We Get Comments... (#1)
When blogging about such a controversial subject as secession, one should expect some negative comments, but frankly, we've been stunned (and saddened) at the "quality" (for lack of a better term) of the negative feedback we've recently received.
Almost every critical comment to date has been peppered with profanity, as if there were a concerted effort to affirm that the graces of civility and common courtesy were a thing of the past among Yankees, also guaranteeing that their venomous epithets wouldn't see print in a public forum such as this.
It would seem that the profanity was furthermore used as a substitute for knowledge, reason, critical thinking skills, and common sense — all of which were sadly absent from nearly every criticism.
Yankee aversion to inconvenient truth is made manifest by many (irrelevant) suggestions to the effect that former president Bush were a product of Texas, and supposedly beloved by all Texans, when in fact he was Yankee born (Connecticut) and Yankee "educated" (Massachusetts, Connecticut), and his overall popularity in Texas is no greater than it is elsewhere.
Many critics mocked that Texas couldn't survive loosing the federal funding the state currently receives, exposing their ignorance of the fact that Texas currently pays more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding. My dog could apparently "do the math" better than a Yankee: Severing the relationship would be a fiscal advantage to Texas, not a hardship.
Others offered smarmy taunts like "haven't you ****s heard of the Civil War?" — demonstrating a clear lack of reading skills and/or adequate education (thanks, we suppose, to their federally funded Yankee "public education"). These and other bitter and hostile comments clearly exposed a predisposition to violence as the Yankee's first choice in resolving differences.
It apparently doesn't occur to these foul-mouthed statists that civil and peaceable separation is possible. Rare perhaps, but possible nevertheless. The first Southern secession of 1861 was originally undertaken in hope that a civil and amicable separation could be achieved. But Lincoln and the War Party were determined at the barrel of a gun to make "taxation without representation" a way of life, not a motivation for seeking independence, in America.
Little further evidence is needed that Lincoln's ambition has been achieved. Many Americans (especially Yankees, apparently) are well conditioned to swallow the myth that "national unity" (no matter what it costs in constitutionally protected liberty and freedom from coercive federal meddling) is important enough to defend with profanity and the threat of violence.
To say we're disappointed would be an understatement. Our Yankee critics have (perhaps unwittingly) betrayed themselves as historically and economically ignorant big-government war-mongers. The prospect of a free and independent Texas has not been tarnished or eroded nearly so much as the benefit of the doubt heretofore given to Yankee intellect, civility, and common sense.
History is replete with examples of the tragic, destructive consequences of such attitudes.
Almost every critical comment to date has been peppered with profanity, as if there were a concerted effort to affirm that the graces of civility and common courtesy were a thing of the past among Yankees, also guaranteeing that their venomous epithets wouldn't see print in a public forum such as this.
It would seem that the profanity was furthermore used as a substitute for knowledge, reason, critical thinking skills, and common sense — all of which were sadly absent from nearly every criticism.
Yankee aversion to inconvenient truth is made manifest by many (irrelevant) suggestions to the effect that former president Bush were a product of Texas, and supposedly beloved by all Texans, when in fact he was Yankee born (Connecticut) and Yankee "educated" (Massachusetts, Connecticut), and his overall popularity in Texas is no greater than it is elsewhere.
Many critics mocked that Texas couldn't survive loosing the federal funding the state currently receives, exposing their ignorance of the fact that Texas currently pays more in federal taxes than it receives in federal funding. My dog could apparently "do the math" better than a Yankee: Severing the relationship would be a fiscal advantage to Texas, not a hardship.
Others offered smarmy taunts like "haven't you ****s heard of the Civil War?" — demonstrating a clear lack of reading skills and/or adequate education (thanks, we suppose, to their federally funded Yankee "public education"). These and other bitter and hostile comments clearly exposed a predisposition to violence as the Yankee's first choice in resolving differences.
It apparently doesn't occur to these foul-mouthed statists that civil and peaceable separation is possible. Rare perhaps, but possible nevertheless. The first Southern secession of 1861 was originally undertaken in hope that a civil and amicable separation could be achieved. But Lincoln and the War Party were determined at the barrel of a gun to make "taxation without representation" a way of life, not a motivation for seeking independence, in America.
Little further evidence is needed that Lincoln's ambition has been achieved. Many Americans (especially Yankees, apparently) are well conditioned to swallow the myth that "national unity" (no matter what it costs in constitutionally protected liberty and freedom from coercive federal meddling) is important enough to defend with profanity and the threat of violence.
To say we're disappointed would be an understatement. Our Yankee critics have (perhaps unwittingly) betrayed themselves as historically and economically ignorant big-government war-mongers. The prospect of a free and independent Texas has not been tarnished or eroded nearly so much as the benefit of the doubt heretofore given to Yankee intellect, civility, and common sense.
History is replete with examples of the tragic, destructive consequences of such attitudes.
posted by Mudrostovich at
8:09 PM
<< Home