November 1, 2009

"The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York" — Frank Rich makes it all sound so scary.

Or at least the NYT headline makes it sound as though Frank Rich is about to scare us over the Stalinist invasion. But, reading the text, I see: "The right’s embrace of Hoffman is a double-barreled suicide for the G.O.P." Are they killing the poor citizens of upstate New York or are they killing themselves? Get the image straight, Frank. Are liberals supposed to be aghast that conservatives were able to promote a conservative ahead of the Republican Party's liberal candidate? Or should liberals be delighted that the Republican Party is destroying itself from the inside?
The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama. The movement’s undisputed leaders, Palin and Beck... would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross of right-wing ideological purity....
Now, Rich himself sounds pretty wacky and paranoid to me. He tells us that it's "better for Democrats if Hoffman wins." He wants Hoffman to win. Really.
Punch-drunk with this triumph, the right will redouble its support of primary challengers to 2010 G.O.P. candidates they regard as impure....
The more rightists who win G.O.P. primaries, the greater the Democrats’ prospects next year. But the electoral math is less interesting than the pathology of this movement. Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we’re seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes....
Punch-drunk... pathology... hysteria... seething... fear... maniacal... Rich's perception of craziness seems... crazy. Hoffman and others are saying that conservatives should stand for traditional conservative values, and not, like Scozzafava, be more like the liberals. Give the electorate a choice between conservative and liberal and see who wins. That strikes me as quite sane. And I am speaking as someone who voted for Barack Obama in part because John McCain was not a solid, coherent conservative. Faced with the need to trust either a (seemingly) thoughtful, intelligent liberal and a confusing partly liberal candidate, I chose the former. I would do the same thing today. But I would like a real choice. Let the G.O.P. be conservative and defend and develop conservatism and see if people want it. I'm not surprised Rich is trying to portray that strategy as insane: He's a hardcore liberal.
These conservatives’ whiny cries of victimization also parrot a tic they once condemned in liberals....
Oh, I've already said what I had to say. I just threw in one more line because "parrot a tic" amuses me.


Don't tick off a parrot. And as for what to do with a tick... we don't parrot it. We do this.

Now, I'm getting far afield, and I'm manufacturing what could be perceived as evidence that we wingers are crazy. So let me, at long last, bring this post in for a landing. With something positive. Because, you know, we right-wing ideologues are an optimistic bunch. I want to compliment Rich — and the NYT — for studding the column with hyperlinks, many of which send us away from the NYT website. For example, when Rich attributes "whiny cries of victimization" to Rush Limbaugh, there is a link to Limbaugh's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Maybe some NYT readers who would never listen to the radio show will pop over there to see how terrible Rush is and find to their amazement that it's completely cogent and impressive. It might even strike a sympathetic chord for some readers. ("My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race?")

167 comments:

Chip Ahoy said...

Ah, NYT. You just reminded me to pick up the CrossSynergy puzzle from Cruciverb.

Tibore said...

GOP Stalinist? Is that like a Catholic atheist? A scientific magician? A round square?

Buford Gooch said...

I like the tick reference. It reminds of the blood sucking, disease ridden people who populate the NYT and other regions.

WV Mentartu Men can be tarts, too

AJ Lynch said...

Althouse said Obama was:

"[seemingly] thoughtful".

LOL. How true that some Americans were fooled into believing that.

Go Phils!

Stan said...

Must have been Frank Rich's turn to excoriate the conservatives. Poor Maureen must be having the vapors today

Jason (the commenter) said...

Things aren't looking too good for the Democrats if they are trying to spin this as a major Republican defeat.

There are debates going on in the Republican Party and citizens are showing which sides they are willing to vote for. It looks like siding with Obama and supporting the stimulus package was political suicide for some politicians. Straight out political suicide.

All I know is, if politicians have to start choosing sides, 40% of this country identifies as conservative. Maybe the Democrats can stick together as the battle rages, but I don't see them winning in the end.

Chase said...

I do not know how many times one has to point out the vapidness and constant misrepresentation of Frank Rich before anyone outside of Manhattan stops caring what he has to say. He is the world's leader on disingenuousness, the leading authority on saying things happened that never took place quite as he represents,on saying things mean what they never meant.

I would not welcome him and his dishonesty to my side of the aisle even if he agreed with me on the issues 100% of the time. I would be ashamed to have someone of his despicable and dishonest character associated with my views.

peter hoh said...

I'd like to imagine that Stalin and Hitler are somewhere in Hell, keeping tabs on whose name is invoked in order to demonize one's opponents.

David said...

It's as if Frank Rich has never heard of Joe Lieberman.

Zokar said...

Ann Althouse is the only center-left public figure I can think of who is willing to say that Rush is non-crazy and cogent (OK, I just thought of another, NPR's Juan Williams, but I think Mr. Williams knows Rush personally. And another, radio talker Lynn Samuels, but I know she knows Rush personally.) But I'm sure that she's far from the only center-left commentator who thinks that Rush is non-crazy and cogent, so I wonder: Why are so few willing to say so in public?

Is it about maintaining a certain tribal identity? Or maybe they just figure it's not worth the hassle of the blow-back they'd receive from their fellows.

Scott said...

Isn't there an editor at the NYT who has the courage to say, "Damn, Frank must be off his meds today. We had better run a back-up column until he gets better."

kentuckyliz said...

btw amazing deep throat pic of the parrot

Tyrone Slothrop said...

David said...

It's as if Frank Rich has never heard of Joe Lieberman.


Well, you have to take Rich's point. I mean after losing in 2000, 2002, and 2004, the Democrats did the sensible thing and nominated moderate Joe Lieberman to run for president, didn't they? Didn't they?

trogdor said...

"Hoffman and others are saying that conservatives should stand for traditional conservative values, and not, like Scozzafava, be more like the liberals."

What? Aren't they saying that Republicans should be conservative, and not, like Scozzafava, be more moderate? Since when did "moderate" become "partly liberal"?

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm said...

"My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race?"

Including such precious individuals as Donovan McNabb?

Rush Limbo is a foolish, race-baiting idiot! The majority of people know better. Why this adulation for a man who obviously can only scratch the surface regarding issues of race with nothing more than universalist platitudes?

Pretending that something doesn't exist, just because you believe it shouldn't, doesn't make it so. It makes you like one of those things that P. T. Barnum spoke about coming along every minute. Too bad that other like-minded suckers are there to support him and enable his quest for fame & controversy & the promotion of white privilege all wrapped up in the shallow guise of intellectual legitimacy.

Ann Althouse said...

"Including such precious individuals as Donovan McNabb?"

Oh, bullshit. The McNabb thing was a critique of the media. You are either ignorant or stupid or devious if don't admit that.

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm said...

A false intellectual legitimacy, at that. Obviously.

chickenlittle said...

"G.O.P. Stalinist" is just a contrived juxtaposition: Frank Rich is trying to get you to think:

G.O.P. Stalinist -> G.O.P. Palinist and
Palin = Stalin or something like that.

Disgusting really. And the NYT can go to hell. I'm glad I dropped them years ago; I do love reading about the NYT for free on Althouse, but their Schaden is truly my Freude.

Long live Sarah Palin and the WSJ!

ricpic said...

Faced with the need to trust either a (seemingly) thoughtful, intelligent liberal and a confusing partly liberal candidate, I chose the former.

What is a liberal? A liberal is someone who assaults liberty. Of course the assault on liberty is always couched in terms of compassion and fairness and security. Give me, a liberal, a nick of your freedom here and a piece of it there and I'll give you a kinder gentler America.

