June 15, 2007

In the company of a few too many Glenns.

Or maybe yesterday was ax-grinding day. I see Glenn Reynolds was going after Glenn Greenwald, who was my least favorite Glenn until I ran across the infernal Glenn Kenny, who calls his blog "In the Company of Glenn."

But let's see what the problem was yesterday with the second-worst Glenn:
I don't pay much attention, generally, but I'm stuck in a car with nothing but Technorati for company...
Judging from the camera angle in the photo, Reynolds was in the passenger seat. I thought he was blogging and driving. You could blog and drive in stop-and-go, bumper-to-bumper traffic couldn't you? (I like to vlog and drive, myself.)

Back to Glenn R:
....and noticed that in one of his typically verbose efforts....
Can someone explain why leaning left causes verbosity?
Glenn Greenwald gets around, eventually, to making two points, One is that I'm a geek, whose interest in Western culture's retreat from traditional ideas of masculinity is thus silly:
Glenn Reynolds -- who, by his own daily admission, devotes his life to attending convention center conferences on space and playing around with new, cool gadgets in the fun room in his house, like a sheltered adolescent in his secret treehouse club -- to fret: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?"
But, see, that's the point. I'm a geek. If I notice it, it's probably real. It would be like Greenwald complaining that the country was going overboard in hatred of Bush.
So Glenn G is irked that Glenn R is calling people wimps and basically says, but you're a wimp. This is great. Reminds me of that old game show "Quien Es Mas Macho."

This incites me to go over and actually read a Glenn Greenwald post, which is something I almost never do, because Glenn G brings out the ADD in me.

Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is and quotes Chris Matthews enthusing:
Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke?
Now that is hilarious. (Video!) But that's Chris Matthews, and in fact, he's raising the terribly important issue of our sexual response to political candidates. As Al Gore likes to write books about: We are not rational decisionmakers in this democracy. Matthews is pointing that out in a punchy, comedic way. And he's interacting with Ana Marie Cox, who takes a comedic approach to politics.

So let's see how Glenn G dithers over it:
What can even be said about that? And nobody really seems to find this odd or disturbing or objectionable at all -- that night after night, one of the featured "journalists" of a major news network goes on television and, with some of our most prestigious journalists assembled with him, speaks admiringly about the smells and arousing masculinity and the "daddy" qualities of various political officials, and that this metric is, more or less, the full extent of his political analysis.
What can even be said about that? And nobody really seems to find it odd or disturbing or objectionable at all -- that day after day, Salon features a blogger who goes on and on in the most tedious way. In this case, he's criticizing Matthews but he's tone deaf to his comic style.... or would you think I was smart if I said the metric that is his analysis?
During the last week, when I was traveling, I spent substantial time driving in a rental car...
Glenn G can't say "last week." It's got to be "during the last week." He can't say "a long time," he has to say "substantial time."
...and thus had the opportunity to listen for large chunks of time to The Rush Limbaugh Show...
You know, Glenn G can't just "listen" to the radio, he has to have "the opportunity to listen" to the radio. So you listened to the radio? Who cares if it was last week and the car was a rental car and you were not only driving you were also traveling? It's like his little heart leaps every time he sees the opportunity to lard in a few more words, like a schoolboy assigned to write a 500-word essay.

But finally he gets to his point, which is that right-wingers are always lording it over the lefties that they are mas macho.
Virtually the entire show is now devoted to an overt celebration of masculinity -- by Rush Limbaugh -- and to claims that Democrats and liberals lack masculinity....

And just as Glenn Reynolds has done, Rush has developed a virtual obsession with the book The Dangerous Book for Boys, geared towards teaching "boys how to be boys." Rush spent the week hailing it as the antidote to what he calls the "Emasculation of America."

Identically, Reynolds on his blog has promoted the book a disturbing 17 times in the last six weeks alone. When doing so, he routinely proclaims things such as "maybe there's hope," and -- most revealingly -- has fretted: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?" ...

There are few things more disorienting than listening to Rush Limbaugh declare himself the icon of machismo and masculinity and mock others as "wimps." And if you look at those who have this obsession -- the Chris Matthews and Glenn Reynolds and Jonah Goldbergs and Victor Davis Hansons -- what one finds in almost every case is that those who want to convert our political process and especially our national policies into a means of proving one's "traditional masculine virtues" -- the physically courageous warriors unbound by effete conventions -- themselves could not be further removed from those attributes, and have lives which are entirely devoid of such "virtues."
Let's translate that last paragraph from Glennwaldese to plain English: No, you guys are wimps.
This is notable not merely because this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity supplants rational and substantive political considerations, though it does do that. Nor is it notable merely because it is so unpleasant, even cringe-inducing to behold, though it is that, too. Instead, this topic is unavoidable, really at the center of our political discourse, because it leads directly to some of our most significant and controversial political decisions.
Glennwaldese to English: Thinking about masculinity is emotional and we shouldn't be emotional about politics.

Why write in Glennwaldese? It's a way of making the obvious look less obvious and giving off the air of intelligence... which doesn't smell like English Leather. (It's English Leather -- a men's cologne -- not "English leather" as Glenn has it up there.) It smells like an old college dorm room.
... Rush Limbaugh ... parade[s] around as the icon of masculinity, and it ... drives him not only to dismiss -- but to overtly celebrate -- the abuses of Abu Grahib and other torture policies as just good, clean fun had by real men (like Rush, as proven by his support for it). As John McCain pointed out in the GOP debate in South Carolina, men who have actually served in the military find torture to be dishonorable, dangerous and repulsive. Only those with a throbbing need to demonstrate their masculine virtues would glibly embrace things of that sort.
Do women not exist in Glenn G's world?
This dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant.
A classic Glenn Greenwald sentence if there ever was one. It's such a perfect embodiment of Glenn Greenwaldese that if he were a sitcom character his catchphrase could be "This dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant." He'd be like Aunt Sassy in "Room and Bored." The other characters would be doing whatever they do and -- Aunt Sassy would say "I don't want see that" -- he'd go: "This dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant."

And yes, I know, I know, war and torture are serious, so why am I writing about language and rhetoric? Because I don't have anything interesting to say about the horror of war and torture. I hate war and torture. Please note.

Back to Mr. G:
It's what causes someone like Glenn Reynolds...
What's the "it"? Scroll back. Oh, I see: it's the "dynamic." And what was the dynamic? I seem to remember that it was depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant. Scroll back more. Oh, it was "this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations." So then, the pervasive craving is depressingly pervasive. Egad! I hate when things that are already pervasive become, you know, pervasive. People, listen, can't you see? It's so horrible! It's the dynamic! The pervasiveness of it is getting pervasive. I'm so depressed.

Why not use a vivid expression that retains the meaning so we don't have to scroll back? Maybe "machismo" or "phony masculinity"? Glenn G probably thinks the word "dynamic" expresses the way the desire for masculinity -- he laughably says guys crave "artificial masculinity" -- interferes with rational thought... and also that it makes his observation seem more important than it is. Why this is no mere process, it's a whole dynamic!
It's what causes someone like Glenn Reynolds -- who, by his own daily admission, devotes his life to attending convention center conferences on space and playing around with new, cool gadgets in the fun room in his house, like a sheltered adolescent in his secret treehouse club -- to fret: "Are we turning into a nation of wimps?," and directly in response to that concern, to urge "more rubble, less trouble" -- meaning that he wants to watch on his television set as the U.S. military flattens neighborhoods and slaughters more people in the name of "strength," "resolve," and "power."
When you point your cursor at "more rubble, less trouble," it highlights as if there's supposed to be a link there, but clicking goes nowhere. So is that a quote from Glenn R or not?

Glenn Reynolds offers the actual context here, and it shows Glenn G's characterization to be an embarrassing distortion. Did he originally have the link and then remove it to hide his distortion? Kind of wimpy, no?

You know, I think it's really important to analyze the sexual feelings that underlie politics and warfare. I wish Glenn Greenwald would do a better job of it.

But I have two other problems:

1. Greenwald started out by mocking Chris Matthews for the analysis of sexual feeling in politics, and then he ended up analyzing sexual feelings in politics. I think he realized this was incoherent, and then, instead of rewriting his post -- why subtract when you can add? -- he just asserted: "None of this is about psychoanalyzing anyone." Get it? The thing Matthews did? Bad! The thing I just did? Must be good, cuz I did it, so different, and hence, not bad.

2. Greenwald himself is not free from the "dynamic" -- which, you might remember, is "this pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations." His long tirade tells us something about his feelings of masculinity, and he never examines what they are. If we are competent readers, though, we must look into that. He mocks Glenn Reynolds for talking about what a geek he is, but self-examination and self-deprecation are good -- and are not evidence of someone with a "pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations." Where is Greenwald's self-examination and self-deprecation? All I ever see is self-importance and preening and condemning others as inferior, which kind of seems like a "pervasive and insecure craving for artificial masculinity [that] supplants rational and substantive political considerations."

Hey, this dynamic is depressingly pervasive, yet incomparably significant.

IN THE MAIL: Knoxwhirled sends lolglenn:

lolglenn

234 comments:

1 – 200 of 234   Newer›   Newest»
paul a'barge said...

Dang, that was a long blog entry ...

Doyle said...

Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is

God you suck. The post is obviously about Chris Matthews' interest in Fred Thompson's sexiness and masculinity.

Ann Althouse said...

Duh, Doyle, that's why I have the word "begins." I can only bite off one chunk at a time of Greenwald's deadly prose. So, no, you suck.

