IN THE COMMENTS: Too Many Jims (author of the indispensable Monitoring the Cruel Neutrality) writes:
It has been amusing reading the comments for the last week or so. Before that Prof. Althouse would post something and almost immediately a liberal commenter... would pop into the comments and say that Prof. Althouse was a vapid, unthinking apologist (usually for Bush). Republican commenters would deride the commenter and say he was upset because Prof. Althouse is really an intelligent, independent minded, academic woman who has drawn liberals' fire because she has dared wander off the reservation.
Now, the republican ox is being gored and republican commenters are whining like the liberal commenters that Prof. Althouse is a vapid, unthinking apologist for Obama.
Part of me (approximately 10.73%) thinks that Prof. Althouse has not made a decision and/or is leaning toward McCain but that she made the "leaning toward Obama revelation" as part of a blogging as performance art project. Specifically, to see how the announcement would be received by commenters and the blogosphere.
Prof. Althouse is fond of saying that she has found that the left side of the blogosphere is looking for heretics, the right side is looking for converts (my apologies if I mangled that expression). What better way to test that theory.
IN THE COMMENTS: Simon wants to be frontpaged and tagged.
AND: Oh, I get it now.
पोस्ट्स
३१६ टिप्पण्या:
316 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»I could read this kind of bleating all day!
Maybe it's just me, but... I haven't noticed a change to a pro-Obama tone.
Really.
Ann is just incredibly proud of herself for pissing off the extreme right of her fan base.
Wurly is correct, of course. Still, I'm not leaving...
Who is pissed off?
What did I miss?
I'm worried about Fen. Anyone hear from him lately?
I hear he asphyxiated on a Sarah Palin blowup doll.
It’s sad that wurly found himself blinded by the light.
Still, I look forward with hope to his return so I can finally figure out what was up with little Early-Pearly and why she asked me if I needed a ride.
Doyle said...
I could read this kind of bleating all day!
Sure you could, but it still wouldn't change the fact the man you are voting for as President is an unmitigated fraud who is part of a cadre of other frauds.
There would appear to be some interest in learning why you support Sen. Obama and the specific policies you hope he would help enact. What specific changes are you hoping for?
I'm not sure what questions you "belittled" in that post. I've seen you belittle questions and I've seen you embiggen other questions, but that post is a strange hill for Wurly to die on.
Sure you could, but it still wouldn't change the fact the man you are voting for as President is an unmitigated fraud who is part of a cadre of other frauds.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I know how it feels to watch someone you hate get elected (twice). It wasn't fun for me, and those were close elections, so I hate to think how unpleasant the coming landslide will be for you.
I expect Althouse to vote for Obama while acknowledging every argument against him.
It defers a decision and adds complexity, always the woman's move.
It's sometimes characterized as woman's belief in the innocence of the accused, against the just but fair grandfather's decision.
Or as silliness being the feminine failing corresponding to male skepticism.
Doyle said...
I hear he asphyxiated on a Sarah Palin blowup doll.
Ah, yes, the teenage locker room mentality of the progressives. KOS would be so proud of you.
Ah, yes, the teenage locker room mentality of the progressives.
Wingnuts can be so delicate!
This is really a load of crap. First Cyrus and now this Wurly dude get their own thread and tag and loyal Althouse commentor garage mahal is still drawing the short stick.
I find this unconscionable that a valued commentor like garage is being shunned. I am officially on a boycott until garage's honor is satisfied. He may be a lefty sonofabitch but he's a funny lefty sonofabitch and that counts for something more than being an insufferable pretentious lefty sonofabitch like 'that one'.
Trevor Jackson said...
"I'm not sure what questions [Althouse] 'belittled' in that post."
Obama's involvement with Acorn is dismissed as "pragmatism" - and those who question said involvement waved away with a "don't you want a pragmatic President?"
"that post is a strange hill for Wurly to die on."
"The straw that broke the camel's back" is the phrase that springs to mind.
that counts for something more than being an insufferable pretentious lefty sonofabitch like 'that one'.
I'm flattered, really :-)
I'm flattered, really :-)
Don't be Doyle. I said an insufferable pretentious lefty sonofabitch not 'dork'.
;-)
I can't see myself leaving this place. Ann you are an incredibly talented, intelligent and insightful individual, (also very hot!) and I love your ability to drill down and explore the details that most overlook.
However, I have also been a bit taken aback at the difference in your bullshit meter in the last few days.
Free Garage Mahal.
Well I've basically said you were working from the answer backwards, but I wasn't dramatic enough or funny enough to earn a label.
meanwhile go-cart Mozart was checkin' out the weather chart to see if it was safe outside.
Card check, an end to right to work laws, the "fairness doctrine," a new generation of Brennans - or, worse yet, Reinhardts - on the bench, tax hikes, contraction of the econoomy, and more. Barack Obama's Washington. And against this is... "Aesthistics and blind hope." No wonder Wurly sounds annoyed.
Some questions get embiggened, it's true.
But I thought that was a perfectly cromulent Althouse post.
It's America, Simon. Love it or leave it.
I agree. Garage is one of my favorite commenters. He was a big Hillary partisan, and continually pointed out the problems with Obama. But when she lost he immediately spread his legs for the Chosen One. I feel we must encourage promiscuity among the commenteriat.
That's why I am glad Titus is back.
Reward Garage with a tag today.
Garage, Garage, Garage, Garage…….
Also, thank God the wonderful Bissage has returned.
Now if only Mort would wake up and check in, the gang would all be here.
My point exactly, Bissage.
I wouldn't say Garage "immediately spread his legs." I'd say he's flashed a bit of sensible ankle since he decided who'd he rather go to the dance with.
I'm starting to think that the best outcome of this election (for the conservative movement, and incidentally also for the presidential prospects of Gov. Palin) would be for Obama to win in the electoral college, but for McCain to win the popular vote.
That way we wouldn't have to endure 4 years of President McCain tarnishing the conservative brand by collaborating with Dems on amnesty ect, while McCain having received the most votes would deprive Obama of a mandate, and put a serious damper on the liberal ideological triumphalism that would otherwise accompany an Obama victory.
That's why I am glad Titus is back.
Oh great. More blow by blow (no pun intended) of Titus describing his money shots and how his latest bowel movement turned out.
And that's just when he talks about what Obama and the Democratic Congress did that day.
Can't we all just get along?
::::running and ducking:::::
Ann,
This is just to let you know that I will stay around until after the election. Apparently it's in my Astroturfing contract that I have to.
Wurly's annoyed because someone on the Internet is wrong. Boy, I've been there, every other day at least and sometimes thrice, but still... . Anyway, he said he'd be back, and he got a tag out of it, so all will be well in the end.
Say! Maybe Garage Mahal announced his departure, he'd get a tag. Alternatively, he could sockpuppet himself until Althouse accidentally deleted him.
Then again, you never know. Althouse's tagging is a bit idiosyncratic, in case you haven't noticed. It's part of her charm.
I'm not sure why anyone should be stressed about who Ann eventually votes for. Hers is just one vote out of 100 million and wouldn't decide the election even if she lived in Florida.