Once the above is understood what Althouse is saying is that she chose the more effective usurper of liberty.

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm said...

The McNabb thing was a critique of the media. You are either ignorant or stupid or devious if don't admit that.

Whoa!

Rush Limbaugh's ignorance and race-baiting is not mutually exclusive from his critique of the media in that sentiment. Actually, the two go together. He sees the media as in collusion with McNabb's promotion because he perceives that McNabb was incapable. And wrongly so. As was pointed out. An infinite number of times.

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm said...

So was Limbaugh stupid or ignorant or devious for having such a bogus impression of McNabb's abilities?

I can't believe that anyone is so interested in defending the scurrilous Rush Limbaugh that they would fail to see that his criticism of "the media" relies on a "stupid or ignorant or devious" (and unsupportable) understanding of McNabb's abilities.

lucid said...

Frank Rich, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emmanuel are all forgetting that Gallup in June and again this week found that the number of Americans who self identify as "conservative" is twice the number who self-identify as "liberal"--40% conservative, 20% liberal. About 36% call themselves "moderate."

Whatever Frand Rich, the NY Times, Nancy Pelosi, etc., may be, they ain't moderate and they ain't conservative.

Bill Clinton became the only Democrat in 60 years to get elected President twice by showing his center-right, moderate policies to the voters. George Bush got elected president twice in the last ten years.

According to Gallup, the country has become markedly more conservative in the past year.

Frank Rich is right to be hysterical.

Henry said...

The opposite of what Rich decries is what we have in Obama -- the politics of pathologically vagueness -- stand for nothing but happy talk, while enacting whatever you can get away with.

As for Rich, someone really needs to talk him off the metaphor ledge. Is the election in the 23rd a "riotous and bloody ... civil war," a "G.O.P. killing field," or a "screwball comedy."

All Rich offers in the end is the thin comedy of self-parody.

Though they constantly liken the president to various totalitarian dictators, it is they who are re-enacting Stalinism in full purge mode.

Okay then. It's the other guys who resemble various totalitarian dictators. But from where? Siberia or Cambodia? Rich can't decide.

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm said...

Is anyone with a knowledge of professional football going to step in and agree that Limbaugh's statement regarding McNabb reflected a criticism of the media alone, and contained no misplaced, necessary down-grading of McNabb's abilities?

(Crickets)

Jason (the commenter) said...

G.O.P. Stalinists

I don't think that's a name they call themselves. Is that what the NYT is up to these days--name calling?

Also interesting: the entire article managed to not not mention any of Hoffman's policies. Is he extreme? We're just supposed to assume he is because of the people who said nice things about him. Great critical thinking skills being used here.

Zokar said...

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm.

What Limbaugh said about McNabb wasn't really even about McNabb, but about the sports reporting community, and it was that there's was some over-estimation of his performance to date, because McNabb was the 1st black quarterback (or a rare black quarterback; I confess to ignorance of football.)

Even when directed to the sports reporters, it's a mild criticism, because one can concede it, with the gloss that this country has a history of discrimination, thus we have goodwill toward those who break color barriers.

I wonder if a lot of sloppy or willful distortion of some of things that Limbaugh actually said (as opposed to the outright fabrications) comes from an emotional generalization based upon certain "optics": Rush is a (formerly) fat, white, middle-aged conservative white guy, from a rich family, who talks loudly, therefor almost anything he says touching upon race must be racist.

Contrast: The treatment of Blacks and Asians (and the handicapped) on South Park. They can get away with it, because Matt & Trey are young (not so much anymore!) and cool; they're "artists" who are transgressive; they're kinda like us, so they just can't be racist. But some of the blacks on that show - I don't mean Token or Chef, but single-show characters - are minstrel-show stereotypes.

Big Mike said...

Ah, but will the 20% of the voters polled last week who claimed they were going to vote for Scozzafava necessarily break for Hoffman?

I'm going to float the idea that Hoffman losing after Scozzafava has dropped out may force both conservatives and centerist Republicans to decide that they need to work together and compromise with each other now and again. And that would be good, I think, particularly when independents contrast that with the ideological rigidity demonstrated by the likes of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.

mariner said...

Its antecedent can be found in the early 1960s, when radical-right hysteria carried some of the same traits we’re seeing now: seething rage, fear of minorities, maniacal contempt for government, and a Freudian tendency to mimic the excesses of political foes....


That's when the paranoid right-wing extremists elected JFK and LBJ, right?

Heinlein wrote that "Stupidity cannot be cured. Stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death. There is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."

Sigh. Unfortunately it appears he was wrong about that.

Ann Althouse said...

Here's a Slate article from 2003: "Rush Limbaugh Was Right: Donovan McNabb isn't a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black."

"In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was 'that good of a quarterback.' If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, 'Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback.' But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons. Let's review: McNabb, he said, is 'overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well.' There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.""

Etc. etc. Read the whole thing... calmly.

EDH said...

Nothing like being lectured about alleged racial stereotypes by someone named...

"Brazilian Jungle Rhythm."

miller said...

Frank Rich is a theatre critic. Why are his political opinions offered any credence?

mariner said...

Big Mike:
I'm going to float the idea that Hoffman losing after Scozzafava has dropped out may force both conservatives and centerist Republicans to decide that they need to work together and compromise with each other now and again.

I'm going to agree with you about that. We conservatives have been on the giving side of compromise for the last fifteen years. It's time centrists started compromising with us.

edutcher said...

Rich is sounding like Alpha and our other trolls with their patented, "Ha, Ha, Ha, go ahead, right-wing Nazis, fight among yourselves, please nominate Palin, etc., etc.".

They aren't allowed to stray far from the talking points or they lose their membership in ACORN and SEIU, one supposes.

BTW The 40-40-20 split of conservatives, centrist, and lefties has been relatively constant over the years. There may be a fluctuation of 5 points here or there, but it's still who we are politically.

Big Mike said...

@Professor, you remembered the same Slate article I did. It still makes good reading after 6 years.

For those of you who aren't aware, Slate is not exactly to the right of Professor Althouse.

bagoh20 said...

"Faced with the need to trust either a (seemingly) thoughtful, intelligent liberal and a confusing partly liberal candidate, I chose the former. I would do the same thing today."

Did you know you can get rich in real estate with no money down?

I know working for a living is hard, and this no money down thing sounds like a winner.

Have you considered buying a used Pocket Fisherman?

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm said...

I guess I'll have to thank Zokar for stepping in and playing along then...

Given your freely admitted confession that you lack a certain amount of knowledge of football, I think you'll agree that Limbaugh was hired as a commentator because he would have been expected to have some basic understanding of the game, the players' abilities, and so forth.

So, for him to make the comment must have reflected an ignorance of at least that. Strike One.

Given Limbaugh's ignorance of the knowledge necessary to even do his job, it is beyond me why you then go on to assume his criticism of "goodwill toward those who break color barriers" has any intellectual legitimacy. But for some reason you do.

I've listened to Limbaugh (briefly enough to understand that he's either a populist demagogue or an attention seeker). Given that, I don't see why I should assume his "criticisms" regarding issues of race reflect any intellectual or moral merit.

In the meantime, you can go on to bemoan the treatment of issues relating to minorities by such white individuals such as Trey Parker or others. Sometimes I don't see the full irony in those portrayals myself. But they have never given me reason to question the sincerity of either their moral or intellectual merit - the way Rush Limbo does to... well, to a much larger proportion of people.

AlphaLiberal said...

Scozofava (sp?) is no liberal.

