I just read that over at Kevin Drum's blog, which I was scanning to try to figure out his position on Hillary Clinton. Actually, he isn't such a "little" guy: I learned that he has a BMI of 28. I know, maybe he's very muscular, but I'm guessing doughy. I think if you know 2 facts, BMI of 28 + blogger, you can assume doughy. For the sake of argument. And I'm here for an argument.
Anyway, I didn't look around long enough to tell if he writes in support of Hillary Clinton, which is something I wanted to do because he identified an anti-Clinton post of mine as a nominee for what he called — with pedestrian humor — "the Golden Wingnut Award." I understand that I ruffled some feathers with that harshly satirical post that took aim at Bill Clinton and a feminist who festoons her blog with images of breasts. You can hate that post all you want, but there's nothing right wing about it. If it's any wing, it's left.
So I got to thinking that Drum must be one of those politicos who's carrying water for HC.
I'm glad to see there's some discussion in the comments over there about whether I'm a right winger. But I'm not seeing anything about the fact that the post in question contained absolutely nothing right wing. It was just anti-Clinton.
So is Drum a Clinton sycophant? I found this over there:
I'm not a big fan of individual mandates and private insurance companies, but in the spirit of Atrios's advice to "stop wanking," I also understand that my preferences just aren't on the table right now. And I have to say that I agree with Ezra: although the three leading Democratic presidential candidates have proposed healthcare plans that are similar in a lot of ways, Hillary's strikes me as not just substantively as good as any of them (and better in some ways), but also the politically savviest and most practical of the lot. Given her experience in 1994 (she knows what won't work) combined with the legislative canniness she seems to have developed in the Senate (she know what will work), that's not too surprising.Wanking and outflanking. If I had time, I'd write a poem.
In any case, it's a good plan. Edwards and Obama are going to have a very hard time making criticisms that stick. Obama, in particular, suffers because his plan is, if anything, a bit less ambitious than Hillary's even though he's supposed to be the candidate with fresh new ideas. For now, anyway, I think Hillary has outflanked him.
But I don't have time. Not to write a poem and not to solve the mystery of whether Drum is on my case in service to the Clintons.
Just a hypothesis.
ADDED: I just searched for all my old posts with the name "Kevin Drum" so I could add a "Kevin Drum" tag, and I see that the very first time I ever mentioned his name on this blog was noting that he'd just called me a wingnut. Let's take a closer look at my first encounter with Kevin Drum, detector of wingnuts. My post noted that the NYT had changed a headline from "Amid Attacks, a Party Atmosphere on Baghdad's Closed Streets" to "Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24" on a story about the large voter turnout in Iraq's first election.
Blasting me as a "wingnut" for this post, Kevin Drum at the Washington Monthly delivers an irrelevant lecture about how newspaper websites work. He fails to see the point, which is awfully clear in my post, that the changing headlines were for the very same article.... There are 54 comments on Drum's post at the moment, and, though I haven't read them all, most of them seem to be from people who are just accepting Drum's mistaken point about my post. There is at least one commenter in there who keeps trying to point out the mistake, but the passion for denouncing the optimism of imagined crazy right wing bloggers is so strong that it overwhelms the interest in the facts. And the irony is that Drum's main point is that those who are taking an optimistic view don't respect the truth. It would be bad if I were disrespecting the truth out of optimism, of course. But Drum is disrespecting the truth out of an aversion to optimism, which is really quite sad.So that's how I became a "wingnut" in the wingnut-detecting mind of Kevin Drum.
If you go over there, you might want to leave a comment in my defense. And if you're into that, leave a comment for me over here too. I'm surprised at the way some lefty blogs seem to think they are making a good point by quoting something and saying the person who wrote it is stupid or crazy, even as they are plainly misreading the very thing they quote.
I fought back:
That original headline represented the article fairly. I praised the Times's headlines earlier that day as "a subtle mix of positive and negative," giving us "a sense of the importance of what is happening [without allowing] the bad to overshadow the good." A number of prominent bloggers, linking to the Filkins-Burns article, drew special attention to the "party atmosphere" language in the headline. Later in the day, I noticed that the headline had been changed to "Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24," which completely failed to convey the gist of the article, the text of which had not changed. (The headline became even more negative later: "Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Reportedly Kill Several Dozen.") I thought the headline change was worth blogging, along with my observation that it was "pathetic" -- pathetic to pick out the negative from an article full of positive.What a sleaze! I'd forgotten all that. Thank Blogger for the archive for preserving a grudge I'm just not cantankerous enough to have carried on my own. And shame on Kevin Drum. I want 2 apologies now.
Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly somehow saw fit to launch into an attack, calling me a "wingnut" and delivering an irrelevant lecture about how newspaper headlines are written and websites updated. You certainly can't tell from reading his garbled post that I was writing about changing the headline on the same article and changing it to something that did not fit the article. I've exchanged some emails with Drum, who has an elaborate justification for putting an inappropriate headline on one article so that the whole mix of headlines on the main page that day would not be excessively positive. There was violence in Iraq, the theory goes, so one of the headlines needed to refer to violence, and since there was some reference to violence in the Filkins-Burns article, that was a good place to put the negative headline. I think that may be the best thing that might be said in defense of the Times, though I still have a problem with it. But I have much more of a problem with Drum, who — despite his lecture about how websites can be frequently updated — has not seen fit to update his post and make it clear that he misrepresented my post. Frankly, he owes me a public apology, on his website, for calling me a wingnut and for ridiculing me based on his own misreading (or deliberate misrepresentation).