Are the items that she posts interesting and relevant, and do they provoke good discussion? As long as that continues to be true, I'll be a regular visitor.
I just want Garage to get some notice. His is a loyal commenter and a somewhat reasonable liberal. I expect him to be one of the first to jump ship on Obama and start the Hillary insurgency in 2010.
Is Roger Mudd still around?
It has been amusing reading the comments for the last week or so. Before that Prof. Althouse would post something and almost immediately a liberal commenter (often Doyle himself) would pop into the comments and say that Prof. Althouse was a vapid, unthinking apologist (usually for Bush). Republican commenters would deride the commenter and say he was upset because Prof. Althouse is really an intelligent, independent minded, academic woman who has drawn liberals' fire because she has dared wander off the reservation.
Now, the republican ox is being gored and republican commenters are whining like the liberal commenters that Prof. Althouse is a vapid, unthinking apologist for Obama.
Part of me (approximately 10.73%) thinks that Prof. Althouse has not made a decision and/or is leaning toward McCain but that she made the "leaning toward Obama revelation" as part of a blogging as performance art project. Specifically, to see how the announcement would be received by commenters and the blogosphere. Prof. Althouse is fond of saying that she has found that the left side of the blogosphere is looking for heretics, the right side is looking for converts (my apologies if I mangled that expression). What better way to test that theory.
Is there a Simon tag? Don't remember.
I have a secret to tell that I have never told anyone.
I pee in a cup.
"Is there a Simon tag? Don't remember."
Yes there is. It is attached to all the lingere that the Professor had put out on the clothes line.
I have broken up with Althouse a couple of times but I can't stay away.
Were in love. In a plutonic, harmless, kind of way.
Peeing in a cup is really Howard Hughes of me.
Reader, you're wrong on 2 counts:
1. Wurly already had a tag.
2. At a certain point, I started making a tag for a commenter whenever I put him/her on the front page. Any inconsistency is purely accidental. Then I do a search and add the tag to any old frontpagings. Now, my frontpaging activity may seem erratic...
I throw the pee out though. I think Howard Hughes kept his pee in the bottles and saved it.
The reason I do it is I don't like peeing in a toilet. I don't know why I just don't like it.
I do shit in the toilet though. I don't shit in a cup.
I said idiosyncratic, not erratic, and I'm sticking with it. (Unfortunately, I searched for the Wurly label after the fact; my bad.) I find being wrong good for the soul, anyway, as it builds character. Or something like that.
***
What I really came back in to do is link to Althouse's (first?) post on labels. Some of the comments are cute, too.
Now, the republican ox is being gored and republican commenters are whining like the liberal commenters that Prof. Althouse is a vapid, unthinking apologist for Obama.
Note that except for some mild approval in the post in which Ann suggested she was leaning Obama, I haven't been nice to her all of a sudden.
There's a reason they call forgetting a grudge "Irish Alzheimer's."
Where is the most unusual place you have masturbated?
Mine was my house-get it.
A friend of mine works at Gucci and he told me one time a lady took a dump in the dressing room.
Have any of you ever farted and accidently taken a shit?
That shits embarassing.
Personally, I was considering a "How Althouse Lost Me" comment on that other thread... So, it's not just wurly.
Jon said...
"I'm starting to think that the best outcome of this election ... would be for Obama to win in the electoral college, but for McCain to win the popular vote ... McCain having received the most votes would deprive Obama of a mandate...."
No it wouldn't. The popular vote doesn't mean squat. It didn't mean squat in 2000 when Al Gore won it. It wouldn't mean squat if Obama won it but got crushed in the electoral college. And it wouldn't mean squat if McCain won it. Legitimacy - legitimacy to perform the role of President, that is, not for one's agenda - is conferred by the institutional settlement - by the process, not by public acclamation.
Doyle said...
Ann is just incredibly proud of herself for pissing off the extreme right of her fan base.
Hi Doyle, I'm about as conservative as is possible and I don't feel Ann has done anything to piss me off. She has been consistently civil and honest in all of her post I have read. We may come to different conclusions, but that is no reason to be pissed off. Sure, I would like it if most folks agreed with me, a lot do, but agreement is not required…only obedience! Bow down to your new metal lord!!!! Muhahahaha!
reader_iam said...
"Is there a Simon tag? Don't remember."
Alas, I am not worthy. I've been frontpaged a couple of times (it's nice, but not nearly as nice as the warm glow of recognition. ;)) but not since the labeling thing started.
Hi Doyle, I'm about as conservative as is possible and I don't feel Ann has done anything to piss me off.
Well then you're not in the demographic I was referring to, then, which is to your credit.
She has been consistently civil and honest in all of her post I have read.
Civil? I dunno, that's not really something I screen for. Disagree about Ann's honesty, though.
Can we at least all agree that we enjoy smelling our own farts?
It isn't a liberal or conservative thing. It just is.
Thank you.
I haven't been nice to her all of a sudden.
You have, however, been less spiteful and scathing, overall. There has been an adjustment in tone, whether you've noticed it or not (which is a VERY good thing, IMO, and not primarily because it makes it easier to be one of the few here who thinks quite of few of your [non-personal attack] comments are quite good). Of course, that's solely my view; the only one that counts would be Althouse's, of course.
Hunter McDaniel said...
"I'm not sure why anyone should be stressed about who Ann eventually votes for. Hers is just one vote out of 100 million and wouldn't decide the election even if she lived in Florida."
It matters. Not because her vote decides the election, of course not. Neverthless, I want her vote.
You know, I had a friend in school that claimed to enjoy the smell of his own farts. lol
I don't enjoy them, but I guess some folks really do. Strange world eh?
Doyle said...
There's a reason they call forgetting a grudge "Irish Alzheimer's.
I always thought that it was forgetting everything except a grudge.
You have, however, been less spiteful and scathing, overall.
Well Ann hasn't been writing as many mindblowingly stupid, Instapundit-approved, Bush-apologizing posts lately.
Please remember that in the interest of fairness, all those not in agreement with His Esteemed Highness, the One, Farrakhan's Beloved Messiah, Venice, California's Dear Leader, O'Obama, "He supports it and doesn't support it," a single person must be anointed as Obama's very disloyal Conservative opposition.
I do hereby accept that honorable position, my door is secured against all intruders, domestic or foreign.
All those who support Obama, must accept their subservient position they will then have; excepting his smallish group of super-duper elite prima-donnas.
./smile on! :)
I think it could be a pain in the ass to collect commenters' posts, anyway, the search function notwithstanding, and I don't think in her position I'd undertake it myself. (For one thing, some handles are hard to use as decent search terms, and sometimes they're not used/reproduced consistently, anyway.) It's nice that Althouse makes the effort. Seriously. I'm just poking at you, Althouse, is all. No rancor felt or intended.
Simon at 2:49 is exactly right.
They run to win. Winning means the most electoral votes.
Gore would give all his millions, his Oscar, and his Nobel prize in exchange for having won in 2000.
Indeed he gave all his integrity by trying to steal the election after election day.