Ann Althouse said...

But don't let Doyle hijack this thread. Talk about the post, not Doyle's distraction. He's only here to screw things up. He's a troll.

Doyle said...

I'm here to expose you for the mindless hack you are.

The point is Greenwald isn't personally concerned with Fred Thompson's sexiness. Chris Matthews is.

Get it? You may like that Chris Matthews has weird fetishes about the Clenis and the GOP's various "daddy" figures, but not everyone does. Some people actually appreciate substantive as opposed to superficial political discourse, as hard as that may be for you to imagine.

Ricky said...

Did I read that far-too-verbose GG link correctly? How do I put this delicately.....is the fellow least likely to be named 'most physically masculine person in the world' really attempting to smear righties who worry about American males turning into wimps by hinting that they're not physically intimidating enough (thus they don't qualify)?

BTW, lambchop (I know you're reading), I'm 6'5" & 235 lbs, so yeah, I qualify & I'm masculine enough to know that sock-puppets are barely 'real men'. I know we're all subjects to the DNA enshrined upon us by our parents, but really.....you're too small & delicate to decide which guys don't look tough enough.

Ian said...

Can someone explain why leaning left causes verbosity?

So it's true -- you do still lean left.

Ricky said...

****"Some people actually appreciate substantive as opposed to superficial political discourse"***

Sorry, you lost us with 'clenis'. Nice attempt at recovery, though.

Roost on the Moon said...

Great post, Ann. Start-to-finish fantastic, but especially when you start tracking the pronouns. Very well done.

Heir to the Throne said...

I'm here to expose you for the mindless hack you are.
Wow, Someone defending Glenn Greenwald calling someone a mindless hack.
Oh, the Irony.
Introduction to Hypocrisy 101
(a) Greenwald decries innuendo on the right
...
(b) Greenwald engages in rank innuendo

Simon said...

"Can someone explain why leaning left causes verbosity?"

Yes: because the more terse a post is, the more exposed the central argument(s) are to the reader. Thus, weaker arguments much be camouflaged with more surrounding prose.

vet66 said...

I immediately wondered if Greenwald was a vegan. I think he protests to much and makes the case against him by proving the verbosity charge.

Apparently GG likes to substitute quantity for quality.

Ann Althouse said...

Yeah, sorry for the length of this post. Greenwald does tend to make himself impervious to criticism by being so verbose. If you hate verbose, how do you avoid being verbose talking about why something verbose is bad? Quite the conundrum, no?

vrse said...

Okay, I get you correcting Greenwald's writing, although it's annoying, but your psychoanalysis really blew me away!!! I'm in such awe! The multi-talented Althouse. Btw, did you know that a LOT of people out there think you're a basket case?

Also, instead of blindly defending Reynolds, which is telling, why don't you address Greenwald's real point, that those daddy-macho guys like Limbaugh, Krystol, Goldberg, Reynolds, Hagan, Cheney, etc., did not serve this country when they had the opportunity. And when they could have blown up a bunch of commies in Vietnam, they all hid behind they're privileged families?

Romney, big talker about war and fighting terrorism, he has five manly-masculine sons that could serve, how many are over there?

Do you have any sons of age?

Ann Althouse said...

Simon: "because the more terse a post is, the more exposed the central argument(s) are to the reader"

Yeah, I have a general rule about reading. If I have to translate into plain English and then seeing what you're saying in plain English was not worth the effort of translating, I quit reading. I've saved myself from the task of reading so many law review articles that way.

Ricky said...

I take it vrse (nor Greenwald) will end up voting for pro-war-didn't-serve Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination.

Ann Althouse said...

Vrse: Yes, I have sons "of age," but age is not the only qualification, and moreover, because they are of age, they are not within my control. So what's your point, if any?

Kirk said...

Ann,

I don't suppose Blogger would let you do this, but really a single instance of the "lameness" label doesn't begin to do justice to Greenwald's writing.

As to the prolixity of the left, I'm not sure there really is much difference there when you consider equal distances from the "center". That is, the David Dukes and John Birches of this world gas on just as interminably as GG does; it's just that nobody gives them a polite hearing so we tend not to notice them.

Finally, regarding this point of Reynolds:

"Greenwald's acolytes are mocking this picture [with the santa hat] as insufficiently manly. "

There's just no pleasing some people. Remember how nuts the left side of the blogosphere went when the professor wore this shirt?

Doyle said...

I've saved myself from the task of reading so many law review articles that way.

I bet you have.

Mark said...

Ann said:

"And yes, I know, I know, war and torture are serious, so why am I writing about language and rhetoric? Because I don't have anything interesting to say about the horror of war and torture. I hate war and torture. Please note."

Well, that's perfectly summarizes my problem with Ann's preference with style over substance. When you say "I hate war and torture", it sounds so banal. Who doesn't? The point is that this administration uses fear mongering to make us accept torture (or, as they call it "advanced interrogation techniques" or some other euphemism) as unavoidable in this great war on terror. While you don't have to write about anything (it's your blog), it would be nice if you could provide some more LEGAL analysis, along the lines of Marty Lederman, Orin Kerr, and yes, Glenn Greenwald. And on the substance, Greenwald's logic is unassailable.

Kirk said...

Ann,

"If you hate verbose, how do you avoid being verbose talking about why something verbose is bad?"

As Simon pointed out, "Thus, weaker arguments much be camouflaged with more surrounding prose." Yes, and sometimes there's so much camouflage the reader misses out on the important fact that the camouflage is all there is.

So you could just say, "There's no there there" and challenge your readers to find any item of substance therein. Although there is certainly good entertainment value in watching the disassembly of GG's "prose", so I don't think you should be too apologetic about the length.

Kirk said...

Mark,

"And on the substance, Greenwald's logic is undetectable."

There, I fixed your typo for you.

vrse said...

Well, Ann, how would you feel about Iraq if you're son were out there?

The thought of your son patrolling streets without body armor waiting to be IEDed?

The thought of your son torturing someone because Cheney tells him to?

My overall point is that it's easy to talk tough about war from afar. It's easy to be macho about something when it doesn't affect you or anyone near you? That's what I take Greenwald's overall point to be, and I wholeheartedly agree with him.

Weak said...

This post is awesome.

Simon said...

Ricky said...
"I take it vrse (nor Greenwald)..."

You assume there's a difference.

Peregrine John said...

Good lord, and I thought I was wordy! Greenwald could run rhetorical circles around my circumlocution. At least I do it for a (perhaps mistaken) attempt at clarity!

Be that as it may, this is the funniest dang thing I've read all week. I love me the Althouse.

vrse said...

Simon, why are you such an idiot?

Mark said...

"Why write in Glennwaldese? It's a way of making the obvious look less obvious and giving off the air of intelligence... which doesn't smell like English Leather. (It's English Leather -- a men's cologne -- not "English leather" as Glenn has it up there.) It smells like an old college dorm room."

Ann, it would be nice if you mentioned that "English leather" is what appears in the transcript of Chris Matthews' show which is linked to by Glenn Greenwald.

And, Kirk, please refute Greenwald's logic, if you can. Noone in this thread provided any substantive arguments; the only substantive argument so far was by Ann that Matthews was joking and Greenwald was overreacting. I disagree with the argument, but at least it's on substance.

price said...

vrse, you're making a fool of yourself. There is not a draft, and even if there were, many suitable people are still ineligible. Because of this, those who serve in the military do so by choice. Try to think of a better way to appeal to hearts 'n minds.

Doyle said...

the only substantive argument so far was by Ann that Matthews was joking and Greenwald was overreacting.

No, no, Ann's getting at something much deeper: Namely "Don't be mean to my benefactor, Glennda the good witch of Tennessee."

Doug said...

Little GG is all pissy because the right is so masculine, yet does he ever look at his good buddies on left? The left wing nut roots community is all about praising those who have the "balls" and "cojones" to speak truth to power, while the mealy mouthed moderates like the DLC, the MSM and the pundit class are just a bunch of wimps, sissies and sellouts. No double-standard there Glenn

Daily Kos constantly promoted the "Fighting Dems" to celebrate the warriors inside the democratic party during the last election. The ladies at the feminist sites even have lashed out at the lockerroom mentality of male leftwing bloggers saying they aren't any better than the religious right on feminine issues.

There is also the machismo on the left when it comes to calling Bush, Cheney, etc Chickenhawks. Many of these lefties support the Afghan invasion, so if every supporter of the IWR is expected to enlist, so are those who oppose the Taliban. Though I think Greenwald has a convient exemption from serving.

vrse said...

"Because of this, those who serve in the military do so by choice."

See, this is the type of crap that gets me going. Let me take a wild guess Price, go ask the scores of national guard people and poor young kids, most of which are minorities, whether they joined the military to go to Iraq.

But even if you volunteered to go to Iraq, does this mean that it's okay for civilians to order their kids to torture other human beings? Is this what you're saying, cause as you pointed out, I'm too much of a fool to figure stuff out.

Heir to the Throne said...

vrse
Nice list of "untrue" talking points.

The thought of your son patrolling streets without body armor waiting to be IEDed?

Can you post a link to story of US soldier patrolling streets without body armor?

BTW, body armor is worn by the soldier. It is not the Humvee armor that the democrats were complaining about.
The thought of your son torturing someone because Cheney tells him to?
You have proof of Cheney walking around Iraq or Gitmo telling individual soldiers to torture people?
How to you respond to the talking point that the only members of congress that wish to bring back the draft are democrats?

