Yesterday, in what I hope you appreciated as a gesture of bloggish artistry, I adhered to a day-long theme — President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. I therefore declined to jump to my own defense when Andrew Sullivan took a shot at me here. This morning, despite that first post, the theme is over. I go over to Sullivan's to find the post against which I know I need to defend myself. And what's this? He wrote 2 posts about me yesterday!
Am I really as interesting as Sarah Palin's womb?
१० ऑक्टोबर, २००९
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९९ टिप्पण्या:
Those weren't your sons, were they?
Where to begin?
Given the fact that you attract such a diverse array of commenters, obviously, yes. In fact, much more. Miss Sarah's womb cannot speak or type.
Sullivan says he doesn't do comments because they can get "out of hand". Frankly, I think it's because he's so in love with the sound of his own "keyboard".
Also, he notes "I find attacks on someone because he is gay and has HIV to be disgusting". But attacks on a virtuous wife and mother (one of those breeders) is OK.
WV "coness" female cone or Conan's wife
Well, you've got to admit "Her Divine Majesty Queen Mary Jane Milky Loads, Sultana of Sodom, Governess of Gomorrah, and Empress of All Urania" is a little dramatic!
What we do here is read and post the most intelligent and eloquent reader response
Aspiring is always upwards, I guess.
I've never been accused of having double standards myself.
No standards perhaps.
I don't know. Maybe you could do Bloggingheads with Palin's womb and we could judge for ourselves?
Just for the heck of it: Victory
And yes, you have become more interesting than Sarah Palin's womb. I know that is amazing, but it is also true.
I think the issue has to do with the relationship between blogging formats and political speech.
Big-time bloggers like Sullivan, or columnists, etc., are bound to get way too many comments to display them without being provoked to offense by the occasional bigot or whatnot.
Group websites (i.e. blogs with multiple contributors) tend to leave big long, rambling comments sections. But these also seem to have a clear, political direction to them and, hence, better agreement among commenters and/or contributors as to how to address or even engage the speech in those sections that they find offensive. Of course, they have a similar political or social outlook and can therefore more easily maintain stronger consensus as to what sort of speech they find offensive in the first place.
And then there are anonymous or obscure nobodies like me and pretty much anyone else who comments in here. We don't have to worry about traffic. We don't care. This medium is just an avocation and doesn't contribute to our livelihood. And we know that.
Sullivan is respected in the blogosphere for airing dissenting views and engaging them in ways that seems to engender respect - despite the fact that the comments to his blog are not public. Althouse's style is quite a bit different. She is more on the level of the big-time bloggers - like Sullivan - considers herself more interested in impartiality than he does (although she seems to revel in controversy for its own sake), and, yet, doesn't seem to mind having a following that clearly tends to favor a certain partisan outlook. She uses them because she values their input and occasionally witty contributions, which is good, but this comes at the expense of the utility offered by the two most ubiquitous formats for popular bloggers that I've identified above.
A man in love with his own mirror.
I have no respect for him because of the way he called in favors to escape deportation.
More and more he is simply lawless.
I have a question for Althouse.
If Sullivan where a commenter on this blog, would you consider his repetitious comments troll feeding and delete him?
As far as I can see, he is the problem, he's encouraging this kind of behavior by giving it so much attention. Try giving attention to people who make you laugh, or think, and your whole world will change.
Can anyone, with intelligence please, explain why Sullivan is still being paid to write? I do understand the just because he is- fill in the blank for your favorite oppressed person.
I mean we all know that the only reason Jesse Jackson, Mary Mitchell, Sue Ontiveros, and others have columns is because there would be a manufactured uproar if they did not.
They, like Sullivan contribute nothing, say nothing relevant, and at times spew hatred; sometimes disguised opinion, but hatred none the less.
Why do so called respectable media imprints allow these people a forum and actually pay them? Why do these organizations allow themselves to wallow in all this equine and bovine excrement?
Do these people bring any profit to the organization? Do they generate advertising? Do they help the entity actually make money in this age of media red ink?