Let me add to my comment above - with one eye on Jim's comment - lookit, if we don't get her vote, that's okay. I'll be disappointed - maybe even a little angry and frustrated for a few minutes. But then I'll go out and hit some golf balls for a few hours to get it out of the system, and come back. I'm not going to stomp off in a huff over this. By the same token, however, I don't think it's remotely credible to compare respectful but robust criticism of some of what Althouse writes, which she will very likely get from conservatives here, with the vicious, contemptible vituperative filth poured out daily by the anti-Althousiana like Doyle.
There is space between performance and art.
PJ:
I'm about as conservative as is possible and I don't feel Ann has done anything to piss me off.
I agree, and it bothers me not one whit that Althouse will vote for Obama.
I said before that this had me feeling sucker-punched:
"What is wrong with a foundation that chooses to fund creative proposals for teaching kids to analyze the problems of racism in American history and rejects mundane proposals to drill math and science?"
I still can barely read it without a catch in my throat.
But I was told to lighten up, to get drunk, and so I shall.
If you want a tag reader, just come out and ask for one like Garage, enough with all this beating around the bush.
Since I'm adding addenda to earlier comments, I should say of my 2:49 comment that I don't want to change that setup, either. I don't want a President elected by a straight majority vote; I would prefer this system if we were writing on a blank slate, and a fortiori to the extent that we are not writing on a clean slate, I would oppose to the last an attempt to upend a system that has worked like a well-oiled machine since the Twelfth Amendment. I think the electoral college is still the best way to select the President, although I have no particular objection to states adopting reforms to assign their electors based on Congressional district.
Just a word of caution. As that great philospher RH Hardin once said:
It's not over until you stick it in Rover, if you can't catch a chicken running through the clover.
Simon: Amend your statement to allow ONLY California and New York state to have proportional, by congressional district, electoral college voting.
TYVM.
If you want a tag reader, just come out and ask for one like Garage, enough with all this beating around the bush.
Yep. Timid salespeople have skinny kids. You have to ask for the sale.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Ann is a Democrat. Why should we on the right be offended when she votes for her party?
Trey
Doyle wrote: "I'm sorry you feel that way. I know how it feels to watch someone you hate get elected (twice). It wasn't fun for me, and those were close elections, so I hate to think how unpleasant the coming landslide will be for you."
My man Doyle.
I accept your empathy, if not your landslide!
Trey
OldGrouchy - I understand why you're saying that, and it's the same reality that lead California's liberal establishment to fight an initiative that would have split up its block vote along Congressional district lines tooth and nail. (I argued at the time that the proposal was unconstitutional and expressed concern as a conservative that "to displace a traditional practice that has accreted around the Constitution's text over the span of two centuries requires more than merely an idea.") Still, I would say only that while I don't support that change, I'm not particularly hostile to it. As a rule of thumb, I'm very leery of constitutional innovation (and appreciate of Art. V).
By the same token, however, I don't think it's remotely credible to compare respectful but robust criticism of some of what Althouse writes, which she will very likely get from conservatives here, with the vicious, contemptible vituperative filth poured out daily by the anti-Althousiana like Doyle.
After the own-fart-smelling bipartisan resolution passes I'm drafting one to the effect that Simon is an insufferable, brown-nosing, self-impressed wanker.
Trooper York said...
I agree. Garage is one of my favorite commenters. He was a big Hillary partisan, and continually pointed out the problems with Obama. But when she lost he immediately spread his legs for the Chosen One. I feel we must encourage promiscuity among the commenteriat.
Amen! Garage may be a liberal slut, but he is a free-thinking liberal slut. No Obamabot droning out moveon.org talking points, he!
****************
And let's not forget that the majority of Republicans detested and rejected McCain, then howled about his getting the nomintion locked up with a string of "winner-take-all" Primaries in Blue Northeast states he never had a shot in hell of winning in the General Election.
Then spread their legs. To do so apparantly required them to not only reject the Cult of The One, forget the constant McCain betrayals, but also embrace the old Cult that Nixon's People started of the worship of the POW/MIA.
And that still wasn't enough, so they created their own Cult among the "bitter, resentful" and Religious Right of the Sarah Madonna.
"Our Sarah, our dear Sarah!". The Sarah Cult is a mix of Fertility Goddess worship and the Every Person "non-elitist" who "may not know a lot of stuff, but is right in her heart". Meet Jill Doe..
********************
A St Louis news group had a count on a recent McCain speech. 18 minutes long.
Used the word "fight" 19 times and there were 9 "my friends!" utterances.
Biden has no Cult, alas...
Maybe that's a good thing for Joe Biden and the public.
There are several reasons why Too Many Jims is wrong.
The first is that virtually all of the major "left-wing" commenters here, with the exceptions of MadisonMan and (if I recall correctly) Beth, have been saying from day one that the "cruel neutrality" post was just cover for Ann's obvious pro-McCain bias. Doyle, garage, Michael, AlphaLiberal, former law student, Verso, etc -- time after time they have attacked Ann personally, accusing her of being a liar and a McCain toady. In contrast, very few of the major "right-wing" commenters here are making similar accusations now that Ann is looking likely to vote for Obama. Simon, Pogo, vbspurs, Drill Sgt, Hoosier, myself (if you count me) -- none of us are attacking Ann. Some of us are attacking her *reasoning*, as wurly did, but we aren't attacking Ann herself. That is the key converts vs. heretics distinction. The lefties thought Ann was a bad person; we just think her reasoning is faulty.
Secondly, Ann has said from the beginning that she was leaning towards Obama, and so far as I can tell most of the Republican-leaning posters here believed her. We have ALWAYS criticized her pro-Obama arguments when she made them; the criticism is growing more frequent solely because her pro-Obama posts are growing more frequent.
Finally, Jims' claim that we're accusing Ann of being a "vapid, unthinking apologist" is simply false. He made that up, and ought to apologize for it.
those who question said involvement waved away with a "don't you want a pragmatic President?"
This is merely an invitation for discussion. I believe Ann is craving comments, and doing what she can to get them.
Oh, please. I don't think a tag does anything.
Regarding Fen: Last time that happened, I wondered, too, and it turned out he was busy doing something or other (was that also in fall? or last winter)? Maybe he's just in a busy period again. He doesn't strike me as a fellow stomper-offer.
I had to laugh at that Cedarford. Well done. :)
Simon said: "No it wouldn't. The popular vote doesn't mean squat. It didn't mean squat in 2000 when Al Gore won it. It wouldn't mean squat if Obama won it but got crushed in the electoral college. And it wouldn't mean squat if McCain won it. Legitimacy - legitimacy to perform the role of President, that is, not for one's agenda - is conferred by the institutional settlement - by the process, not by public acclamation."
I didn't say the popualar vote loser would lack legitimacy- I said he would lack a mandate.
And I disagree that the popular vote "doesn't mean squat". Of course, it doesn't affect who wins, but it can affect how the winner governs. In practical terms, all else being equal, it would be harder for Obama to convince Congress to pass the more controversial aspects of his agenda, when the guy opposing his agenda had gotten more votes than he did.
