Showing posts with label disregard for honesty. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disregard for honesty. Show all posts

Monday, July 13, 2020

Republican Dependence on Demonizing. Why?

I saw a video today that's worth sharing and this seems as good a spot to insert it as any.


June 28th I read a letter to the editor that continues haunting my thoughts. Jeff begins his letter on a humorous note, “We have a national outbreak of leftism sweeping our country.”  Don’t I wish. Then it quickly turns ugly, claiming we “threaten to kill our democracy and way of life.” 

Leftism is Jeff’s pejorative for Liberal.  Ironically, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is about as Leftist as it gets!  America’s founders were children of the intellectual enlightenment, they believed in evidence over personal fancy and dogma.  

God was beyond their understanding and they believed in Providence.  They trusted the scientific approach to better understanding, based on honestly assessing and debating the facts.  All that is tremendously “Leftist” and liberal, and the stuff of American greatness and patriotism!

Some will say, ah but the Founders meant “Land” - they hid that sentiment behind a general community “Happiness” for political expediency.  Okay, there we have it!  America’s divide, the self anointed Masters vs. We The People, the right vs. the left.

American society has succeeded because

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Robert Holmes 1000Frolly PhD slinks away.

An update for those who are curious, Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly, the character who jumped into the middle of my breakfast pounding his chest with all cap threats a couple weeks back, has slithered away back into the night.  

Refusing to let me know, the case number, name of alleged court or date of his supposed filling, or even what his alleged suit against one Bob Trenwith is about.  Nor what the heck it has to do with me.  

Seems to me if a normal person were to have actually filed a suit and then threaten others with it, they would be willing to share the particulars.  Or at least explain why one is being contacted and threatened.  Seems only decent.  Not to mention civil and legal.

But, instead of simple civil adult information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with an email sporting the official Federation University Australia letterhead, with its oaths of confidentiality, etc, etc,  along with a lot of condescending avoidance of my questions and the issues - So typical, these people always feel more comfortable keeping it within their own fantasy projections, rather than reality and the issues at hand.

Monday, June 17, 2019

Dr.Holmes aka 1000Frolly sends me an email (updated June 17, 9pm)

This morning I received this from Dr. Robert Ian Holmes:
clink on images for better viewing

Dr. Robert Holmes,

Let’s be clear, you are the malicious YouTube slandering liar Frolly1000.  Your letter arrived unsolicited and I’m not bound to any confidentiality with you, in fact you can be sure my dialogue with you will be carried out in public.  

I’m curious, was your letter written on University time?  How would the Federation University of Australia feel about you using their logo as a shield to impress and intimidate?

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly why are you threatening me?

Though I was given the tip years ago, it wasn't until this morning that I'm able to confirm that the prodigious YouTube liar and AGW science slandering 1000Frolly is in fact one Dr. Robert Ian Holmes from Australia.  (not to be mistaken with Hulme!)  

A 'scientist' with rather tarnished credentials thanks to his efforts to convince folks that CO2 science is mistaken.  Writing that's so disconnected, even climate science contrarians dismiss him.   
Welcome to the Age of Trumpkins - where truth is despised and bullying is everything.  This is what decades of liberal intellectual complacency has achieved for our complex global society.

Right now I really need to focus on a more important writing project, so can’t let this sidetrack me more than it already has.  Besides it would be good to let this steep awhile, since I have a number of responses and questions for this Dr. Robert Ian Holmes, whom I actually had not had time for in years, but who seems scintillatingly upset at a couple confusing comments Bob Trenwith recently dropped at WUWTW.

“Inciting mob violence”?  Seriously Dr Holmes?  What are you talking about?  Please.  Or are we simply dealing with another frantic drama queen, . . . or what?  Can you explain yourself?

For now I'm going to settle for a trip down memory lane and a look at my tenuous involvement in this Dr. Holmes/1000frolly/Monckton distraction.

Friday, October 5, 2018

Considering Kavanaugh and the failure to communicate

I had an interesting exchange today.  Related to my constant agitating climate science communicators about the need to directly engage contrarians, and just as repeatedly, being rebuffed by the big boys.  See, I've been repeatedly reassured: Climate science contrarians, or for that matter these days die-hard Trump supporters, are a “lost cause” and a distinct minority of the US population.  There’s not much point in interacting with them on social media or elsewhere.    

Seems to me simply looking at the degeneration of our public discourse, and the current attack our governmental agencies makes the folly of that smugness self evident, but evidently not.  Be clear this is about the dialogue on the street, and in media outlets, outside of the scientific community.  

We NEED to DIRECTLY ENGAGE contrarian characters and their arguments and misinformation for many reasons.

How else can we understand our own positions and arguments, if we can’t enunciate them in challenging circumstances?

How can we understand what’s going on within their heads and hearts, if we never actually listen to them?

How can we convince onlookers if we’re afraid to confront and expose the deliberate dishonestly of science's critics?

and so on.

In any event, in an ongoing dialogue at ATTP I responded to a pal's sidestepping non sequitur with the following:

I wrote: "Guess I’ll never get you to discuss my actual content –  blithe dismissal is as far as your interest goes. But, than it seems we’ve turned into a society that rather talk past each other. {Have you checked political polls lately, looks to me like the fruits of our general apathy and that god-awful laziness when it come to actually confronting what the other is trying to express.}"

This prompted his angry complaint: “… your propensity to falsely define me, for example. cc wrote:
"Have you checked political polls lately, looks to me like the fruits of our general apathy and that god-awful laziness when it come to actually confronting what the other is trying to express."
Implicit in your statement is the belief that I am not paying attention to what is going on in US politics. …
===================================================================
I'm sharing my response mainly because it drifts into the current Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination which serves as a perfect example of the fruits of intellectual's benign neglect of the lower classes, and which has been weighing heavy on my heart these past days.  

Oh please STOP already!  It’s not all about you! Excuse the sloppy rhetorical device. 

I’m trying to discuss the need for more direction citizen dialogue, engagement, motivation, networking - you know a healthy Democracy demands an informed and engaged citizenry and all that.

Please, I was asking about the fact and not poking at you.   

Consider what we have witnessed in America this past week.  You know the Kavanaugh hearing and the voter opinion polls that look like they’ve gone though a wild 15/20 point swing.  Republicans have suddenly been justified and energized and Democratic momentum seems to have evaporated.  What happened?  How can that be understood, what does that portent for the coming election?

Then my point:
Kavanaugh was a very passionate partisan, even belligerent and threatening.  A man who felt free dropping conspiracy theories without offering a shred of evidence, in order to distract from the actual issue at hand. 

Kavanaugh delivered an emotionalized, personalized, angry, even threatening diatribe.  He showed himself to be the great white American male playing the victim card like a consummate performer.  He used anger and indignation to evade all questions and America ate it up because of, …  Why?