Or are they there on the payroll to keep them and their few loud fans quiet. Is this media affirmative action?
Are you kidding?
If Sullivan commented here, Althouse would leave him up, if only to engender the greater hit count.
Besides, one of the things I like about Ann is her committment to free speech. It's something that Andrew could learn from.
I'm sorry. Sulllivan's attack on the Professor was weak sauce. He basically wants Ann to censor her commentors.
Again: free speech is not free. It has a price.
As to Palin's womb? That's for Palin to figure out. The Bloggingheads between Palin and Ann would be something to watch: and Instinct Politician vs. a Law Professor. Sarah would learn a lot.
Andrew Sullivan is suffering from near terminal narcissism and self delusion with ridiculous tripe like this:
She has already accused me of being a racist, a heterophobe and a misogynist and she teed off the most recent and most vicious assault by accusing me of having no shame because I cannot pretend to have resolved the doubts I have about Sarah Palin's stories about her fifth pregnancy. (I'm sorry but I cannot. God knows I know I'm in a tiny minority and that my own dear colleague, Patrick, has blogged in this space arguing I'm off-base and on and on. But I owe my readers honesty. I'm here answerable and accountable at all times and I feel duty-bound not to bullshit my readers, even if it makes me look like a loon. That's why I went silent as I first tried to figure out if this bizarre story could possibly be true. I had to address it if I were to be honest, but I simply didn't know. So I shut up, simply asked for the thing to be resolved (as it easily could be), and have never ever claimed that I knew the truth. I have always, always only expressed my lingering doubts and asked them to be resolved.)
What a dishonest pile of beagle crap that is. Andrew was and remains a vile purveyor of rumor and slander about this issue and pursued it long after even the insane Kossacks let it go.
Now I think mocking Sullivan for his HIV status is wrong, but so is pursuing insane rumors about Sarah Palin in the manner Sullivan has done. You would think Sarah Palin ran over his dog with the viciousness he has gone after her. Disagreeing that Sarah Palin should be in politics? Fine, no problem, it is a free country. Go for it Andrew.
However, keep bringing up a completely bullshit story that no one believes (not even Andrew)? It is called dishonesty. And lying. And Andrew Sullivan is a scum bag for doing it.
Spare us your lectures Andrew on how conservatives and the right are too mean.
I just read Sullivan's post. Jeez, he just loves to play the martyr, doesn't he?
Does being gay mean losing your manhood? A man brushes off the insults and moves on.
Ann Althouse is definitely more of a man than Andrew Sullivan.
After my comment I see we have two self-styled Sullivan antagonistes who, despite their likely sympathy with the conservative views that predominate on this website, have the temerity to pretend that they, as individuals, are in a position to pretend to desire an understanding of the needs of the entire market for speech better than anyone else does.
"Am I really as interesting as Sarah Palin's womb?"
Yes.
Maybe Sullivan does comment here. Maybe he is DTL and Jeremy.
Apparently no one here can see why a politician might be held to higher standards in revealing their medical history than a journalist.
That old post from four years ago (linked by Sully) is a reminder about how much the blogging phenom has changed in a short time. Sully reminds us that, ack then, Anne wanted to weed out repetitive comments from a thread, and was actively participating in the comment thread (both as commenter and would-be hall proctor). He suggests that her not doing so today is hypocritical in some way. Ha. No one with a real job could possibly do that today (and it couldn't have been easy then either). His charge of hypocrisy is as fanciful as, well, yesterday's Nobel announcement.
Anne wonders why Sully is so fixated on Sarah Palin, Trig and her. Not knowing Sully, I have no idea what drives his train on that. But looked at from a different perspective, it reminds me of the saying that art history records art's long conversation with itself. The blogging phenom has a large element of that too -- it wants to put itself at the center of things, to turn the conversation inwards, to be a star on the world's stage. It's deepest desire is: Look at ME! Sully's fixations have certainly had that result.
