Yesterday at the Freedom of Speech blog, which is a joint troglodyte agitprop venture undertaken by the embittered Ms. Denhart (who masquerades as Erika the wacky professor) and the ambitious Ms. Bolovschak (who provides the gravitas), it was not Thursday, December 21, 2006.
It was Monday, December 18, 2006.
Vickster/Valley, is that the time in New Albany, or in NeverNeverLand?
Irrespective of inept Luddite lag, NA Confidential feels compelled to point out something that Ms. Denhart obviously never has considered, but that we’re reasonably certain Ms. Bolovschak learned during her residency in Atlanta:
When one refers to an African-American male as “boy,” it’s a term of belittling and purely racist derogation.
Thus, inquiring minds want to know:
Why does Ms. Bolovschak sanction derogatory racist comments at her joy toy, otherwise known as the Freedom of Speech blog?
When will the recurring embarrassment be such that Erika is left to her own clueless devices and drown in the bile of her choosing?
Why stoop in such a manner to conquer?
This one’s so bad that even the “noodleheads” might notice. Don't you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
So, you ask “why?”
Surely they know.
I grew up in New Albany, went to New Albany High School in the 1970's and you couldn’t help, going through the public school system, just learning which terms are derogatory and which aren’t. Plus, the term “boy” is much older than my generation, so they must know.
I think the reason is that they just don’t care.
As long as they continue to think (and their supporters blindly believe) that they are anonymous, they probably have the perception of protection from criticism, because they can always say “that’s not me.” It is clear from prior postings of personal attacks that they just don’t care. I refuse to believe that they don’t get it.
Now, when they post about what is supposedly going on around town, that is when they just don’t get it.
Merry Christmas Roger.
It could be racism. It could be stupidity.
The stupidity part, I am sure of. The racism part would not surprise me in the least.
If you keep reading this stuff, it will just keep you angry, which is counterproductive and distracts from what so many people are trying to work toward in New Albany. It's like the KKK--they are entitled to their opinions, but it inflames the average person to read it, so don't. That won't make it go away, it's true, but there is probably nothing that any of us can do to control another person's behavior/perceptions/opinions.
I would not link to the site or include it in your sidebar.
As usual, Ann, yours is a reasonable voice.
But I believe the anti-social elements have to be kept in plain sight so there repugnance is visible to all. Some won't get it. More will.
I hold out the hope that the more responsible of the two will eventually disassociate herself from the bile and return to constructive activities.
Back at you, Neal. Contrary to my rep, I enjoy certain aspects of the season, especially the masses and church music, and the medieval songs.
In a previous life, I was a dissident priest ... burned at the stake, of course, but nothing's new.
Annie,
You make a good point but I will have to disagree on total.
If you don't attempt to read and understand what other people are saying and thinking, how do you learn?
I actually have learned a few positive things from FOS, like when Erik copies statutes and such. Mainly what I have learned is, that there are still people out there who cannot or will not see past the end of their own nose.
I hesitate to put it like this but will anyway. Know thy enemy.
When I read the Freedom of Speech blog I am left with the impression of powerlessness disguised as bile. What I think happens when people don't pay attention in school, of which we seem to have many in our midst.
For the purposes of not being powerless, I think it's important that the public be as aware as possible of the relationship between FOS, certain officeholders and any potential candidates.
After all, it is where CMs Schmidt, Coffey, and Price have chosen to communicate their positions. Price even went as far as being "interviewed" by the imaginary professor, all of which was presented as if legitimate.
Are voters to believe that these men didn't pay enough attention in school to realize the difference between a male professor and a female impersonating one or is it just that they decided that deceiving people was a good way to win votes?
It's a question derived from inanity but a legitimate one nonetheless.
I'm willing to allow someone to adopt a persona to make a point (ala Sacha Baron Cohen nee Borat) there's plenty of tradition for that in American politics. Intellectuals love to adopt persona's of the common man, so I can appreciate a common man adopting the persona of an intellectual for political theatre. YOu should have more of a sense of humor guys... I guess if the college professor actually believes in deception, then it's not funny. That's the sad part I feel coming through it - the powerlessness I feel there described.
I generally don't read the FOS page. Sort of like my attitude towards that well known comic named Rush. Out of sight, out of mind. But then you read stuff like this. Ugh.
Three thoughts that are not necessarily coherent or connected. But it's Christmas!
Most people who know me well know that I am not a fan of anonymity in putting thoughts on the table. I have rarely read anonymous letters to me at church---I generall check first to see who it is from. Unsigned gets tossed. If one doesn't have the testicular fortitude to put their name to their beliefs, I'm not interested in listening. Others can, I guess. But it's my choice.
Secondly, and this is difficult. I've been reading Robyn Blumner of the St. Petersburg Times for too long----I happen to think she's awesome. We disagree on religion, but, oh well. I can live with that. Robyn consistently makes a point that we never want to surpress free speech. Never. To squash free speech is to undermine a core of who we are as a people and it is to undermine freedom. What it means, of course, is that everyone has a right to be offensive.
Thirdly, when we read dreadful rants, and most especially racist or sexist rants we have to stand up and declare that these statements are wrong an offensive. One may have a right to be offensive----but a civilized society needs to call that which offends as offensive.
With that:
I hope that everyone has a wonderful and delightful holiday season!
Everyone,
Peace and the best of times.
Mark
I am SoooOO glad that "erika" has dedicated here blog to us the people of New Albany. I love it when some one who is supposed to about political continuous improvement resorts to such immaturity, and insults and personal level of someone.
Whether you disagree with them or not politically you should at least be stand up enough to show at level a marginal level of respect, if not to them yourself and those you dedicate your blog to.
Post a Comment