Let’s say your uncle wants to kick some ass.

Say you have an uncle, Sam, a strapping fellow with a fearsome reputation who does not suffer taunting gladly — especially since January 2001, when he started taking a psychotropic medication that has made him more pugnacious and resulted in modest cognitive impairment.
Sam likes to party, and has cast an increasingly jaundiced gaze on this one loudmouth bar drunk, Ira, for a long time. Ira can’t win squat in a fair fight, but likes to start trouble anyway because he carries a king-sized grudge on his shoulder and is, well, crazy as can be by constitution.


Sam and others could easily and happily ignore him were it not for one thing: Ira has a beautiful, sexy, alluring daughter named Petra. Oh, she’s literally a slut, and has in the end has invariably brought ample disease and strife on those who have indulged in her wares; yet these stubborn suitors have always figured, “I can worry about that later!” and kept slamming away at every opportunity. And Petra does everything, but only those things, that Ira commands.
One day Sam finds himself mixing it up with Ira for real. In the beginning it’s a predictably mismatched set-to, Sam lands a roundhouse blow to the jaw here, a rib-crunching hatchet kick there, blood is flying from Ira’s mouth, and the rest of the pub’s patrons look on with mild interest but have no interest in getting involved in what is plainly Sam’s fight, for he now carries a misguided but understandable grudge of his own again the smaller, more bitter man.
But then something happens. The fight should be over, and in fact at one point Sam has even started claiming that it is, but Sam’s not ready for Ira’s latest bag of tricks. Ira at one point reaches into a gasoline-filled pail of human fetuses that he has concealed near the bathroom entrance and, after setting these on fire, begins flinging them at Sam; not only is this dangerous, but it’s strange and damned disgusting. Ira also goes for the balls. With many beer bottles and mugs having been shattered in the course of the combatants’ increasingly ugly and uncoordinated waltz of violence, he grabs broken glass from the dusty floor (mindless of his palms being shredded) and flings it in your face. He uses every available implement he can find to his frenetic advantage — broken table legs, ash trays, you name it. And the fight is not going well.
Now, Sam has many friends in the bar, but they aren’t interested in fighting for fighting’s sake, and are especially leery of the fact that Sam, consciously or subconsciously, was led into this battle by his dick. He won’t admit it, but this is largely about Petra. They know this, and have always been peacemakers where appropriate. Sure, they recognize that Ira is a cretinous, uncontrolled dirtbag, but they also know — and are the first to admit — something all men have trouble with: When your buddy ain’t doing so well in a fight.
So a few of these “peaceniks” start encouraging Ira to withdraw from the fight. This is heresy; if Sam’s gonna finally get his ass kicked, it won’t be by this toothless, spastic halfwit with the unaccountably hot daughter, and the rednecks in the bar — about half of those present — won’t hear of it. “You on Sam’s side or what, Ira-tard?” they scream. “Why you rootin’ for that freak?” By now they’re all wearing buttons purchased from the bartender for $0.35 and picturing a clenched human fist and the declaration. “SUPPORT OUR SAM”; those without they regard as commies.
The “peaceniks” reckon support comes in many forms, and does not always mean urging the fight to continue. But the rednecks are absolutists, gut-thinkers who can entertain no thoughts not produced as a by-product of feral instinct and emotion; however irrational it is, they figure that wanting to get your proud but bloodied buddy out battle with no discernible objective simply reflects a desire for him to lose, and for Ira and his seedy, inbred buddies (currently pissing in an alley nearby) to take over the whole damned bar. It is the comsummate “You’re either with us or against us!” situation, but those on the side of moderation never believed until this moment that so many of their peers could be so short-sighted, so puke-in-yer-hat stupid, to apply it to one of Sam’s increasingly haphazard brawls.
You may have begun to suspect that this is an extended metaphor. That it is. Read this hysterical, nonsensical, ALL-CAPS-LACED boilerplate outburst from a familiar source. It’s got everything we’ve come to expect from non-thinkers:

  • There is only one way to support the U.S. troops, and this is to voice the opinion that hostilities must continue.
  • Anyone who believes otherwise must be a former hippie or a draft dodger, and questioning the war effort in any way is “psychological warfare against the Armed Forces.”
  • A war in Iraq is a Global War on Terror. Period. Evidence is not at issue here. Iraq is a direct threat to Americans’ freedom. Opposing the war in Iraq is simply an endorsement of Islamofascists and a denial that terrorism is a threat.
  • Everyone just needs to wake up and see that there’s only one right answer, and that the most rip-roaring, biased, deluded morons have magically come to possess it first.
  • IF YOU HEAR BAD NEWS OUT OF IRAQ IT IS THE TREASONOUS NANCY PELOSI’S FAULT AND THAT OF DEMOCRATS IN GENERAL. GOD BLESS GEORGE BUSH AND HIS WILLINGNESS TO KEEP IT REAL.

