Remember:
Why do you blog? > To live freely in writing.Words to perplex a vortex victim.
February 28, 2007
Another lefty into the vortex.
Richards1052 just doesn't understand. He writes because he has "a burning passion to say something to the world" -- a specific message about politics -- and he can only imagine that I must be an idiot to write and let politics be one of my subjects if I don't burn with a political mission.
Remember:
Remember:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
At his blog, Mr. Richards tells us that [he has] "been interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since I was a teenager in 1967 and have worked all my adult life to promote dialogue and mutual recognition."
How does one reconcile a desire for "dialogue and mutual recognition" with a headline like "The Inanity of Ann Althouse" and describing her commentary as "sh*t"?
And...what is it with rampant obscenity and left-of-center bloggers?
Don't care about politics? Then don't write about politics. Please.
As long as you're going to promote every unflattering story about every Democratic 2008 contender, you don't get to claim that you're apolitical. It's transparently self-serving.
He starts off by calling you inane but then he finishes by calling you a wolf in sheep's clothing.
I write bits that are self-contradicting, too.
But I call them jokes.
It would be better if Richards had kept his "burning passion" to himself. From his own blog, this is the propaganda he swallows:
…That one must assume that a nuclear Iran will act logically, rationally evaluating the price and risks involved in its actions, and will not act out of religious-ideological motives. If one makes this assumption, then one appreciates that Iran's motives for acquiring nuclear weapons "are defensive, [and to be used protectively] against Iraq in the past and against the U.S. today."
"It is reasonable to assume that also in the future Iran will opt to retain this type of weapons as a final card to use against extreme threats, and that the elimination of Israel is not considered to be an essential interest worthy of using such weapons."
Hypothetical Richard in 1938: If we don't offend Hitler, he will leave us alone
Henry -
You don't seem to understand, she does comment on politics. My preference would be that she stick to American Idol, but she doesn't let a day go by without fixating on Marcotte or Obama's lack of substance or Joe Lieberman being delicious or whatever.
Play in dirt. Get dirty.
Richards writes "There's a multitude of things I find unbelievable about this passage. First, that this incident was what motivated her first blog post."
There are a number of things wrong with this sentance. Let's skip the grammar and look at Richards' reading comprehension. The incident with the line from Isthmus did not motivate Althouse's first blog post, but rather her "first post about a presidential campaign."
There's a difference, and it's large enough that even one obsessed with politics could see it.
Can we all agree that as a rhetorical device, being a person with no identifyable political agenda would be very effective?
It's just such an obvious conceit, I can't believe how many of her largely right-wing fans refuse to even acknowledge that her Democratic/liberal past is just for show. Don't you wonder why this "Feingold voter" appeals so effectively to your basest conservative instincts?
My prediction: Richard will blog, sometime, about something cute his kids do. At that time, he might appreciate Prof. Althouse's vignette with Christopher.
I wonder what has happened to Richard's sense of humor.
I'm surprised to read you wouldn't go to art school again. I personally see that experience being a really interesting part of your blogging. You bring an aesthetic and perspective that has a lot of law but also a lot of art in it, and that makes for fascinating reading on all sorts of subjects.
It's all a reality TV show.
This does seem to be the level on which she understands the war which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives. I hope she's enjoying it thoroughly.
Doyle: Don't you wonder why this "Feingold voter" appeals so effectively to your basest conservative instincts?
Nah, I already know - she's a sane Democrat and she doesn't call me a brownshirt f-tard for disagreeing with her.
You should try it sometime. But please don't give up the frothing routine, its very entertaining.
I stopped reading after the first sentence. Anyone who declares this to be a right wing blog clearly has "a burning passion" to display unfettered ignorance, and I have better things to do than indulge him.
Personally, I started blogging because I found writing helpful in developing my own views of the world. It was a purely self-indulgent act; it wasn't even self-expression, because I didn't care if anyone was reading it (posting publicly merely added the bonus of accountability for flaws in the reasoning - similar to debt bloggers, I suppose: one takes more care to avoid logical inconsistencies in what one puts in one's own name in public). Perhaps that isn't the most high-flown motive, but blogs that write from "a burning passion to say something to the world," on the other hand, are the internet age equivalent of crazies standing on streets wearing sandwich board declaring "the end is nigh" and yelling at passers-by.
I don't call you a brownshirt f---. That's Dave. But I do tend to agree with him.
Doyle said...