Luckyoldson said...

Ann says: "Can someone explain why leaning left causes verbosity?"

and follows up with about 1,500 words.

duh.

Simon said...

Maybe Greenwald's just desparately in love with Justice Kennedy, and his blog is a misplaced attempt to take a bullet for Tony by putting out prose that makes Kennedy's writing look terse, workmanlike and pizazzy by comparison?


vrse said...
"Simon, why are you such an idiot?"

Take your pick from: funsies; everyone needs a hobby; the designated hitter rule; the Jester was the only vacancy available in the Court of Queen Ann; I just get up in the morning and do what Karl Rove tells me to, on the assumption King George knows what he's doing and that it's all to the greater glory of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy; Hugh Jackman. Or make up your own fun and exciting reason!

XWL said...

Ricky commented above, take it vrse (nor Greenwald) will end up voting for pro-war-didn't-serve Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination.

... wait, before I begin the meat of my own personal comment upon this important subject, a momentary digression with regards to the source of my consternation regarding that particular comment (which I perused in the course of reading all the other comments, which I only read because being stuck at the airport at the moment (the reasons for being at the airport may be one digression too many (but then again, to rob you of the knowledge of why I am in the airport, why that leads to downtime which affords me the opportunity to delve deeply into this post and the comments it supports may make understanding what follows more arduous, so to make a long story short, I blame Bush for his draconian methods turning the entire nation into his personal panopticon for causing the experience of waiting in an airport into one of interminable tedium)))

The nature of identity on the internet is a fluid one. An entity can go about carefully cultivating a consistent identity, even create an identifiable character with a series of posts, but nobody but the original poster can know if the person representing themselves under a particular handle is or isn't the same person who claims to be that person in all cases. Furthermore, there are the times when people assume multiple identities (sometimes even within the same comment thread), a practice which has become known in the vernacular as, "sock puppetry", or even in some circles, "being a total greenwald".

In other words (see this proves I'm not Greenwald, I sum up my own bloated prose, so you don't have to)

vrse=greenwald
doyle=greenwald
mark=greenwald

(d'oh! Simon went straight for the punchline while I was composing all this, oh well)

price said...

Let me take a wild guess Price, go ask the scores of national guard people and poor young kids, most of which are minorities, whether they joined the military to go to Iraq.

Why are you trying to paint our soldiers as being helpless, brown-skinned pussies? Why must you emasculate and condescend to our soldiers? Go home and sit down.

Doyle said...

Not only do the lizard brains not get tired of flogging the Patterico-generated sock puppet accusations, they actually think there are people left who haven't heard of them.

If they were true, he wouldn't have been hired. But you kids keep having a good time with it.

Luckyoldson said...

Simon said...in regard to being "left" causing verbosity:

"Yes: because the more terse a post is, the more exposed the central argument(s) are to the reader. Thus, weaker arguments much be camouflaged with more surrounding prose."

*could you edit that down a bit?

Simon said...

Doyle said...
"Glennda the good witch of Tennessee."

LOL! That's pretty good!

But that metaphor would make Ann the Good Witch of the North, would it not? I suppose California-based Kos could be the Wicked Witch of the West. And NY-based Greewald would be the Wicked Witch of the East. Who of course dies at the start of the first book. Hang on, I'm starting to warm to this metaphor.

)

Luckyoldson said...

vrse said..."Also, instead of blindly defending Reynolds, which is telling, why don't you address Greenwald's real point, that those daddy-macho guys like Limbaugh, Krystol, Goldberg, Reynolds, Hagan, Cheney, etc., did not serve this country when they had the opportunity. And when they could have blown up a bunch of commies in Vietnam, they all hid behind they're privileged families?

Romney, big talker about war and fighting terrorism, he has five manly-masculine sons that could serve, how many are over there?"

*correcto mundo...(what are you doing here? these people don't want to hear any of this.)

Simon said...

XWL - sorry to pre-empt you. And of course, it's ironic, because I myself am a sock puppet for Justice Scalia! ;)

Luckyoldson said...

Ann Althouse said..."Vrse: Yes, I have sons "of age," but age is not the only qualification, and moreover, because they are of age, they are not within my control. So what's your point, if any?"

just a guess, but...uh...maybe...why aren't they serving in iraq??

Simon said...

Luckyoldson said...
"([VRSE,] what are you doing here? these people don't want to hear any of this.)"

On the contrary, it's the best entertainment on the internet right now. Carry on!

Ann Althouse said...

Lucky: I don't accept your inviting people to look into invading my sons' privacy.

Luckyoldson said...

simon blathers on..."Take your pick from: funsies; everyone needs a hobby; the designated hitter rule; the Jester was the only vacancy available in the Court of Queen Ann; I just get up in the morning and do what Karl Rove tells me to, on the assumption King George knows what he's doing and that it's all to the greater glory of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy; Hugh Jackman. Or make up your own fun and exciting reason!"

what happened to your rule about the "left" being sooooooooooooooo verbose?

*right wing bullshit, as usual.

vrse said...

Price, you bright, wise, beautiful human being,

Where did I say they were pussies. Are you suggesting that by saying that they don't want to go to Iraq, I'm calling them "pussies"? So, are you in Iraq, because I'd like to know if I'm talking to a "pussy" right now.

For the record, I was a poor and "brown-skinned" once, now I'm just "brown-skinned." So I know what it's like to have recruiters come up to you at the mall promising the world.

So, you're not a "pussy," nor "brow-skinned," and I'm guessing you're not poor, so it's time to STFU.

Luckyoldson said...

ann,
i and i suspect most others here could care less about your kid's "privacy."

the query related to how you would feel about the iraqi fiasco...if your own kids were serving their country in iraq.

talk is cheap...but you already know that, being a republican and all.

Roger said...

Is there something about Fridays that lead to threads like this?

Luckyoldson said...

i think cheney and the rest of the neocon gang are pussies.

Luckyoldson said...

roger,
it's friday??

AllenS said...

Well, there's ax-grinding, and then there's The Fine Art of Ax-Grinding.

Mark said...

That's what Reynolds said:

"On the other hand, it's also true that if democracy can't work in Iraq, then we should probably adopt a "more rubble, less trouble" approach to other countries in the region that threaten us. If a comparatively wealthy and secular Arab country can't make it as a democratic republic, then what hope is there for places that are less wealthy, or less secular?"

He tries to justify it thusly:

"I've made clear, in that post and elsewhere, that I think democracy can work in Iraq -- this comment was aimed at advocates (like Greenwald) of giving up."

I don't know how ANYONE can accept Reynolds' explanation that his bloodthirsty comment was "conditional." He clearly states that "if democracy can't work", we should basically just bomb indiscriminately. There is nothing in his comment that suggests he was being ironic or sarcastic; his view was that if democracy in Iraq can't work (although he hopes it can), US should reduce other countries that we think threaten us to rubble.
It's a despicable viewpoint and Glenn Greenwald was right to call him on this!

And when Ann says that "Glenn G's characterization [is] an embarrassing distortion," it is false. Greenwald did not distort anything: he accurately summarized Greewald's position.

Luckyoldson said...

price,
where did you come up with vrse intimating our soldiers were "pussies?"

Doyle said...

That wasn't an invitation to invade anyone's privacy, but it doesn't matter what Ann's son is doing, be it serving in Iraq or trying on hats. It has no bearing whatsoever.

boston70 said...

Ann, are you sure you didn't miss your calling?

I think you should of been an English teacher.

You would of been a hard ass with grading term papers.

I think writing are skills and important and unforutnately I am not too good at writing.

I am impressed with our diva's knowledge of the written word and this is not being sarcastic.

I am just curious when grading you law students do you comment on their writing? I think this is an invaluable skill and I wouldn't be able to pick it apart like Ann does.

I am a decent business writer though (memos etc at work). For some reason I can manage those ok.

How did you get so good at the writing thing?

Palladian said...

Excellent dissection!

"...meaning that he wants to watch on his television set as the U.S. military flattens neighborhoods and slaughters more people in the name of "strength," "resolve," and "power."

What is this tiresome old douche talking about? Who is actually "flattening neighborhoods" in the world right now? Is it the US military? Do soldiers possess "artificial masculinity"? What is "real masculinity"? When Greenwald's testosterone-popping spiritual sugar daddy Andrew Sullivan puts on his leathers to take in the "bear" festival in P-Town?

Lefties are sometimes verbose because the current generations of the left grew up reading Continental "theory" - the Foucaults, the Derridas, the Deleuze and Guattaris, the Baudrillards, the Habermas' and Adornos; their first helping of Marxism came buried in a thousand pounds of textual packing peanuts and they unconsciously picked up the habit. And, as pointed out by other comments, the worst thing a lefty with intellectual pretensions can do is express their poorly-reasoned beliefs clearly. Without the rivers of textual filler, you wouldn't understand that the person expressing such dumb ideas fancied himself smart.

And as far as fragrances go, English Leather is swill. If you want a "leather" fragrance, the real masculine gentleman wears Knize Ten.

vrse said...

mark, stop that! don't you know that Ann hates Glenn G and really really likes Glenn R?

She'll start deleting your comments for pointing out the obvious.

Luckyoldson said...

doyle,
of course it does...especially if you appear to condone what we're doing in iraq or support the bush administration's actions.

it was just a simple question...and what's wrong with saying whether your kids serve or not?

you consider that a huge INVASION of privacy?