An example of right wing craziness:
Ronald Reagan viewing the caskets of fallen soldiers.

To the conservative mind, this was probably a right and noble and grand thing for a Republican to do.

If a Democrat does the same thing, it's sick and awful.

lucid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

@mariner -- whole-heartedly agree. But, let's first agree that social conservatives are not necessarily fiscally conservative and vice versa. Since 1994 it's been too easy for a politician to position himself (and it's been overwhelmingly men who are guilty) as a social conservative, get elected as a Republican, and then spend money like a drunken sailor.

I'm ready to concede that Roe v. Wade is never going to be overturned, the window for that closed decades ago, and I will back a pro-choice candidate who will get the country back to fiscal sanity.

lucid said...

And what Limbaugh said about the media and McNabb goes double for the media and Obama. Obama got elected because of white racial anxiety and pandering.

He is one of the least-qualified people ever elected president.

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm said...

So in Brazil they consider Samba dancing, its African roots or the rain forests that fill the place racist? References to any of these are considered racist?

Brazil is an inherently less racist society than America. There is less for them to be offended by. I'll change the name if it offends your literalistic sensibilities and solipsism. But I won't let go of "Brazilian" or "Rhythm". Find me something to replace the word "jungle", which is what I suspect is the most offending terms to your American ears.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Ok. Happy?

I originally looked for a place name. But already have it with the reference to Brazil.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If a Democrat does the same thing, it's sick and awful

That's because Democrats don't mean anything serious when they view the fallen in combat. To them, the fallen are just statistics that they can use to gain political points.

And Scozzafava (sp?) is definitely a liberal. She espouses all of the Democrat views and talking points. There would have been no difference between her and the Dem candidate.

This is why McCain lost. He was/is Democrat lite. RINO.

And Gingrich is a laughing stock. He changed his endorsement for political expediency. I envision him grabbing the railing of the caboose just as the train is leaving the station.

Maguro said...

Find me something to replace the word "jungle", which is what I suspect is the most offending terms to your American ears.

Why not just go back to being "montana urban legend"?

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

I likewise look forward to hearing of Rush Limbaugh's impending embrace of aspects of African culture. NOT!

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Why not just go back to being "montana urban legend"?

Good question.

I think I mused about this weeks back. I think I needed something to better match the avatar. Plus, I got sick of seeing "MUL" in responses. It's not like that name couldn't be ridiculed.

I intend to embrace my Brazilian avatar and on-line identity will full gusto!

But the crucial question is when will Rush embrace his African roots? Evidence shows that we all originated in the continent less than 150,000 years ago at most.

Come on Rush! Show us your lack of hatred for Africa, its people and its culture!

Big Mike said...

@Brazilian Jungle Rhythm, first of all go read the article that the Professor linked to, you dolt.

Secondly, you can't really be from Brazil or football to you would be the "beautiful sport." You are all caught up in the words of an American commentator about our form of football, but I seriously doubt that any real Brazilian would much care. What position does Ronaldo play? Who are the other two of the "three R's"? Who is Kaka? Who is in goal for the National team? Do you even know who Pele is?

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

At least a couple followers of the Althouse blog are depending on it!

It was only a few of you who took to defending Limbaugh, right?

Andrea said...

"Plus, I got sick of seeing "MUL" in responses."

Yeah, "BSR" is defintely a better abbreviation for you.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Frank Rich is an idiot, but he has somewhat of a point. The people pushing the GOP to the right are loons, and not loons in the good sort of way. The good sort of loons might worry about things like fluoride (and, they were at least partly right). The bad sort of loons are living in a Randroid fantasy world and do exhibit mental issues. I don't exactly consider this fully sane, and see my tea parties coverage for more.

Regarding Hoffman, if anyone wants to do something very effective, get people in the local area to go ask him these questions on video for Youtube.

As it turns out, he appears to be about as "conservative" on one very important and very fundamental issue as Bush was. That's another issue with the "partiers": they aren't intelligent enough to realize how important that issue is and how much it impacts what they whine about. They just aren't that bright.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Do you even know who Pele is?

Well, I know that he wasn't someone who was admired and allowed to professionally play the beautiful sport merely on account of his race alone. Which makes me just at least a little less doltish (and less racist) than Limbaugh.

Mike! You silly dolt!

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Apparently the silence in defense of Rush is deafening. Come on, you guys!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Apparently the silence in defense of Rush is deafening. Come on, you guys

The silence isn't in defense or lack of defense of Rush. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it is just pointless to argue with an idiot.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

I'll try and reconfigure the name so that the intials "BS" aren't in it... if only Andrea (who likes to "read and write"... funny, no mention of arithmetic) can think of one!

Anyway, I thought the topic was Rush Limbaugh contra Frank Rich. Where are those ringing endorsements of Limbaugh?

Darcy said...

Hehe. Ohh...did I just giggle out loud? Sorry.

Zokar said...

Jungle/Samba guy,

How can you have a conversation when you're posting every couple minutes? It's almost as if you have a T1 line, plus a double screen set-up, so you can refresh to see responses, and compose your rapid reply near-simultaneously.

Why don't you impress us all instead and step back, re-read your critics, and compose something more thoughtful - not within the next minute?

Here's a hint: Concede you're wrong on some minor point, then continue arguing for your basic position. Even if the concession is insincere, that tack enhances your credibility.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

The silence isn't in defense or lack of defense of Rush. It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it is just pointless to argue with an idiot.

Given your conspiracy theories and Disney-esque understanding of "Planet Earth" I'd say you're on shaky ground throwing terms like that around.

rcocean said...

Seriously, I just don't get Frank Rich. MoDo is there for the comedy. Herbert is the token black. Friedman is supposed to know something about economics.

What does Rich bring to the party? He's not funny, informed, or even substantive. He's just a former drama/TV critic who writes about politics - badly.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

How can you have a conversation when you're posting every couple minutes? It's almost as if you have a T1 line, plus a double screen set-up, so you can refresh to see responses, and compose your rapid reply near-simultaneously.

Why don't you impress us all instead and step back, re-read your critics, and compose something more thoughtful - not within the next minute?

Here's a hint: Concede you're wrong on some minor point, then continue arguing for your basic position. Even if the concession is insincere, that tack enhances your credibility.


Lying in the furtherance of a mistaken understanding of what constitutes credibility doesn't really appeal much to me. Should it?

Listen. The number of responses wasn't a deliberate tactic. It was just that easy to take to task a defense of Limbaugh on account of his racism. Sorry if that offended you. The point was a discussion of Limbaugh's problems as a media figure and commentator regarding race. Why is that such a problematic issue?

Andrea said...

"if only Andrea (who likes to "read and write"... funny, no mention of arithmetic) can think of one!"

Think up one yourself, you lazy jerk. And no, I don't particularly like arithmetic -- it was never one of my favorite subjects, though I did well enough in it. By the way, I don't see "I like to add and subtract" in your profile. Gosh, you must be some kind of big dummy!

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

I'd like to think this "big dummy" at least has a sense of humor, though.

I found the implied reference to The Three "R's" amusing. That's all.

Henry said...

@Brazilian Jungle -- Without making any judgment about Limbaugh, who I don't listen to or care much about, the context of his remarks in 2003 came after Philadelphia started 0 and 2. McNabb finished that season with a terrible quarterback rating.

It is typical for quarterbacks not name Montana to take the heat for their team. Tom Brady was hammered on New England talk shows this season after the losses to the Jets and Broncos.

The crux of Limbaugh's complaint doesn't depend on whether or not McNabb played poorly in 2003 -- it is a matter of record that he did -- but whether or not the media covered for him.