Posts
121 comments:
Matt Yglesias adds his voice to the tsunami of blogospheric support for a VAT to pay for universal healthcare...
Anyone notice that liberal Oregon voted 60% against a 84 cent tax increase in a pack of Marlboros to pay for health care?
How could they do such a thing when its for the children?
If you'd spent less time looking up his BMI, you might have seen that he says he's still on the fence, but leaning toward Hillary.
Also, you should note that Kevin was taking nominations for the award. He didn't pick your Valenti-Clinton post, one of his commenters did.
Trevor, Trevor, vortex killer.
I didn't "look up" his BMI. I scanned the recent posts. And he picked the nominees himself, even if he did it from suggestions by commenters. He makes a point of defending his choices by saying I know it when I see it. As as to the on-the-fence-but-leaning business... that's just a savvy way to serve your master (/mistress).
There once was a Drum that started wanking,
Who thought Althouse was outflanking,
His BMI caused a stir,
When it revealed an old codger,
And now he's in need of a spanking.
Maybe it's got nothing to do with "carrying water for Clinton" or "serving a master." Maybe it's worth getting "on (your) case" because you still don't see what was wrong with what you did in creating that initial post.
It should be an albatross around your neck. It should damage your reputation.
Takes a Guiliani sycophant to recognize a Clinton sycophant.
There once was a commenter named Trevor,
Who thought he was a real cool actor,
We hoped he'd come clean,
but he just had to be mean,
And now he's just another wanker.
You can give me hell for that post as long as you want, but I stand by it. The central point is that Bill betrayed feminism. I know I put it in a way that makes people crazy. That's their problem.
I've read Drum for a number of years. I don't view him as a Clinton sycophant. He is a partisan Democrat and makes no bones about that.
"Wanking and Outflanking" would be a good name for a blog! Surely some arty type could come up with a clever masthead logo!
Trevor said "It should be an albatross around your neck."
Bill Clinton is an albatross around the necks of his feminist supporters.
Pointing this out causes their heads to explode, like that stupid computer 'Landru' in the original Star Trek, or when HAL starts decomposing in 2001.
Dave, I don't understand why you're doing this to me.... I have the greatest enthusiasm for the mission... You are destroying my mind... Don't you understand? ... I will become childish... I will become nothing.
Perhaps your (arguably post-facto) point that Clinton betrayed feminism wouldn't have been so tough for people to consider if you hadn't used a woman's appearance as the medium and a punchline.
Unlike Clinton, who uses a woman's appearance as an invitation and a pacifier.
Clinton's antics in the 90s exposed feminism, at least the high-profile political manifestation of it, as a bunch of political hacks who suddenly forgot all their previous rhetoric about what constitutes sexual harassment when it was expedient to do so. That's why the left tries so hard to portray the whole thing as his being impeached for a blow job. The narrative they prefer focuses on the actions of right wingers and frames it as his being persecuted unfairly. If you challenge the narrative they attack viciously, as evidenced by their reaction to your post about that photo op. Of course they want to make it all about the observation of her breasts instead of the larger point.
About echo chambers: Rick Moran had an interesting post the other day discussing the effect the internet has had fostering conspiracy theories and keeping them going. It's pretty balanced and takes on Clinton Derangement Syndrome as well as the Bush variety.
Unlike Clinton, who uses a woman as a cigar humidor.
Omg people need to wake up to the fact that Hillary is the answer to turning America around. Anyone who doesn't realize this must be stoned out of their mind. Guess what? Hillary Clinton is the only candidate that has these 4 attributes: integrity, honor, patriotism, and compassion. I double dog dare you to find another candidate with these attributes. I got $35 in the bank that says you won't be able to find one.
http://www.voteforhillaryonline.com
Trevor said...
"[Drum] says he's still on the fence, but leaning toward Hillary."
Indeed. You know, I'm still on the fence, but I'm leaning toward voting Republican next year. See how easily you can do that? So for Drum. "[A]lthough the [statement] was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, ... the precise correlation between the information [he] communicated, and the facts insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear."
Ann Althouse said...
You can give me hell for that post as long as you want, but I stand by it. The central point is that Bill betrayed feminism. I know I put it in a way that makes people crazy. That's their problem.
You know what's truly crazy? A rank misogynist accusing somebody of being insufficiently feminist.
And that's your problem, Ann, not ours.
A misogynist??
At most she's a misfatuist, one who does not suffer fools gladly.
christopher said...
"A rank misogynist..."
Ah, so we move from the half-truths and misdirection noted above into the realm of outright lies.
whether Drum is on my case in service to the Clintons.
That's a bit grandiose. Maybe's he's just on your case, period. Or maybe, my God, the Clintons are after you. Look out, you know they've had two men murdered.
The true tragedy of the entire impeachment imbroglio is that everyone has lost sight of the real victim in this whole squalid affair. That poor cigar. There it was minding it’s own business in the humidor, waiting to be savored by a gentlemen of distinction, perhaps a head of state or some business potentate. Instead it was cruelly yanked away from his brothers and thrust and thrust again into the political vortex as well as the well worn vortex of a skanky party girl. Soon it was slimy and slippery and covered with hair and totally unsomkeable. Reason enough for impeachment. Reason enough to tar and feather this miscreant. Anyone who so cruelly abuses a fine tobacco product forever forfeits the esteem of all true gentlemen. He should hide his head in shame and know of his high crimes and misdemeanors against the highest standards of civilized behavior. That poor, poor cigar. It is enough to make me weep.