Luckyoldson said...

palladian asks: "Who is actually "flattening neighborhoods" in the world right now?"

familiar with the term; "shock and awe?"

Ann Althouse said...

Luckyoldson said..."ann,
i and i suspect most others here could care less about your kid's "privacy.""

Then you are a slimy, unethical sh*t, and I see no reason ever to respond to you.

Simon said...

Luckyoldson, verbosity is not a function of how many words one uses, it's a function of surplusage: the ratio of words to ideas. In Greenwald's case, that's usually in the ratio ∞:0


Boston70:
"How did [Ann] get so good at the writing thing?

She's been a successfull writer for many more years than she's been blogging. That's basically what law professors do - they teach and they write.

Luckyoldson said...

Palladian,
be less verbose.

thanks.

Luckyoldson said...

simon:

ver·bose
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin verbosus, from verbum
1 : containing more words than necessary : WORDY: impaired by wordiness

2 : given to wordiness

*but thanks anyway.

vrse said...

Are you serious, Annie? He wasn't disparaging your sons privacy, he was pointing out that your son's privacy has nothing to do with the question. I thought you were good with words, poems, Yeats, Sopranos, etc etc.

Either way, okay, respond to me instead, unless you think I'm an "unethical sh*t" as well.

price said...

Lucky and vrse:

I object to your insistence that our poor, helpless soldiers need blog commenters to protect them from the world. Stop using this rhetoric. If you want to be against the war, then argue that point. Don't bring in how the soldiers feel because you'll just look like a condescending jackass.

Doyle said...

Lucky -

Everyone knows Ann's son isn't in Iraq, or if he is it's being kept secret (and those photos a few months back were of some other dude).

So for however much that undercuts Ann's support for the war, you can make the "your kid isn't over there" argument, but it's a weak one. For one thing, military parents are probably in some cases MORE hawkish as a result (i.e. Don't tell us we invaded for nothing!).

Luckyoldson said...

ann,
geeeeee, that was an awful thing to say.

now i really do care about your kid's privacy.

thanks.

Hoosier Daddy said...

vrse said:
Let me take a wild guess Price, go ask the scores of national guard people and poor young kids, most of which are minorities, whether they joined the military to go to Iraq.

Ok let me ask you if you think any of them joined the military to go to Afghanistan, or Somalia or Bosnia? What part of ‘volunteer army’ don’t you get?

If someone enlists, I think there is an expectation that they just might have to go into combat at some point. Kind of like a cop who doesn’t join the force with the intent of shooting someone but knows it is a possibility because it comes with the job.

And do you have any sources which show that the poor young kids are mostly minorities? I thought this was pretty much debunked after Kerry’s Stuck in Iraq comment.

Simon said...

Luckyoldson - you do understand that the definition that you just posted SUPPORTS my point, right? That verbosity is using language that "Contain[s] more words than necessary," emphasis added, is precisely the point that I made - verbosity is measured by surplusage, not aggregate word count.

Luckyoldson said...

doyle,
we invaded for nothing...and history will prove that to be the case...if it hasn't already.

boston70 said...

I went into Greenwald's site and he does have a delicious spread of all the he-men. Those pictures are hilarious. It looks like a group of men that would run if you said boo to them.

They are all incredibly unattractive also. Is that a attribute that they must share? Being butt ugly?

The Muscle Boys at Boston Pride could definitely kick their asses.

Luckyoldson said...

simon,
give it up, dude.

here's what YOU posted: "verbosity is not a function of how many words one uses, it's a function of surplusage: the ratio of words to ideas. In Greenwald's case, that's usually in the ratio ∞:0"

here's webster's definition:

ver·bose
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin verbosus, from verbum
1 : containing more words than necessary : WORDY: impaired by wordiness

2 : given to wordiness

i'll stick with the dictionary version.

Simon said...

BTW, LuckyOldSon, when even Doyle's saying that your line of attack against Ann's futile - no fan of her, he - it's time to give it up as a bad job.

Luckyoldson said...

simon,
what is it you do not understand about the term;

"containing more words than necessary??"

duh.

Luckyoldson said...

simon,
oh, okay...if YOU say so...suck-ass.

Simon said...

LuckyOldSon, you're a moron. You have the reading comprehension of a four year old. The dictionary definition you want to stick with says exactly the same thing that I said. I said, as you quoted, "'verbosity is not a function of how many words one uses, it's a function of surplusage: the ratio of words to ideas.'" Webster's primary definition, that you quoted is that verbosity is "containing more words than necessary." Those are identical concepts.

Simon said...

Maybe you just don't understand what "surplusage" means. Surplusage means "an excess amount" or "more than necessary." Try reading my post again with that definition substituted in, and compare it to Webster's. If you're still confused, your kindergarten teacher will be able to explain it when you get there next year.

Luckyoldson said...

simon,
you are dumber than a fucking post...and evidently LOVE to hear what YOU have to say.

the point i'm trying to make is this: YOU, by being overly "verbose" in your descriptioin of what being "verbose" is...are doing exactly what is being discussed...BEING TOO VERBOSE.

you can describe "using too many words" any way you want...but it still boils down to "using too many words."

PERIOD.

Mark said...

Further responding to Ann's substantive points. Ann says:

"1. Greenwald started out by mocking Chris Matthews for the analysis of sexual feeling in politics, and then he ended up analyzing sexual feelings in politics. I think he realized this was incoherent, and then, instead of rewriting his post -- why subtract when you can add? -- he just asserted: "None of this is about psychoanalyzing anyone." Get it? The thing Matthews did? Bad! The thing I just did? Must be good, cuz I did it, so different, and hence, not bad."


No, this is a mischaracterization of what Glenn did. Glenn demonstrated that:

1) Our press, as represented by Chris Matthews, is pathetic as the analysis of substantive positions is replaced by a juvenile-like focus on sexual feelings aroused by the candidates. This illustrates how low the level of our supposed "watchdog" fell.

2) The second point was that people who accuse liberals of being insufficiently masculine are hardly the ideals of masculinity themselves. It's a "pot calling the kettle black" argument. Greenwald does not focus on psychoanalysis; he's just pointing out the glaring hypocrisy.

reader_iam said...

Two questions:

Would you challenge an anti-war activist on the grounds that he or she has an adult child serving in the military?

Do you expect adult children to make personal decisions about military service based on their parents' stance on war?

***

Two observations:

Amazing that anyone who's a regular commenter here hasn't been reading closely enough to realize that Ann has two adult sons.

I think the smell of English leather is much sexier and more masculine than the scent of English Leather. Just a personal opinion.

Dan said...

When you point your cursor at "more rubble, less trouble," it highlights as if there's supposed to be a link there, but clicking goes nowhere. So is that a quote from Glenn R or not?

Glenn Reynolds offers the actual context here, and it shows Glenn G's characterization to be an embarrassing distortion. Did he originally have the link and then remove it to hide his distortion? Kind of wimpy, no?


If one were interested in addressing substance rather than just throwing nit-picking insults, one might look at the page source. Then one would notice that the link was valid, but the 'href' was mispelled 'hrf,' so the link was nonfunctional. But if one wants to practice mock outrage and avoid the substance of Greenwald's post, then one does exactly what Ms. Althouse does.

Likewise, one could focus on writing styles, sexual orientation ("Do women not exist in Glenn G's world?"), or any number of other nonsubstantive topics.

Be careful, though. Attacking people using so many hack arguments has a way of coming back and biting you in the ass.

Alan said...

Yep, axe grinding as an art form.

mythusmage said...

Ann,

Yes, people are still Friday cat blogging. All in an attempt to get you to think cats are cute, cuddly beasts and get your poor abused phalanges shredded.

BTW, you get the feeling all those Greenwald Defenders have suspiciously similar IPs? (Ever get the feeling you can get further reasoning with a cat?)

Mark said...

Another Ann's gem"

"Glennwaldese to English: Thinking about masculinity is emotional and we shouldn't be emotional about politics."

No, this is again a total misrepresentation of what Glenn said. Please point out exactly where he said what you claim he said. You can't. Your "translation" completely misrepresents Glenn's post. Glenn's point was that it is the Right's political cynical strategy to feminize Democratic men. He's written about it before. It's absurd to claim, as you do, that Glenn's point is that masculinity is emotional and we should not be emotional about policy.
Any fair reading of Greenwald would refute your interpretation. Please try to be more objective and not be blinded by your idolation of Glenn Reynolds.

MadisonMan said...

By a strange coincidence, today when I went to the vending machine I received two bag of nuts when I paid for one. And then I came here and read this comment thread.

Luckyoldson said...

reader_iam,
i know of no one who is "challenging" ann about whether her kids should or should not SERVE.

the question related to whether she would still support the iraqi invasion, fiasco, whatever...IF HER KIDS WERE SERVING.

get it??

*as to MY comment regarding no one caring about her kid's "privacy," i was probably unclear. what i meant was that i don't need to know anything about her kids...other than what relates to the "serving" issue.

Luckyoldson said...

ann,
let me make something clear:

*as to MY comment regarding no one caring about your kid's "privacy," i was probably unclear. what i meant was that i don't need to know anything about your kids...other than what relates to the "serving" issue.

got that?

Lars said...

LUCKY:
I guess we need to know all about your kids service first??

Your boys are all 11 Bravos ,I guess.

If they are, I can understand your righteous indignation.

Luckyoldson said...

lars,
no, you idiot.

the question relates to whether one would be AS SUPPORTIVE of the iraqi situation....if their own kids were there.