This is a very subjective call, and my personal, subjective impression is that Limbaugh was too quick to see racial bias in the media, where many other kinds of bias exist -- including the bias toward nice guys.

* * *

I see in the 30 minutes or so since I began writing this post (I went to go eat lunch) that Althouse has linked to an appropriate article, and Brazilian has beclowned himself by asserting the Limbaugh was ignorant of McNabb's greatness, when, in 2003, McNabb was truly mediocre (in 2002, McNabb was mostly injured -- one common criticism of him at the time was that he was injury-prone which in the NFL is not a good thing to be).

SMGalbraith said...

Yes, if you don't agree with Palin's and Beck's ideological purity, they'll do what Stalin did since they're, according to Rich, "reenacting Stalinism".

That is, they'll criticize you. Which is what Stalin did minus the labor camps. And the murders. And the forced famines. And the torture. And the coerced confessions. And the exiles.

Yes. It's all Stalinism.

This being written on the op-ed page of the most prestigious newspaper in America.

Think about that.

Synova said...

"they'll do what Stalin did since they're, according to Rich, "reenacting Stalinism".

That is, they'll criticize you.
"

LOL! I think this comment wins.

Ralph L said...

A friend got married in the Catholic Church last month. They had to go on a marriage counseling retreat, where they were taught the Brazilian Rhthym Method.

Peter won't like it at all.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

The point, Henry, O Serious One, is that the criticism was deafening in 2003. People had good reason to suspect that Limbaugh wasn't a credible commentator on race, so if the defense was that his comment wasn't about McNabb's abilities but instead, the media, I stand behind my assertion.

You put the nuance in there regarding the season in question. No one else did. Surprised? I'm not. But you did, so fine. The point is that Limbo had already been on shaky ground, as I said earlier. You want to bring up the possible merit that might have stood behind it comment? Fine. But Rush, by being Rush, dug his own hole. If he wants to comment about race he can qualify such commentary as heavily as he should have qualified his ideas regarding McNabb's professional track record. But he didn't.

And last, the statement makes no sense. Why would a desire that someone be successful, when in the past they always were, be evidence of an affirmative action conspiracy? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Everyone hopes that a great player who is having an off-year is just having an off-year. They don't assume the off-year reflects the true quality of that player.

Come on, man.

Synova said...

You know... Brazilian almost had me with the innocent shock at the mere thought that the McNabb criticism wasn't obviously racist. But MUL has been here and MUL already knows and MUL could argue that the media is never particularly supportive of black people.

Also, please! "Jungle" is obviously an "African" reference Rush would get crucified for. Probably "Rhythm" as well.

Stephen Snell said...

BSRectum / MULva

Read the Slate article. That's the defense of Limbaugh. That you keep alluding to silence and crickets while entombed in a cymbalic cacophony of refutation really does beclown you.

Stephen Snell said...

BSR, if you continue to move the goal posts so quickly you're going to get a ticket...

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Hey Steve! What can I say? Slate says Limbo's not a racist? Sounds like an interesting article. But you know us liberals. We're as unmoveable in our articles of faith (such as Limbo's racism) as the conservatives were last week when debating Gabriel Hannah about AGW and the science and data behind it that they also refused to look at.

I guess we'll just have to be a little more accepting of each other's propensity for our heads to be stuck in different areas of sand in the ground.

Synova said...

"Fine. But Rush, by being Rush, dug his own hole."

It's the truthiness that matters, right?

Back many years there was a rumor going around that Janet Reno had said some particular horrible thing and certain Christian people were being all upset and up in arms about it. I pointed out to a friend that Reno had never said it. My friend looked at me for a moment and then said, "It doesn't matter. That's what they *really* think."

This was a *profound* moment for me, a reordering of my understanding of the world itself, because someone I thought had a strong moral core advocated LYING.

And I'd like to congratulate MUL for being just as firmly morally grounded and concerned about truth, even when it has to do with someone you don't like, which is not at all.

Rush being Rush can be misrepresented and lied about because MUL knows what he *really* thinks.

It's the truthiness. The facts may be fabrications, but the *truth* is there. Just like with old Mary Mapes and Rather. No? The old, "We're telling the *truth* by making shit up," defense.

Telford said...

Brazilian: The reason no one else is rushing to counter your original charge of Limbaugh's racism as evidenced by his McNabb remarks is that Althouse already did -- definitively -- with her appeal to the Slate article conceding the substance of Limbaugh's remark. She devastated your argument.

Your refusal to acknowledge that has cost you what credibility you might have had. Your latest claim is that the amount of criticism Limbaugh faced at the time vindicates your position, which is that Limbaugh doesn't really think one's value stands independent of one's race. That makes no sense. You're just embarrassing yourself, and irritating the rest of us.

This is how it works in debates. It's over. The best thing to do at this point is just stop.

And I respectfully suggest that you think about what your performance says about your thinking. After I've lost arguments, I've tried to do the same. It's been uncomfortable, but eye-opening and ultimately constructive.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

The curiously-named newcomer "Zokar" offered me advice in the form of conceding points without good reason for having to do so in exchange for increased credibility. So how about this. I'll make you guys an offer. Rush Limbaugh is not a race-baiter and AGW exists and could be serious. Deal?

John Salmon said...

The worst part of the whole thing is not Rich's views, which I don't agree with, but how ineptly he expresses them. At least MoDo can write.

Synova said...

"I guess we'll just have to be a little more accepting of each other's propensity for our heads to be stuck in different areas of sand in the ground."

Oh sure... you make stuff up and pretend it's true, so I can make stuff up and pretend it's true?

Like, what is really true doesn't matter at all on either side? My "fantasy" about Global Warming is consequence free? It matters not at all to slander someone you don't like because you have a right to your fantasy?

Ugh, this really is boring... and really old, too.

I'd rather argue about how stupid Frank Rich is, and how he sees the world through his ideological blinders such that he really can't see what is actually there. He's making up a fantasy reality and trying to see how many people he can get to buy into it, as though we can all "vote" in a poll to determine if Scott Peterson really killed his wife or not.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

She devastated your argument.

Where? There was nothing in her post or subsequent comments even mentioning specific arguments related to Limbaugh's comments re: McNabb. And in the post there are four links. One to the NYT, one to the WSJ and two to her own blog. Where is there a link to Slate?

If you guys want to play the evidence game at least be responsible for producing it and applying it to the argument. And if you prefer to have others do your arguing for you, that's fine to. Just make it available. Or better yet, quote it.

Paco Wové said...

"It's just a flesh wound!"

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Shifting goalposts and dishonorable debate performances? How long do I have to wait for this mysterious link to Slate to appear anywhere on this thread? My vision is 20/20 in one eye and 20/16 (better than normal) in the other.

Southbound Blues said...

"Because, you know, we right-wing ideologues are an optimistic bunch."

Love it.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Ok. I didn't see the 12:04 post before. Thanks.

Big Mike said...

I have to wonder, does Donovan McNabb read this blog? Because he just scored two touchdowns in the last two minutes of the half. He and his receivers are utterly devastating the Giants.

Despite the way he's chewing up the Giants today, I still don't think McNabb will be, or ought to be, in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Shifting goalposts and dishonorable debate performances? How long do I have to wait for this mysterious link to Slate to appear anywhere on this thread? My vision is 20/20 in one eye and 20/16 (better than normal) in the other.

See what I mean. Pointless to argue with an idiot.

Hey, stupid.....you might look at Ann's post of 12:04 where she slyly hides the link by saying.....Here's a Slate article from 2003

vw: unroo. Denying your inner kangarooness

PWS said...