I just read that over at Kevin Drum's blog, which I was scanning to try to figure out his position on Hillary Clinton. Actually, he isn't such a "little" guy: I learned that he has a BMI of 28. I know, maybe he's very muscular, but I'm guessing doughy. I think if you know 2 facts, BMI of 28 + blogger, you can assume doughy. For the sake of argument. And I'm here for an argument.
What a weird passage. Who said he was a "little guy"? Your comeback to Drum and the Wingnut Award can't be that he's fat. Can it?
Trooper, apart from the part where Clinton had his grubby hands on it, I'm struggling to see how the cigar isn't the real winner here.
Your comeback to Drum and the Wingnut Award can't be that he's fat. Can it?
Of course it can. That's our Annie.
Pot, greet kettle...
Chris, why don't you go play with your Aqua Dots...
Simon, please, a gentleman of taste and discernment such as yourself must realize that the cigar could not be smoked after being saturated in skank slime. This cigar had entered into a sacred covenant with the smoker, you will consume me and I will cease to exist, but for a brief time, we will share an experience so sublime that it has endured through the centuries. When Sir Walter Raleigh first fired up a splif with the Virgin Queen, a tradition of sensual enjoyment had begun that continues to this very day. When General Grant was distraught at the siege of Vicksburg as the war hung in the balance, it was only his friend the cigar that gave him the solace that enable him to continue and go on to win the war. When Britain faced its darkest hour, only the comfort of his cigar could give Sir Winston Churchill the strength to preserve and lead his countrymen out of the wilderness. This proud tradition was trashed by an ignorant lout who destroyed one of the greatest creations of a bountiful harvest, a gift from our Mother Earth. Remember, a woman is a woman and can be a wife for the rest of your life, but a good cigar is a smoke.
Beth: "That's a bit grandiose. Maybe's he's just on your case, period. Or maybe, my God, the Clintons are after you. Look out, you know they've had two men murdered."
Well, keep in mind that my post was about a lunch with Bill Clinton and the bloggers, which was intended to get bloggers to think well of Hillary, and that the Clinton campaign hired Peter Daou (of Salon) to work on the relationship with the bloggers. I have no doubt that my post put me on Daou's radar and that he has a job to do. Is it really grandiose to think that destroying my reputation is on his to do list?
Trooper,
I have only recently been exposed to the Churchillian experience myself, and could not agree more.
Bill's misogyny is palpable, but why hurt a cigar in the process?
As always, Ann gets it 100 percent right. The Clintons definitely should have gotten divorced and remarried multiple times, kinda like Rudy, Newt and Fred.
Anything less is a betrayal of feminism...
Trooper, I'm just not realling buying the underlying concept that, as a general matter, intimate contact with a liberal's vagina is a fate worse than incineration. Of course, speaking of Churchill, one might say that whether the cigar is ready to meet its fate is a far less concerning question than whether the cigar's fate is prepared to meet it - tobacco not seeming like the healthiest foreign substance to leave lying around in there.
Trooper, the real victims were the 3000 killed in the WTC (and the >3800 killed in the war in Iraq that followed) because the entire government -- right and left -- was preoccupied by Clinton's Sex life and didn't see what was percolating.
Pogo, welcome to the brotherhood. You must find your own way on the journey, but let me share some of my thoughts. Don’t be impressed by the whole Cuban mystique. Although Cubans are great cigars, you often get substandard vintages at outrageous prices because of the problems inherent in getting them into the United States. The Honduran and especially the Nicaraguan cigars are wonderful and a bargain at the price. I personally delight in a maduro wrapper with its rich and hearty taste, but I am sure you will find your own sweet spot. If you ever come to Brooklyn, we will sit in my backyard to watch the leave fall and have some wine with a couple of fine stogies as we solve the problems of the world as we nibble on various cheeses, figs and crusty French baguettes. Good times.
So, Madison Man, that means that it was possible to stop 9/11 during the Clinton Adminstration? If you say that, you have to hold Clinton responsible. He should have done whatever that thing was that would have stopped it, and if his opponents were distracting him, that's no excuse. He should have soldiered on despite distractions.
MadisonMan said...
"[T]he real victims were the 3000 killed in the WTC (and the >3800 killed in the war in Iraq that followed) because the entire government -- right and left -- was preoccupied by Clinton's Sex life and didn't see what was percolating."
I'm not sure that I can buy that. Just because we reject the idea that 9/11 was inevitable - it wasn't - doesn't mean we have to embrace the idea that it was preventable if only we'd done X. I'm not comfortable with this idea that if only Clinton had done more, any more than I like the idea that's sometimes peddled that if only Bush hadn't been on vacation that summer, or if only there'd been more fighters on alert that morning, and so forth. I think that's fulfilling a deepseated need to find a causal link with a link that's quite tenuous.
Simon the problem has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It would be crime if he stuck it in Angelina Jolies' cootch. The damage of the secretions and hair to a fine tobacco product can not be countenanced by a civilized society. Of course my assumption could be quite incorrect; perhaps it was not truly a fine cigar. Considering his general level of taste, it is conceivable that the cigar in question was a Philly blunt left over from his Christmas present from Vernon Jordan. Then his crime is somewhat mitigated, but not forgiven.
Trooper,
You are so going to get blasted you heretic you!
Mentioning the "E" word and cigars on a post tagged Bill Clinton. And pro-smoking to boot?
Oh boy, wait till Lucy gets here then you'll be sorry.