Sully complains about some dumb stuff that appeared in a comment thread here. But despite the complaining, you get the sense that he's delighted to be at the center of the conversation. And when he posts about Anne, she posts back, and then everyone gets in on the fun. And, along the way, Sully gets to play the victim, parade his wounds, and demand the ritual apology certifying his rightness and The Other's failings.
What a wonderful world we live in.
Sullivan: But at some point, you have to say: enough. And someone on the right has to say: no more.
Isn't this what Althouse is saying every time she posts something on Palin/Sullivan? Isn't that what the article in Unzipped was all about? He's got the left, the right, and the gays all telling him "enough" and "no more" but he just considers it positive reinforcement and keeps on going.
Physician, heal thyself.
I guess that says something that someone would confuse the role of politician with journalist. Public servant with writer. Someone who produces a narrative with someone who is paid to be as honest and straightforward with the public as possible.
Althouse: you are lying.
Your would-be "vigorous free speech" policy ends the minute you think someone is saying something ugly about YOU. But saying something ugly about, oh, Andrew Sullivan or President Obama is just fine. THAT is free speech according to Althouse. It just does not extend to making the same kind of comments about YOU.
That is a double standard, it is lame, and you are lying about your "policy."
Sullivan said "...simply asked for the thing to be resolved (as it easily could be), and have never ever claimed that I knew the truth. I have always, always only expressed my lingering doubts and asked them to be resolved.)..."
Truthers, Birthers and Wombers all sound alike after a while, don't they?
After my comment I see we have two self-styled Sullivan antagonistes who, despite their likely sympathy with the conservative views that predominate on this website, have the temerity to pretend that they, as individuals, are in a better position to glean an understanding of the needs of the entire market for speech better than anyone else.
There. That's better
Sullivan: I was too glib, and insensitive, but it's in a different universe from the hate speech she publishes.
If he considers Althouse a publisher, then I suppose he considers trolls journalists. So Sullivan isn't just speaking out against freedom of speech, but freedom of the press.
If Sullivan ever tries to go for citizenship in America, I hope the authorities are aware he either doesn't understand the American Bill of Rights or is adamantly opposed to it.
"Sullivan is respected in the blogosphere for airing dissenting views and engaging them in ways that seems to engender respect..."
Really, MUL, you should preface things like that with some sort of warning. Almost spit coffee all over the keyboard, I did.
Jason (the commenter) makes the remarkable flub of confusing the identification of hate speech as something different than just an insensitive comment with support for a constitutional prohibition against it.
Par for the course.
You guys are refusing to think.
Why, Paco? Just because you and your ilk believe things that don't make any sense (and that you never bother to effectively defend) doesn't mean that I should ask for a disclaimer to preface your bizarre remarks.
Slim Jim :Your would-be "vigorous free speech" policy ends the minute you think someone is saying something ugly about YOU.
I've said worse things about Althouse than that she is a liar and they weren't deleted. Sometimes she calls people out for what they say and make them defend their position, but that what free speech is all about.
Sullivan has consistently been at the forefront of recognition in the blogosphere not only for generating traffic, but for being influential, and for pushing the limits of heterodox opinion. Just because you (and perhaps others) are jealous of this doesn't mean there's not some truth to it.
Am I really as interesting as Sarah Palin's womb?
More, I should hope. An individual's womb is rather boring.
makes the remarkable flub of confusing the identification of hate speech as something different than just an insensitive comment with support for a constitutional prohibition against it.
Promoting a constitutional prohibition is completely within the bounds of the American Constitution. But Sullivan isn't doing anything like that. He is trying to enforce silence through extra-constitutional means.
My double standards are twice as good as your double standards.
My jealousy aside, I find your rambling and poorly-edited assertions (you're not Glenn "Sockpuppets" Greenwald, are you?) amusingly at variance with what I see around me.
And no, I don't spend a lot of time in rebuttal, because quite frankly, you're not worth my time.