"I can't believe how many of [Ann's] largely right-wing fans refuse to even acknowledge that her Democratic/liberal past is just for show."
LMAO. Ann, he's got you: The 53 years of your life before you started blogging were actually a careful process of setting the stage for your blooming into a massively popular (and totally unsuspected) right wing shill. It was all just for show - the McGovern vote, the Jesse Jackson badge, voting for Gore -- all for show. I take my hat off to that kind of forward planning. That's dedication to the cause. ;)
Doyle, you've got to stop being so clueless. Honestly, it's getting ridiculous. You're embarassing yourself. You're not this dumb.
"Don't you wonder why this "Feingold voter" appeals so effectively to your basest conservative instincts?"
You're projecting. Not everyone has to find a blog entirely and consistently agreeable to their political views to find it enjoyable.
I don't doubt the sincerity of those political opinions, when she held them, but she no longer does. She has changed her mind. That's fine. It happens, but she should own up to it instead of pretending to be oh-so-heterodox.
I don't doubt the sincerity of those political opinions, when she held them, but she no longer does. She has changed her mind. That's fine. It happens, but she should own up to it instead of pretending to be oh-so-heterodox.
Doyle, like too many lefties, can't fathom the possibility that reasonable people might actually disagree with him about something.
"she should own up to it instead of pretending to be oh-so-heterodox."
The left can't understand or accept heterodoxy because to them it is an unpardonable crime.
Doyle sounds like the left-wing version of a rabid-pro-lifer who claims that you can't be a conservative unless you oppose all abortion. Ann's not rabidly anti-war, so, well, she's a rightie. It sounds just as silly coming from either side.
And Doyle wants Ann to discuss his Alterman-approved political topics, or change her party affiliation to Repuiblican.
Wiff. Fascism. Blech.
I believe Leftys like profanity as it is their way of espousing an anti-establishment attitude, something like when as a teenager they would shout "You don't own me" at Mom and Dad.
They may still be anti-establishment, as long as it isn't their establishment. They will not toe your line, as evidenced by the childish use of inappropriate words, but once they become the establishment everything will be PC heaven.
Remember the old line about if your not a Liberal at 20 you have no heart, and if not a Conservative at 30 you have no brain?
Explains a lot in some cases, doesn't it?
But please don't give up the frothing routine, its very entertaining.
But he means them oh-so-earnestly. Which makes it even funnier.
Ann is not merely "not rabidly anti-war." I'm not rabidly anti-war.
She supports the Iraq War and the Bush presidency in general. She regularly criticizes the people who objected and continue to object to that policy. And she also has voiced no concern about the Bush "domestic agenda" (aka Operation: Fatten the Rich). She was "depressed" when the Democrats swept in 2006.
Those are all valid positions as far as it goes, but they're not positions you can hold and simultaneously claim to be a "centrist Democrat."
Consistency is all I ask for.
Gee, maybe you're right. After all, Joe Lieberman had to ditch his own party because of people like you.
If by "people like me" you mean people who oppose the Iraq War, that's the majority of the country. You, Lieberman and Ann are the loonies.
Also, Lieberman didn't "ditch" his party. He tried to win the primary, but his party ditched him, so he created "Connecticut [Republicans] for Lieberman" like the little toad he is.
Doyle: try repeating to this to yourself instead of hyperventilating: "reasonable people may disagree".
According teo article posted here:
http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGQ4NjBmMTJkOTI4MWVjZmU1MmI5NDMzNWRmNjQwNDI=
Let's do some math. According to state records, Connecticut has 1.95 million active registered voters as of last year, of whom 653,055 were registered as Democrats, about 33.4 percent. Registered Republicans amount to 427,803, or 21.9 percent, and unaffiliated voters number the largest chunk, 867,761, about 44.4 percent.
Apparently not only the Republicans went for Lieberman. Does sanity still exist in the Democratic Party, somewhere?
Apparently, at least according to the election results here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/CT/S/01/epolls.0.html
Sorry the links don't work- I ain't a high-tech redneck.
Given his name recognition and incumbency, it's incredible the general election (where the avg. voter is less informed) was as close as it was.
Whatever. By and large the Democrats won 2006 handily. You didn't pick up a single seat, and if you liked that just wait until 2008 when your presidential nominee has to repudiate Bush to have any chance at election and Al Franken becomes a U.S. senator. Good times.
Well then why is it such a big deal to you then if Ann identifies with the winners?
Doyle If by "people like me" you mean people who oppose the Iraq War, that's the majority of the country.