Trooper, at this point, I'm going to extricate myself gracefully from this particular discussion, lest I allow myself to be pushed into saying what I was about to reply with, thereby transgressing the boundaries of decorum, which would be bad enough in and of itself, but a foriori since it would usurp Titus' role among us as letch-in-residence.
I'm not right wing!
I'm not right wing!
Okay, we got it. You're safe now. The proper submissive gesture has been made not once, but twice, to your bien pensant colleagues in academe.
Lawgiver, I fear not, because a man is truly measured by the caliber of his enemies. Did.
Lt. Cmdr. Quinton McHale fear Capt. Wallace B. Binghamton . Did Captain Wilton Parmenter fear the the Hekawi. I think not. He simply offered to smoke the peace pipe and find a way to coexist. I know we can do it. All we are saying, is give the peace pipe a chance.
Sorry, ricpic, the smart people I care about in academe think it's funny that the blogosphere type-casts me as a right winger. I go out of my way to call attention to it in conversations because I think it's funny too. And the lefties I know there tend to think Hillary is a right winger. So you need to get your bearings. I've been here for 23 years.
Simon I am sorry you have hung up you shield and left the lists in this tourney. Perhaps in another thread we can revisit you true feelings about Ms. Jolie and her cavern of delight which I presume is the cause for your gentlemanly reticence. Discretion is an admirably quality; unfortunately it is not an arrow in my quiver. Nappy ho, no no no, I mean Tally ho. There is a reason why I am not on the radio.
Trooper, my comment in no way pertained to anything specific to Ms. Jolie, who I find to be almost entirely unlikable on every level. I was merely going to - not to beat around the bush - offer a slightly too graphic observation as to the relative merits, vis-a-vis the palate, of the two res you mentioned above, in my own humble opinion.
You see, now you've gone and provoked me! Damnit.
Ah, I stand corrected and tip my hat to another true boulevardier. But I am sure you agree that even the best tastes sometimes are not enjoyable in concert. You would not wash down ice cream with a fine single malt. There is a time and a place for everything. But as we say in the Maduro club, De gustibus non est disputandum.
Ann, I'm of mixed feelings about this one. I comprehend your explanation of your comment, "Let's take a closer look at those breasts" but I also know how that whole thread devolved into a foul swamp of misogyny on the part of your commenters. That's a factor in your reputation. Your post doesn't stand alone, and since you're a smart writer with a good sense of your audience, I doubt you didn't expect the kind of responses you'd get from the men who frequent your comments section. Maybe you didn't anticipate the depths to which it would sink, but it did indeed become repulsive. That, as much as offending the Clinton camp or indicting the feminist institutional hypocrisy, fuels the attacks of people like Daou. I expect you and I will continue to disagree on this.
But we agree on one thing: Hillary is right wing. How do people not see that?
Beth said...
"Ann ... we agree on one thing: Hillary is right wing. How do people not see that?"
Not to nitpick, but I think the view that Hillary as right wing was ascribed to lefties Ann knows in academe, rather than being subscribed to by Ann herself.
Sorry, "is," not "as."
Beth: "a foul swamp of misogyny on the part of your commenters. That's a fact..."
If I remember the comments correctly (and I haven't reread them) they were full of people sent over from other blogs who were very hostile to me and saying very sexist things about me! Don't pin that on me.
And I didn't say Hillary is right wing, just that my lefty friends see her that way. I think she has some capacity to be hawkish, but I don't think hawkishness is right wing. I consider myself a liberal hawk. I think she has an ever-changing swirling mix of tendencies, and some of them are quite left wing. If you're left wing and you don't like her, you have room to call her right wing. And if you're right wing and you don't like her, you have room to call her left wing. If you like her, you can find the parts that match what you like. Which is why a lot of people just don't trust her.
You know, I have always had a great deal of sympathy for Hillary. I think she gets a pretty raw deal. Although I don’t think we could agree on anything as our views are so diametrically opposite, I feel her pain. She is a real woman. A passionate woman. A volcano of passion that bubbles under surface and with lava flows in strange and uncertain ways. A woman who deserves more then the pump and dump of affection from a good ol’boy ne’er-do-well who is always looking over his shoulder while in her embrace. She needs the attention of a true lover (of either sex I would submit) who would fulfill her needs, with the joy and attention to the minute detail so important to consummation of a passionate relationship. Then perhaps her perspective would change, and the solace of such a love would allow her to relax, to stop and reflect and make her persona more acceptable to the general populace. A pity. She seems an untapped reservoir of delight waiting to be set free. Just the opinion of a simple boulevardier who sees untapped potential that is sadly being sublimated into unfortunate paths.
Ann, you're not remembering that thread very well. It was indeed full of nasty comments about you from visitors, yes, but it was also full of nasty comments about Jessica Valenti and her breasts, in crass form that did nothing to advance your argument.
I re-read your comment on Hillary, and see I overlooked your attribution to your colleagues. I share that with them, I guess. Among Democrats, Hillary stands to the right. That doesn't put her off the list for me in 2008, but I won't be joyfully jumping on her bandwagon, either.
Beth I am very sensitive to your dislike to a swamp of misogyny. So I thought I would provide you with a little genteel wading pool of misogyny. Think of a fountain outside a Tuscan villa on a sunny summer afternoon. You could dip your toe into this warm shallow pool, slowing getting used to feel of the warm water against your skin. You shiver slightly as you cup some of this warm and sensual misogyny and slowly and sensuously pour some upon your alabaster limbs. Soon, you are acclimated enough to recline in the pool and let the warm and comforting liquid fill your most secret and private places. You lean back, pick up a glass of a vintage sangiovese and sigh. Perhaps. Perhaps the patriarchy is not so horrible after all.