So Sullivan is allowed to air his offensive ideas about Sarah's womb because, he can't help it, that's what he really believes and he owes it to his readers .... but those of us with the offensive idea that AIDS and consequent pharmaceuticals have done a number on his cognition are supposed to shut up, especially if we really believe it.
Yeah, no double standard there.
montana urban legend:Sullivan has consistently been at the forefront of recognition in the blogosphere not only for generating traffic, but for being influential, and for pushing the limits of heterodox opinion.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to his current position as troll feeder. Arguing that he is an elite isn't going to be very effective in a conservative crowd.
He's got an implied threat over there at the end of one of those comments.
So he wants certain things done to you for one or two comments made by others.
Where he could make a gallant stand-the deportation tiff-he does not.
But, then maybe he knows what some- have known about Andrew before his Palin Syndrome was evident-
there is nothing gallant or honorable about Sullivan.
Due to those implied threats I think you really are going to have to give up on him.
He's suggesting various ways for people to go after you -in an effort to be supportive of him the victim.
Andrew might be feeling slightly helpless and two faced and hypocritical about weaseling out of his little mess due to his position as one of the privileged elites-so of course the answer is to use his status and specialness to recruit people to crush you-a law professor who hangs out with the Proles!
Marries one of 'em even!
He's proving something and he doesn't even realize it.
Promoting a constitutional prohibition is completely within the bounds of the American Constitution. But Sullivan isn't doing anything like that. He is trying to enforce silence through extra-constitutional means.
And maybe I should point out that appealing to shame, reason, logic and an interest in quelling hateful bigotry or at least keeping it to a minimum is not only entirely constitutional, but entirely legal.
But you knew that already, right?
I think what bothers you is that these are the same methods that conservatives rely on for modifying poor behavior. Well, minus the bits about reason and logic.
And no, I don't spend a lot of time in rebuttal, because quite frankly, you're not worth my time.
Oh no. It's not just me you refuse to rebut. You refuse to post (or are incapable of posting) any original or responsive comments of your own whatsoever.
I don't see how any of that is relevant to his current position as troll feeder. Arguing that he is an elite isn't going to be very effective in a conservative crowd.
What "troll feeder"? How incoherent is this comment? "Trolls" are defined by the site that they feed at, whose comments sections they play in. Since Sullivan doesn't publish comments, you wouldn't have the first clue as to which "trolls" (which, as I mentioned, he gets to define, not you) he's feeding.
Again, you are either not thinking or coming up with such convoluted logic and definitions as to make what you say sound almost intentionally ridiculous.
Kathleen is right.
Crazy theories about Sarah Palin's child not really being her own but the product of incest between her husband and daughter = actual blog post material.
Crazy theories in blog comments about Andrew Sullivan's lunacy being the result of AIDS = OMFG! VERBOTEN!
Grow up, Andy.
Well, you've got to admit "Her Divine Majesty Queen Mary Jane Milky Loads, Sultana of Sodom, Governess of Gomorrah, and Empress of All Urania" is a little dramatic!
Perhaps, but each element of my formula is intentional:
Her Divine Majesty: for AS's public Catholicism, which is made problematic by his public advocacy of homosexuality, resulting in what is technically known in moral theology as "scandal"
Queen: for AS's open homosexuality, which many of us consider quite shameful
Mary Jane: for AS's federal marijuana bust
Milky Loads: for AS's infamous public solicitation of unprotected, anonymous gay sex
Sultana of Sodom: for AS's advocacy of same-sex marriage, which will ultimately lead to second-class citizenship for religious believers, i.e., dhimmitude
Governess of Gomorrah: alright, that one was just for the alliteration
Empress of All Urania: for AS's pretensions to his his place in the literary history of homosexuality
Do those blue words up there link to the Atlantic? Hang on.
*copies link*
*pastes to text edit*
Yup. Sorry, no traffic for you.