GOT IT???

*this isn't brain surgery...

Lars said...

LUCKY:
I THINK THE REVERSE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ASKED: WHY DO THOSE WHO HAVE NO PERSONAL INVESTMENT IN THE WAR THE BIGGEST WHINERS? TAKE YOURSELF AS AN EXAMPLE.....

reader_iam said...

The point is that's irrelevant. Generally speaking, questions like that are posed as a sideways challenge of standing and to imply hypocrisy. It's the "chickenhawk-by-proxy" phenomenon. Let's not pretend otherwise. Maybe your asking the question this time is the one exception in a thousand. (I doubt it, but it could be, I suppose.)

Doesn't change the point of my questions, especially the first one, which, by the way, I'd be interested in seeing answered by anybody who thinks the "chickenhawk-by-proxy" tactic is intellectually honest.

Lars said...

YOU'RE DEAD RIGHT READ_IAM.

BUT I JUST HAD TO ASK LUCKY THE FLIP SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT.

reader_iam said...

GOT IT???

Look in the mirror, luckyoldson: *this isn't brain surgery...

reader_iam said...

My 12:36 comment was directed to luckyoldson, not lars.

AlphaLiberal said...

Wow, Ann, that's one long windy post!!

"Little glass houses for you and me..."

And, you lied. Greenwald never said Thompson (Fred, not Tommy!) was sexy. He was highlighting Tweety's comments to that effect.

Hulllooooo, McFly?

blake said...

Leaning left may cause verbosity, but one should not overlook the right leaning Captain Ed. Jeff Goldstein (Protein Wisdom) can go on, too.

I don't know if I'd call them verbose, but they do go on.

David53 said...

Why write in Glennwaldese? It's a way of making the obvious look less obvious and giving off the air of intelligence

This was the best part. Great post Ann!

Quien es mas macha? Althouse naturalmente!

Simon said...

Mark said...
"[T]his is again a total misrepresentation of what Glenn said. Please point out exactly where he said what you claim he said. You can't. Your 'translation' completely misrepresents Glenn's post."

Hey, welcome to Althouse, Glenn!

;)

amba said...

Are you 100% sure there really is a Glenn Greenwald? That he isn't a parody person invented by The Onion?

Tully said...

I go all the way through this thread to post:

Who is muy macho? And who is menos macho?

And David53 beats me to the punch line. Shucks. Now I have to go with:

The sock puppets today are mucho atrasado mental!

Luckyoldson said...

lars,
and how do you know what MY investment is in the war?

do i know you?

but, since you now have your foot wedged in your big mouth...i'll tell you:

i'm a tad too old to serve, but i do live in a military town and know plenty of people who are serving, have served and i have attended more funerals for those who have died than i would like to remember.

what's YOUR stake in this fiasco?

Tully said...

Dangit, Amba, you beat me to my NEXT punch line!

AlphaLiberal said...

Ann, I challenge you to repost the words where Glenn Greenwald says: "how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is." (Your false words).

Here, I'll make it easier for you, from the post:

"I've written a fair amount recently about the media's obsession with the faux-masculinity of GOP candidates in general, and the tough-guy military persona of Fred Thompson in particular, and don't have all that much to add about that specific topic at the moment. Still, this dialogue last night about Fred Thompson from Chris Matthews -- who is really just the slightly less restrained id version of most media stars -- is simply too extraordinary not to note:"

Ann Althouse, you have screwed up, lied, whatever. Why not come clean?

When you start off lying, why bother reading the rest of your long and winding rant about, yes as a Greenwald fan I admit, a long and winding rant?

AlphaLiberal said...

One thing about Greenwald, he does his homework, he backs up his allegations with quotes and links.

Althose does this too, to a lesser extent. Reynolds, from what I can bear to read of his screeds, not a bit.

Luckyoldson said...

reader_iam,
the fact that your buddies can't read or comprehend isn't my fault.

sticking up for fellow wingnuts doesn't make the situation any better in iraq...it only reinforces the idiocy that got us there in the first place.

Revenant said...

Greenwald reminds me of another SNL skit, actually -- where they have George Will try actually playing baseball instead of writing thousand-word essays about his depth and poetry.

vrse said...

Again, this was my question to Ann:

"Well, Ann, how would you feel about Iraq if you're son were out there?"

It's a question of proximity, would she feel as strongly about Iraq if it affected her directly? A question I pose to all you losers who like to play battleship with other people's lives.

Talking tough when others are on the line is repulsive... that was Greenwald's point, but Annie prefers to talk about Greenwald's writing and, as someone subtly pointed out, his sexuality. And how does she avoid answering the question, with mock outrage by hiding behind her son's privacy and ranting about how badly we're out of line. Just like Cheney did with Blitzer...

Doyle, it's called cowardice, not hypocrisy.

Luckyoldson said...

alpha,
ann's..."long and winding rant..."

as in...VERBOSE.

oh, and you're wasting your time criticizing annie...about damn near anything...the sycophants here will have a conniption fit over such blasphemy.

it's like a big...suckfest.

reader_iam said...

Luckyoldson: You're assuming that I supported going into Iraq.

In any case, your throwing the term wingnut at me is irrelevant to the broader point.

Luckyoldson said...

vrse,
take a look at the lunacy your intial question and my follow-up queries have generated.

as in: "chickenhawks"

Luckyoldson said...

reader...and the "broader point" is??

Tully said...

Given the comments on George Will and verbosity, this Frank DeFord column is actually kind of on topic....

reader_iam said...

it's called cowardice

Whose? In terms of what?

Lars said...

LUCKY:

"i'm a tad too old to serve, but i do live in a military town and know plenty of people who are serving, have served and i have attended more funerals for those who have died than i would like to remember."

WELL I JUST ASSUMED YOU MUST HAVE BEEN A COMBAT INFANTRYMAN. I MEAN, AT SOME TIME YOU WERE OLD ENOUGH TO JOIN. WHAT'S ON YOUR DD 214??

Luckyoldson said...

lars,
i've had this discussion before, but will repeat:

i was in college during the vietnam conflict and missed being drafted by one number via the lottery...#197. had i been drafted, i would have served, but believe me...i was greatly relieved to have the pure luck to avoid such a fate.

that said, it was 1968-1970 and by then many in the u.s. knew we had made a big mistake, and i had already lost three good friends who had been drafted right out of high school. (i have since lost my best friend to suicide, others to mental illness and other situations i feel were a direct result of having served...to this day, the government still does not offically recognize agent orange as the source of many physical maladies.)

and NO...i never bought into the domino theory. (dean rusk wrote a very interesting overview of how we ended up in vietnam around 1967-68, regarding why we should have never gone in the first place...and when i read it, it pretty much told me all i needed to know.

personally, i think the iraqi invasion will go down in history as an even bigger policy blunder and the sooner we get out...the better.

Luckyoldson said...

reader_iam said, in regard to vrse's comment that "it's called cowardice..."

Whose? In terms of what?

the assholes (and no, i'm not talking about precious annie) who send other people's kids into an ill-conceived war...but NOT THEIR OWN...and who themselves have never served...you know: the neocons like cheney, rummy, wolfie, kristol, the whole gang over at the american enterprise institute, etc.

why is this so hard for you to understand???

Roger said...

"to this day, the government still does not offically recognize agent orange as the source of many physical maladies...."

Lucky: did you mean physical or mental issues. I assure you that there is an agent orange benefit for those of us who have soft tissue cancers including prostate cancer--At least that what it says on my VA compensation check that comes in monthly.

Lars said...

LUCKY:
"that said, it was 1968-1970 and by then many in the u.s. knew we had made a big mistake, and i had already lost three good friends who had been drafted right out of high school."

GOSH!! I WISH I HAD YOUR PERSPICACITY ("many in the u.s. knew we had made a big mistake")IT WOULD HAVE SAVED ME
SOME PAIN. YOU'VE JUST BEEN AHEAD OF THE CURVE YOUR WHOLE LIFE. I GUESS THAT'S WHY YOU'RE 'LUCKY';-)

Simon said...

amba said...
"Are you 100% sure there really is a Glenn Greenwald? That he isn't a parody person invented by The Onion?

Yes - if you made him up, no one would believe it. Everyone would just accuse you of creating a ridiculous strawman parody of the incoherent left. ;)


AlphaLiberal said...
"When you start off lying, why bother reading the rest of your long and winding rant about, yes as a Greenwald fan I admit, a long and winding rant?

If you'd only lead off with that line, we could have all saved a lot of time not bothering to read your posts.

Roger said...

Tangential to topic--apologies, but any Viet Nam era vet who was exposed to agent orange should check this link out: http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/

Victor said...

This post is waay too long to get through - not one giant paragraph like GG's, but tough to read nonetheless.

Luckyoldson said...

lars,
finally you're right about something: i was very "lucky" to miss being sent to vietnam.

do you know many who feel they were as "lucky" to have been sent?

AlphaLiberal said...

Simon sez:
"If you'd only lead off with that line, we could have all saved a lot of time not bothering to read your posts."

Well, there you go! Even though I included a criticism of Greenwald for being windy (agreeing with one of Althouse's points- I only have so much time!).

This shows a lazy "intellect." You don't look at the merits of an argument, just who said it, to decide how you judge it.

That's the logic of a lemming, Simon. Heads up!

john said...

Ann, you've outdone yourself. This is the most brutal fisking I have ever read, not to mention a seminar in good writing worthy of White and Strunk.