Yah. You support whatever is popular at the time, instead of whats right. We get that.
In 1935 you'd be rounding up Jews for the cattle cars, because its what the majority of the country wanted.
You're just so hip and cool and popular. The resulting massacre of millions of Iraqi's won't taint your self-image. Same as the Cambodia holocaust.
all we are saying is give peace a chance and if 2 million Asians are slaughtered, so what?
You support whatever is popular at the time, instead of whats right. We get that.
In 2003 most Americans supported invading Iraq. Those who opposed it were dubbed unserious peaceniks not just by warmongering Republicans but by the Elite Punditocracy like Tom Friedman and Richard Cohen.
But idiocy can only remain the majority position for so long.
Well then why is it such a big deal to you then if Ann identifies with the winners?
Because she wanted them to lose!
By and large the Democrats won 2006 handily
Also repeat this, Doyle:
"Historically, the party opposite the president ALWAYS picks up seats in the mid-term election."
2002 was the rare abnormality.
No kidding? I was totally unaware of that tendency!
But if you look at how increasingly significant the incumbency advantage is, it's a big deal for the opposition to pick up Senate seats in MT, VA, MO, PA, OH and RI.
With the exception of Harold Ford, who I don't much care for anyway, it's hard to figure how the Dems could have won any bigger.
Doyle,
Given [Lieberman's] name recognition and incumbency, it's incredible the general election (where the avg. voter is less informed) was as close as it was.
Given the "blueness" of Connecticut, the (alleged) strength of the Lamont groundswell, the fact that a lot of "less informed" general-election voters just vote the straight party ticket, and the fact that you can count the number of Senators elected in my lifetime without running on either the Democratic or the Republican tickets on the fingers of one mutilated hand, it's at least interesting that Lamont lost, isn't it?
You mean the guy from the Greenwich city council? No.
(where the avg. voter is less informed)
Yes, clearly an election isn't valid because Doyle believes its participants aren't as "informed" as he is. Since, of course, "informed" voters would agree with him 100%.
Doyle said...
"Ann is not merely 'not rabidly anti-war.' I'm not rabidly anti-war."
I want a second opinion on that - or at least, a definition of what it means to be "rabidly." If you regard stopping the war as being the most pressing issue in American politics, I'd say you're rabidly anti-war. I would say that wanting to set a deadline and yank the troops makes you "rabidly" anti-war. Someone who is against the war but not rabidly so would be someone who voted against it, continues to oppose it, but who gets that now we're there, we're there. As a control experiment, who do you offer as an example of someone who is anti-war but not rabidly so? Harry Reid, who refuses to bring bills to the floor to halt it, perhaps?
"She supports the Iraq War and the Bush presidency in general. She regularly criticizes the people who objected and continue to object to that policy. And she also has voiced no concern about the Bush 'domestic agenda.' She was 'depressed' when the Democrats swept in 2006. Those are all valid positions as far as it goes, but they're not positions you can hold and simultaneously claim to be a 'centrist Democrat.'"
(Dumb paranthetical omitted). You're right that they're all valid positions that one can hold, and I'll grant that you can't be a liberal and hold those positions. But your claim that you can't be a centrist and hold those positions says a lot more about your idea of where the center is than it does about anything else. I think you and I have very different ideas of where the center is in this country. I think it's somewhat to my left, and you think -- I mean, honestly, Doyle, I think you believe you're in the center, or at least, pretty damned close. And I say that because you keep suggesting (implicitly and occaisionally, as today, explicitly) that people can't be moderates if they don't agree with you. Ann disagrees with you, ergo, she's not only wrong, she must be way off on the right.
And the thing that I find stupid about your position is -- Don't you think that if I really thought she'd had what Jon Chait was referring to in the bhtv segment linked yesterday as a "genuine intellectual conversion experience," I'd be rushing to claim her as one of ours, instead of saying "no, no, she's not one of us"? I want Ann and people like her on my side of the aisle! I want the GOP to be the natural home for Ann and people like her! I'm just not so deluded as to think that someone who disagrees with you must necessarily be someone who agrees with me, and to dismiss the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
I would say that wanting to set a deadline and yank the troops makes you "rabidly" anti-war.
First there's the distinction between necessary, just wars and the Iraq War.
Secondly, favoring a deadline to withdraw troops within a year is a majority opinion, so at least insofar as I agree with that I am in the majority.
I'm left of center, sure, but on this (yes, Most Important) issue more moderates are on my side than Bush's/Ann's.