Yes, of course you're more interesting than Sarah Palin's womb. Doya know what's also more interesting to me than Sarah Palin's womb? Goes like this:
I got this Aerogarden over here, two of them actually, big ones. Cleaned 'em out and put seed kits in both. One worked well the other failed. My own fault, kept the lights off until they germinated then took too long to turn them on. Aerogarden replaced the kit even though it was my own fault. The replacement kit of the second Aerogarden failed in two of the pods and I'm sort of over waiting for replacement seed kits to come through the mail. So guess what I did. GUESS, I said!
I go outside where the marigolds are drying up. They were really pretty. Did you know at the base of the flowers there's a bunch of seeds stuffed in there? Even though they're hybrids some of the seeds still work. So I broke 'em open and took out about five seeds from my favorite colors and stuck 'em in the failed Aerogarden pods and now they're growing! Fast too. They're already catching up to the other pods that had a head start.
So takethat, Sarah Palin's womb.
That's right Freeman.
Confusion between theories about Sarah Palin's child not really being her own but her daughter's and hatred toward Sarah Palin for being a woman with chilren is not ok.
Confusion between Sullivan's HIV status as a reason for his opinions and hatred for Sullivan due to his HIV status is also not ok.
See. Consistency. Just the way you foolish hobgoblins like it.
"Apparently no one here can see why a politician might be held to higher standards in revealing their medical history than a journalist."
You mean like President God Damn America's medical records? And his college transcripts?
Yeah you assholes really have high standards if double = high.
Sullivan is a fine writer, but his personal ethics as a writer are very low. Then he shines his powerful spotlight at the commenter or two on Althouse's excellent Blog who were angry enough at Sullivan's wild attacks upon Palin and Althouse that they stated guesses about Sullivan's medical diagnosis without proof. Should free speech standards disappear in favor of hate speech prohibitions urged upon us Americans by this alien? That is the question.Censorship is a tool of Monarchy, and is forbidden in the USA. Sullivan needs to move to Canada or England where he will have the law forbidding free speech "That Offends Anyone" on his side. Bye, Bye, Andrew.
montana urban legend:And maybe I should point out that appealing to shame, reason, logic and an interest in quelling hateful bigotry or at least keeping it to a minimum is not only entirely constitutional, but entirely legal.
None of what he is doing is illegal, my case is that he is trying to prevent hate speech from being allowed to be expressed, published, heard, or discussed.
Sullivan isn't saying just that these people are bad, or that he doesn't like their speech. He wants Althouse to silence them.
I think what bothers you is that these are the same methods that conservatives rely on for modifying poor behavior.
Sullivan is a conservative. You've been defending a conservative this entire time. I've been attacking one.
Oh, and your list is lacking if you leave out prison time.
Heh, and this was my favorite part:
What we do here is read and post the most intelligent and eloquent reader response
"I have free speech here too! I pick the best speech and make it free!"
Has anyone seen any of these polls that the Dish has allegedly conducted in which the readers overwhelmingly voted NOT to allow comments? That's just bizarre. What kind of reader would vote NOT to allow responses to blog entries?
Just like editors at newspapers, Sullivan selects "letters to the editor" to show reactions to what he writes -- and, of course, we must trust HIS JUDGMENT as to what is published and what isn't. The internet and blogs have clarified just how slanted that situation was. Sullivan, to my mind, is less of a blogger than just another newspaper columnist from the old media who wants to guard the flow of information and debate.
One thing I've learned over the last few years is just how many involved with the media do not like true freedom of expression -- I mean expression at all levels, from the down-and-dirty and demotic to well-informed analyses and confutations. Because of the monopoly they had on two platforms of wide dissemination -- newspapers and magazines -- they thought THEY were the only ones capable of writing and expressing their thoughts. Guess again, mothers.
*
Which aspect of Obama's medical history does the asshole who goes by the name "Paul" propose was concealed from the public?
Obama admits to (and wrote about) to doing the drugs that Bush wouldn't and apparently it's the left that's demanding a double standard. But oh, wait. We weren't talking about "the left". We were talking about Andrew Sullivan.
Focus.
