunn and David Axelrod and even their project, Barack Obama, ridiculing in utterly disgusting terms the likes of Palin, Republicans in general, the Right, this, that, anything that upsets the gloomy possessiveness of that Leftwing crowd — so much as a few sentences griped-out by any one of them in sound-bites and orchestrated print — take one listen or make so much as one brief read of their “material” and you quickly see that the entire point is personal destruction of other human beings. Obama calls Republicans and millions of other Americans (whose opinions he denigrates), “teabag people” and “anti-government people” and then there’s that ultimate gutteral nasty from Obama, referring to Palin as a “pig”.

This goes along, though, with the need to support and proliferate abortion by the Left, among the spit-and-pi**ing contest themes the Left routinely dredges up for purposes of agitating emotions but destroying life. Destroying life, “rebranding” words and concepts — it’s “hate” to pray for others, it’s “love” to murder an unborn child and con voters and manipulate elections and loathe Capitalism, things of this nature — “redoing” what has been, “doing away with the status-quo” which is Leftwing hate-speech (in the genuine sense of what hate actually is, because it communicates disrespect for the beliefs, opinions and worth of countless billions of Americans over time throughout many generations) for taking your value and renaming it something useful to a Leftwing political goal that hinges upon tossing what you value “under the bus”.

Oh, but they take the name of what you love and apply it — that’s “rebranding” — to Leftwing spit, so what you value becomes doubly downed when the Left can get away with this, and you get to see your heritage, beliefs, your very private property and the futures of your family, cast away. What remains is the name that then sits atop the Leftwing spit.

This, by the way, is David Axelrod’s dreadful talent, this is what he does — “master of astroturfing” or “rebranding” — this is his dark art and loathe the businesses and individuals who purchase and engage with this dark art: gossip enough about an original, denigrate it’s (or his or her) credibility and worth, then swoop in and pretend to rescue while replacing the original with the dark-art-thing, but reserve and reapply the name of the first, and, presto, dark-art-thing sits where the original, good thing once was.

Axelrod knows how to manipulate public perception but his methods are essentially quite simple, though simply low profile: deception. And so is Leftwing spittle, it grinds targets down, it reduces the worth of the target (or tries to). The objective is to ultimately replace the original with the knock-off, in other words, while reserving (or ripping off) the original name (or “brand”). It’s done by subtlety and a lot of useful fools willing to join in but it’s still a dark-art with a indecent process aimed at a corrupt goal, in the political. In marketing, it’s a process of saving a product by repackaging it as “new” but the process is the same: to fool the consumer into making a purchase. Internet and other Leftwing media chatter is part of that process of attempting to silence inquiry, force a worthlessness, if at all possible, onto anyone who questions or expresses interest in another product.

O’Reilly’s broadcast and Goldberg’s contributions yesterday were very helpful to me, very much valued, particularly after time and again on internet use, as with most on the Right, the experience is fraught with harassing, destructive nonsense from the Left, which routinely works nearly immediately by the Left toward personally insulting “attacks”, indecent suggestions, lies and other accusations that are so far removed from reality that it’s difficult to believe someone with any conscience could actually write such, but write it, say it, they do. Far more damaging in scope, also, is that this behavior is being, today, at the present, represented as “leadership” so it’s malforming the character of many a highschool and college student after several years of exposure to such.

Sarah Palin’s beliefs and politics are awesomly wholesome, in my perspective. I don’t agree in absolutism or blind assumptions with all of Palin’s positions — some of which I don’t know as I write this, and I’m not one to follow anyone blindly, especially in politics — but I find her entirely wholesome and mostly supportable. I’ll vote for her if she runs for the Presidency. I’ll have far more confidence — by light years in scale — with Palin’s ability to lead our nation than what I currently see from Barack Obama.

I hear Palin accused of “bellyaching” (another commenter on O’Reilly) yet have never perceived her remarks as even complaints — she makes statements, she declares her perspectives, beliefs, points of view, nothing anyone else is not doing or hasn’t done in media and in politics or both.

But to the Left, she’s a target. To the Left, I’m a target, every Conservative is a target. The Left targets each and every one of us on the Right who opines anything the Left deems to be contrary to their demands, including perceptual ‘alterations’.

I never experienced what today is called “bullying” in any area of my education, in my youth — I have wonderful memories of most of my education, kindergarten through highschool, certainly, then college and college again — up until my mid-adult years when I returned to college in mid-adult years to the University of California: I was an older student immersed in mostly all-very younger student social, academic environment, and my presence there as an “older student” (so I was labelled) was a new experience at that time for everyone, including the faculty and administration: an adult of the same age as most faculty (generally) in classes and in the campus mix was notably unusual and oftentimes, literally, a situtation that caused many awkward moments and conditional events. I was quite surprised at the lack of tolerance I experienced on many an occasion there. And in my years there, there were several students who engaged in demonstrative bullying attempts directed at me, something I was inept at managing then and utterly surprised to be targeted with — I’d never been exposed to people such as that with that behavior. Overall, most faculty were indifferent if not avoidant of me in classes and had it not been for two members of faculty of the Ph.D. level there who did become friends and made many efforts to reach out and to discuss issues with me, my experiences there would have been far worse than they were.