Hey Doyle ... take a freakin' hike.
Man, you are the most obsinately obtuse, pendantic, insufferable arrogant and oblivious non-entity in the blogoworld.
Do yourself a favor, and launder those pajamas every once in a while and expend at least an iota of energy trying to get life.
why don't they end it tomorrow by cutting off funding?
I've explained this at length before, but basically yes it's because that approach is politically dicey. People think leaving troops there, ill-equipped and poorly trained, is somehow "supporting them" and that accelerating their return is "abandoning them." People be stupid.
In any case, if you read my comments, not once have I argued that Democrats in congress have a surplus of backbone.
Doyle,
You mean the guy from the Greenwich city council? No.
Would you mind explaining why the amply-informed Democratic primary voters picked Lamont? Was "unelectable" actually in the position announcement, or was it more like one of those side effects they list in small print on pharmaceutical circulars?
Seriously, I don't see how you can argue that Lamont was pathetically under-qualified without also arguing that the (so you say) relatively knowledgeable CT Dem primary voters picked someone obviously not up for the job. Weren't there any Democrats floating about that couldn't be mocked after the fact as Greenwich City Councilmen?
Michelle -
I'm not a real die hard Lamont guy. He wasn't pathetically unqualified. He was pathetically unknown. He was just a guy who couldn't take any more Lieberman and decided to run. Not being Lieberman was enough to win the primary, but not enough to win the general.
Is it disappointing he didn't win, and that so many Democrats voted for Lieberman? Yes. But too often Republicans point to him as proof that Americans support the war, which I don't think he is. He retained his seat in spite of his support for the war, not because of it.
Also, he was a weak candidate. Why did we have to run a weak candidate? Because no one thought initially that a primary challenge could be successful.
But too often Republicans point to him as proof that Americans support the war
Nah. We point to him as proof that Democrats still have some integrity.
He's an Independent.
Doyle,
Why did we have to run a weak candidate? Because no one thought initially that a primary challenge could be successful.
Which, if you're setting up CT Dem primary voters as somehow more intelligent and informed than the general electorate of the state, is alarming, yes? I think you're saying that all the savvy potential candidates expected the primary voters to just vote for the name they'd seen somewhere before. That doesn't speak highly of the people who decided not to run, or of their opinion of even their own small (Dem primary voters) slice of the citizenry.
Michelle -
Yes, I agree.
People be stupid.
That's what you say when they're not on your side. Typical lefty.
Steve Machos wrote: The beef seems to be that you can't call yourself a Democrat if you don't have a certain set of opinions.
I'd say that Doyle's beef is that he doesn't want Althouse to claim that she's apolitical (and/or non-partisan) if she holds certain positions.
Memo to Staff:
For all future events, please ensure Ann Althouse is seated at Joe Lieberman's table, not Murtha's.
Thanks
High Inquisitor Doyle
Secondly, favoring a deadline to withdraw troops within a year is a majority opinion, so at least insofar as I agree with that I am in the majority.
Look, I certainly concede that this position is favored by a larger percentage on the left than on the right. And for the sake of argument I'll concede that this particular position is a majority position, though I'm skeptical that isn't an overinterpetation of the polls (polls which also have stated that the majority still want to win in Iraq).
But even so, the logic simply does not follow that only those who hold that position can be centrists. There isn't unanimity on either side of the spectrum: there are lefties who do not favor a fixed timetable, and righties who want out immediately. So it's simply not tenable to suggest that there is unanimity of thought in the center on this issue.
An if we grant that a centrist can consider the rabid anti-war position to be wrong, can we not grant that a centrist can consider it dangerous as well? Not that they do, but that they can without losing their centrist title.
And if that is the case, then it is reasonable to be sad overall that the Dems won in 2006, because it advances that very position---even if you are happy with what that might mean for some of your other political views.
Oops, I started using "you" to refer to centrists in that last paragraph. I hope my point was clear anyway.
Fen spewed forth...
Yah. You support whatever is popular at the time, instead of whats right. We get that.
In 1935 you'd be rounding up Jews for the cattle cars, because its what the majority of the country wanted."
Not sure what this has to do with anything but it certainly is sick.
You might want to rethink those meds ok?
It mean that you'll follow along with what everyone else is doing. Your politics is based on what you think is hip-cool-popular, and not on principle.
And please continue to slime your opponents with the juvenile cheap shot X spewed forth. It discredits whatever point you're trying to make quite nicely.
Post a Comment