The most shocking thing in the column is that 17% of those polled identify themselves as Republicans.

The Senate and House are each about 40% Republican.

What are the implications for the huge party apparatus in place?

Something is out of whack.

Alex said...

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm = LE Lee's latest sock puppet.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Ok. So we have one opinion piece in Slate by a guy who, so far as anyone can tell, wrote a book about baseball. This is it?

Slate's known for being controversial. Are you guys going to propound upon the substance in it or is the mere fact that some guy wrote this article for Slate a sufficient vindication of Limbaugh in and of itself?

But I get it. The outrage already! The outrage! You really think I'm this averse to conceding a point?

Alex said...

Brazilian Sock Puppet = do you have anything other to do then hijack this thread? Half the posts here are yours. That's just... sad.

Alex said...

Oh and Rush was totally right about McNabb. Up through 2003 his stats were totally mediocre and Rush was justified in making that statement. McNabb's ONLY QB rating of > 100 would happen in 2004. Maybe Rush's comments lit a fire under him to justify the media's glorification. He really should THANK Rush!

Big Mike said...

You really think I'm this averse to conceding a point?

Well, actually, yes.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

And Dust Bunny Queen might want to read my 12:40 post where I found the link. But instead she had to be stupid and comment at 12:42 about the same thing I already said.

So stupid, Bunny. So stupid.

Anyways, the Eagles went to the Superbowl in 2004 after making it to the playoffs for 4 straight seasons, having acquired McNabb in 1999. But I guess all this means that Limbaugh's not a race-baiter somehow. And I'm stupid. And people don't listen. And an article in Slate by a guy known for writing about baseball is the end-all-be-all of McNabb's quality as a football player. Or whatever.

Alex said...

Bullshit Sock Puppet - answer my post!

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Almost no one else has spoken to the substance of McNabb's career. One article in Slate does it? Half the posts are mine because no one else can make a point. Then they refer to the article of faith that is written by one person in Slate. But that settles everything, I suppose. Good thing we have that Slate article.

Hey, at least my faith allows me to debate with those who write its articles.

In the meantime, even Big Mike seems to be able to make a decent, context-driven point about McNabb.

Alex said...

Bullshit Sock Puppet - I already said that McNabb's stats prior to the Limbaugh statement were "above average" at best. Yet the media was touting McNabb like he was the black Joe Montana. You are the sick racist here who thinks the media should be blowing up minorities no matter their actually achievements!

Sick racist!!!!
Sick racist!!!!
Sick racist!!!!
Sick racist!!!!Sick racist!!!!Sick racist!!!!Sick racist!!!!
Sick racist!!!!Sick racist!!!!
Sick racist!!!!

Father Martin Fox said...

Ann:

Did you mean to include yourself in the statement, "we wingers"?

Were you being ironic--or simply going along with the label frequently slapped on you by the hard-left because you're not a doctrinaire leftist?

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Oh right. Your post, Alex. Sorry about that. You mean the point about Rush Limbaugh making McNabb a decent player? Because Limbaugh's comments somehow magically bestowed upon McNabb the gift of any athletic talent that he somehow lacked before?

That's worth taking seriously. I see your point.

You guys are all sock puppets for Allen Barra.

Alex said...

BSS - yeah McNabb can thank Rush for that extra spark to get to that 1 and only Super Bowl which he LOST by the way to that white cracker QB Tom Brady throwing a critical INT late in the game!

Alex said...

BSS - admit it. You're a sick racist puppy. But we already knew that from your previous sock puppet incarnation as MUL.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Alex, no magic change in identity here. The avatar and profile and blog's still the same.

You cute little sock-puppet for Rush Limbaugh, you!

Alex said...

Bullshit Sock Puppet - you lost! You're assertion that Rush Limbaugh is a racist was blown apart in this thread and you refuse to admit it. Go away you sick, racist puppy.

daubiere said...

wow a sock puppet arguing with a sock puppet. except that m.u.l. didnt hide the fact that she changed her name, so shes not a sock puppet.

so whats the sound of one sock puppet yelling?

allleeeexxx!

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

I'd rather not. Instead, I'll stick around and propose that Rush Limbaugh try his hand becoming a commentator for the NBA or for Major League Baseball. He will turn all the black players he insults - who were acquired just before leading their teams to better records - into better players! You see, Rush Limbaugh just has that ability! He just does!

And he can get ONE PERSON TO WRITE ONE ARTICLE IN SLATE MAGAZINE VINDICATING HIM FOR ALL TIME ON THE MATTER!

Truly a talent that should be extended to as many arenas as possible.

Limbaugh made the comment because he's a fool. And a race-baiter. Partial truth and subjective assessments only fuel his alchemical propaganda game.

daubiere said...

"
You cute little sock-puppet for Rush Limbaugh, you!"

except alex is actually a sock puppet for a lefty type. hes pretty convincing as a "wingnut" but sometimes the act slips. read what alex has to say about "rush limpballs" in this thread.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

It sounds like daubiere would like to weigh in with "his" expertise on pro football. Yeay!!!

daubiere said...

"Alex said...

Paul - no they were illegally obtained prescriptions! Rush Limpballs is a criminal! Send him up the river! I hope he gets shanked in prison for his crimes. Don't drop that soap Rushie boy.

Oh and Limpballs IQ is probably below 50.
"

from the thread i just linked. so alex, why the turnaround on limpballs? or did we just figure out the inconvenient fact that youre the phony here??

ps thanks for the help figuring out how to make a comment link, you know who you are!!

wv: allful. lol. word verification is getting smarter.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

"You're assertion that Rush Limbaugh is a racist was blown apart in this thread and you refuse to admit it."

I think that maybe I will link to an article proclaiming that Rush Limballs is a race-baiter so that Alex is blown away by such high evidentiary standards as the ones that he extols!

daubiere said...

"It sounds like daubiere would like to weigh in with "his" expertise on pro football. Yeay!!!"

sadly i dont know much about american football so youre on your own...

ps: i assumed you were a "she" sorry if youre a he, my mistake. the braziliano eye looks like a "she" eye.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Sorry daub. Alex is just a sock-puppet for Limpball's race-baiting. Or for my un-worthiness by Althousian standards of commentary. (ONE ARTICLE!) So you know... politics makes for strange bedfellows and all.

That article was just so influential by the way people reject accusations of Rush's baiting as instinctively as they reject global warming and other liberal conspiracies.

When does Pat Buchanan get the special treatment?

Oh that's right. The MSM already accept him as the cranky bigoted strategist who simply happens to have other talents as well.

GO RUSH!!!

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Ok. Well, apparently the conventional "wisdom" here is that Rush Limbaugh is an angel. ONE ARTICLE SAID SO! I won't disturb that further. It's obviously an article of faith.

Keep the faith.

Limbaugh's going to make a comeback in his reputation. Any day now. If not it's just a bigliberalconspiracy.

Henry said...

For some reason, this comes to mind.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Not just for some reason, Henry! At 1:37 PM Paco Wove proclaimed just those very words in the Monty Python dialogue!

I will now accuse you of being as averse to the faith that has been perpetuated here as I have been. You must read these things! They resolve all matters for all time!

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

No debate necessary!

No dissent tolerated!

(Oh wait. Those are the kinds of things that Limbaugh and Glenn Beck whine about being told.)

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Is Rush Limbaugh's purity like the eleventh commandment or something?

Big Mike said...

Even Big Mike ...

I'm so-o-o-o touched.