I'm probably a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh, but I don't think Ann is doing anything to "enrage" me or people like me. I find her posts fascinating, and I find the threads generally interesting and well-thought-out (except for the droolery of one commenter who hasn't posted on this thread yet).
Why should I think she's been dishonest or illiberal? I felt all along she was centrist, and was trying to evenly judge Bambi and JSM.
To the true believer, any attention paid to the flaws of Bambi or JSM is simply heresy and blasphemy. However, most people who aren't in the tank for either candidate can admit the flaws of both.
I find Bambi to be a nitwit. However, scores of people have abandoned their brains to go with their heart. Let's see how well "hope" works as a strategy. History shows it's a poor foundation, but who knows, perhaps this time it will work.
There are several reasons why Too Many Jims is wrong.
I agree with Rev's reasons, and I'll add another. His argument is based on all criticisms being equal. Are they? I don't think so, and I think you have to prove that they are to make his point the way he does.
Actually, if memory serves, the big accusation from the Left was that she was pandering to her Right-leaning base (by not being an organ of the left-wing spin machine).
I've yet to see anyone on the Right accuse her of trying to shore up or grow her Left-leaning base.
This blog is a canvas; the commentariat's political emotionalism the brushstrokes on a portion of it. (Too big a portion of late, but this, too, I hope, shall pass.)
Speaking of people leaving, Christopher Buckley was fired from the National Review.
He says (among other things) that the GOP "big tent" looks more like a "yurt" now.
...oops. Buckley resigned. I took the word "fired" from the URL. Apologies.
That "He doesn't have a mandate" crap only materializes against Republicans. You need the talking heads...the dreaded MSM media to trumpet this lack of a mandate, and they sure as hell would not be inclined to do that against The One.
I don't fault the suggestion or the wish, though. Reasonable people are always expecting or hoping for balanced treatment.
Sorry Triangle Man.
I see you corrected your reading.
I am glad Christopher did the honorable thing.
His father once famously endorsed Lieberman as a means to get Weicker out of office.
But voting for Bambi isn't the same thing. There's nothing moderate about Senator Obamacorn.
This sequence of events has distress my calm and gentle nature and caused me to shut myself in a room with an iPod payer set to random, jolting wildly from electronic to western, to jazz to pop with no reasonable segue at all, while producing a pop-up card based on a low-level pun through three iterations until I was satisfied a stack of card stock could fold flat but open into the form of a cartoon sheep, which caused me to draw the same background repeatedly which is an unhappy thing to do and explains why everything is always so sketchy.
Did you read the latest from Christopher Buckley, Triangle Man?
He comes off sounding like a very small man. Poor thing couldn't take a little criticism!
Wow.
Did his father ever stalk off in a girly huff like that?
Doyle said...
"After the own-fart-smelling bipartisan resolution passes I'm drafting one to the effect that Simon is an insufferable, brown-nosing, self-impressed wanker."
You can feel free to submit it to a vote of the regulars here, but I don't fancy your chances. Maybe you should bifurcate it into two resolutions, one dealing with sycophancy, which will pass easily, and the other with your laundry list of other bitches and complaints, which I think will not.
Doyle said...
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I guess that's one of the distinction between your ideological foundations and mine. I think, you feel. You feel others should feel as well. I don't think so.
I know how it feels to watch someone you hate get elected (twice).
Again, your feelings are irrelevant, but not so much in that you put it into the context that you hate. It's your irrationally directed hatred against Bush that makes you feel the way you do. That is your problem and will always be your problem. If you spent time thinking about why you hate him, you may realize that a lot of your unfounded emotional underpinnings are as vapid as the man you are about to vote for.
It wasn't fun for me, and those were close elections, so I hate to think how unpleasant the coming landslide will be for you.
Voting for your president isn't about fun, Doyle. It's serious business. It's serious because the future and direction of the country will ride with the and go depending on which one is chosen. It's not about being unpleasant either because unlike the kooks, haters, irrational emotionalists, and bankrupt ideologists you associate yourself with, I won't project that onto a, heaven forbid, a President Obama, like you've smeared and burdened the current President with. Instead, I will use my ability to give the benefit of the doubt because that's one of the components of what conservatives do and conservatism does. Civility isn't something that your side knows or understands. Respect is earned not shrilled into existence. Your side is shrill, my ideology looks for the humility to give it.
darcy,
Yes, I read it and his endorsement of Obama. His sign off is a bit overwrought. However, he seems to be reacting to something like the backlash that Ann receives when she defies liberal orthodoxy. I thought it was particularly interesting in this context. Also interesting in the context of the father-son relationship thread yesterday.
Doyle, garage, Michael, AlphaLiberal, former law student, Verso, etc -- time after time they have attacked Ann personally, accusing her of being a liar and a McCain toady.
I have not done that once, for the record.
Jon said: "(lack of a popular vote win) can affect how the winner governs"
This is tough to judge, IMO. Bush faced little opposition in his first 9 months in office. Considering the fact that his first two major initiatives in those months was a massive tax cut for the top earners (plus a $300 milksop for the middle class!) and NCLB. Both required and received bipartisan support but were crafted to go down easy for people.
After 9/11, opposition for anything disappeared. His new mandate was in public approval ratings.
BUT, as for Darcy's "That "He doesn't have a mandate" crap only materializes against Republicans." charge, I suspect she's talking about Bush's narrow win in 2004. Bush claimed he had a mandate and attempted to use it to privatize Social Security. He was resisted, it failed, and this, coupled with the escalation in Iraq and the Katrina disaster response, began his steady but constant drop in approval ratings.
I forgot my point. OH. Bush never had a mandate for real change.
I am glad Christopher did the honorable thing.
It's good to hear that so many approve of the "small" tent approach on the Right. Kathleen Parker, your next!
In reference to the Buckley piece, I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea of someone telling Kathleen Parker her mother should have aborted her and threw the fetus in a dumpster. You'd think that stuff wouldn't surprise me anymore, but it does.
Trevor Jackson: For what it's worth, I agree with you on Bush not having a mandate. I was simply opining that there will be no questioning Obama's mandate, should he win. Not from the media, anyway.
And this reminds me of something that I find interesting. During 2000 and 2004, there was a lot of wringing of hands by the MSM about the control of Congress, and what that meant with a Republican president.
I don't listen very often anymore to these folks...anyone worried about Dems controlling everything? Anyone??? :)
Y'all are dancing around the most likely scenario post-election. Most of the commenters here (even Titus. Maybe especially Titus.) are devoted to thinking as a prerequisite for policy. So, regardless of who is anointed in November, and who controls Congress, I fully expect most of you to be with me on the benches of the Loyal Opposition.
Have you noticed how people are now folks? Folks this, folks that, these folks, those folks over there. Them folks.
Gives me the urge to put on folk music and wear folk clothes, put up folk art and drive around in a Volkswagen to visit my folks, and get all folksy with my neighbors and speak a down-to-earth folks language. And eat down home home-made soul folk food.
Folks. Fouks. That's a funny word. I'm starting to hate it.
Methadras,
Well said!
I think Simon has disagreed with Althouse plenty, both sharply and openly. How that fits in with a brown-nose accusation, I do not get.