It seemed fitting to address this today because I’m back in New Hampshire for a short spell, and Judy Paris is one limb of the silliest, goofiest blogmonster I have seen that is overtly associated with the Granite State. Some might be upset by the crap the Groksters write on their virtual slag heap, but not me. Not only do I think it’s fine for people to use the Internet to spew emotion-soaked nonsense as a means of feeling better without spending a dime on therapy, it’s even better when they do this under the aegis of being thoughtful or politically oriented. In other words, “Granite Grok” is a very slightly refined version of every gutter-dwelling hillbilly dextrorsus alae blog in existence, and the fact that they continually expose what they’re all about can, despite the initial rancid fartstench their expulsions produce, only help clear the air of the U.S. in the end.

Advertisements
  1. #1 by Bill from Dover on August 10, 2007 - 3:49 pm

    Supporting the troops is getting behind their mission and THEM by encouraging them AND TELLING THEM THAT YOU KNOW THEY CAN WIN!

    Can someone (anyone) define what winning actually means as of today as it seems that the definition of this has changed more times that the reasons for invading in the first place.

  2. #2 by Bill from Dover on August 10, 2007 - 4:06 pm

    GET THE DEMOCRATS OUT OF OFFICE AND DON�T ELECT THEM. THEY ARE DANGEROUS PEOPLE AND NANCY PELOSI THINKS SHE�S EITHER THE PRESIDENT OR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

    Yo Judy, are these your fuckin’ heros

  3. #3 by Eaglesmoon on August 10, 2007 - 4:35 pm

    If you go to the Granite Grok website the first thing they show is a definition of Grok and a picture of a granite outcropping.
    The definition paraphrases that Grok is some strong, durable, permanent form of rock called Granite.
    Granite is very strong however the photo that they show is a natural outcropping that used to look like the face of George Washington and was called “George Washington”. It finally fell apart some years back.
    I find it strange that Grok would lay claim to being as strong broken rock.

  4. #4 by sailor on August 10, 2007 - 8:54 pm

    There (below) change “Terror” to “communism” and we could be back in the Vietnman war. It was going to be such a disaster when we got out of that. There was going to be nothing to stop those evil commies walking all over us. It was imperative to draw a line in the snad. Till it wasn’t.
    “Supporting the troops is getting behind their mission and THEM by encouraging them AND TELLING THEM THAT YOU KNOW THEY CAN WIN! If you think bringing all the troops home tomorrow solves the complex issue of the global war on Communism, or you believe that there is no GLOBAL WAR On communism youve obviously lost some brain cells from your drug days or youre a democrat or both.”

  5. #5 by Kevin Beck on August 10, 2007 - 9:52 pm

    As irritating as it can be to see idiotic ideas tossed around, it’s part of living in a society that favors the free exchange of ideas, and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
    But there’s something almost quaintly ridiculous about an idiot like Ms. Paris, who perseverates about how others JUST DON’T GET IT! and need to OPEN THEIR EYES!, only to turn around and write things like this..
    Here’s a fact: People who view prayer as efficacious in any way are brain-damaged and their ideas should be laughed out of sight. If the Judys of the world think there’s a good reason to encourage widespread prayer besides self-indulgent self-deception, they are welcome to provide it, just as they are welcome to provide consequentialist arguments against gay civil unions. They won’t, though; they’ll keep yammering blindly in pidgin English about the ignorance of others and dodging or banning those who challenge them.
    You can’t find a more sublime example of an echo chamber than a blog like GraniteGrok. I really did chuckle when I saw that Judy’s co-blogger had added a comment to her “war war war” post along the lines of “Whoa! Remind me to never get you mad at me!!!” I had just been thinking that Judy had in fact served up the most impotent rant conceivable, and that if Judy et al. really want to get anyone’s attention rather than merely serve as spectacles and easy marks, they’ll have to start dealing in the truth; the best way to piss off an interlocutor isn’t to yell about what commies and hippies they are, it’s to hit him or her with unassailable points.
    I’ve never claimed to be right about everything, but if it appears that I have, it’s because I generally know when to shut up and watch more learned people argue about something.