Synova said...

"The movement’s undisputed leaders, Palin and Beck... would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross of right-wing ideological purity...."

Maybe the Republican Party *should* die. Does anyone really care if it does? Who is supposed to be serving who here? Do the people serve the Party or is the Party supposed to serve the people? Is it all about getting someone in office with the right letter after her name or about getting someone in office who represents your views?

Rich and Gingrich can present this as being about "purity" or about "100% agreement" but they are both constructing straw-men to tilt at when they do.

Scozzafava is not a conservative with a couple of somewhat liberal views mixed in. Hoffman is a conservative with a couple of somewhat liberal views mixed in.

Trying to assert that Hoffman is a scary, doctrinaire hyper-conservative, and Scozzafava a right-centrist with a couple of liberal views, is simply ridiculous.

Sure, I *get* that Gingrich thinks we should all present a united front, but for most of the rank and file it's not about winning if it means electing big-government liberals. Palin said a long time ago that she would support the candidate of *any* party that was about fiscal responsibility and small government... who was conservative. Beck has his own opinions and as far as I can tell is a political party of one. I can appreciate that if for no other reason than that it means he's taken ownership of his own views and is not *following*.

There is a lot of room for a political shift for the major political axis to go from conservative/liberal socially, to conservative/liberal fiscally. There is also a good deal of room to shift statist/individualist.

A small government, fiscally conservative, get-out-of-my-business individualist might well pull in social conservatives (who want to be allowed to do their own thing) with social liberals (who want to be allowed to do their own thing) to work together to reduce government intrusion and restore fiscal sanity.

The opposite is Huckabee, whom my sister adores. Social conservative uber-liberal statist.

Because a lot of "conservatives" really are not. They are as big government, big spending, nanny state bleeding hearts as anyone. (As we're so often told... Christ is all for helping the unfortunate.)

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Was anyone able to say what it was about the Slate article that they found so convincing?

It seems to be like the mantra that ends all discussion.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Was anyone able to say what it was about the Slate article that they found so convincing?

It seems to be like the mantra that ends all discussion.


Waaaah. No one wants to have a pointless argument with MUL or whatever its name is now about something that no one gives a rats patooty about.

I suggest you throw yourself on the floor, drum your little heels on the ground and hold your breath until you turn blue. That'll make people pay attention to you.

Freeman Hunt said...

BSR,

Not everyone is commenting on the Slate article. I don't follow football, but the people I know who do told me, at the time, that they thought Rush was probably right. If you want to argue your point, you need to link articles showing that McNabb had phenomenal stats.

If you want to have a discussion, you need to make fewer comments. It's like being at a dinner party where one guy has a few two many and won't shut up. It makes it so that no one else wants to talk, and certainly no one wants to engage him.

Dark Eden said...

Rush was actually defending McNabb. The sports guys were asking what was wrong with him. Rush said that nothing was wrong, he'd just been inflated by people who wanted to be seen talking up a black quarterback. So Rush was actually supporting McNabb with his comments.

Ralph L said...

It makes it so that no one else wants to talk, and certainly no one wants to engage him.
Isn't that his intent? That way, he thinks he's won the argument, as blowhards do.

Telford said...

Was anyone able to say what it was about the Slate article that they found so convincing?

Good grief, Brazilian. Are you just trying to be coy, or do you really need to have everything explained to you?

What was convincing was an article, in an influential liberal (albeit contrarian) publication, backed by plausible evidence substantiating Limbaugh's claim, yet not race-baiting in any way. Its thesis supported Althouse's claim, which you had contested, that Limbaugh was commenting on McNabb's media treatment rather than complaining about his performance.

I really am amazed that you would mock the very people who didn't have to have all this pointed out to them.

Why waste our time with someone who'll never learn, and doesn't even want to? Bye!

Alex said...

Synova - you are totally delusional if you think social conservatives don't want to impose their Christian beliefs on everyone. Witness their attempts to put Creationism in science classes the last few years. Or to ban abortion.

Freeman Hunt said...

Alex, plenty of libertarians support abortion bans. That's not an issue that falls so neatly into the imposing-on-others box.

And on the balance, the libs wants to control your life quite a lot more than the social conservatives do.

Alex said...

Freeman - really? I perceive social cons and economics libs as 2 sides of the same coin that want to control every aspect of my life. Oh and BOTH are for the insane "war on drugs".

Freeman Hunt said...

I agree that it's two sides of the same coin, but one side is trying to control you quite a bit more than the other.

Alex said...

Freeman - you think I really care if it's 55/45 in favor of the econ-libs? Even if it was 90/10, I know that it's not because the social cons aren't hellbent to control my life. Intentions broadcast widely DO matter.

raf said...

BSeR is actually performing the same function as most of the media in 2003. Any criticism of a minority in any capacity will be perceived as racism. Anyone who does so or defends anyone who does so is a racist, pure and simple, and once this is established, anything else he may say is thoroughly discredited. Tiresome. But doesn't seem to be going away.

Alex said...

BTW as if libertarianism leads to drug using and debauchery. That's news to me, as I can't seem to find where the local orgy is held.

Synova said...

Alex, I believe I explicitly said that some of them DO.

Granted, I do not see abortion as an issue where religion is being imposed any more than murder, fraud, or false witness are religious matters where religion is being imposed.

Creationism in schools is usually an attempt to assert freedom of religion and the right not to have your faith deliberately attacked in government mandated coercive public school systems. The mandatory and coercive nature of public schools is not in question. The perception of attack on religion in that setting may be a *mis*perception, but even if it is, there is no good reason not to do something to reassure people who are forced by law to entrust their children to that system that their religious faith will be respected.

The coercive nature of public school puts the onus on the school to make allowances... not the other way around.

Alex said...

Synova - separate issues! First off, IF we are going to have public schools then religion has no place in the science classroom. Have a "religious studies" class where kids learn all about the Abrahmic religions, Buddha, Hinduism, Bahaism, Wiccans, etc... But leave it out of the biology class.

2nd, I believe we should do away with public schools. Let the free market decide. There will be religious schools and secular schools. Those kids going to religious school that teach Creationism will be life's losers as they get to college and find they can't do science.

Synova said...

And please don't resort to the tired old claim that coercion is quite acceptable if you're RIGHT and evolution is RIGHT.

Because then you're no different than the social-cons who want to impose was is right on you.

Same-same.

SMGalbraith said...

The Republicans, dominated by the social cons, controlled the White House, Senate and House for 6 years.

What religiously-based laws did they pass over that period? If there was ever a time for the Christian theocrats to "impose" their morality, that was it.

I'd like to know what they did.

The Schiavo case may be one piece of evidence. But other than that, I'd like some evidence.

Partial-birth abortion ban?

Alex said...

Synova - evolution is a FACT, not just a theory. Creationism is pure religion and has no place in science classroom. This is why the religious conservatives are losing all over the country except in the absolute heart of the Bible Belt. I pity the kids who grow up with all that religion, turning their brains to mush.

Alex said...

I'd like to know what they did.

There's a difference between what the Bush theocrats were able to do and what they wanted to do. Fortunately the country becomes less religious ever day and THE people have pushed them back.

Alex said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Fact

Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.

Whereas, AGW is still just a theory.

Synova said...

"Those kids going to religious school that teach Creationism will be life's losers as they get to college and find they can't do science."

This belief doesn't stand up to empirical and objective observation. It's an irrational belief based on what seems to be a reasonable expectation.

But students in schools that teach Creationism, including homeschools, do well in science. I'm not a creationist, but the creationist curriculum I've seen is better than what public schools use, as far as teaching actual scientific principles are concerned. Therefore "those people" do not frighten me.