Sullivan isn't saying just that these people are bad, or that he doesn't like their speech. He wants Althouse to silence them.
Bullshit. He's just challenging her to take a clear and unambiguous stance with them.
Oh, and your list is lacking if you leave out prison time.
No one goes to jail simply for engaging in bigotry. They may, however, serve longer or harsher sentences if its a motivator in certain crimes.
"Which aspect of Obama's medical history does the asshole who goes by the name "Paul" propose was concealed from the public?"
ALL his medical records you fool.
Focus.
Ann: Ignore Sullivan. His faithful followers will continue to follow him. The rest of us are already tired of him.
Obama releases medical information: "excellent health."
By
Lynn Sweet
on May 29, 2008 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (29)
WASHINGTON--Likely Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is in "excellent health," according to a summary of Obama medical records released on Thursday. The 276-word summary was written by Dr. David L. Scheiner, the Chicago doctor who has been Obama's personal physician since March, 1987. Obama has not had a check-up in more than a year. Scheiner described Obama as "lean and muscular with no excess body fat." Obama is still using Nicorette gum to stay off cigarettes--he has quit smoking several times, his doctor notes.
HIghlights:
*Triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.
The Obama campaign decided to release this summary of Obama's health status at this time to contrast with the long medical history of GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.). The McCain campaign last week allowed a select group of reporters to study McCain's more complex medical history, complicated because of his skin cancer and injuries suffered while serving in the military and as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam.
click below for full Scheiner letter....
from the Obama campaign....
Below and attached is a letter from Senator Obama’s physician detailing a summary of his health records.
DAVID L. SCHEINER, M.D.
Hyde Park Associates in Medicine, Ltd.
1515 East 52nd Place, Chicago, IL 60615
To Whom It May Concern:
I am David L. Scheiner, a board certified general internist licensed to practice in the State of Illinois. I am on staff at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Rush University Medical Center. I have been Senator Barack Obama’s primary care physician since March 23, 1987. The following is a summary of his medical records for the past 21 years.
During that period of time, Senator Obama has been in excellent health. He has been seen regularly for medical checkups and various minor problems such as upper respiratory infections, skin rashes and minor injuries.
His family history is pertinent for his mother’s death from ovarian cancer and grandfather who died of prostate cancer. His own history included intermittent cigarette smoking. He has quit this practice on several occasions and is currently using Nicorette gum with success.
Senator Obama’s last medical checkup was on January 15, 2007; he had no complaints. He exercised regularly often jogging three miles. His diet was balanced with good intake of roughage and fluids. A complete review of systems was unremarkable. On physical examination, his blood pressure was 90/60 and pulse 60/minute. His build was lean and muscular with no excess body fat. His physical examination was completely normal.
Laboratory studies included triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.
In short, his examination showed him to be in excellent health. Senator Barack Obama is in overall good physical and mental health needed to maintain the resiliency required in the Office of President.
Sincerely,
David L. Scheiner, M.D.
Once again I ask you, which aspect of his medical history do you believe he's concealing?
L. E. Lee: You puffed out your chest
Sexy.
and claimed that you were a champion of free speech and that he was not.
Champion?
Now it turns out you had a very different view about blog comments and free speech not that long ago.
Four years in blog time is a long time. If there's anything we've seen from Althouse is that she's constantly changing and learning. She voted for Obama but you wouldn't get that from the posts she puts up today.
Her experience makes her the perfect person to challenge Sullivan on this issue. She knows how bad it can be and has had to deal with it. What she has now is the best possible solution she could come up with. She's come to value free speech, it wasn't just something she learned from a book. It's something she's happy with and we are too.
Ann, you appear to be intellectual shallow and more than a little bit vain.
I think you meant "intellectually".
Once again I ask you, which aspect of his medical history do you believe he's concealing?
The information you post indicates that Obama didn't release or make public his medical records, but only a "276-word summary."
To quote Queen Mary Jane Milky loads: I "simply asked for the thing to be resolved (as it easily could be)" by BHO's releasing his actual medical records.