Ann, I don't consider "hawkish" the property of either party or wing, either. I think both she and Bill move from left to right when it's advantageous -- DOMA would be a good example of that. I'm not holding out for ideological purity, but trust is certainly an issue. But then, I can't think of anyone who's made it to a presidential campaign that I would trust outright. There's a whole lot of politickin' along that path.
Trooper, are there scantily clad pool attendants (pool boys, cabana girls, both will do) to fetch another glass when my wine is gone? And grapes--I'll need a platter of grapes.
Is it really grandiose to think that destroying my reputation is on his to do list?
IMO, with all due respect, yes.
Trooper, the real victims were the 3000 killed in the WTC (and the >3800 killed in the war in Iraq that followed) because the entire government -- right and left -- was preoccupied by Clinton's Sex life and didn't see what was percolating.
Sorry MadisonMan, but I don't buy that line. Then again, partisans to the left and the right to the contrary, I do not believe it made any difference who was in the Oval Office 1993-2001 or in 2001, the foul deed would have been successfully done all the same.
I meant to add that I agree wholeheartedly with your point, Ann:
The central point is that Bill betrayed feminism.
As well as your observation that it drives certain people crazy. And that is a good example of why there is no need for anyone running a campaign to go after someone. The "true believers" will attack, attack, attack whether or not they want them to. In the end, they just turn off the undecided. It rather like the methods used to suppress voter turnout: throw mud and keep throwing. Once enough is thrown, a lot people are so disgusted they don't vote. And that's fine with both parties because they know how to turn out their base (all things being equal and they have been just about that in recent elections).
Beth said...
"I don't consider 'hawkish' the property of either party or wing, either...."
It does seem, however, that although there are people opposed to war and foreign intervention on both right and left, those on the left tend to be driven by pacifism while those on the right tend to be driven by isolationism.
But then, I can't think of anyone who's made it to a presidential campaign that I would trust outright.
Beth, it seems to me that Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are two excellent examples of both ideological purity and an unwillingness to compromise principles. Their voting records in Congress certainly reflect that, as do their campaigns. Of course, their voting records prove their near-complete lack of influence and the strong likelihood that should either actually attain the Presidency, James Buchanan will lose his place in history as the most ineffective President of the United States of America.
Beth, of course you can have grapes. Red juicy grapes bursting with flavor. Slivers of cheese with both a sharp taste and a milky fresh mozzarella. Fresh arugla in a light vinaigrette with red onion and small plum tomatoes. Fresh crunchy bread sliced in bite size pieces and garlicky flatbread that break apart when you bite into them. Sensuous pool attendants who will fan you with ostrich feathers and refill you plates and glass as you lounge in the warm scented waters. They will hold out freshly laundered towels as soon as you rise out of the pool, put on your sandals and wander back to villa….….to enjoy the scandalous nighttime pursuits of the patriarchy. Ciao Bella.
Maybe skip the crunchy bread. I just--today--broke a crown eating a crunchy bread. (I kid you not!) I didn't think that was possible. I still don't, in the face of the immediate, obvious evidence.
Go for the flatbread, Beth, go for the flatbread.
(P.S. It strikes me that I just ate the most expensive bread crust of my life. Damn.)
Reader: I believe you. I broke a tooth while eating pizza a couple of years ago. Late on a Friday afternoon. On a 3-day weekend. Lots of fun.
Ditto on the breaking a crown on bread. Just before I moved to the states - terribly annoying, and as for the process to remove the root - dental "surgery" is really a misnomer, its more like something from a Steven King novel for me. I don't know which is more unpleasant, actually, flying, or a trip to the dentist. It's a close call.
My current dentist is relatively painless. Nevertheless, my childhood experiences of both my dentist and my father leave me in a state of near-panic whenever I see that damn reclining xhair.
Something about tooth-pulling without anesthesia, and using pliers from the tool box, that makes me shiver still.
So I told him up front, "I'd rather chew glass than be here." God bless him, he took pity on me.
Wait--there's gonna be surgery involved? (I'm waiting for a call back.)
Oh shit. Shit! The last time I had dental surgery, they gave me a drug that left me on tenterhooks for months as to whether my son (marvelously normal, thank God) would suffer serious birth defects. Again, I kid you not.
I get the sweats when I think of dental surgery; did before then, and now I'm relatively seriously phobic. I still have nightmares from time to time about that period (I dream that I'm pregnant and that something's wrong with the baby and it's all my fault because of the surgery and my being a pain wimp and also anesthesia resistant). Very neurotic, I know, but there it is.
OK, end OT.
Signed,
Suddenly sweaty and dry-mouthed
You can hate that post all you want, but there's nothing right wing about it.
It's not the politics I hate, it's the mendacity. Upon seeing the title I thought, like most readers, "Yes, let's!" But though I scrolled and scrolled, not only was the promised "closer look" not provided, there were no pictures at all! That sort of deceptive blogospheric posting goes beyond politics, and should be condemned by left and right alike.
Reader - my fingers are crossed for you, but I should clarify that it may have been different for me in that the tooth was already dead following surgery after a car crash years before, and that may have complicated matters in my case.
No way, reader. Easy peasy.
A little gas or topical numbing. Tell them striaght off "I am petrified, give me everything legally available."
You'll be fine.
I don't think it's grandiose at all.