Studies have actually shown that people with religious believe (primarily Christian in this country) are less likely, not more, to hold unscientific, superstitious beliefs about the world. You know... ghosts and psychic garbage. Irrational magical thinking stupidity is MORE common among those who do not believe in God or that God made the world.

The teaching of evolution in public schools does not lead to a population that approaches the natural world in a MORE scientific way with a greater rational understanding of the physical world.

It may seem logical that believing in a supernatural being who created the world, even 7k years ago, would lead to more irrational approaches to natural science than otherwise... it doesn't. So what doesn't it? My first theory on that is that creationist belief is *absolute* that what God created was created as order rather than disorder. He created a physical world that works in an absolutely rational manner. Science is not presented as something contrary to God, therefore, but something that explores the *order* of his creation. This is very pro-science, very much established on the natural world being something rational that can be studied.

"Because God made it that way" is not an impediment to scientific study *at* *all*.

If anything, children taught from a creationist viewpoint may be less likely to go into biology, which is the softest of the "hard" sciences anyway.

All of which ignores the fact that most "creationists" are of the "God directed evolution" sorts in any case.

Henry said...

@Paco Wove 1:37 -- My hat's off to you. You identified this spectacle long before I did.

Synova said...

"I pity the kids who grow up with all that religion, turning their brains to mush."

Non-religious people are MORE likely to believe in ghosts and psychic garbage, magical thinking and superstitious nonsense. Who is it with a mushy brain?

Kids growing up with "all that religion" are taught that God created a rational, orderly, world.

No magic. No psychic garbage or ghosts or channeling energies. No moronic sweat lodge deaths.

I don't pity them at all.

Alex said...

Synova - I'm supposed to be impressed by your assertion that non-religion makes people more superstitious? Where do you come up with that crap? Also the idea that Creationist fundie kids do well in science, LOL!!!! Also the idea that young-earth creationists could ever be paleontologists. Thank god they self-select themselves out of that important field.

Alex said...

Synova - there is nothing rational about fundies wanting to teach young-earth Creationism in science class. Those religious people who say to keep religion in theology class are a distinct minority. Fundies want to destroy science, not help it.

Ralph L said...

as if libertarianism leads to drug using and debauchery
Libertinism sure does, and if government, schools, culture, and media don't put on the brakes, who will? If you can't find the orgies, you need to get out more (and become young and beautiful and/or hung).

Synova said...

Alex... it's nice to see that religious fundamentalism is alive and well among the self-proclaimed non-religious.

Paddy O. said...

Could someone please control Alex?

He's running amok and knocking things over. Some folks just need limits and authority figures in their life.

Alex said...

Paddy - lol, I didn't know one could knock over anything on the intertubes. Silly me.

Synova - how am I a religious fundie? Because I believe in the absolute rule of the scientific method?

daubiere said...

synova dont bother arguing with alex. hes an underhanded shapeshifting troll as i showed upthread. m.u.l/brazilian-whatever may be annoying and silly and loquacious but at least he/shes honest about his/her beliefs. alex is playing a game here and its a waste of your time to engage in it.

traditionalguy said...

Near midnight, the fear of Frank comes nigh...It's Sarah The ImPaliner soaring after sunset on Halloween. She will suck the electoral blood out of the liberal con job now occupying the office of our President.

Chase said...

Because I believe in the absolute rule of the scientific method?

That's a pretty frank description of your worship practices, Alex. Your belief in the scientific method obviously does rule over you.

Alex said...

Scientfic method:

1. Ask a Question
2. Do Background Research
3. Construct a Hypothesis
4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6. Communicate Your Results

Heaven forbid I should worship those sequence of steps instead of the invisible pink unicorn!

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

It's nice to know that someone who's never showed up here before, by the name of "Telford" intends to speak for everyone with the pretentious pronoun of "we".

The rest of you (other than DBQ) earn points for at least attempting to stick with a pattern of engagement that concerns a perspective more widely held than that which believes Rush Limbaugh is not a race-baiter: The perspective which strongly suspects he is.

But the only piece of evidence provided for that, and accepted as Gospel - the Slate article - is long on stats and short on the "race as a factor" thing.

Even if you believe that hopes for and impressions of McNabb's success were hyped, you need to account for Rush's racialized explanation.

Further, the Slate article cites McNabb's astonishing career during the 90s before going pro. In fact, the author goes on to say this:

"McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL..."

He goes on to say that his stats and those of the Eagles aren't the greatest during the first few years that they signed him - despite the fact that the team went further and became more competitive than at any other recent point. They even went to the Superbowl in 2004. Why this is not salient to Barra is anyone's guess. Oh wait. Could it be because this happened a year after the oracle wrote his article of faith?

But what doesn't keep Barra guessing is Rush's fixation on race, a fixation that is more obvious and longstanding than McNabb's career. Barra talks of the "dearth of black NFL quarterbacks." Fine. But this becomes the unquestioned article of faith for any desire that the guy succeed? I lived in Philly. We did succeed. We went to the Superbowl the very next year after Barra writes his melarchy. That was significant.

What is also significant is that any team that signs such a talented athlete is going to "desire" and hope to see them succeed, especially one with the record Philly had before McNabb came along. Why does his race matter? Limbaugh cites the same league history that Barra does. What they both fail to mention however are the improved performances of where the team ended up all the seasons from 2000 through 2004 and the fact that a team is going to want someone with that much promise, newly signed, to succeed and to help them succeed.

So was race an issue in what "the media" wanted? Who knows. But what is certain is that a talented athlete who became part of a team with a subsequently improved record was part of a desire to see the team do well. This is a perfectly plausible understanding of what happened to the Eagles vis a vis McNabb. No need to inject race into the discussion of it at all at this point.

But of course, with his chronic fixations of "race" and "the media", Limbaugh committed the astonishing feat of turning a perfectly plausible, non-controversial observation of the Eagles into the debacle of the year.

Was it necessary? Was it worth it? Is his and Barra's explanation, their "racializing" of a discussion, did this illuminate anything? Is there any way to show that race - the concept that you and Limbaugh propose we should all be blind to while he simultaneously and paradoxically seems to never waste a moment fixating over it - played any role and made these other explanations somehow completely inadequate? Completely insufficient at accounting for the lingering positive impressions of McNabb?

I doubt it. It seems as unlikely as anything. But you make the call.

Paddy O. said...

"silly me"

Indeed. There are bytes everywhere. Who's going to pick those up? Ann just doesn't have time.

You've a very early 20th century perspective on Science, by the way.

You describe the scientific method well, but to be sure some of the greatest discoveries of the last century were proposed before experimentation was possible.

Also, just about every religious person, of whatever kind, has found evidence which prompts their continued allegiance. You dismiss such evidence out of hand because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notion of reality. So, you are not really open to reality as such, just as a way of explaining your own chosen framework. Anything that goes outside of that is troublesome--unicorns and such.

Einstein rejected quantum mechanics as well for a while. Turns out reality is a lot more complex than a readily embraced method allows. Which is why the best scientists always take creative leaps in proposing a thesis based on available data, even as proving this may take decades, or centuries, or more. They don't, out of hand, reject a thesis without having a clear reason for doing so. Followers of scientism have a lot more confidence in the ultimate ability of science to explain than most scientists.

Because that kind of behavior helps keep the labs clean of mess and rants.

Chase said...