  6. #6 by Bill from Dover on August 10, 2007 - 10:44 pm

    Thank you, Lord, for saving all of the school children in the bus!

    No matter how bad or destructive the disaster, one can almost always count on the thanking of the lord for not making it worse.
    Why not this: “Fuck you God! Why did you halfta knock the fuckin’ thing down in the first place?” Go figure.

  7. #7 by judy paris on August 11, 2007 - 10:52 am

    Hi Kevin,
    I’m on Meet The New Press today at 12:15 pm if you’d like to call in at 527-1490, but you’ll have to limit your profanity or otherwise you’ll get cut off.
    Go to granitegrok, livestream and follow the link to listen even if you don’t want to call in, but I hope you do. It would be nice to talk.
    We do not ambush people on MTNP and opposing viewpoints are always welcome so I hope to talk with you then if you’re available.
    Cheers!
    Judy

  8. #8 by mg on August 11, 2007 - 11:03 am

    but you’ll have to limit your profanity or otherwise you’ll get cut off.
    What’s the policy on idiots screaming “TREASON” and “COMMIE” at the top of their lungs?

  9. #9 by Judy Paris on August 11, 2007 - 11:49 am

    We don’t encourage “screaming” anything and try to discuss issues like reasonable adults who are allowed to disagree but try to respect each other’s points of view.

  10. #10 by Kevin Beck on August 11, 2007 - 12:01 pm

    Judy, I didn’t write anything profane in this post or in my own ensuing comment. But although I’ve dropped some effity-bombs on the past and surely will again, like most I don’t speak in public the way I write on a blog.
    My first thought, though, as I read your comment was identical to mg’s — were you to go on the air anywhere but on your own show and say the very things you wrote the other day, people would be right to not only cut you off (I myself would let you rave unmolested merely as a strategic move) but want to sedate you for everyone’s sake. One need not scream expletives to be more functionally offensive than the most drunken sailor or angry longshoreman. When people treat their own grating stupidity as an asset and even a source of pride, everyone (leaving out the equally parochial-minded sycophants on GraniteGrok) has problems.
    Maybe I’ll listen, so thanks for the heads-up. I’m not sure just what will be said and I appreciate the invitation, but given the extremism of your stance, I’m afraid that there’s really nothing for me or anyone to say. Even if given free rein to speak for as many minutes as I wanted and in whatever tone, I see no percentage in trying to dissuade you — only to remind others that there exist plenty of politically active, otherwise mentally intact people who have shed all pretense at thinking. Broad-brush, dogmatic positions like yours are to be analyzed and treated with as much pure disrespect as their various ramshackle facets demand, not engaged head-on. And believe me, it is to your advantage that more people don’t take the time to systematically point out the inanity of your ramblings in open public fora.

  11. #11 by judy paris on August 11, 2007 - 2:05 pm

    Kevin,
    “dodging or banning those who challenge them?” you say.
    Then, how come you didn’t call in and challenge me? Perhaps it’s you who’s dodging and can’t be challenged?
    I was on air ready to talk man to woman and be challenged by you…but apparently you weren’t. If the shoe fits, wear it.
    Judy