Triangle Man said...
"Speaking of people leaving, Christopher Buckley was fired from the National Review."
I for one am getting pretty tired of Fifth Columnists undermining the party's already slimming chances, and frankly, Buckley's departure does not trouble me. His complaint that "[e]ight years of 'conservative' government" entails the astonishing claim that this government has been a conservative one; has he just not been reading National Review, which has often pointed out just how wrong that claim is?
Meet the Folkers. Mother Folker is the matriarch.
Die Volk, however, will be heard this election. Need I point out that the cult of personality around Hitlobama is scary? I guess the only question is when will we hold krystalnacht this year? I need to plan ahead.
reader_iam: That was quite a disgusting comment, I agree. There are some very cruel, twisted people in this world.
I still think Buckley comes off as small. He had to know that his endorsement of Obama would be a big deal at National Review. I read their reactions to it, and I saw nothing but respectful disagreement. They thought he was wrong in his reasoning, but the love for the person he is was evident.
So Buckley decided to stab his friends because of some crazy people's e-mails. Just small.
Sorry, Chip. It slips out sometimes.
Reader - I think it's because I've never called her, stupid, crazy, a drunk, etc. Disagreeing isn't enough - you've got to demonize her, otherwise you're a sycophant.
He's stabbing his friends by leaving? But I gathered that they agreed that was a good idea. (Am I missing something?) Or do you mean he's stabbing his friends by going with Obama? But if he really believes that Obama is the better choice, what was he supposed to do? Pretend he's voting for McCain but then just privately vote for Obama anyway? I don't quite get that. That would have been the easier route, wouldn't it have been (if not exactly honest)?
What am I missing?
Hey, maybe I should just tell liberal friends and family members I'm voting for Obama and conservative friends and family members I'm voting for McCain. Then everybody would be all happy.
RJ:
In reference to the Buckley piece, I'm still trying to get my mind around the idea of someone telling Kathleen Parker her mother should have aborted her and threw the fetus in a dumpster. You'd think that stuff wouldn't surprise me anymore, but it does.
Yes, this type of stuff shouldn't happen, either on the Right or the Left. However, this isn't only about politics.
The SF Chronicle ran a great series of articles a while back by a young women who worked there (as an editor, not writer) that got cancer. She is/was a great writer, and I cried while reading each and every article. Even sadder, not more than a couple years before her own mother died of cancer.
Anyway, the comments from readers on the Chronicle site were something to behold, filled with the kind of vile and hate you are talking about over KP. Is this what American's have come to be about, that even a woman writing a personal story of tragedy is relentlessly mocked by commenters?
Oxbay wrote that Gore gave up his integrity. Dude, you can't give away something you don't have. From his Alban School and hotel-dwelling "down home" childhood to his spray painted bald spot, that man was nearly as phony as Hussein Goering Obama and Bin Biden put together.
Teachers forced me to square dance in school. What this was intended to accomplish is beyond me. Learn to take directions? I don't know.
* square dances like a Bugs Bunny cartoon*
"Round, round, swing 'em 'roooooound, hit 'em in the head with a fry'n pannnnn"
Fear not my friends. As an African American politician, there is a better than 50% chance is personally corrupt and has at the very least not filed his taxes.
So we have a very good chance of seeing President Biden.
No, reader_iam, not for leaving. He definitely took a shot at Rich Lowry, and revealed some details in private e-mails from his friends at NR.
As a NR reader, I really didn't care that much about his endorsement, and thought NR handled it very well, at least what I read.
Just my opinion, but there it is.
Ha ha ha. Spray paint.
Simon is not a sycophant.
Stalker sure, but not a sycophant.
details in private e-mails from his friends
Anyone who thinks email is private is being foolish.
Buckley is the kind of pussy who takes his ball and goes home when the game changes from two hand touch to rough tackle.
You know a rich spoiled rotten kid.
He says (among other things) that the GOP "big tent" looks more like a "yurt" now.
What the heck kind of political party has a tent big enough to accommodate voting against it? The sole purpose of a political party is to elect candidates. If you're voting against the Fnordian candidate, you aren't a Fnordian.
Or as they are commonly know as:
yuppie scum.
I am not one who regularly posts here, but I do have this blog on my RSS feed. I used to check out every post. The revelation that Ann would vote for Obama didn't change that. However, the change in attitude and content did. I come by occasionally now, hoping it will be as much fun (from both left and right) as it was in the comments section (Peanut Gallery?), but so far, not so much.
Well, MadisonMan, I don't think it was his friends that looked bad, anyway. Trusting him with their confidence or not. That was my point.
And LOL, Revenant. Indeed! :)
Donn: I remember that. Cathy Seipp, right? Awfully sad.
I'll also throw in with everyone questioning the labeling of Simon as sycophantic or brown nosing. I've seen none of that. He disagrees with Ann all the time. Thinking she's pretty does not a sycophant make.
Anyone else think Kathleen Parker is kind of hot?
I am glad her mother didn't abort her.
I would do her. When doing her I could call her a traitor. That would be hot.
Darcy,
No, her name is Alicia....here's how her story started:
Originally published Sunday, June 5, 2005
intro
I was also trying to get comfortable with life. Three years earlier, my mom had died of cancer, and I was still learning how to live without her.
I came into The Chronicle building early, at 8 a.m., because it was a Wednesday, deadline day for my department, the Friday section. It was almost 10 o'clock when I grabbed a muffin and some yogurt from the coffee shop downstairs.
I hadn't had time to take a bite when the phone rang.
For once, I didn't look at the number. I just assumed it was someone calling me back about a question I had with a story. On deadline, of course.
"Chronicle. This is Alicia."
"Hi, Alicia, this is Dr. Feldman."
Gary Feldman is my primary care doctor. I wondered why he was calling. Bad news didn't even occur to me. I was too busy for bad news. And bad news doesn't come when you're at work.
"Oh, hi, Dr. Feldman, how are you?."
"I'm fine, I'm fine. ...Listen, we just got your pathology report back from Stanford from your breast biopsy. They're calling it alveolar soft part sarcoma."
Now, the republican ox is being gored and republican commenters are whining like the liberal commenters that Prof. Althouse is a vapid, unthinking apologist for Obama.
In the words of Baghdad Bob: " I now inform you that you are too far from reality"
Ohhh...no. I didn't know that writer, Donn. Again...so very sad.
I think it is important that we engage with each other in a respectful way.
Let's work to communicate at a higher level.
We may disagree but there is no need for calling names.
After all we are all people, people who need people, the luckiest people in the world.
thank you.
Darcy,
Her story is still available at the Chronicle site, if you care to read it.
After the series she started a blog, but hasn't posted anything for over a year.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make, is that even a story like that was showered with vile and hateful comments from readers at the Chronicle site. It really was an amazing thing to behold.
Hey isn't Kathleen Parker, Spiderman's aunt. Isn't she kind of old. I didn't know she had a blog.
Maybe Simon will start blogging over there. That old sycophant.
Freeman, thanks, although I have to point out that noting she's hot is hardly the only complimentary thing I say about her. :)
We should all rejoice today.