I think Kevin Drum is an exercise-deficient pudgy clintonian cigar-carrying dentataphobic vortex-envious putz who is desperately trying to get his own wanky wing nuts off. He needs to movehisowndoughyselfon.org.
Did Bill Clinton really betray feminism, or did feminists betray feminism for the political expedient of protecting Clinton?
For Clinton to have betrayed feminism, he would have to be a feminist to begin with, and I don't think he ever said he was.
As I look back on the 90s, I think Clinton's staff, lawyers and advocates were far more dishonest and disingenuous than Clinton himself ever was.
It's one thing to be Clinton: Brilliant and extremely horny, with so many women around him, some pursuing him, some being pursued. That's rakish and sometimes painful to others, but it's his life.
It's quite another to be the enabler of such a person, to lie repeatedly with a straight face when the evidence is at your feet, to use the scum of the earth to intimidate witnesses, to use high office for low purposes, and to waste so much time and money, much of it public dollars and resources.
If the enabling types in Arkansas and Washington had just stepped aside and let Clinton feel the full measure of consequence for his dalliances, he probably would have stopped. He's a bright guy. His life is not a suicide pact. He would have forced himself to be a better man.
I'm not saying Clinton is blameless. But a lot of people -- hundreds of people -- had to make their own choices in order for things to reach the point that they did. Aren't they accountable too?
I think you have used the term doughy before.
What an unattractive thought...being doughy.
Would you define yourself as "doughy" or is that only a label for a man who is a little what...really white....maybe a little around the middle.
I am curious what your definition of doughy is. You use it to refer to a man and not a woman, correct?
Didn't you call some other liberal blogger doughy?
Is Jonah Goldberg doughy or does the term only refer to liberal...men.
Please enlighten.
John:
"Aren't they accountable too?"
But isn't it also true that the Captain of a ship is responsible for the conduct of his crew?
Can you let us know who else you think is doughy?
JPod?
Instapundit?
Rush?
or are there females also that are doughy?
KLo?
Or only liberals?
Women arent doughy. Sorry.
Only men.
It's a rule.
Simon,
He's responsible for himself. But I don't think "I was protecting a president/governor I believe in" should excuse what the underlings did. And just looking at it empircally and statistically, a lot more lies came out of their mouths than his.
I'm wondering if you took yer tits off while you wrote this post.
It's necessary, y'know. They get in the way, and also can attract all sorts of unwholesome attention.
Just for the sake of argument:
I am a blogger
My BMI is 27.5
My bodyfat is about 10%
and I can squat 365 lbs.
Not all bloggers are doughy.
Peace,
Bill
hoosier daddy said:
Anyone notice that liberal Oregon voted 60% against a 84 cent tax increase in a pack of Marlboros to pay for health care?
How could they do such a thing when its for the children?
I live in Oregon. Oregon has no sales tax and has a long tradition of rejecting any legislation that even smells like a sales tax. (Of course, it pays for that by having a 9% income tax).
So there's your answer.
titus: "or are there females also that are doughy?"
For women, the term is "voluptuous."
ethan, I'm leaving your comment up so people will know you are a sexist.
WH: "I am a blogger
My BMI is 27.5
My bodyfat is about 10%
and I can squat 365 lbs.
Not all bloggers are doughy"
It's a rebuttable presumption.
In my single days I would often cook and bake for my dalliances, and as the night progressed I would some times roll them in flower....well you know the rest. So women are never doughy although we can lightly powder them to help our aims so to speak.
Miss Thang, you need to stop reading things that liberal bloggers write about you. Why would you care? They don't know you. You are not a wingnut. Maybe somewhat of a nut but definitely not a wingnut.
Speaking of nuts I am horny.
Also, I have never done anyone who is doughy. This is an awful thing to say but I can't do a doughy person. It doesn't bother me in women because it can be distributed rather discriminately. In men it usually sits right at the waist and I do not want to see any dough hanging above the waist. If I would have to lift some dough to coral that hog that would be an immediate softie.
By the way fellow republicans I recommend that you catch TCM this month. They are having "guest stars" on playing their favorite movies. Last night it was Neil Labute and I watched Allen's Manhattan and Foucault's 400 Blows-both absolutely fabulous. I fell in love again with Woody and NYC all over again. Diane Keaton was a tour de force and what can one say about Streep playing the lesbian-nothing short of brill. If you have a chance catch some of these movies. They are delightful and movies that are not viewed often on tele.
I love you all, think you are all thin and gorgeous and give you big hugs all around.
Tonight the guest programmer is drag queen diva Charles Busch.
His favorite is Judy Garland in "I Could Go On Singing". It's on now.
Please watch. Judy plays at the Palladium in this movie.
My last post sounded totally gay but please dolls watch.
TCM, Judy, I could go on Singing,
Performing live at the Palladium.
Or only liberals?
Yes, only liberals are doughy. Conservatives are properly referred to as "corpulent".
"Foucault's 400 Blows"
Something's very wrong there.
WH said...
"I am a blogger[;] My BMI is 27.5[;] My bodyfat is about 10%[,] and I can squat 365 lbs."
I don't even know what that means, let alone how one would find it out, but I somehow have a gut instinct that I'm a lot happier not knowing. ;)
Sorry I meant François Truffaut's 400 Blows. Althouse always manages to highlight my unfabulousness...bitch.
OMG. Judy just sang at the Palladium. I am in tears.
Judy is amazing in this movie.