  12. #12 by Kevin Beck on August 11, 2007 - 2:52 pm

    Judy, you (or someone at GraniteGrok) apparently have been disallowing dissenting comments, and you have consistently failed to respond to me and others here with anything of substance to a single Internet post about the views you’ve expressed in the Monitor and on your blog recently. These are facts. My charges stand.
    Now, this morning, you give me about 30 minutes’ notice and expect me to stop what I’m doing and listen to you repeat yourself on a radio show. I had already planned to walk the dog and hit Dunkin’ Donuts just after noon, so I did. Not only that you said that I could just listen if I didn’t feel like calling in, but now you’re attempting to gloat about my alleged cowardice. You could have at announced in advance that my not calling in would make me yellow, but not only would this have made no difference to me, I’m sure you didn’t want to fully expose your scheme.
    See, this is another favorite tactic of dent-headed wingers — rather than engage in simple discussion or even allow people to comment to their blogs, they aim to control their exchanges by steering them toward radio shows, as Gribbit and his cronies do. A call-in show is finite, and when nutters are through with a given shitcast and have spoken their piece, it’s no longer even possible to respond to what was said, so the nutters can slap each other on the backs about “intimidating” liberal callers into silence. The whole “meet me on the airwaves” thing also offers a convenient excuse for dodging even more direct questions, as you’ve done just today.
    But every question I’ve posted to you online is still there and will be for a long, long time. You can review them here if you like. You commented once to my first post about you and then disappeared in the face of a number of very reasonable questions. Doug and Skip posted that I was rude and they were “chivalrous,” respectively, but were dead silent on the matter of providing supporting evidence for their assertions about gay homosexers. This is what you do, all the time and somehow with pride.
    The crap you guys say in your echo-chamber should be an embarrassment to you personally and were it a reflection of how New Hampshirites in general think, it would be an embarrassment to the rest of us as well. Fortunately, though you would have fit in well 50 years ago, your breed is slowly being bled out of the mainstream, and you may have to move to Mississippi or something if you want to even feign commanding respect or an audience erelong.

  13. #13 by daedalus2u on August 11, 2007 - 9:39 pm

    Actually the idea that Bush is using psychotropic drugs is not far off. The type of exercise he does accomplishes precisely that. When you exercise “enough” to induce the “runner’s high”, you are inducing a delusional state.
    The “runner’s high” is the delusion that you are not tired.
    What is the alternate explanation? That at a high level of fatigue some “better”, “more efficient”, and “superior” source of energy comes online? No, if that happened, then organisms would have evolved to always have that emergency energy source online. Organisms that did so would have out reproduced organisms that saved a superior energy source only for emergencies.
    I discuss this in my most recent blog on acute psychosis.
    http://daedalus2u.blogspot.com/2007/08/low-nitric-oxide-acute-psychosis.html
    Mitochondria don’t suddenly produce more energy, what happens is the organism starts using less energy for basal metabolic needs, leaving more for “running from a bear”. During an ATP crisis, any ATP consuming pathway that can be put off until “later”, gets shut down. That is what ischemic preconditioning does. It is the shutting down of long term ATP consuming pathways, things like repair, clearing of damaged proteins, mitochondria biogenesis, clearing of aggregated proteins, the “house-keeping” pathways.
    Having the delusions that one is not tired, that one is strong, that one is decisive and is making good decisions, are all very useful delusions to have when one is in an extreme metabolic state, as when “running from a bear”. This is precisely the same metabolic state that the stimulent drugs of abuse induce, an acute ATP depletion. The ATP depletion shuts down the repair pathways, which is why there are such things as “crack heart”. Without repair, the body deteriorates very rapidly. But you feel great because of the delusions low ATP produces. If ATP gets low enough, you enter the “berserker” state where you become violent and unpredictable. Excellent “features” when one is in single combat.
    This is why Bush makes such bad decisions. He is delusional from the extreme aerobic exercise he does. The exercise he does to “clear his mind”. He is delusional and doesn’t know it. Delusional people never do.

  14. #14 by Bill from Dover on August 12, 2007 - 11:03 am

    This is why Bush makes such bad decisions.

    And don’t forget that he is just bat-shit fucking crazy and surrounds himself with even bat-shitter sycophants.

  15. #15 by Jake on August 12, 2007 - 3:26 pm

    …opposing viewpoints are always welcome.

    I tried several times submitting responses to their blogs, and all where not posted. None contained profanity. Not only did I not have my response posted to her End The War post, but I also tried informing her that she shouldn’t be taking credit for what she refers to as her “newly created” name for Hillary “Chillery“. It’s been used since the early 90s, that was also not posted.
    I’ve been wondering if Judy isn’t just a character created by the Democrats to show the undecided how idiotic the Republicans are being, if not, it’s sad, but if it is, its genius.

