The Big Mick Here,

Yeah, that, Big Mick; and this is my first blog. It will not be my last, an e-essay–for want of a better term--follows entitled "Toward a Unified Field Theory of McEnomics." That one just might be my last because I have some important things for TH-ers to consider, both "Pros" and "lay readers". And those of you who know me know that I pull no punches, take no prisoners, and say exactly what I think, however nasty that is. "McEnomics" will, in the usual Big Mick Style, liberally (and those of you who know me know what I do with that word) interpret the TH Rules on Language. I prefer to think of it as "Telling It Like It Is" and being succinct and accurate in my use of language. I also prefer to think of it as not so much  being abusive, but rather as not suffering fools gladly, and mercilessly practicing the time honored art of Political and Literary Satire (however inexpertly). We’ll see won’t we?

"Begin as you would go on" is a phrase I’ve often encountered in my reading, and I apply it here.

The first thing I noticed was the temptation to be "on stage" for the critics in something other than the usual sense. Of reshaping, editing, manipulating my prose, (and therefore to some degree, however small, to alter the ideas expressed by that prose–see the C..S. Lewis quote a little further along)–of writing, no longer just to express my thoughts, but to appeal to an audience (however much a figment of my imagination that turns out to be!). To write for someone or something other than to simply please myself. To continually ask "how does that sound" rather than–"am I being honest?" As I learned a long time ago in Preaching, that is a fatal error.

It’s different in the comments. There, since I conceive of it as a sort of Rhetorical Bar Room Brawl, neatness never counts, the whole objective is to be the last argument standing and Marquis of Queensberry Rules need not apply. Spelling, punctuation and grammar fall under The Devil Take the Hindmost rule too.

Further, those of you who know me know that I consider it a fundamental understanding of the current Political Situation in the Republic that the "Appeal To Reason and Civility" Argument, often heard here on TH is actually an enablement of the "Left’s" (more on that below) agenda, and is a key reason why we have been herded so far down this "reach out to the moderates" road to the very brink of the Socialist Abyss.

Plus, I have begun to learn recently, that there are some things about myself I can’t change, others I don’t want to change, that I am OK with both those things, and have begun to like myself both in spite of, and because, of it.

So, you’re going to get the same basic Big Mick–with all the faults and short-comings . I will be nasty. I will skewer the dis-cogent argument and insult the arguer. Though I say it ain’t an insult if it’s true! My prose style, to paraphrase a fellow comment poster a while back, will be as eloquent and indecipherable as the literary Irish always are. (I do not presume his example of James Joyce was intended to put me in the same Universe, much less League–Joyce and I share only the quality of being opaque.) I will drive you nuts with my sentence fragments, apparent non-sequiturs, run ons, endless use of hyphens, dashes, parenthesis, maddening asides, misspellings, improper syntax, made up words and hard to figure out references and allusions. To give a partial list. Thank God, I now have access to word emphasis tools like bold, italic and underlining, otherwise my use of ALLCAPS (the only thing available to me in the comments) would make you want to hunt me down and shoot me.

I will also tell you the Truth as I see it—I figure that’s worth something these days.

I talk as I think, and write as I talk. Ya just gotta deal.

Also, a word on etymology–the origins of words—mine.

I believe "left" and "leftist" and therefore, by indirect means, "liberal", are terms from, not only an outmoded, but deliberately false and misleading linear political model. My model has been, somewhat, inspired and shaped by L. Neil Smith, Science Fiction Author and Libertarian of Note. I had some of these thoughts before encountering him, and, to the best of my recollection, differ in shape from his somewhat, but admit freely that the foundational concepts are Smith’s and the person he credits whom I can’t remember and can’t look up (the books packed away).

Briefly, the "left" of Communism and the "right" of Fascism are right next to each other on a circle of Tyranny. The Tyranny of the 1 over 50% is no different in essence from the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or The Elite, or The King, or a Hitler or a Stalin (whom, by the way, no less a light then Tom Wolfe the historian pointed out in the Millennium Edition of Time or maybe Newsweek were Fraternal Socialist Twins). The circle of Tyranny forms the base of a Cone, at the apex of which is Endowed and Inalienable Radical Personal Liberty, from which, according to my interpretation of The Founders, all legitimate government flows.

My semantically correct usage for the "terminological inexactitude" "left" or "liberal" is "commiequeer". This is because they have a strange affinity for communism, and one of their communal values is the pushing of the homosexual agenda. I’ve got a standing offer out there to stop using yqueer (I put the y in front, reminiscent of Old Old English usage in order to satisfy the e-censor–little bastid–I use faux spellings for that too) the second the homosexual community quits, and also quits using "gay". I consider their co-opting of that perfectly useful and innocent English word to be nothing short of the rhetorical equivalent of rape and refuse to cooperate with it. I’d be willing to stick with the scientific and clear term "homosexual" if they would. That they won’t should tell you something.

Which leads to two other points for this Presidents’ Day Inaugural Blog. One is a quote by C.S. Lewis which is the foundation of my refusal to play nice by the censor’s word rules.

Lewis says that any restriction on style is, at bottom a restriction on the kinds of things we may say, and by implication, the kinds of ideas available for talking about and thinking. I will not allow the Opponents of Liberty to control the terms and definitions.

For that is one of the first lessons I learned at Duke, where I took my Master of Divinity degree. Winning argument, like winning chess, begins with control of the center of the board.  If you let the enemy control the terms and definitions you surrender the argument uncontested.

I don’t do that.

Some last odds and ends. I don’t think I’m going to post on this blog often. I simply don’t have time. And I am not going to enable comments. This is not because I feel, as I suspect many of the "pros" feel, that I deserve, by some divine elitist right, a position from which I can spit without being spat upon. Rather it is simply a means to avoid temptation. I don’t have the free time to read and respond to your, I am sure excellent, rebuttals, corrections and exhortations.  I don’t have a secretary or assistant, or webmaster or whatever, paid to do that kind of vetting.  I’d end up spending too much of my time and yours mixing it up and engaging with yas.  Look for me on the comments street. I’ll be there, and packin. You can throw down on me there, n’est ce pas? And if you beat me to the draw, so be it. I am man enough to admit it when I have had a hole punched in my thinking. It’s the way I learn, actually. Fact is I will not be as knowledgeable or intelligent or logical or cogent as some of you. I will, at a normal rate, be wrong sometimes. But I won’t apologize for calling em like I see em, calling a spade a spade and letting the chips fall where they may. If you have treated me like a gentleman, in the words of Mrs. Murphy’s Chowder, I’ll try to act the same. If I realize I have insulted you wrongly, I’ll try to take it back like a man like Mr. Murphy.

Finally, A Prayer for President’s Day: Oh God, grant our Republic Leaders worthy of our Great Men, worthy of Washington and Lincoln.. And if we are denied them, O God, grant us the opportunity to rid ourselves of those unworthy.

The Big Mick