Inside the mind of Alex:


"I don't like it when people disagree with me! I can't handle it when they call me "religious!
I'm the one that's gets to call people stupid and not be questioned because I blindly and without question believe everything that someone claims is scientific be! I don't have to use my common sense and brains and my education- there are people who tell me what the answers are! Yes! I'm not the one with blind faith, no not me! And those Nobel laureates that believe in God - how can that be? I mean, what are they - stupid? No, no, no - these other people aren't worshipping, uh, following the rules!"

Chase said...

Paddy O.

Quite well said.

Andrea said...

Alex must have come over here from Little Green Footballs.

Ralph L said...

No need to inject race into the discussion of it at all at this point
I don't follow sports to speak of, but even I remember the media drumbeat for more black QBs and head coachs and front office people in the last 20 years. The issue was out there before Rush commented on it. Does that make us race baiters for pointing it out?

Someone asked why they had to make up Rush quotes to prove he's a racist. Couldn't they find some real ones in all those years of radio transcripts? BSR, do you have any?

WV - diatersi - the scientific name for texting.

Synova said...

"Synova - how am I a religious fundie? Because I believe in the absolute rule of the scientific method?"

You're a religious fundie because you do *not* apply the scientific method to your understanding of the consequences of religious faith. You're depending on a belief system about what you think *ought* to be the consequences of belief in God or belief that God, one way or another, created the world.

You're a religious fundie because your irrational preconceptions refuse to see abortion as anything other than an imposition of religious views. You don't *disagree* about abortion, you see pro-life as necessarily religious and obviously irrational.

You *believe* that religious teaching turns the mind to mush because you believe that it must do so and you're emotional about it rather than dispassionate and dependent on evidence. That's anti-science.

It's a logic that makes sense, after a fashion, but it is not upheld empirically. Logic is not science. Testing hypothesis is science. You haven't tested your belief about acceptance of evolution as a prerequisite for all further rational thought or scientific understanding or ability to find out if your hypothesis actually represents the real world.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Ralph, I don't spend my days and nights cataloging quotes by Limbo. I don't know who personally does. As I said, I listened to him long enough (I think one show) in the nineties to understand that he's a blowhard. A demagogue. An attention-seeker. Someone who revels in the controversies he creates. The blog proprietor here seems to think he's a genius and I can't see why those aren't part of the reason for that assessment.

He's also known to represent the conservative view of social issues and, when it comes to race, is understood to represent the grievances of self-perceived "oppressed" whites. There are ideological reasons for opposing affirmative action. And then there are social reasons for opposing it. But he's a social conservative (at least when he's not flying to Latin America to engage in activity not quite covered under the guise of "family values") so it's obvious that he represents the point of view that is antagonistic to accepting that blacks have been the historical underdog in U.S. society. He fixates on issues of race not because he relates to blacks, not because he understands their grievances, but because the perpetuation of traditional society that conservatism is partial to demands we don't.

Traditional society, I would have to believe, extends to the era before civil rights.

The problem with Rush and others who are uncomfortable acknowledging the traditional oppression of blacks is that they fail to distinguish between abstract ideological principles and social realities. As I said at the outset, wishing racism away doesn't make it happen. Wishing away the privilege and prestige more accessible to certain classes of people doesn't make that go away either.

Limbaugh either simply doesn't have the intelligence to understand this, or believes that ignoring it will boost his ratings. Or both. And thus, he exacerbates racism by being a functional race-baiter, less concerned with the issues facing the black minority in a traditionally racist society than with proposing idealistic, paternalistic, pie-in-the sky prescriptions to make himself feel better and more secure in his ideology. It's not a very empirical endeavor. And that's what makes his professions of being a solution to issues of race rather than a part of the problem not credible.

former law student said...

The McNabb thing was a critique of the media. You are either ignorant or stupid or devious if don't admit that.

The McNabb thing was a criticism of the NFL as well as a criticism of the media (to me a critique implies an analysis in some depth, not a few conclusory statements tossed off without thinking or caring how they would be construed). McNabb got his position because of the NFL's "social concern," i.e. Affirmative Action. The media was merely complicit in pretending McNabb was worthy of the job.

All Rush saw was McNabb's skin color. Other athletes, other quarterbacks have been hyped without Rush noticing their skin color. But people here can argue, seemingly with a straight face, that that doesn't make Rush racist.

Here's a Sports Illustrated article from that time that makes the point that Rush was merely boneheaded:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2003/writers/peter_king/09/30/mcnabb_limbaugh/index.html

Hide the racism, Rush. Cover it up.

chickenlittle said...

Not getting the urgency to trash Rush Limbaugh today on this thread. Almost like there's a hurry-up before-tomorrow-dawns urgency.

You guys will survive tomorrow and the next day.

Cedarford said...

Brazilian Jungle Rhythm = MUL, Luckyoldson.

From Inwood said...

Frank Rich’s usual unthinking rant about why the GOP can’t just self destruct by being consistently Dem Lite is defended here by trolls who say that Rush = an opportunistic racist, criticizing any Black athlete or criticizing the media for not criticizing a Black athlete = a non-rebutable presumption of racism, & Rush’s listeners = racist; as well as right-wingnuts who are dragging down the GOP, so there. Yawn.

former law student said...

Not getting the urgency to trash Rush Limbaugh today on this thread

In the last paragraph, the professor seems to see Rush as a sympathetic colorblind character, a sort of misunderstood cross between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama, I suppose. Then, in the comments, she insults everyone who would construe Rush's remarks about the unworthy black quarterback as showing his racism. Because, Lord knows, Rush has criticized many white athletes for getting a free pass based on their color.

From Inwood said...

FLS wants to know where "Rush has criticized many white athletes for getting a free pass based on their color."

Um, I think that Rush is generally more concerned with criticizing the many Dem bootlickers & contributors for getting free access to the government teat, which is what makes him an MSM bête noire. (Is it per se racist to use the term "bête noire"?)

PS: In our Orwellian world, by definition, being White means that any White athlete who makes the team is getting a free pass based on his color.

Kirk Parker said...

rcocean,

"What does Rich bring to the party?"

Well, there are those compromising photos of Pinch he claims to have in a safety-deposit box somewhere.

And one minor correction: it's foreign policy that Friedman doesn't do so well at. Krugman, for his part, actually does know a lot about economics, which is exactly why the NYT has him writing political rants instead.

Brazilian Samba Rhythm said...

Oh! Oh! I know!

Cedarford = Hitler = George Wallace = David Duke etc. etc. etc.

What's the matter man? Was the Stormfront site not working yesterday?

Terry Cowgill said...

Hypocrisy watch: If the NY State moderate Republican being forced out of that special House election in favor of the Conservative Party candidate is a "sign of GOP intolerance," what was the revolt by Dems against Joe Lieberman in 2006? I suppose it's too much to ask for consistency in politicians.

elHombre said...

Are we supposed to be pretending that we think wacked-out lefties like Rich care about the Republican party? Or, for that matter, the country?

Marmalade said...

lucid said...
Frank Rich, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Rahm Emmanuel are all forgetting that Gallup in June and again this week found that the number of Americans who self identify as "conservative" is twice the number who self-identify as "liberal"--40% conservative, 20% liberal. About 36% call themselves "moderate."

First, this poll hasn't yet been confirmed by other polls. A single set of data can only be accepted as proof if and when it's confirmed by further data. That is the scientific method... not that polls are always conducted in an objective manner.

Second, other polls show related data. Around 20% identify as Republicans and that has been confirmed by multiple polls. Even if it's true that 40% identify as conservative, many conservatives have become highly critical of the Republican party and may not vote Republican.