We are all stakeholders in banks.
We are God's children. We are little pebbles in this grand planet. Working, loving, living, hopefully healthy.
Today do something different. Appreciate the flower. Touch a dog. Pick up a piece of garbage. Help an old women across the street. Smile at the drive thru guy at Burger King. Make a special salad (minus arugula) with some nice spices and fresh vegetables.
Reach out and touch someone.
Thank you.
Titus has his Chaka Kahn aligned today.
"Did his father ever stalk off in a girly huff like that?"
I remember a story about Buckley senior getting into a war of words with Gore Vidal. Not smart, even for Buckley. Apparently Vidal got in a good one and Buckley senior called him an arrogant poofter and asked him to step outside. Mr. Vidal, being, well, indeed a self-loving homoerotician, declined his offer and stayed inside.
Trey
Let us all take a deep breath and exhale. Purge your systems of any unhealthy toxins.
Stretch your bodies. Explore your wide second. Open a book. Perhaps to an arabesque.
Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me and you.
How are we all feeling now?
My sense is a whole lot better.
And that is why I am here fellow republicans. To lift you up. To fill you with joy. To give you inspiration.
Just what makes that little old ant think he can move a rubber tree plant. Well he cant. But you know what he has high hopes. High Apple Pie.
By By Miss American Pie, drove the chevy blah blah blah.
LOL, Trey. Cute story.
Thanks, Donn! I'll going to read it.
pogo,
That post bothered me more than I can say, too. It's shocking in a way, even though we know intellectually there are people who genuinely believe those things.
But you have to remember, Althouse is a huge proponent of political correctness, especially as it applies to race.
There was the Libertarian=Racist Incident, and others. I remember a post about a meeting hosted by some Muslim Student organization that dictated "respectful speech" only. She supported that too.
A is for apple.
Let's all appreciate the round red apple today. It is juicy, succulent, full of good things for your body.
Let's all bite down on the apple. The apple squirts every which way (reminds me of some of my tricks) juices flowing. Lick up all those juices, get every drop.
Now doesn't that taste good.
I bet you are feeling better already, arent you.
This is my small contribution to this place. No thank yous are needed.
That said, too many wonderful things about Althouse and the Althouse blog to stay away.
Hey, did you all see that a new study apparently suggests that surfing the internet is good for your [aging] brain, and that it may be better better than reading books for that purpose? (Indirectly, Althouse has been prescient, it seems.) So forget about the deep breaths and chakras or whatever--surf, surf, surf away!
/OT
Love Gore Vidal. Love the name Gore Vidal. Did you know that he was engaged to Joanne Woodward?
Now I need to run out and take the rare clumbers for a walk. It is time to hit the runway. We had a beautiful day today. It is a beautiful night. I am going to have a cute athletic fit sweater on with Buffalo Jeans and Puma tennis shoes if you were interested.
Miss me. Special Hugs and Kisses to all.
Trey, actually that's not quite what happened.
Vidal kept calling Buckley a crypto-Nazi and finally Buckley had had it, so he said, "Now listen, you queer, you stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."
You can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRjZR8j4-z4
Apparently Vidal got in a good one and Buckley senior called him an arrogant poofter and asked him to step outside. Mr. Vidal, being, well, indeed a self-loving homoerotician, declined his offer and stayed inside.
The "good one" Vidal got in was to call Buckley a Nazi.
Wurly is right, of course.
But I ain't leaving. It would take more than a vote for Obama to convince me that the professor has lost it.
With an early Obama declaration I predict over 90% of the right would say they stay.
There is more to the professor than this election.
Those that don't know the Constitution are bound not to understand it! The Constitution says that a state's legislature determines how its electors are chosen; Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 says:"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
So, it's possible to vary how this elector allocation is done on a state by state basis, limited only by screams of outrage.
My guess is that if California were to change its method of allocating its electors, as was recently discussed,there would be a legal challenge, which should fail. It would make life more interesting.
Is a crypto-Nazi vulnerable to crypto-nite like Superman? That would be cool.
Hey I read that Pa Kent just died of a heart attack and Superman is really bummed. So Ma Kent is available. She is a real looker. Maybe she will start blogging.
Then Simon can start commenting. You little old sycophant.
Freeman, thanks so much! I appreciate the correction and the link. Bravo!
Trey
Now, the republican ox is being gored and republican commenters are whining like the liberal commenters that Prof. Althouse is a vapid, unthinking apologist for Obama
They are? Maybe I am alone in the wilderness here but I honestly never thought for a Madison Minute that Althouse was voting GOP. I think the liberals who were whining that she was being too tough on Bambi didn't realize that rational liberals like Ann tend to be a bit more critical of their own when they're not performing up to expectations.
geez--I got a tag just for identifying the racism post as exceptionally bad.. Garage is definitely deserving of his own tag--he even stands to get a shipment of Memphis ribs on November 5th--and he put his money where his mouth was back before the economy went south. So yes--a tag for Garage. But for the record, Garage--the ribs dont get shipped until after November 5th
knox said...
"Althouse is a huge proponent of political correctness, especially as it applies to race. There was the Libertarian=Racist Incident, and others."
That isn't a fair characterization, Knox. What she said was that the conference left her "surprised that some people, especially the libertarians, were hardcore, true believers, wedded to an abstract version of idea and unwilling to look at how it played out in the real world." She "had a problem ... with the continual discussion of abstract ideas that in real life were connected with racist policy as if the ideas could be examined without paying attention to where these ideas led the man who thought them up." She said that "[i]t was repellent and obtuse -- if not racist -- for Meyer to insist on extreme libertarian values and the smallest possible government in the face of the overwhelming moral ground for the civil rights movement." Needless to say, those posts should be read in full.
Now, it is true that she said that "[t]here is something incredibly obtuse about the libertarian view, something that misses the reality of human life and that is very wedded to a stark abstraction. In pure form, it is repellent." She's right: in its pure form, it is repellent. That's why it should be cut with something like conservatism; there are many chemicals that are poisonous when pure but very useful when mixed. She also said that "[t]he notion that economic incentives alone would have desegregated the South is a ridiculous fantasy," and that's accurate, too. And she said (op. cit.) "[i]t seems obvious to me that if your political theory doesn't provide for desegregation, you need a new theory." That seems pretty obvious to me, too.
Suffering succotash, it’s a veritable symphony of sycophancy!
Well Ann hasn't been writing as many mindblowingly stupid, Instapundit-approved, Bush-apologizing posts lately.
Well shit on a stick Doyle, unless Ann has you dressed up like the gimp and chained in her basement you are free to go about the blogosphere and read other less mindnumbling stupid stuff. For someone who constantly is pissing down his pant about how she runs her blog you're hardly a rare sight in the comments section.
In grade school, the crappier the boy treated the girl was the sure sign he had a crush on her. For those who have matured, we found flowers and a kind word worked better. Try it sometime.
Doyle, garage, Michael, AlphaLiberal, former law student, Verso, etc -- time after time they have attacked Ann personally, accusing her of being a liar and a McCain toady.
Garage - I have not done that once, for the record.