Good point, nomilk!
It must be one of the "various minor problems such as upper respiratory infections, skin rashes and minor injuries", which constitute the sum total for everything that his primary care physician had regularly treated him since 1987, whose details he's been concealing.
But, again, I ask you: Which one?
This is like watching an ant navigate a skyscraper.
me: Sullivan isn't saying just that these people are bad, or that he doesn't like their speech. He wants Althouse to silence them.
montana urban legend: Bullshit. He's just challenging her to take a clear and unambiguous stance with them.
Sullivan: ...if everything Althouse says in her defense is true, it says a lot to me that she is unable even to offer a word of apology or regret, or to remove any of the vilest personal attacks in that thread.
He is talking about removing comments.
Sullivan is a conservative trying to shut down freedom of speech on a liberal blog and montana urban legend is defending him.
But, again, I ask you: Which one?
To quote Rumsfeld, "there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know."
Release the records and let us see! What is BHO afraid of?
And what about his college and law school transcripts? His Illinois senate papers? His Illinois bar application?
I still honestly don't understand how a relatively unknown figure could, in the middle of the Information Age, be elected POTUS without being more forthcoming with information about his education, work history, and general background.
In what universe is this a liberal blog?
Sullivan (who, as long as we're going to address hypocrisy, doesn't have any public comments) asks to have a certain comment or two, or ten, removed during a period of time in which Althouse has, you know, removed comments. She removed comments as of last fall (Fall 2008 - lead-up to the election). So why you keep referring to this fictional milestone of four years ago as the epiphany of when she decided to never, ever, EVER remove comments is beyond me. And beyond the bounds of reason.
I don't care (and I doubt Sullivan does, either) if she merely engages the hateful comment honorably rather than removing it. But we're talking about hypocrisy. Quit pretending this is a free speech issue. Free speech isn't some shield that prevents you from addressing the actual f*&^ing point, Jason. It's not an excuse for a bad argument. A bad argument is still a bad argument no matter how free the laws of the land are in allowing you to make it. But free speech doesn't make the bad argument correct. Or meaningful. Or whatever.
Sullivan is a conservative trying to shut down freedom of speech on a liberal blog and montana urban legend is defending him.
Bingo! Jason nails it.
Bingo! Jason nails it.
Bullshit. Try reading what I wrote and what the facts show before you go choking your little chicken over it, Mr Polloloco.
And for the record, I don't care if hateful speech is allowed to stand on someone's blog as a way to generate additional controversy, etc. and blog traffic. But to say that you unambiguously disapprove of the sentiment behind it, you might either be willing to remove it or effectively engage it, refute it. Whatever. I think this is the whole point. I see it as a larger issue because I think Professor Althouse lives for her readership and commentariat moreso than other big-name bloggers do, and she allows them to influence her stances more than other bloggers will. That's fine, that's her schtick, whatever.
But when someone wants to point out that the right has a problem effectively curbing the excesses of their loonies, and they point out the hate speech on a conservative blog as an example, they have a point to make. Sorry if you don't like that point, but it's not a dig against free speech. It's a dig against hypocrisy and a willingness to exploit hatred in the furtherance of a political agenda. Or failing a meaningful political agenda, it's a dig against the agenda of using that sentiment to further a sense of entertainment and recognition.
wv: boxyl
I wonder if Andi has ever seen some of the posts and comments about him at Ace of Spades. The ones here were mild by comparison.
BP of 90/60 is close to passing out, in my experience.
No MUL. I think it plain that left wing bloggers like Sullivan are seeking a mechanism to shut down and control the discussion. Why not wail that personal insult is as good a reason as any to do so; the problem will then be:...why stop there?
This argument should all get very interesting over the next several months. The Dems in power have just a few more months to regain control of the narrative before the next election cycle.
No MUL. I think it plain that left wing bloggers like Sullivan are seeking a mechanism to shut down and control the discussion. Why not wail that personal insult is as good a reason as any to do so; the problem will then be:...why stop there?