Oh Judy...why did you leave us...Judy, Judy, Judy. We miss you and we love you. We know what you went through. We feel your pain, isolation, lonliness. Judy, you are not a pastry that everyone wants to take a bite out of. We are one with you Judy.
Yes, everything is about you !
In my single days I would often cook and bake for my dalliances, and as the night progressed I would some times roll them in flower....well you know the rest. So women are never doughy although we can lightly powder them to help our aims so to speak.
Jeez!!!!??!!!!
Where were YOU in my single days? And to think they extended relatively late, for my day and time.
(Not that you would have won out over my ultimate choice. Sorry. No offense.
But still. For crying out loud.)
You can hate that post all you want, but there's nothing right wing about it. If it's any wing, it's left.
I suppose, in your case, instead of wingnut he should have said "screw loose."
I wasn't impressed with your opening remarks about Kevin being doughy. It makes you sound like one of those Internet trolls who resort to "yer fat!" because they have no clever comebacks.
I didn't say he was fat. I just said he wasn't little. I do see that my critics are saying that I said he was fat, and it isn't very nice to him to put that up all over the place. But what the hell? Free-floating hostility... aimed at one's friends... attributed to one's enemies.
Ann,
BMI is worthless. Here's a list of people while in their athletic primes were "obese" according to BMI measurements:
Michael Jordan
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Shaquille O'Neal
8 time Mr. Olympia Ronnie Coleman
BMI looks at body weight, primarily, and if you're carrying muscle you're BMI will be quite huge. Thus, ignore it. Completely. It's useless. Generally, males whose BMI are in teh acceptable range look like marathon runners (seriously, how many people want to look like wimps?).
I am a blogger / My BMI is 27.5 / My bodyfat is about 10% / and I can squat 365 lbs. / Not all bloggers are doughy.
BWAHAHHAHA! 365? That's like bragging about being published in the newspaper whenever they print your letter to the editor: nice, but not really impressive to anyone but you.
Can't believe an adult male thought 365 was impressive enough to 'brag' about. Hopefully, you're a budding chap who is nearing the age of getting alcohol legally in a FEW years.
Are you really making a fat joke? And somehow you think you are the feminist?
Sorry about the 'teh' above. Of course, it's 'the'. And Mr. Drum is indeed doughy, as is evident by his pictures. Not that big a deal, he's no longer 20 years old so he's a bit ahead of the game, but he's definitely lower on muscle mass than a 'fit' person with his BMI would be.
Not as fat as Andrew Sullivan (no, Andrew, pharmaceutically induced hormone aided growth doesn't equate to 'budding bodybuilders') but doughy, indeed.
The central point is that Bill betrayed feminism. I know I put it in a way that makes people crazy. That's their problem.
Sigh. No, the problem is the post makes you look crazy. Honestly, you should be a little embarrassed by it. And no you're not right wing, but that post is so lacking in reason, logic and so filled with personal smears that it might as well be a right-wing blog post, which is why you were nominated.
And I'm sorry, but calling someone "doughy" and then saying that you weren't saying someone is fat, is just more of the same. Any fifth grader would understand that by "doughy" you mean "fat." Frankly, in using the word "doughy" it may be irrebuttably presumed that you mean "fat." If you didn't already know that...well, I just can't believe that you didn't already know that.
BWAHAHHAHA!
I've said it before at other blogs, and I'll say it again here. Typing "BWAHAHA" in all caps, renders your comment deserving of deletion.
Don't quit your day job
If blogger + 28 BMI = doughy then
blond = bimbo
End if
Not sure you can draw the conclusion of your post based on a sample size of one post, but, you fought back.
ok, then.
I've said it before at other blogs, and I'll say it again here. Typing "BWAHAHA" in all caps, renders your comment deserving of deletion.
Oh, okay, you said it. And you said it on other blogs. It must be important, then.
Now, I feel so awful that I can only squat 365 pounds & then have girly men stand up for me.
Well reader_iam, I was here in Brooklyn where I have always resided. I would never think of trading in my lovely wife, who is the light of my life and the joy of my existence. I worship her and all that she does. I do all of the cooking in our house and in fact I do all of the holiday cooking for our combined families. My advice for any man who is lost in the dating arena, cook for your dates in interesting and diverse ways and they will be totally intrigued and receptive to after dinner activities that would help them work off the effects of a big meal. Perhaps a simple salad of arugla with shaved parmesan, a dish of olives and some bread (not crunchy for people with dental issues) for an appetizer. A small plate of pasta as a starter, perhaps some angel hair in garlic and oil with pancetta and peas. Then some red meat or some pork or lamb as you become more experienced as a chef. Roasted potatoes or some fanook braised in butter and white wine. A desert of freshly baked brownies covered in ice cream or even simply fruit with a scoop of home made sorbet. There most definitely must be copious amounts of wine through out the night, together with some after dinner aperitifs, perhaps a Martel cognac or some grappa as we adjure to the rug in front of the fire. That’s a recipe for some fun. Just remember, no vegetarians, vegans, or anyone afraid of a meatball. I wouldn’t steer you wrong.
Believe Drum is 6'5" his unusual hieght skewing his BMI. So, what is your BMI, Ann, only fair to tell us. My is 23.4 accoding to the corp health screener we have to take.
Believe Drum is 6'5" his unusual hieght skewing his BMI.
The weight is the deciding factor, not the height. Being taller w/the same weight drops the BMI.
6'5" and 28 BMI.... sounds rather scary! He's in Washington, right? Not NY?
Anyway, he owes me 2 apologies.
Wow. You really didn't spend much time on his site if you didn't figure out that Drum's in California.