Agree. I have never seen garage mahal ever attack the blog host, Althouse. He goes after her, but alsways respectfully and never with any dumb ad hominems that are Doyle, Freders, and FLS's pattern, among others.
Notably the pathetic, damaged soul that is DTL - so miserable even his own family washed their hands of him.
Garage knows some good rules of the road:
1. Guests do not disrespect the Host. They may disagree with her, but not go after her personally.
2. Other posters may be attacked, but all should heed warnings from the Host to back off if they use language that upsets her, impugnes.
3. Don't use cut and past SPAM from other sites without attribution and pretend it is your original thoughts.
On the last, I can think of 2 posters that should commit to making original posts and stop SPAMMING off Huff-Post and Moveon.
(Yes Alpha Liberal, Michael..I'm thinking of you guys.)
OldGrouchy, was your 5:29 PM comment aimed at me and my observation that I thought the California proposal was unconstitutional? If so, you should click the link I provided, which explains my position. I argued that while a redistribution was not itself unconstitutional, a redistribution scheme enacted by an initiative rather than by the state legislature (which is what was proposed in California) violated Article II's directive that "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" (emphasis added). That text, I argued, gives the state legislature exclusive jurisdiction over apportionment, to the exclusion of the governor of the state or legislative innovations such as referenda, notwithstanding anything in state law or a state constitution to the contrary.
Seems to me it isnt important what the fair Professor does in the privacy of the voting booth--she provides entertainment on her blog, and I frankly dont care about her politics. If folks want to personalize Ms. Althouses' political preferences thats fine--but its shortsighted. Her blog attracts a variety of people who bring a variety of POVs--and she doesnt impose any politicaly orthodoxy. So her blog remains a forum to disagree. To abandon commenting because you disagree with the fair Prof's political choices, is really throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
And chocolate, Hoosier Daddy.
You know when I was a kid, I had to watch my younger siblings since we didn't have a nanny like the yuppie scum do today. Anyway my little brother shit himself on night on bowling night and I had to give him a bath and I went to tip the water from the tub on the counter to the sink and the little bastard flew right out onto the floor. Conked his head and everything. That was really throwing the baby out with the bath water.
He grew up to be a journalist.
I always wondered about that.
and trooper proves that throwing the baby out with the bathwater produces modern journalism--OK troop--I will rethink my metaphor
Simon: No slam at anyone. Merely explaining my view of the matter.
You are entirely correct in that a ballot initiative or an executive ruling would not pass muster unless a court ruling on the issue did its own version of "words, just words!" Now, that would be very interesting and problematic.
Thanks Roger. I always hated that expression. Some time I will tell you the story of the time I changed his diaper in front of a fan.
It wasn't pretty.
I appreciate ... the link.
Trey, no problem. It's an entertaining clip.
a bit of a thread hijack, but a shout out to oldgrouchy: Oldgrouchy: took a road trip to Sand hill 6 weeks ago--its all changed--alas. up to date and modern
I have not done that once, for the record.
My apologies; I must have been remembering a different person's flame. :)
Trooper--the only question re the fan is, did it really hit the fan?
The Buckley and NR fallout reminds me of the adage that academic politics is the most bitter and vicious because the stakes are so low.
Is it such a big deal he endorsed Obama?
And why don't these soidisant intellectuals call their Dads "my Dad" instead of "my father"?
There could be something to what Trooper says. I didn't get dropped on my head or thrown out with the bathwater, but I did get dragged around by my head and mauled by a German Shepherd as a toddler and I did indeed end up spending some time as a journalist. So there you go.
Never made the connection, before.
It hit the fan, the wall, the TV, the couch, the framed photos of JFK and Pope Paul and my grandmothers canary. Who strangely enough kind of dug it.
God Reader--at least you didnt become a trial lawyer, so it wasnt that traumatic
I mean the canary dug it. We always kind of thought it was gay though.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Trooper: now that the Jets are energized by the agin cajun, how are those world champions doing these days?
Simon: Yes, with regard to your analysis of the libertarian post, for the most part and so far as it goes, but there also seemed to be the implication that one needed to defend against/prove a negative: that is, "Prove you're not racist." I think a number of people did find that specific part disturbing; I know that's the part I recall bothering me at the time. But perhaps it's gotten a bit hazy in memory.
Of course, the poor bird never had a chance. It was named Liberace.
Not that it matters what it was named. It was born liking the pecker instead of the egg I guess. It was always presenting it's plumage to the other male bird in the cage if you know what I mean.
But it sang beautifully.
And did it have a brother named George who played the violin? If thats the case, I am outta here
Brett Favre playing for the Jets is fucking ghey.
Hey the Giants lost on Monday night. But that's ok. You have to root for your team even when it loses. And there is always another game. But take a lesson from THE WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS. Don't take anything for granted. Everybody might think you are gonna win. All the polls and pundits might pick you. But you still have to play the game.
You could be sitting in your cage singing a happy song thinking you the world by the tail and then all of a sudden a big bunch of shit might hit you. I've seen it happen.
nothing worse than a jilted packer fan
Roger: Weirdly, I originally did plan on becoming a lawyer (International or Maritime, though), which is I why I originally majored in International Relations. But the pull was too strong ... .
Trooper: You're bringing back bad (more recent memories)--my son, while still in the training stage, made a mess--both kinds--one day in the sun room and then attempted to clean it up with a toy vacuum before I noticed. He didn't understand why this wouldn't work, so he kept going over and over and the mess, back and forth, across the end of a room. Then he tried with his toy broom. You would not believe the result. Who knew so relatively little could spread so far and wide. I did not, however, throw him out with the cleaning water--and he hates writing and is highly unlikely to become a journalist. As I said, there could be something to your theory.
On the other hand, my son does have the gift of gab and has been described as a bit of a politicians. Perhaps it was that early experience with shit-spreading. Who knows?
You know I just got here not too long ago and I ain't leaving, my ass is sore from doors hitting it in the past. I hope you vote for McCain/Palin as i believe with all things considered they are the better choice.
If you must vote for Obama, I asked only one thing.
Don't vote 72 times for him.
At least he tried to clean it up. Maybe he will be a famous blogger.
Kids often follow in their parents footsteps.
That isn't a fair characterization, Knox.
I disagree, Simon; I think it is a fair description of Ann's reaction. She was unable to discuss the merits of an idea because a generation ago many of the people who held that idea were racists. She committed an ad hominem fallacy and stuck to it like glue.
She was also completely wrong to describe the notion of unforced desegregation as "pure fantasy", except inasmuch as any hypothetical scenario is a fantasy. There are countless examples of societies moving away from official (and unofficial) racism without being forced to do so at gunpoint -- most of the United States already had, for example.
Consider that even the nastiest backwater states would never consider adopting a segregationist system again even if it was legal to do so. They wouldn't have done so in the 90s, or even in the 80s. In the 70s? Perhaps. Now, one could certainly *argue* that this massive shift in social attitudes was the result of federal law. But since we know that similarly rapid shifts can happen even without federal coercion (e.g. the massive shift in support for gay marriage over the last generation) I fail to see why it is "fantasy" to suspect that a lot of that social shift was independent of government coercion -- that even in the South, support for segregation and Jim Crow laws was dying out. There is a mountain of supporting evidence for that position. It is not, as Ann said, "fantasy".