Luckyoldson said...

roger,
i'm sure you're correct.

my comments relate to the never-ending dispute between our vets and the government regarding the after-effects of being exposed to agent orange.

i have friends who are still fighting with the va over what is or is not covered.

*Agent Orange Still Haunts Vietnam, US - Forbes 6/14/07
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/14/ap3822129.html

Luckyoldson said...

lars says: "GOSH!! I WISH I HAD YOUR PERSPICACITY ("many in the u.s. knew we had made a big mistake")IT WOULD HAVE SAVED ME
SOME PAIN."

maybe if you had taken the time to read...

AllenS said...

I Googled "luckyoldson" and found this:

toptitties.com

Nickname: luckyoldson
Age: 45
Gender: C
Looking For: Anything

I don't think you are old enough to be almost drafted. Even if you were old enough, those are some pretty sorry looking titties, that I don't think they would have taken you, Gene.

John Stodder said...

I love this post. The ensuing discussion not so much.

I am more than unusually enlightened by my visit to Althouse today. First of all, in the discussion above of Eno's music, I came to understand that the reason I work better to music is because I have ADD.

And the proof that I have ADD is that I can't get through a Glenn Greenwald post. I read my fair share of left-wing bloggers and pundits, and some of them are really good at what they do. And yet this guy Greenwald is treated by most of them as their superior, as the creme de la creme. So I go over there and try to read him, and I get lost in all the verbiage.

You can't read Glenn Greenwald if you have ADD!

So I appreciate this post very much, because now I don't have to worry about reading Greenwald anymore. I have a medical excuse. But I do trust Ann to make note of when he's done something really egregious.

One more point, about the Doyle and "luckyoldsun" types in this community. You all write as if you are in terrible physical pain. It's not enough that Ann or some commenters disagree with you. You write as if you just can't handle it because of painful arthritis or something. Unless in fact you are in a lot of pain, in which case I'm sorry for you, you might want to consider adopting a little less cranky writing style. You're all a damn sight better than Greenwald, but it's not persuasive to just be crabby all day.

Lars said...

Allen:
Dammit!! here I was carefully baiting him and you spoiled it!!

Lars said...

Allen:

I was trying to draw him in a little deeper before dropping the hammer.
Oh!! Well!! he'll be back but
maybe using a different name.

It can't help itself, can it,Lucky??

Luckyoldson said...

allens,
sorry, dude...i have no idea what you're talking about.

if you have something of substance, post it.

*and what is it with you wingnuts, constantly defending each other when someone posts a comment that counters the same old bullshit right wing talking points? seems rather gutless that you can't defend your own comments.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

the question relates to whether one would be AS SUPPORTIVE of the iraqi situation....if their own kids were there.

Well,Lucky that's a stupid question because it can't be answered. No one can predict with certainty how they will feel in a hypothetical or future situation.

We all would like to think that if we came upon a car wreck that we would be a take charge kind of person and be cool calm and collected. Who knows how you would react? You might go screaming and vomiting into the bushes.

You can't ask stupid questions and expect anyone to take you seriously.

AllenS said...

Good grief!

I found a website called "floppydicks.com", and guess what, there are two pictures of luckyoldson's little penis. If there was any question as to why he is always in a bad mood, this is it.

Luckyoldson said...

dust,
no one can predict...but they could get off the bush bandwagon of those who continue to support the insanity.

Luckyoldson said...

allens,
there are more than 100 sites relating to a "luckyoldson", some even referring to this very site...and over a million relating to allens...some that refer to western wear, taxidermy and hummingbirds.
(are you a cowboy, a taxidermist or a little bitty bird?)

*in my case it's a moniker that is a take on a frankie laine song.

if you're actually 60...you should be well aware of the lyrics...but a better question would be this: why are YOU perusing sites that display
"floppydicks??"

are you gay or do you just like to look at men's equipment?

Ann Althouse said...

Dan: "Likewise, one could focus on writing styles, sexual orientation ("Do women not exist in Glenn G's world?"), or any number of other nonsubstantive topics."

That's not a focus on sexual orientation, and the fact that you think it is is a slur on gay men. The gay men I know pay a great deal of attention to women.

Luckyoldson said: "the question relates to whether one would be AS SUPPORTIVE of the iraqi situation....if their own kids were there."

Well, here are 2 questions for you: 1. Did I support the war before the invasion or has my support for the war been limited to accepting the responsibility incurred by the invastion? 2. For those who want to pull out and allow genocide and chaos to befall the Iraqis, would they be AS SUPPORTIVE of the pull-out, if their own kids were among the Iraqis who would be left in that situation? Discuss!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

but they could get off the bush bandwagon of those who continue to support the insanity

That's your opinion. I don't think I've seen Ann jumping on any bandwagon about Iraq. In fact YOU are the one beating a drum and trying to twist the comments to channel your pet peeve.

By the way: I do find Fred Thompson quite sexy and manly.

This, of course as a woman, means that I MUST vote for him since I have no real deep thoughts of my own and base everything on sex appeal and hairstyles (sarcasm)

Luckyoldson said...

lars,
read more...blather less.

Ann Althouse said...

AlphaLiberal said..."Ann, I challenge you to repost the words where Glenn Greenwald says: "how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is." (Your false words)."

I wrote: "Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is and quotes Chris Matthews enthusing." I don't think that means and didn't mean it to mean that GG opined that FT is sexy and manly, only that he brought up the subject and quoted CM on it. So you owe me an apology for repeatedly accusing me of lying. If I'd noticed someone might construe it that way, I'd have rewritten it, but I just didn't see that.

Luckyoldson said...

here's another viewpoint regarding the ever popular neocon iraq war:

An Iraqi doctor has addressed a direct appeal to the UN secretary general over the plight of children in his home country, warning that the violence there was causing widespread emotional and behavioural damage - and could lead to spiralling violence in the future.

Dr Abdul Kareem Al Obaidi, chair of the Iraqi Association for Child Mental Health, said that the situation was "desperate", with children suffering "unbearable traumas and heart-wrenching experiences".

He warned Ban Ki-moon that there could be long-term problems for Iraq and the rest of the world as the children became adults. Behaviour disorders, which never used to be a problem in Iraq, were now prominent, including delinquency, drug and substance abuse, and a 50 per cent rate of truancy from school.

Emotional disorders such as depression, anxiety disorders including post-traumatic stress disorder and panic disorders were increasing dramatically among children, who made up 55 per cent of the Iraqi population of 29 million, he said.

"This is a crisis situation that needs urgent attention. Iraqi children are suffering from continuous exposure to violence; many are killed and mutilated every day. They suffer from neglect and abuse, oppression and the loss of parents through deathand separation. Our children carry the future of Iraq, and that future is being corrupted. The risk is great, not just for our country, but for the region and the world."

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What is it about people like Luckyoldson, that they cannot seem to stick to the topic at hand and have to blather on and on and on about things that are not relevant to the issues being discussed??? I see this in every forum.

If we are discussing worm castings, there would be speculation on the Iraq War and Bush cornering the market in worm poop as the reason fertilizer is costly.

Are they that obsessed that they can no longer carry on a normal conversation? Perhaps that's why he/they spend so much time on line. Real life people have given up on them.

Jim C. said...

"Can someone explain why leaning left causes verbosity?"

It's all they have?

They need to hide their paucity of solutions under a pile of words?

Luckyoldson said...

ann,
whether we pull out today or next week or next year...the country is now immersed in a "civil war" amongst factions that are driven by religion, power, oil and hatred of america.

and of course i do not want to see a "genocide" as you and the supporters of staying use as the crux of their argument, but there are other points of view from people who do not necessarily think that will occur. (and before everybody asks me to research it for you...do it yourself.)

keep in mind...before we went in...there was never a discussion of a "genocide," only that of a nasty dictator and what was represented as WMD that threatened america. (anybody remember osama bin laden??) but as we ALL know, there are dictators elsewhere in the world right now.

everybody is concerned about what will happen if we leave...but i'm more concerned about what we've done to the reputation of our own country, along with the 1,000's of dead and wounded americans.

Ann Althouse said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."'the question relates to whether one would be AS SUPPORTIVE of the iraqi situation....if their own kids were there.' Well,Lucky that's a stupid question because it can't be answered. No one can predict with certainty how they will feel in a hypothetical or future situation."

Good point. If one of my sons was serving in Iraq, that would mean, among other things, that he had volunteered because he believed in the mission and the value of service. I think that would make me want to believe that the mission was worth doing and to be proud of his decision, even as I feared for his safety. I don't think I'd get hysterical about it and just wish they'd quit and pull out just to preserve my son.

Andre said...

"When you point your cursor at "more rubble, less trouble," it highlights as if there's supposed to be a link there, but clicking goes nowhere. So is that a quote from Glenn R or not?"

Way okay dumb Ann? Google would have answered your question, but hey, that would have been one less talking point wouldn't it and you would have forgone the opportunity to brand GG a whimp.

SGT Ted said...

the assholes (and no, i'm not talking about precious annie) who send other people's kids into an ill-conceived war...but NOT THEIR OWN...and who themselves have never served...you know: the neocons like cheney, rummy, wolfie, kristol, the whole gang over at the american enterprise institute, etc.

Pathetic arguement. That's like saying FDR had no business going after the Germans or Japanese because he had never served. And Clinton should have turned over control of the Armed Forces to someone else when he was the prez. Stupid arguement really.