That unusual, surprise-bullying directed toward me in those years when as an adult I’d returned to college full-time is what I’d refer to as what I’ve later experienced on the internet from similarly disturbed, mostly college age, adults — because most of the online bullying attempts appear to be from college-age students — or otherwise, younger adults — who are routinely Leftwing, often quite hateful toward Christianity (and me accordingly) and acting-out antisocially directed toward me when I express my opinions, as they do toward anyone who they appear to assume is a likely target (seems largely to be females who are targeted).

This online attempt to bully, in my experiences, has included threats and other severe accusations that are senseless; a huge amount of ridiculous gossip, taunting, ridicule, quite senseless from total strangers: senseless, as in, non-sensical, entirely emotionally damaged unhinged-from-reason statements and accusations.

But all of this bullying behavior, past and present, shares one characteristic: it’s all from Leftwingers who ridicule or try to ridicule me on terms they can never clearly express — it’s all a stream of nastiness without any center or point beyond “to be nasty”, in other words, irresponsible Leftwing spit. I’m not sure at what point some people never learned that other people are not theirs to access and abuse, but, obviously, as per my experience, some people at any age don’t ever seem to get it that others are not their possessions to use, abuse, damage and even access after they’ve been told to be leave someone alone: when boundaries are established, they’re ignored by some and that usually indicates a social problem by those who ignore the boundaries.

As an adult, I perceive this indicative of troubled people acting out. As an adult, I want to be tolerant of the troubles of youth and of other adults. Media is no different, however: Leftwing excess that harms and destroys in media is sourced by troubled individuals — consumers, other adults, notice that.

The question always is, for interpersonal situations and/or consumer decisions, respond with some responsible point of view or ignore their obvious suffering, even when it’s abusive toward me and/or others.

As a female in politics on a national scale, then, I can imagine that Palin’s experience is similar to my own in that regard (though, of course, her experiences are far more high-profile than my own): the level of “spit” aimed at Palin is nonsensical, unusually cruel, unusually demanding into and about personal areas of her life, a general presumption upon her that she is and CAN be an available target. This, actually, has little to do with Palin as my own existence has/had little to do with my own experiences with “bullying” but it does define those who bully or try to bully and today’s Lefttwing is certainly what I’d overwhelmingly deem a very, unusually irresponsible, bully.

On a national political level, in Palin’s case, her experiences in government far exceed those of Barack Obama’s: Palin’s dismissed by the likes of David Brooks (columnist with the New York Times) as “a talk show host” yet it seems a talk show host, if that’s her latest title by those who denigrate Palin, is far more preferrable than a “community organizer” who has apparently lied about most of who he is and what he’s capable of (he’s certainly not a “Constitutional expert” as he was sold to the nation and world as being; seems to be there’s much about Barack Obama that is entirely based in hype ["hope and change"]). By Obama’s measure, then, Palin runs circles around him as to capability.

Disagree with someone, fine, state why and explain your perspective on the specific disagreement, but, to seek out and persist in harassing others for some emotionally destructive desire out of a false belief that it somehow elevates the destructive source, well, that’s as low as low in ethics anyone can be.

But pointing out (or “sharing”) these experiences certainly does NOT represent claiming to be a victim — referring to ongoing bad press about Palin’s appearance with Oprah Winfrey, wherein she’s been said to be “claiming to be a victim”. While I didn’t watch the whole interview, what parts I did see simply had Palin sharing what she experienced. It’s Oprah’s show, she does tend to emphasise that “share your pain” attitude or apply it to just about anything that’s said there — perhaps Palin’s fault was going on Oprah at all, but in the scope of her media history, I can understand why she did.

Returning to the O’Reilly broadcast, which addressed the issue of media bias negating Palin, often without reason and certainly beyond tolerable:

I like the newly energized O’Reilly and am glad he’s stopped with the shy-about-Obama deference, and, has again — last few weeks — begun more aggressive pursuit of opinion on daily issues and ceased the more borderline suppressive attempts to silence differences from among the Conservatives who are displeased with what’s transpiring from the current Administration.

I also like the newly “bold and fresh” opinions O’Reilly’s offering from the variety of returning guests he’s including on his broadcasts. Though I am relieved he’s stopped providing a venue for the spittle of Geraldo Rivera (as often — though permanently would be great), and long may Rivera spit somewhere else.

Thanks, Bill O’Reilly, for an uplifting broadcast last evening. And Bernie Goldberg for his exceptional comments. I have benefited from hearing two such seasoned media figures as O’Reilly and Goldberg sharing their experiences and advice, particularly as to managing the Leftwing Spit that seems to ooze just about everywhere, particularly all over the internet and certainly in print and broadcast media, with the exception of Fox News, long may it reign.