She also wrongly conflated the civil rights movement with the civil rights *laws*. Martin Luther King's brilliant approach, co-opted from Gandhi, was to shame good people out of their passive acceptance of bad behavior. This approach worked; it caused a massive and rapid shift in social attitudes towards both black people and how they were treated, and not just in the North.
Libertarians have no objection to King's approach. The correct approach to dealing with shameful but rightful behavior (e.g. calling someone a nigger) is to shame and shun the person using their rights in that manner. Calling in the government to hold a gun to the person's head until he shuts up? Not so much. There are very real reasons to fear that sort of government intervention -- reasons that turned out to be correct.
The simple truth is that Ann responded emotionally because she had strong feelings on the subject and lacked a reasoned argument for supporting those feelings.
Maybe he will be a [pseudonymous commenter].
Fixed. And I hope not.
And chocolate, Hoosier Daddy.
Yes but never on the first date. No sense in spoiling them too fast.
Oh I think you can just bet on it. He is sure to admire his mom and think of her as the ideal woman. Imagine if he had a mommy thing and started hanging out and commenting on some older woman’s blog in some sort of weird Taboo kung fu kind of thing.
I mean that Cassy Fiano babe will about 50 in twenty years. Think of the sycophancy that might ensue.
You need to get that kid socialized with young chickies his own age, stat. Just sayn’
I don’t mean to but in.
Well I put out my Mitch Daniels and McCain/Palin yard signs out today. Mrs. Hoosier stood nervously on the porch as I was driving the poles into the ground and was worried we'd get our house egged.
"Oh please" I said "We live in the most Republican county in the frickin state. As soon as an Obamabot sets foot in these parts its like Dracula walking into sunlight."
Oh yeah tough guy. Well you don't have the balls to put a WORLD CHAMPION NEW YORK GIANTS sign in your yard the week we come in to show you which Manning is the best quarterback in the Manning family, eh you little wippersnapper.
I would be happy to send you one to display your good sense.
Needless to say, those posts should be read in full.
Simon,
I did read them in full. Certainly you can take them however you want. Obviously, I disagree with your viewpoint.
Specifically, I object to the notion that a person can walk into a room and automatically sit in judgement of everyone else, simply by virtue of identifying herself as a liberal.
This is precisely the sick mindset that is making this election... well, sick: Liberals believing, in their hearts, that anyone who identifies as Libertarian or Conservative is racist by default -- unless they do enough of a dissembling little dance to the PC establishment. It's pure, unadulterated Bullshit.
And to add insult to injury, they also believe they can say or do anything, however politically incorrect, (see treatment of Hillary and Sarah Palin) because they use their politics as a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card.
To be fair, outside of race, Althouse is generally pretty consistent in condemning PC ridiculousness. (See feminism and Bill Clinton.)
reader_iam said...
"[T]here also seemed to be the implication that one needed to defend against/prove a negative: ... 'Prove you're not racist.'"
Well, I'd go back to what I said contemporaneously: "I didn't think that Ann's point was that she wanted ostentatious disclaimers [and] displays of loyalty to the principle of desegregation. I thought her point was that if you have a political philosophy which has been used in the past to justify a morally repugnant result, you need to explain why that principle is misapplied if it is taken to reach that result. That is, that you need to explain why that theory doesn't demand (and preferably, that it structurally forecloses) that unacceptable result." And I took Ann's reply to that comment as indicating that I'd accurately captured the point she thought she was getting at.
"We live in the most Republican county in the frickin state. ..."
Ha. That's what I thought when I put my McCain/Palin sign out, and it was slashed within a week. I left it up though.
Ann Althouse could vote for Nader, it doesn't matter. Wisconsin is not in play.
This election is over. It was 85% over when Romney lost and the remaining 15% was eliminated when the jet crasher picked Sarah Palin over Mitt for VP.
If Romney were the nominee he'd be up over Obama now by 15 points.
Bright guy, great resume, telegenic, tall, good in debates, proven economic understanding and success.
Thanks a lot evangelical assholes. Once again you've given all of us atheists more proof of a godless universe filled with morons.
I thought her point was that if you have a political philosophy which has been used in the past to justify a morally repugnant result, you need to explain why that principle is misapplied if it is taken to reach that result.
Ok, I'll bite: why? There isn't a civil right in existence that hasn't been used for evil on millions of occasions. Sensible people recognize this; why is there a need to belabor it?
Now, the republican ox is being gored and republican commenters are whining like the liberal commenters that Prof. Althouse is a vapid, unthinking apologist for Obama.
I personally couldn't care less if Ann votes for Obama; sensible people can differ in their assessment of such matters, and one can easily arrive at a divergent perspective in this regard.
But when Ann (she who takes and posts such delightful and insightful photographs of flowers, architecture, art, and nature) expresses such a closed-minded view of science as to assert (seemingly with a straight face) that it's mere “drilling” (as opposed to supposed real education, such as thoroughly covering the history of racism) — well, that's frankly appalling, and so very wrong.
As Bronowski put it in the piece I referred to before:
“This is the constant urge of science as well as of the arts, to broaden the likeness for which we grope under the facts. When we discover the wider likeness, whether between space and time, or between the bacillus, the virus and the crystal, we enlarge the order in the universe; but more than this, we enlarge its unity. And it is the unity of nature, living and dead, for which our thought reaches. This is a far deeper conception than any assumption that nature must be uniform. We seek to find nature one, a coherent unity. This gives to scientists their sense of mission, and let us acknowledge it, of aesthetic fulfillment: that every research carries the sense of drawing together the threads of the world into a patterned web. […]
“The judgment is already in the work. The work of art contains the artist’s judgment; so that it has been wisely said of it, that it is not we by our standards who judge the work of art, but the work which judges us. And in the same sense, it is not we who stand perplexed round the discoveries of science who judge it, but science which judges us. Einstein rounded out three centuries of the questioning of nature when he equated energy and mass in a single line,
“E = mc^2.”
[And, it's worth amplifying Bronowski's comment by noting that the real equation is E = M, energy equals (is the exact same thing as) matter. The “c^2” is a mere units conversion factor. —MEM]
“This is not the same unification of concepts as that for which Keats was searching when he closed the Ode on a Grecian Urn with the lines,
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty, — that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
“But the likeness is more important than the difference. The likeness is more helpful in making us understand that the concepts of science are like the concepts of value, monuments to our sense of unity in nature.”
"Sensible people recognize this; why is there a need to belabor it?"
Because Non-People-of-Color have to prostrate themselves repeatedly to prove that they're not racists.
We're about to elect the biggest train-wreck of a president since George W. Bush just to prove the point yet again. We're good people! See?!
Hey, Chip! Folk you!
(I mean that in the best Lenny Bruce sense.)
Folk-dancing Bugs here. Square-dancing begins 4:35.
If someone is elected President on November 4th, I'm never commenting on Althouse again.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा