Monday, January 12, 2015

Ponderous Essay on Conservative Thought Part II

In my last essay on Conservative thought I meandered around the topic of Race. My conclusion is that Race is a peripheral topic and is important only as it related to other topics. Conservatives are not Racist. They may say Blacks are "A failed ape species" or "Kill all Niggers," but I maintain these are merely extreme statements from a misinterpretation of facts. For instance, a Black person robs a bank. The Conservative conclusion is that all Black people are poised to rob banks, and so they must be stopped as a defensive strike, or at least a defense must be prepared. This is extremist and fatalistic and conceivable only in the 4th Reich, but it's not racist because it's a distortion of facts, not a confirmation of facts. 
This could easily be someone writing this to intentionally misrepresent Conservatives

"A often equals B, B sometimes equals C, and C infrequently equals Z, so let's plan for Z because A is a reality." 

I will resist the critical urge because that's not my goal here. I only want to reveal the actual source of debate.

Blacks are not inherently unequal in the Conservative mind, but the actions of a miniscule percentage of Blacks has definitely cast suspicion on all Blacks, and that suspicion can't be ignored, thus the calls for ethnic genocide. It's a small detail but that's my interpretation. There are racists among the greater category of Conservatives, those who believe Blacks are inherently unequal, but that is a designation separate from their political affiliation. Most Conservatives simply believe Blacks have not adapted Conservative ideals and traditions, and can not adapt due to circumstance. 

My theory on this race bias tradition is simple proximity. In New England, it was easy to believe all people are equal because there were almost no minorities. Everyone was equal in practice. I knew poor Greek white trash and I knew Irish, German, Polish, etc. The trashiest people I knew were poor whites who looked almost no different than me, and I considered them trashy. The few Blacks I knew were no trashier than most of my friends. That was my experience, but that's absolutely not the experience of a Southern Conservative. No. In Levelland, Texas a railroad track literally divides the white part of town and the black part of town. All the police officers who interrogated me for sleeping in my van were white. There really were no "nice" houses or neighborhoods, but the nicer ones were white. I prefer the black neighborhoods because they seemed more lived in and less suspicious, but the black neighborhoods didn't prefer me, although a big black guy came up to me randomly as I was playing gospel guitar and said, "I wanted to tell you that Jesus loves you." Actually, Levelland in general wasn't ready for Oggy and I ended up sleeping at the edge of town or in the Walmart parking lot.

My journeys through the bleak and backwards South, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alabama, Texas have left me with three conclusions: 1) I should never ever return to Mississippi. 2) A long-hair Liberal Yankee is the lowest form of scum to both Blacks and Whites. If a White Conservative in Louisiana had a mortally wounded dog and a healthy white Hippie side by side, and he had a gun with only two bullets, he would shoot the Hippie twice and club the dog to death. Hell, he might try to save the dog's life. My point is that Liberals, not Blacks are the worst form of life in the South.  I felt like I was walking naked through a prison yard with a "Bitch" tattoo on my lower back.
3) Based on a lifetime of interaction with Blacks, the Southern white Conservative will have a richer group of experiences to make conclusions from and his conclusion is that Blacks and Whites must remain separate because the disparity in opportunities and wealth and resources make equality impossible. They might agree that technically equality is possible, in some perfect fantasy utopia, but practically it can never happen so integration is a flawed social experiment. Yes, integration is possible, but it's a bad idea. There is a big difference between the cultures of Blacks and Whites in the South and that difference, based on abundant evidence, is seen as impenetrable. Chicanos are a separate topic of race I don't want to deal with because Conservatives basically make the same sweeping stereotypes with them; none can be trusted because a few have justifiably lost their trust. The fact I have almost no anecdotes involving my immersion into Southern Black society beyond a gay Black man in New Orleans or Galveston letting me sleep on his couch while I looked for a ship and was interested in a little more "racial integration" than I was comfortable with, is evidence that Southern Blacks don't feel much different than Southern Whites. Integration in general, and specifically Oggy, is not welcome. They both simply want equal opportunity, but in a predatory economic structure this is impossible. Someone must give an inch for someone else to get an inch, and that's not a historical tradition, but that's an argument for another time.

The Conservative is practical, not swayed by philosophy or ideology. You know the fable about the frog giving the scorpion a ride across the river because the scorpion promises not to sting? And then scorpion stings the frog so they both drown? The frog asks Why? The scorpion says, "Because I'm a scorpion." That frog is a Liberal. A Conservative would never give a scorpion a ride because history makes the Conservative biased, prejudiced, suspicious, etc. They might kill the scorpion on principle. See? What has happened in the past will happen in the future. Experience is everything. History is everything. I was raised in a family of Liberals who really thought freedom was an Egg you sit on until it hatches a Utopia. We argued over futile topics said hateful things, etc, but the spoken word was a premium. We spoke of ideals because the tangible reality wasn't in crisis. We could afford to speak in ideals since a crisis was not at our door. However, the Southern Conservative's tangible reality has been in crisis since 1760 and that's a big factor in their conclusions.

But that's taking my analysis too far so I will stop there. I only want to scratch the surface of the "why" behind my conclusions. Race is an issue, but it's not racism. It's very complicated and convoluted. The parties are very resistant to change, a hippie like me can never influence any of them. This is a major barrier to equality in America but my goal is to get the actual interpreted facts of human nature behind everything. I decided that there is absolutely no progress possible on this Liberal/Conservative civil war I'm witnessing if we do not even understand some of the basics of each persuasion. When I hear Sarah Palin posture and crow like a chicken on a crooked fence post or Barbara Boxer flap her jaws at the Congressional podium then I'm witnessing no exchange of ideas. These aren't dumb people but their arrogance and stubbornness is unparalleled. Everything they say has become a hateful contradiction. Each are preaching vitriol to the choir and there is a thick barrier protecting them from the penetration of foreign ideas. This barrier is so thick that neither side even understands what the other side is defending. Maybe this is a human nature kind of conflict, but I really suspect that modern technology has facilitated this ignorance. There is no way previous eras of people could have been so resistant to comprehension. I feel humans never would've evolved if that were true. No, there were equally hateful disagreements, but at the root I think the parties at least fully understood the truth the other side was defending. That is absolutely not true today. The evidence I'm seeing is full denial and contradiction of the other side until a Conservative will be lecturing Conservatives on what Liberals think and they will be totally wrong...and vice versa. Here's a dialogue in a nutshell:

A Liberal says, "Conservatives can't even read the Constitution they are quoting."
A Conservative responds, "Why do you hate freedom so much?"*

See? We've got Liberals pontificating incorrectly on Conservative ideology and saying, "What Conservatives really want is to destroy the Environment." OH SHUT UP. You really think that's true? And they're pontificating fabrications to other Liberals who then twist it further until what I see today is a complete shit storm of incomprehensible fabrications, denials and contradictions from everyone. It's a Culture of Contradiction that has, in my opinion, no hope of resolution. So, my goal here is to get behind the contradictions and reveal the actual motivations and maybe design some kind of structure of analysis that we can follow. It's sad, but my immediate goal is that the two sides should hate each other at least for the right reasons. I'd like to see disagreement based on actually defined terms instead of hating one another for these fabricated accusations that aren't accurate. Without comprehension then we have nothing but shouting bullshit. Furthermore, this is my own test of equanimity, my quest for political objectivity so my tombstone can read "Oggy Bleacher: Loathed all Political Parties Equally"

The topic today will be Guns. I think there is one big topic of "Freedom" or "Sovereignty" that guns could be classified under, but they are so important that I want to discuss them separately.

This is a topic that really opened my eyes to the Conservative ideology because I was finally able to see their rationale and thus to agree with them. This is only understandable when one reads the horrible essays in favor of the 2nd Amendment, etc. This topic really is where Liberals and Conservatives sort of understand the underlying debate but completely miss the main points because of their ideological differences. I mean, the Abortion issue is way less complicated. It's equally bitter, but the central disagreement is so easy to verbalize so I think the two sides hate each other for the right reasons. But the gun control debate is so convoluted at this point, and the parties are not even close to understanding one another, that this demands a long essay. Sorry. This is a very hard topic to analyze because I'm not sure I can find a clear quote from a Conservative defending his position. Vitriol has totally overtaken rational debate. Clear and concise reasoning is absolutely absent and it's deteriorated into a verbal shit fight. Oh, there are tons of quotes, but almost none of them verbalize the root of the debate. Only after excruciating analysis and several death threats was I able to translate all the bullshit into something someone can comprehend.

The debate on Gun Control all boils down to whether one believes there is an ideal society waiting in the future that we can reach with certain clever tweaks to domestic policy. The Constitution/Bill Of Rights has been dragged into this debate like a drunk hooker bent over a pool table. It's totally immaterial to the argument today. Today, the debate is about idealism. The Liberal always has this ideal in mind. The Conservative definitely does not think an ideal exists and that any attempt to reach it is foolish. So, it's almost impossible to reach a conclusion on this because we're literally arguing about the distant future, and society is so new that we can't predict what will happen in a few months, let alone in generations. Think of this: Technology is a series of trials and errors. It's understandable that if you want to have self-driving cars you need to crash a few. Fine. No one argues this approach. But Liberals are taking the same approach with society; Liberals believe that with enough trials and errors an ideal society will emerge like a shiny chicken from the golden egg of reform. That's a theory that one can argue passionately for, but it's still a theory without much evidence to back it up. The Conservative accepts that theoretically if all these abundant factors were aligned perfectly then technically there would be this ideal society, BUT it will never happen, it's a frivolous discussion, like a rain dance by naked Indians. Their experience, like with wild hogs or coyotes, is that mitigation is the best we can hope for. Furthermore, the concept of trials and errors in the realm of humanity is terribly galling because it's like this giant chess match where the average person is a pawn being directed by the Liberal King and Queen. It's bullshit. It's galling and intolerable and they can not accept it. The Liberal, on the other side, insists that this ideal society is merely one or two chess moves away from realization. Look how far we've come! That's the conceptualization or what I've concluded is the issue. If you are like most people you will read that and naturally remark on some contradiction, like Conservative Presidents who also fumble around with social reform...and I insist that's all a different topic. Do not fall into the trap of searching for contradictions because both sides are swimming in contradictions! I say that because that's what is defining the ignorant debate right now. First, accept what is behind the debate. Now to speak of specifics.

Specifically, we are talking about gun control. You see where I'm heading with this? The Liberal imagines an ideal world where personal hand guns are not needed. Technically, that ideal world exists, like a world without mosquitoes. So, how can guns become obsolete if they are not controlled first? It's logical that gun homicides can not occur without the guns. Yes? Maybe gun control will not be effective within hours, but likely in a decade or two the effects will be evident, the ideal society will be closer. That's the theory. The Conservative says, no, this is not true. The ideal society will be no closer because there are 270,000,000 privately owned guns in the WHAT IDEAL WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You could sooner eradicate rats. How many innocent Conservative families need to die to prove you are wrong?

9 guns for every 10 people

You see? It's impractical to talk about the eradication of 270,000,000 private guns. Practicality is the main trait of the Conservative mind. What's practical? Texans are full of Common Sense. What works today, right now? How fast can you get it done? Why the fuck are you still standing around holding a shovel up, Oggy?  I can't stress this enough because I'd never been around such practical people until I was surrounded by Conservatives on a Louisiana supply vessel in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico. There is no room on board for discussion of The Ideal Society. See? This materially drives the Conservative citizen and the Conservative pundit exploits this drive for their support. They'd sooner discuss milking Puff the Magic Dragon's tits for something to drink. The whole Conservative ideology began from practical people whose concerns were survival that day. The Liberal ideology is a golden egg in a marble building that we aspire to. Fine, but in the oil field, there is no time to aspire to anything except the immediate task, or else you'll lose digits on your hand or a whole arm, so that immediate focus is applied to everything because it's easier that way. Every day is a day focusing on survival and the immediate task. In fact, every bad event/accident can in some way be traced back to a brief collapse in focus on the practical and immediate demands of the day and a lapse into aspiration of some dreamy Utopia. The Conservative has no aspiration for any Utopia. He does not believe a Utopia is possible. He believes any attempt to "engineer" a Utopia by experimenting with society's rules as defined by the common sense writers of the Constitution, is cruel because it will involve suffering of innocent people for the wet dream of a Liberal who probably has nothing invested in the immediate crisis the Conservative is facing. So, fuck you, I'm not changing anything that will possibly put me or my family at risk, ever. These stories about thugs run amok may be cherry picked, but they are not lies. Society is collapsing and I will be ready. It's common sense, and these cock-sucking Liberals are talking about some pie in the sky fantasy where all Blacks and Whites are playing in some purified sand box. Well, that ain't ever gonna happen, and it definitely won't happen if it means I have to walk naked down a street full of crack heads who will rob me in two seconds and not even remember it in the morning. NO WAY.

Jesus, I actually typed so fast during that last rant that I injured my fingers. I wish I had timed myself. My fingers finally caught up with my brain and they were flying so fast smoke was coming from the keyboard.
"Guns don't kill people, Liberals Do."

Listen, if Conservatives had typed something as clear and succinct and comprehensible as what I just typed then I would not have to paraphrase and translate their rants into my own rant. I could copy and paste their own quotes. I could take a screen shot and you would read their own words. But no, you read their quotes above and have absolutely no idea what their point is except vitriol and diversion. I mean, it's noteworthy that this debate has been going back and forth forever and in general it's still almost impossible to figure out what the issue is. Liberals claim the gun owner is compensating for a small cock, the Conservative claims the Liberal pisses on the floor so shouldn't own a gun. Total vitriol. Everyone is so full of vitriol now that it takes months of analysis to figure out the basic argument.

My conclusion is that the common sense approach of a Conservative concludes an ideal world is not possible, and trying to engineer said ideal world is a monstrously evil idea because it will not only fail, it will fail at the expense of the very people who are currently arguing against it, since they are the ones surrounded by crime, WHICH IS WHY THEY OWN GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE. And the Liberal approach, based on a life not surrounded by thugs, is obsessed with "idealistic social-reform" because evidence suggests reform improves conditions, so more reform will improve more conditions. This is a theoretical argument. Abortion could be looked at as a theological/philosophical argument that involves God's word. But Gun Control is much more about the theoretical likelihood of an ideal society. 

And the major problem here is that because people in a country as big as the United States will never have the same experiences over a lifetime they will always reach a different conclusion about the nature of humanity and the likelihood of an ideal society. But that's not my focus right now. Fuck the ideal society. I merely want readers to come away with some understanding of the issues and the underlying motivations/factors behind the standpoint of the Conservatives. 

I will note that once I looked at it objectively and after having lived in Texas for a while then I concluded that 1) all the oil in Texas will be drained. It's definitely too late to stop a climate apocalypse. 2) An ideal society is technically possible but only if we first go back in time to prevent 270 Million guns from being introduced to society. 3) If it makes you feel good then you may disarm yourself in pursuit of an ideal society, but you will ultimately be begging for protection from someone who didn't disarm themselves. 

Why? Because that's the most likely outcome. I don't want that outcome, I don't pray for that outcome, but that's the most likely outcome. I'm being realistic. People will not spiritually rise to the occasion of a gun free society and hug and dance. No, all the thugs, whom I know are out there, will come for me and I will not have my gun. The peaceful alternative is pure fantasy, so I don't see the alternative, so I can not will myself to abide by the insanity that will lead to my own death. I may believe in a ethereal Heaven where there is peace, but that is the only place I believe peace is possible. The Earth is not a realm of purity. You may think I'm crazy, but I think you are crazy for thinking that with a few political tweaks Heaven is possible on Earth.

You see? It's a theoretical debate. I would paste some quotes from Conservatives on this topic but they all basically insult Liberals and accuse them of intentionally trying to disarm them in order to give their land to Mexicans as an apology for the Mexican/American War in 1845. I mean, the accusations on this topic are so off the subject that it's led to a culture of pure vitriol. There is no exchange of ideas, no respect, no comprehension, no compromise. Believe it or not: One side believes Heaven exists only in Heaven. The other side believes Heaven can exist on Earth. They are both bat shit crazy. But I hope you might have some glimpse of the true sentiments behind the Conservative opinion on this gun topic.

I said Race is a topic only as it applies to other topics and this is where I will insert my cross-analysis. The obsession with Black crimes is a Conservative tradition because they are basically saying, "When these newspapers are completely free of these types of stories, then we can have a discussion about gun control. Until then, do not bother me." See, the crimes in the paper are evidence that there is absolutely no hint of a crime free world, and since the articles they concentrate on are not of the "Conservative NRA Member Murders Family of Liberals" variety they feel the Conservative are faultless. Furthermore, they are gobsmacked that they need to spoon-feed Liberals obvious evidence that society has collapsed and that private guns must be allowed. The evidence is abundant, you ignorant Libertard! It's obvious that the streets are not safe yet you talk about disarmament. Idiot! Yes, guns are abused by "lawless nigger thugs". Yes, people are slaughtered by the "failed ape species". There are 270,000,000 guns so that's a reality that can't be rectified by my surrendering my specific gun that has only been fired in a safe manner in a practice range. See? When you can guarantee that no aspiring criminal is armed with anything more dangerous than a hair dryer, then maybe I'll consider surrendering my own gun, just to shut you up. Until that point you are suggesting that I trust in the good nature of humanity...when you merely have to look at the home page of the daily news to grasp THERE IS NO GOOD NATURE TO HUMANITY. So you see how race is a peripheral issue?

Sadly, the Constitution becomes involved and I insist the Constitution is immaterial at this point. I think the spirit of the 2nd Amendment was never applicable to the circumstances we now find ourselves in. And I think it's irrelevant today because guns are endemic. The 2nd Amendment was meant to enable our self defense from invasion, to keep us safe when our Government finally deteriorated into fascism, and I believe the irresponsible regulation of firearms has fucked us properly...and it's too late to do anything except prepare to defend yourself. Nuclear deterrence is a trademark of a wholesale failure of humanity, but it's a reality; Russia or China or North Korea would've long ago invaded their neighbors or America if not for the threat of nuclear annihilation. Eventually, the nuclear weapons will be used and exterminate most of civilization, but the abundance of nuclear arms delayed that outcome and that's good. Paradoxically, the writers of the Constitution committed the exact same Liberal error that Conservatives now condemn: they trusted in the better nature of man. They never predicted that schools would one day be attacked by Americans. Or maybe they thought the 2nd amendment was worth that risk. That was a mistake. That's the practical side of me talking. Ideally, I'm not owning a gun because I live in a fantasy world where I can verbally negotiate myself out of any danger. That's me. I understand not everyone has my charm. So I understand they would want a gun. Go for it.

I want to insert an argument about guns that is noteworthy. I've written about my Conservative friend whose mother died (in front of him as he bounced on a couch, while his father performed CPR) from smoking related cancer when he was young, and he now proudly defends her right to smoke cigarettes. He doesn't smoke, but he defends a smoker's right to make bad decisions. He prefers a dead mother than any infrignements on her sovereign rights. Or maybe he thinks a smoker will smoke if it's illegal or not so you'll end up with some who has a lot of unpaid citations for smoking, and is also dead. I vaguely remember going on a hunger strike when he smoked a cigarette. It was a strange friendship. Well, like this writer comments, Conservative gun owners don't lock their guns up specifically because liberal gun grabbers are trying to require it. This is a classic polarized tactic in which someone does something simply to spite the opposition, even if it makes no sense, and I do think the hatred between these two factions is strong enough that a Conservative would rather his own child shoot himself in the head, than either of them obey anything a Liberal says. That's pretty bad. Liberals are equally extreme as they'd prefer to be defenseless in their house and call the police with their last breath, than contribute to the gun ownership scourge. It all can be summarized with the generic statement that a Conservative is someone who disagrees with everything a Liberal says.

The Conservative pundits currently pick the crimes committed by Blacks in order to justify the need for privately owned guns. If White gun crime was abundant then they would use that as an excuse. Don't take it personally; the Black crimes are simply easier to search for. Again, Race is immaterial except as it provides evidence of a crumbling society. As I've said before, this very 'right' provided by the 2nd Amendment paradoxically leads to an overabundance of guns that end up in the hands of aspiring criminals. So it's a horrible cycle that I honestly don't see a resolution for. There may be some ideal world possible on Earth but it will involve the extermination of so many people that one could argue that, by definition, it isn't an ideal world. See? Human nature is not very good, and circumstance fucks up the little that is good, so we're left with basically evil human nature in a constant state of crisis. Maybe our nature isn't evil originally, but it is corrupted by circumstance and since the circumstances date back to the dark ages we can't ever get to the source. We can not unscramble the omelet. And since topics like Gun Control still fail to clearly define the argument we end up hating one political persuasion or another for the wrong reasons. So we're not only father away from resolution, we're failing for reasons that don't even exist. This is Oggy's nightmare. We're not only going to destroy the environment, we're going to destroy it to enable god-awful movies like "The Interview". Jesus Fucking God! Kill Me Now! Is an ideal society possible? Seriously? Are you fucking blind?? Do you just sit around all day and watch It's A Wonderful Life?? That's fantasy! The reality is we barely wipe our asses!

My goal here is to get to the heart of the problem and I believe I have done that with my statements on common sense and the idea that Heaven can either exist on Earth or exclusively in Heaven. Depending on your opinion on this you will either be Conservative or Liberal. I can't quote anyone on this because the debate has deteriorated to irrelevant vitriol, but it's my interpretative analysis of the evidence. This specific theoretical difference must be embraced before we can make progress on this topic. I don't care if you hate Liberals or Conservatives, but I feel strongly that you should hate them for accurate reasons.

To be concluded...

*Maybe God is a Conservative because exactly as I typed this, at 1:59am Guatemala time, we had a moderate earthquake in Xela. I'd say 3.5 - 4. Heavy shaking for about 20 seconds. No pictures fell, no glass broke. Kind of freaky. Haven't felt an earthquake since Los Angeles. Aftershocks came about 2 minutes later. There is a subduction zone off the coast responsible for all these active volcanoes. Pray for me. (I guess I was wrong, it was a 5.4 quake located to the west.)

Chiapas Subduction Zone keeping Oggy awake

The whole essay:
Part I
Part II
Part III


Anonymous said...

Elixir of Vitriol. Sulphoric acid tincture.
Vitriol. That word makes the hair on the back of my neck stand on end.

I should own a gun cause I guarantee that I will need it. There is no stopping the idiots that own guns. Whether they are legal or not. I will come to a point in my life where shooting another human is a choice I have to make, if I own a gun. If I don't own that gun I will give up the last of the beans I have stashed.

The Gambler has good dialogue. It is what makes a movie. Keep em talking. and playing background music. that also helps the movie.

Anonymous said...

They should have killed him in the end though, cause no one gets black.

Oggy Bleacher said...

I think you have the gift of charm, so I'm thinking you could slip through the gates of hell without owning a gun. I feel that you managed to dance with the devil enough times that he's going to let you go in peace. You showed him a good time and he's done with you and moved on to greener pastures.

I'll check out The Gambler. A movie like that with a totally unoriginal plot had better have top notch dialogue to justify itself. It was written by William Monahan, who wrote The Departed.

Oggy Bleacher said...

The results are in:
The Gambler is like "Owning Mahoney" without the good acting. It's like "House of Games" without the good dialogue or plot. and it's like "Rounders" without any insight into gambling. it's also like "Bad Lieutenant" without the drama. I really didn't care if this guy dies, and furthermore, the loan sharks are not realistic. A total train wreck in my opinion. No urgency to any of it. I knew it was derivative, but it's an actual remake of a 1974 movie of the same name. Which irks me since the plot is so basic: Guy gets in trouble...guy gets out of trouble. They couldn't think up their own plot for that premise? Really dumb movie. The Roulette wheel is a good prop since it requires no strategy or thought. pure luck. This movie was a mixed drink of other movies. Entirely without merit.

Oggy Bleacher said...

Actually, it's a 1975 original. And the original is OK. It gets your hands dirty. The remake is cotton candy trash. too pretty. no insight into gambling. It really galls me that he uses no skill in the entire movie.

Anonymous said...

Well, I didn't make it to the end, yet. But I think you want to make it worse. It's in your nature.

Can you tell me your thoughts on the oxford comma? Does it make sense that I make a list, run through all the iterations of that list, include many thoughts, make a statement, and include a comma after the second to last item?
I am just not sold.


Anonymous said...

It's your love of James Caan.....

Oggy Bleacher said...

I do love James Cann. It's true. But I love Wahlberg and he was the right actor for that role and they plainly fucked up the execution. I also love gambling so it pains me to watch a movie that fails to illuminate anything about gambling. I'm writing a play about gambling and it's better than the Gambler remake. The original has a great and pertinent quote about Dostoyevsky arguing "2+2=5" not because he's crazy but because it's a test of will. That's very pertinent to the gambling paradox. But the remake had pure bullshit. Please see "Owning Mahoney" for a good presentation of this topic.

On the subject of commas and punctuation let me say that I treat them completely as though you were reading the work out loud. Punctuation for me is like a rest or tie in music notation. I write verbally, meaning I hear the words in my head, often I hear many voices in my head and when the writing becomes the foremost conversation then I sit down to type. I could argue that I write in order to silence the other voices who are babbling and torturous. It's the reason I use so many italics to show emphasis that would be found in speech. All I know is that writing is a relief from the torture, (comma to make you pause for punchline) but the torture is what gives me material. Anyway, (comma to reset your brain) commas do have rules, (comma while I think of the rules) such as using one after the second to last item in a list even when using the word AND. This makes sense to me only when I HEAR a pause between those two items. I might use it in one place and not in another because I didn't hear the pause, I wanted the items to roll together. Kerouac wasn't the first to fuck around with punctuation but he's the one that made punctuation a cool game to make another point. So, all my punctuation may or may not be correct but in my head it is correct. 2+2=5. If I am in doubt then I don't use any. Allthisfuckingbullshit implies a different message than All this fucking bullshit. I use ellipses...quite a bit...and usually incorrectly...but I like them because it keeps my fingers moving while I silence the other harping voices in my head...see? I am tortured almost all the time I am not writing so I do whatever it takes to keep writing.

Creative Commons License
Man in the Van by Oggy Bleacher is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.