But, based on your silly non-logic, I have Absolute Moral Authority, as both myself and my son have served in Iraq and will continue serving for quite some time.

So, based on the Absolute Moral Authority conferred on me by silly leftists, I hearby declare Glenn Greenwald(s) to be a verbose twit who is NOT masculine enough to comment on other mens lack thereof.

I also declare that Ann has dispensation to support the war, if she so chooses, without having to personnally march her adult child to the recruiters and make him sign up.

Andre said...

Sorry about the typo in the first sentence.

Was meant to read, "Why play dumb Ann?" The point is that Ann was using a rhetorical question in the name of...dare I say it...verbosity.

Luckyoldson said...

sgt,
i'm not going to argue such an inane point...comparing fdr's actions to those of bush, cheney, rummy, wolfie and the rest of them.

fdr sent our forces into combat to protect the homeland and because of an attack...not to invade a sovereign nation that posed little if any threat to america.

did you take any history courses?

Luckyoldson said...

sgt,
oh, and by the way...i've never said anyone can't "support" whatever they want.

i merely think that, at this stage of the game, it' not realistic.

if you and your son want to risk your lives in iraq...for whatever reasons...that is your prerogative and right as an american.

i hope you both make it home safe.

LoafingOaf said...

One thing proving to me that Andrew Sullivan is losing it has been his inability to notice what a ridiculous blowhard Greenwald is. How can that be? Or does he just use his alliance with Greenwald to get more links to his own blog?

But, then, InstaPundit loves the hideous tactics of Michelle Malkin, so sometimes I wonder if all the leading bloggers are losing it.

There's a lot of shady, laughable characters in the political blogosphere who have duped legions of other political bloggers into feel obligated to support them for the benefit of their "team."

Luckyoldson said...

ann,
you're off base...again.

there are 1,000's of americans who "volunteered," but not necessarily to serve in iraq.

do you think those national guard people, who already served...thought they were "volunteering" to go to iraq?

get real.

vrse said...

Ann you're so smart!!! Since you can't hide behind your son's privacy to avoid answering the question, you answer the question with a question, well two questions really.

On the first question, please show me the 2002, 2003 post where you object to invading Iraq.

On your second question, please, you must really think we're stupid. You don't care about people in Iraq, and the fact that you use them to justify the continued occupation of their country is disgusting.

You can't avoid a genocide in Iraq unless you force its neighbors to the table -- you know, those sunnis and shiites that you didn't bother to learn about before we invaded Iraq. And you can't force them to the table unless you credibly announce that you'll be withdrawing from Iraq.

Maxine Weiss said...

"I don't think I'd get hysterical about it "---Althouse

And yet you would get hysterical if someone tried to violate your sons' privacy.. ---even though they've got all kinds of personal details on MySpace, Flickr, Facebook etc...

Makes sense. As usual.

Luckyoldson said...

vrse,
good luck getting any kind of admission via ann.

she still tries to make people believe she's an "independent."

yeah...and bush has a brain.

Roger Sweeny said...

Ann,

Wow! That was long but it worked.

SGT Ted said...

heh lucky, what'd Germany ever do to the US?

You might want to hang up your old hang-ups about Vietnam when looking at the WOT. In fact, the events in SEA actually proved the domino theory. Because of US failure there, much of the leftist revolutionary push in South America was enabled, as well as the rise of the Islamic revolutionaries, alot of who were trained and aided by the USSR and who's product we are now dealing with.

Maybe it's YOU who needs to review your history.

The idea that Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone is laughable. Well, he was a threat to most of his own population. But I guess they don't count? The UN sure wasn't accomplishing anything. In fact, leftists like you were decrying the UN sanctions because Saddam was spending his cash on Palaces, instead of feeding his citizens. Of course, it was the USAs fault because we insisted they stay in place.

Indeed thats the whole point about using terrorism as a tactic and indeed strategy; plausible deniability and a low profile as compared to traditional force on force warfare. It allows people, like Saddam, who give arms and money to the terrorists to avoid scrutiny or accountability.

I could go on and on, but your mind has been made up since the 1960s and no amount of reality since then will penetrate that form of Berlin Wall.

Ann Althouse said...

"On the first question, please show me the 2002, 2003 post where you object to invading Iraq"

You really don't know how to check the archive?

SGT Ted said...

You can't avoid a genocide in Iraq unless you force its neighbors to the table -- you know, those sunnis and shiites that you didn't bother to learn about before we invaded Iraq. And you can't force them to the table unless you credibly announce that you'll be withdrawing from Iraq.

You really have no clue. Quit getting your foreign policy from Daily Kos.

Doyle said...

I've written a fair amount recently about the media's obsession with the faux-masculinity of GOP candidates in general, and the tough-guy military persona of Fred Thompson in particular, and don't have all that much to add about that specific topic at the moment. Still, this dialogue last night

This is how Greenwald's post actually begins. Now, how accurate a summary is this:

Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is

See what I mean? It's just wrong, and dishonest, and everyone here can recognize that.

Maxine Weiss said...

Althouse Achilles Heel: Her sons!

What happens when controlling Capricorns don't get their way?

They play the victim.

If you readily, willingly, put your life up online for public consumption.....you can't, then, pick and choose what the public consumes.

Your sons are fair game, since you frequently blog about parenting issues. And screaming bloody murder just encourages it even more!

Palladian said...

"Makes sense. As usual."

When did Maxine turn into such a bitter cow?

And Lucky... write your congressperson or editorials to the newspaper or something. We know your "position" on the Iraq action and practically everything else. But you've fast worn out your welcome here. I'd like to be able to read what other people have written and I'm tired of scrolling past your nonsense. A damn lot of good this will probably do, but I thought I'd ask.

Maxine Weiss said...

I'm not bitter. I'm resentful.

I resent being told what I can, and cannot discuss.

And right now, I want to discuss The Lady and Sons !!!

Doyle said...

While we're on the subject, the context of the "more rubble less trouble" line is much, much less exculpatory than you and he seem to think.

The conditional, within which apparently you can be as flippant as you want about blowing people up, was "if democracy can't work in Iraq..." Frankly, that's a dopey way of thinking about it, but then to propose that the alternative be the wanton destruction of other countries in the future (having been convinced that A-rabs are beyond help) is just grotesque.

Pogo said...

This post was painfully funny. Greenwald has the common verbal tic of an intellectual caught writing without any meaning:

Construct an elaborate and confusing scaffolding of obfuscatory and illogical verbosity to hide a weak central argument. Here, he dons a Critical Theory fright wig to draw your attention away from his pathetic whine, "No you're a weenie.".

LoafingOaf said...

You don't care about people in Iraq, and the fact that you use them to justify the continued occupation of their country is disgusting.

The anti-war left has some very tiring knee-jerk responses to everything. One is to say, "Why didn't you send your son or duaghter to Iraq." Another is - when confronted with someone who actually and seriously cares about the fate of the Iraqi people and our moral responsibilities with respect to them - to scream, "You don't care about the Iraqi people at all, you liar."

Why is it that the people who never seem to say much at all about the Iraqi people, our moral responsibilities to them, and what the consequences of an immediate withdrawal would have on them seem to believe they are credible anouncing in a few quick dashed off sentences that they are the ones who care about the Iraqi people most of all and, with that token sentence or two out of the way, they'd now like to get back to their bashing of Bush.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I resent being told what I can, and cannot discuss.

And right now, I want to discuss The Lady and Sons !!!


So... Maxine. Go ahead and discuss. There is nothing to say you can't, just because some people prefer not to participate in the discussion. It's never stopped you before. Have at it.

And for all of those who want us to pull out of Iraq (war interruptus) take a look at what is happening in Gaza right now, because this is just a small preview of things to come if we do. If you can put on your conscience without a qualm, the death and maiming of millions of people just so that you can stick it Bush, I have pity for your souls.

You know.....it really isn't all about you and your intellectual masturbation techniques.

vrse said...

No Ann, I can't work the archives. Show me...

bill said...

Maxine Weiss said...And right now, I want to discuss The Lady and Sons !!!

Ok, my mom's a big Paula Deen fan, so we took her there for her birthday. Not necessarily my first choice for eating in Savannah, but it was much better than I expected. Top notch buffet and I had the fried lobster tail.

Ben said...

So there is quite a lot of questioning from the left-leaning folks about how someone would feel if they were "more personally invested" in this war with some family member serving in Iraq. How narrow-minded and weak can you get? Are you seriously asking this question? How intellectually incompetent can you be with regards to the war in Iraq, its origins, the current actions being taken in Iraq, and the "best-case scenarios" of a premature pullout?

Secondly, if we do pullout immediately (following the current expressed desires of the Democratic Party base)who would then not be personally invested in the outcome of the disaster that would be?

In short - given the fact that failure in Iraq is bad for all Americans and all nations around Iraq, the global economy (mostly due to regional oil production, but not limited to various large real estate investments), how can you ask if someone's mind would change about Iraq if their adult relative were actively serving over there?

We are all personally invested in this war and to say implicate otherwise is silly and baseless. So enough name calling, and on to a good explanation of why it would matter if a relative was over there or not. How does that change anything?

Ben said...

By the way Ann, this is one of the most entertaining posts I've seen this week.

Ann Althouse said...

I really don't know what to say to a person who reads this blog, yet can't locate the archives. It's just too profound a confession of stupidity to make discussion worth anything.

Ben said...

Lucky said...
"there are 1,000's of americans who "volunteered," but not necessarily to serve in iraq."