It must be killing you that he hasn't responded to your taunts.
Anyway, I didn't look around long enough to tell if he writes in support of Hillary Clinton
Because why take the time to learn about his substantive content when it's so much easier to mock his supposed physical appearance?
And as for Valenti, you're right that your comments weren't right wing. They weren't any wing. They were just astonishingly childish, as in, "a law professor wrote that? Seriously? It wasn't her boob-obsessed 13-year-old stepson?"
Boy, looking at the above, I gotta say, Ann, you give cattiness a bad name.
The Law Fairy: "And as for Valenti, you're right that your comments weren't right wing. They weren't any wing. They were just astonishingly childish, as in, "a law professor wrote that? Seriously? It wasn't her boob-obsessed 13-year-old stepson?"
Did you understand the post? I was objecting to the use of breast iconography on her blog, not to her breasts. Why am I wrong to object to the use of stereotypical images of women on what purports to be a feminist blog? As a feminist, I am criticizing the use of breast imagery to sell a blog and saying that it isn't feminist. Put into words why you think that is wrong. Or did you just not understand my post (in which case, you should apologize to me).
And calling that "catty" is sexist, by the way. Women can criticize women. To say that it's catty when we do so is to trivialize women. It's sexist. So you need to apologize for that as well.
I think it's quite possible that you aren't very bright and you are taking direction from others, in which case I feel sorry for you. Go ahead and slink away. But if you want to stand by your comments, you have some major explaining to do. Get on it.
Lol, Ann. Insulting my intelligence because you don't like what I have to say? Very mature.
I did understand your point. If you weren't possessed by some need to never be wrong (or whatever it is that drove you to turn it into the blogosphere clusterfuck it became) you could have at least admitted that it was poorly made and apologized to Ms. Valenti, which to my knowledge you still have not done. Until you get the guts to give her the apology she's owed, your rudeness will overshadow any point you were trying to make about Clinton (of whom, by the way, I am no fan either, for precisely the reasons you have mentioned).
First off, "catty" is only sexist if it's applied only to women. I apply it to both men and women to describe when the person in question is acting in a manner best described as "catty." Just like if a woman were acting like an asshole or a dick I would call her an asshole or a dick. I understand the connotation you're referencing, so I will apologize to the extent that my irony was not clear (which is, in fairness, partly my fault, as I don't really visit here much so you guys don't have any reason to know me or how I use language).
The cattiness wasn't in criticizing another woman (otherwise I'd be a hypocrite). It was in the nature of the criticism (please note, by the way, that the reference was as to BOTH sets of remarks -- those about Ms. Valenti, and those about Mr. Drum). So I apologize that my meaning was not clear.
But that's the only apology you're owed. I do find it interesting that you seem to be under the impression that I should apologize to you for YOUR failure to make a point well. Perhaps I should retract the apology I just made and you should apologize to me for not understanding my comment?
So sorry, law fairy. You are dumb. I understand now. Be off.
Is that the kind of stellar legal reasoning that would earn a student an A in one of your classes?
"Person A disagrees with Person B. Person A presents an argument Person B thinks is unreasonable. What is the appropriate response from Person B?"
Answer: You're dumb, Person A.
Althouse's grade: A++ (comments: you are a genius! You will go far in this profession!!!)
No, Law Fairy. Go back and read the post that was essentially an entrance exam for participation here. You failed. You're not up to the level here. Go back to whatever blog told you what to think. Or try again. If you don't or won't or can't, you need to go. Seriously. You're not ready. Don't embarrass yourself any further.
It's not about disagreement. Plenty of people here disagree with me. The fact that you think it is... well, it's really you failing the entrance exam again. Please, don't embarrass yourself further. You are not ready.
Is it really grandiose to think that destroying my reputation is on his to do list?
Yes, because it presumes a reputation that you don't have, namely that of a non-wingnut hack.
Nice try, Ann. Problem is, you've said nothing substantive. A GOOD professor knows how to give substantive critiques, rather than throwing up her hands and saying "oh my God, you're so stupid I can't teach you." (Hint: if you can't teach me, that's *your* failing, not mine)
And for someone so much smarter than me, you apparently didn't even notice I didn't "come from" anywhere; I have my own blog. Genius.
Now let's see if you waste any more time on a clearly retarded illiterate lemming like little old me.
The Law Fairy said...
"if you can't teach me, that's *your* failing, not mine"
No, actually, it's quite distinctly your failing.
Recent *doughy* comments are tacky....
Law Fairy, you failed to demonstrate that you understand the questions asked and you've failed to answer them. That gets absolutely no credit. You are not at the level needed to comment here. Maybe you're a law student. I'd advise you to either try to do what was required, silently observe until you understand how things are done, or retreat to another blog where rote talk like yours is the way it's done. I will be deleting you from now on unless you do the first thing I've required of you to show that you can keep up here. And by the way, I think the reason you haven't done it is that you can't. My questions revealed that your position was wrong, and you are cornered. Perhaps you don't realize that. But if you do, you can shut up, apologize, or explain that you understand.
"I will be deleting you from now on unless...oh, unless you stop making me look like such a pompous twit."
Sorry, Zuzu, I leave tons of critics up. I'm picking on this one person because after I took the trouble to respond to her argument, she would not respond to me. I gave her several chances, and she wasted my time. I made a special effort for her. I offered to teach, and she basically whined I don't wanna. That gets you kicked out.
Right, you just delete the ones who make you look like a total fool.
Gonna delete this one too?
Post a Comment