  16. #16 by Kevin Beck on August 12, 2007 - 4:34 pm

    Jake,
    If you saved those comments as text files before trying to submit them, post them here. I don’t want to stray too far,too foten from this blog’s primary purpose, but it might be worth keeping a record of dishonest acts by GraniteGrok and updating it periodically, because liars count as cranks and, by definition, as anti-science citizens.
    Being hysterical, ignorant, or plain wrong is one thing, but lying is a willful act. It’s rarely difficult to uncover examples of willful dishonesty by rabid supporters of known liars. If wingers want to yammer ’till to cows float away that climiate science is all junk science and that the war is going great, well, that’s too bad, but let them — somewhere outside the range of their perspective exists ample roomfor meaningful discussion bewtweenthose who disagree. But saying one thing and doing another is just weaselly.

  17. #17 by Jake on August 12, 2007 - 6:05 pm

    I tried submitting this twice, the first time prior to the last two posts on that blog: ——–
    Wanting an end to the killing of our troops in Iraq is in no way an admission that there isn’t a global war against terrorism. It’s actually quite odd and irresponsibly naive for you to make that connection. Our troops are the best and most well trained soldiers in the world, something most Americans (even Democrats) are proud of – wanting them to return home standing up doesn’t make you a traitor. The mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks should have been brought to justice, instead our Commander-in-Chief decided it was an opportune time to redirect our anger and vengeance at Iraq. It’s now thought that Al-Qaeda is stronger now that it was a year ago…and yet you want to keep most of our resources in the war in Iraq….who’s the traitor. You would rather win an election for your party than worry about defeating terrorism. Not only did the worst terrorist attack against America happen on George W. Bush’s watch, he was more worried about disappointing a classroom of children at the time than making executive decisions only he could make, possibly protecting the lives of Americans. The war on terrorism is going to last for generations to come thanks to the mishandling of our military resources by the current administration and the Republicans like you who want to divide this nation at a time of crisis. Giving our troops a deadline to pull out of Iraq may not be the answer – but having our troops die in a war with no clear objective doesn’t make much sense either. If terrorism is global, as you state, why are we concentrating on Iraq while it appears terror cells elsewhere are gaining strength and terrorist recruits within Iraq are growing because of our presence? As a declared Independent, you’ve convinced me that for the safety of our country I’ll have to vote for the Democrats just to get the loony Republicans out. —— not exactly well written, not sure why they didn’t post it, but thanks Kevin for letting it post here.

  18. #18 by Kevin Beck on August 12, 2007 - 8:40 pm

    Jake —
    That comment is not only perfectly well-written, but fair-minded, to the point, and several parsecs shy of trolling or flaming. The decision to disallow it can only have been rooted in the frustration and infantile annoyance into which the Fudd brigade retreats when the porous nature of their opinions is thrown into the light of day.
    Should Judy poke her head out of her sty again and call me a coward for not calling into her shitcast, I’ll ask her to answer your questions.
    I see she’s now pulling another trick the snot-faced right loves:
    “Do you think we’ll here [sic] about any of this in the nightly news casts [sic] of ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN? Oh no, only how many soldiers were killed in Iraq today, of course. It’s a good thing some Americans are smart enough not to [sic] fall prey to the propaganda of the democrats [sic] and the left-wing driven old medias [sic], huh?”
    In this case she’s talking about the content of Bush’s radio address to the country, which contained a mixture of the usual vague assurances that everything’s going just as planned in Iraq and details which have, in fact, been widely reported in the mainstream press. Yeah, its a good thing sum Americans are smart alrite!
    Intellectually impoverished people like to whine that the news isn’t being presented in a way they would prefer so as to better evade explaining just why it is the things they believe are true should be reported as such by anyone, including themselves. Rather than investiagte Bush’s claims, Judy accepts them as the a priori truth and yammers that not everyone will see it as such. It’s hard to imagine being that stupid and even caring about politics at all.
    I guess it’s better, intheir view, to bitch about the liberal media than to face the fact that Mike Eisner (think Disney and ABC) has contributed hundreds of thousands to the Republican Party, that Rupert Murduch is not exactly a mass-media nobody, and moreover, the truth about influence-peddling — e.g., that Enron ran the friggin’ White House for years after Bush was put into office in a nelection he didn’t win.
    Judy and her fellow clowns from leaky-minded hell should shut up once in a while for their own good or at least learn — among many, many other things — that just because some words sound the same doesn’t mean they can be used interchangeably.

  1. Granite Grok dude loses show, column thanks to anti-gay comments « Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge
%d bloggers like this: