111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Barrow "crafty as day is long...armed with bag of tricks"!!
This article needs to be rewritten, probably from scratch. Bryan and FDR were very different people with very different policies, and Bryan's presidential campaign was a disaster. Also the writing seems strangely informal, as becomes apparent in the first sentence. Again, a general re-write appears in order. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
This article needs to be rewritten, probably from scratch. Bryan and FDR were very different people with very different policies, and Bryan's presidential campaign was a disaster. Also the writing seems strangely informal, as becomes apparent in the first sentence. Again, a general re-write appears in order. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 01:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
== Barrow "crafty as day is long...armed with bag of tricks"!! ==
Now really, I am just about lost for words, and that's unusual for me. For an encyclopedia that was born amidst the clarion call of the repudiation of "bias" and trivia, here is an insulting, banal and gratuitous characterization that would be rejected as propaganda too crude by a KGB party apparatchik. Or am I been guilty of being a pinko fellow-traveller? Have we come to such a pass that the most subjective and overt prejudice is welcome as long as it is directed at the Liberals? There was a time when it was the Conservatives who were the champions of the Academy, the Sciences, of fine writing and meditations, of sophisticated discourse and wit. Then, it was the provincials who were sullen and narrow, suspicious of art and intellectualism. What has happened in the interim? How is it that those who lived in the bogs now live in the Capital, and vice-versa? Can it really be that this is the quality of biography and analysis of themes that we would wish upon our home-schooled hot-house orchids?
Further, if but 40% of Americans are liberals, then, on my back-of-envelope calculations you have 100 million conservative, born-againers. So with all the literacy one would expect of the most educated country on God's Earth, any one of those 100 million could surely knock up a half-decent thumb-nail bio that doesn’t read like the blathering of some barefoot Uncy Clem who knows more of Tennessee moonshine than he does of its law. Here is what he says of Clarence Barrow: “As crafty as the day is long, he arrived in Tennessee armed with his bag of tricks.” And when, I wondered, do Br'er Rabbit and Br'er Fox make an appearance.
So why does this article continue to languish in its sorry state, a pitiful naked bastard who points to Conservapedia and calls “Father, father, am I not your very own?” before the forum of an amused and scandalized world. Clothe your mewling brats, conservative editors, and for Pity’s sake, FEED them! As it is, Wikipedia may have articles too long and fat, but these here look like the fly-blown and diseased victims of a famine! The entries present as the ejaculations of an overheated contestant on a quiz show. I have hardly begun my musings here, and already I have written more words than can be found in Conservapedia on half the countries of Europe combined. Am I prolix, or do you simply, in reality, after all is said and done, have little to say and less wit to say it with, just like those damn bleeding-heart liberals been saying all along. Surely not?
God’s servants – I abjure you! Stop jawboning and moaning, and gird up your loins and fill the space under this entry and all the others with some reasonable attempt at scholarship and even-handedness! Lest this sacred project remain not a global resource but a laughing-stock and an accusation. As it stands, if a pinko wished to argue for the ascendancy of the Liberal Left over God’s people, then in Zen monk style he need only gesture mutely toward the Scopes article here and to its counterpart in Wikipedia as if to say: “Choose then, which would you rather for your child, fathers and mothers, this or the other?” And such an accuser could repeat the same with entry after entry, page after page, theme after theme. Is there a single item in Conservapedia, as it stands at the moment, of which it could fairly be claimed that the material therein would provide more intellectual and spiritual nourishment for a young mind on the quest for knowledge than would its counterpart in Wikipedia? And how comes such a thing to pass? Who is pouring sand down our throats that we cannot speak, and who is cursing our hand with palsy that it cannot write? Is it the Evil One? How is it that Satan’s people dance like dervishes in the wind, while we move like molasses in the snow? And why is this holy barque, the Good Ship Conservapedia, marooned in the Saragossa, where her rigging creaks, and the mates are all below, and they do not write, nor talk, but only grumble?
Yet we had taken up our Cross when no one commanded it but it was freely given of ourselves, and we set our hand not to rest until we had builded Conservapedia to be a town built on the rock, and surrounded by sweet meadows, bearing fruits of knowledge from all over the World, and not struck by the fly of secularism, nor blasted by the worm of scepticism. Nay, here we had purposed it should grow, to feed the little ones and to be a monument to Learning consistent with the wishes of the Lord, that the Nations may rejoice and see that Scholarship and the Love of Truth is not some franchise vouchsafed only to the Liberal Left. But now we sit and gnash our teeth at an intersection, writing more in Talk pages than we do in that for the entries thereof, and then precious little in full total. And we have amassed entries on the great nations of the world, all as abrupt as telegrams but none so pithy, and the world laughs at us, hardly believing their luck, and their laughter is as the sting of a scorpion. For to date, the sacred Conservapedia project has helped the cause of the Christian Right just as much as Hillary Clinton walking naked down Broadway carrying photos of Abu Ghraib Prison on her head while drinking goats’ blood out of a golden goblet would have helped the cause of the Christian Left. And we have none to blame but ourselves, for verily, it was we ourselves who divested us of our own pantaloons, and we who handed the paddle to them that they may whale us and then some.