One article on reenlisting

Another article

And from the DoD

So why are these numbers so high this far into the war?

Hoosier Daddy said...

luckyoldson said:

fdr sent our forces into combat to protect the homeland and because of an attack...not to invade a sovereign nation that posed little if any threat to america.

Last time I checked, Germany didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. Heck, they couldn't mount an invasion of England, what possible threat did they pose to us?

did you take any history courses

Did you?

Mindsteps said...

Doyle said...
I've written a fair amount recently about the media's obsession with the faux-masculinity of GOP candidates in general, and the tough-guy military persona of Fred Thompson in particular, and don't have all that much to add about that specific topic at the moment. Still, this dialogue last night

This is how Greenwald's post actually begins. Now, how accurate a summary is this:

Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is

See what I mean? It's just wrong, and dishonest, and everyone here can recognize that.

and

Ann Althouse wrote:

If I'd noticed someone might construe it that way, I'd have rewritten it, but I just didn't see that.

At best, your sentence was unclear, inprecise, and ambiguous. Is the sentence really worth defending, especially in the context of a post whining on about someone else's convoluted writing style.....and what is driving your reactions to your commentators? Are you caught in some kind of emotional quicksand?

Doyle said...

Check her initial response, post #3:

Duh, Doyle, that's why I have the word "begins." I can only bite off one chunk at a time of Greenwald's deadly prose.

That's a total non sequitur. He doesn't "begin" his post the way you say he does. Are you really going to pretend you can't tell the difference?

Barry Kearns said...

Reminds me of that old game show "Quien Es Mas Macho."

Which, in turn, reminds me of that song by Laurie Anderson, Smoke Rings.

Laurie gets cooler things than Glenn Greenwald in her breakfast cereal.

Luckyoldson said...

hoosier,
"to protect the homeland and because of an attack"

you actually believe fdr didn't anticipate the possibilities facing america with what was going on in europe??

the AND means there's another situation leading to fdr's actions...

the "attack."

you can't be that naive...or that dumb...and please, are you also comparing fdr's actions with those of bush??

Luckyoldson said...

ben,
i didn't say EVERYBODY who volunteered were doing so in the hopes of going to iraq...not did i say there weren't others who would...although they're paying whopping bonuses and accepting felons, etc. right now. (did you even know that??)

and are you telling me you think a majority of our national guard people, etc...and many of the regular army, marines, navy...would say they knew full well, when they "volunteered" or previously "served their time"...that they would get to do 2-4 tours in iraq?

i swear, no matter how logical...you people are so far up bush's ass you can't think straight. (and by the way...some of the military branches missed quota last month)

Luckyoldson said...

Ann Althouse said..."I really don't know what to say to a person who reads this blog, yet can't locate the archives. It's just too profound a confession of stupidity to make discussion worth anything."

ann...i have a suggestion: when posting on blogs it's always nice to tell others to whom you're directing your comments or slams in this case.

vrse said...

"My support for the war has been limited to accepting the responsibility incurred by the invastion."

Prove this to me. I'm an idiot and I can't work the archives.

Where and when did you say for the first time that invading Iraq was a bad idea? Please show me.

SGT Ted said...

...(war interruptus)...

Thats bellus interruptus. I think. It's been a long way since HS Latin class.

Ann Althouse said...

Luckyoldson: I will answer your question: vrse. You could discover that easily enough. And now I want to say that I've deleted several of your posts and I want to warn you that you are abusing this forum. The general subject of the war is a digression, and it's taken over what was an interesting thread on a specific topic. From now on, general debate about the war is forbidden in this thread. Wait for a post about the war. And do not argue with this ruling of the blogger. Get back to the subjects raised in the posts. The assertion that the war is a subject raised in the post is also forbidden. And stop the name calling and general free-swinging attacks. You in particular, Luckyson need to tighten up your performance here. You can disagree with me, but you must do it in a way that makes me believe that your purpose is not to ruin things for people here. If I'm not convinced, I will forbid you to post and delete everything you write. How many times did you post in this thread 40???? That's ridiculous. This isn't all about you.

And vrse: Can you do this math problem: 2 + 2 = ? Think about it, try to answer your own question, but do not post again on the general subject of the war. I'm tired of your lack of initiative in the thinking department. If you violate this rule, you will be deleted.

Maxine Weiss said...

"...debate about the war is forbidden in this thread"--Althouse

Oh, well that's gonna stop 'em.

Now be sure to set forth anything else that's forbidden, here, so as to encourage even more of that very thing....and get as many comments as possible.

SGT Ted said...

you actually believe fdr didn't anticipate the possibilities facing america with what was going on in europe??

OF course he did! Thats the point.

He activated the entire Army to include the reserve components in 1940 for one year. "Goodbye Dear, I'll be gone for a year!" Or so goes the song. Turned into 5 to 6 years to many a careers worth of service afterwards to this present day.

FDR knew war was coming. Congress didn't. But when Pearl Harbor was attacked, they rallied around him and the nation. Leftists like you were against that war too until Hitler betrayed Stalin. Then they were all for the previously "Imperial War" they had been denouncing before.

How's that for some history?

Bush saw the same danger, as have many, including yours truly. I knew we would be in a serious war with the Middle East in my lifetime. I just didn't know when. What's going on has been brewing for quite a while. History. Don't ya know?

Ther only problem is, the leftists have control of the party of FDR and they are opposing the war tooth and nail, after having voted for it. They are the SurrenDemocrats and they have made their bed and are knifing the Military in the back for political gain. Thats despicable.

I bet you think the current Palestinian government deserves a state. Am I wrong?

You want to ignore whats going on and blame Booosh or Israel or neocons.

Do you even know what a neocon is? I am truly curious.

SGT Ted said...

oops, sorry Ann, I didn't see your Verboten post. :)

Mustve been cross posting.

mea culpa.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

and are you telling me you think a majority of our national guard people, etc...and many of the regular army, marines, navy...would say they knew full well, when they "volunteered" or previously "served their time"...that they would get to do 2-4 tours in iraq?

I think if you get a job as a garbage man you kind of expect to be in contact with actual garbage.

Being in the military means you have volunteered to serve at the discretion of you military commanders. You don't get to pick and choose where you go and you certainly aren't clairvoyant to be able to know pre 2000 that your service would be in Iraq or any other location.

People that have joined the volunteer military currently, must know that being deployed in Iraq is a possibility.

Aren't you glad that there are people who take jobs like the garbage man so you don't have to get your hands dirty?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

oops me too cross posting. Excuse me. End of subject

SGT Ted said...

Oh yea the lolglenn rocks!

Now we're back on topic.

Ann Althouse said...

It's okay, Ted and Dust Bunny.

Now, back to talking about Glenn, writing, and sex.

Ben said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mindsteps said...

Ann Althouse said...
Duh, Doyle, that's why I have the word "begins." I can only bite off one chunk at a time of Greenwald's deadly prose. So, no, you suck.

and you write:

Lucky: I don't accept your inviting people to look into invading my sons' privacy.

and you continue:

Then you are a slimy, unethical sh*t, and I see no reason ever to respond to you.

and you relate:

I really don't know what to say to a person who reads this blog, yet can't locate the archives. It's just too profound a confession of stupidity to make discussion worth anything.

If these are some of your virtual responses (and even though these are written responses they seem pretty knee-jerk, affect driven to me), I am trying to imagine how you might respond during some face-to-face encounters. Would it be fair to say that emotional volatility and impulsivity would not be in short supply? The anxiety and rage (two emotions pretty close together in the midbrain) just seem to be leaking out everywhere.

Nonetheless, if you cannot see how your sentence "Greenwald begins with the subject of how sexy and manly Fred Thompson is and quotes Chris Matthews enthusing:" could be misconstrued then something is interfering with your powers of reasoning or your capacity to, even temporarily, take someone else's point of view.

Ben said...

Last one was a war post, deleted per request. Verbose on....

Steven said...

Somebody needs to take Mr. Greenwald and beat him unconscious with a copy of Strunk & White.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theo Boehm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George said...

Duuuude, does Greenwald get paid per word or what? Reminds me of Murray Waas or Seymour Hersh - but at least they have an actual point to make.

I can easily write a few thousand words on a subject, but that will be after researching that subject for maybe a week, with a strong and meaningful thesis.

Just goes to show that the touchy feely liberals just ooooooze with emotions instead of using their brain to think rationally. He should save that emotion for his "friend" from Brazil (or whatever?) and let the rest of us have a break.

Ann, great point about Greenwald being a hypocritical narcissist:

Reynolds makes fun of himself as a geek often, while Greenwald sock puppets around about his own alleged greatness.

Seven Machos said...

It's mighty swell of the firebrand rabid lefty loons here to come to Ann Althouse's blog and order her around and insult her.

I would point out that the mere fact that she puts up with this stupid shit and tries to maintain reasonable discourse -- that mere fact alone makes her intellectually and ethically better than you.

vrse said...

You are such a joke.

I'll stop commenting, no worries.

You know what? I was a second year law student when I started visiting your blog. I visited every now and then and started to worry that you would undermine our school's reputation. It's been three years, and while you're site meter's improved, I'm glad that most people see you for what you are. You are a joke Ms. Althouse, from sharing your online arguments with your ex-husband, to posting pictures of your feet, to your utterly ridiculous position on the war and the Bush administration overall.

I may not know how to work the archives, but you've made a fool of yourself, so I leave a happy camper.

Let's see how long you take to delete this. Good night.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 234   Newer› Newest»