This argument should all get very interesting over the next several months. The Dems in power have just a few more months to regain control of the narrative before the next election cycle.
Oh. Ok. You think it plain. Jason, OTOH, believes that Sullivan is actually a conservative. I, unlike almost anyone here, seem to understand that some people will not only have a cafeteria view of political wedge issues, but might actually maintain a detailed construction of their own political ideology that goes beyond what Fox and the left want you to see. Sullivan has a PhD in this stuff, he says he holds to eloquent conservative principles that I can understand, why do I need to pigeonhole him into your ridiculous dichotomy? Just because he believes that the right has shown itself not fit to govern? He is dismayed by the party that calls itself "conservative". He thinks it needs to reform its approach. So, in your tautology, that makes him "left wing"? Why?
So Sullivan might have political interests, you say. So what? Has he not been anywhere near as transparent about them as anyone else anywhere? Certainly anyone else in the blogosphere. And these arbitrary timelines you put on regaining "control" over a narrative. WTF? And "control"? You guys really do seem to think that only one opinion can ever prevail at any one time. Why? Who says?
I think it's this type of black-and-white thinking that puts you at such a disadvantage in understanding Sullivan, and his motives, and those of his much broader readership.
At times like these I like to read Bissage.
Pompous Montanus pontificates: "After my comment I see we have two self-styled Sullivan antagonistes who, despite their likely sympathy with the conservative views that predominate on this website, have the temerity to pretend that they, as individuals, are in a better position to glean an understanding of the needs of the entire market for speech better than anyone else."
There. That's better.
Better? It's inarticulate.
If you must bore us with your bloviation, have the decency to make it intelligible, willya!
At times like these I like to read Bissage.
Bissage is wonderful!
MUL - one person's hateful bigotry is another's free speech. Who gets to define it - lefties?
Am I really as interesting as Sarah Palin's womb?
Hell, more.
Only problem in "The Man's" quote is the second "better", which is a typo. Otherwise, it's articulate.
Alex, this is interesting. So hatred of someone is so poorly "articulated" an emotion (I'll make use of "The Man's" lexicon), that only lefties can pick up on it? I'm not sure what you're driving at.
Pompous Montanus wrote: [W]hen someone... point[s] out that the right has a problem effectively curbing the excesses of their loonies... [i]t's a dig against hypocrisy and a willingness to exploit hatred in the furtherance of a political agenda.
Failing to curb the excesses of others is not indicative of hypocricy. Indeed, when lefties fail to curb the excesses of their own, it's called "tolerance" and is considered virtuous.
Insults directed against Sullivan personally, particularly in response to his vicious, gossipy atacks on Palin and family, have nothing to do with "exploiting hatred" to further any obvious "political agenda." They are just insults encompassing - as insults are wont to do - personal characteristics of the target.
Your comments are typical of the hackneyed twaddle we have come to expect from Nancy Pelosi. Are you Nancy Pelosi?
MUL - what I'm driving at is that lefties are complaining that criticism of Obama is "hate speech" and "racism".
Criticism of Obama is not "hate speech" or racism. Bad will toward Obama that makes use of rhetorical devices that have been used for a long time against Black Americans in general, however, is suspect. Why should it not be?
Failing to curb the excesses of others is not indicative of hypocricy. Indeed, when lefties fail to curb the excesses of their own, it's called "tolerance" and is considered virtuous.
You did not read the thread.
Insults directed against Sullivan personally, particularly in response to his vicious, gossipy atacks on Palin and family, have nothing to do with "exploiting hatred" to further any obvious "political agenda." They are just insults encompassing - as insults are wont to do - personal characteristics of the target.
Nice. So when "Milky Jane Loads of Milk" or whoever, waxes poetically about gay sex as a way to ridicule and direct hatred toward Sullivan, I'll have elHombre's assurance that his use of graphic gay sex imagery is not a way of incorporating homophobia into his attacks on Sullivan.
Your comments are typical of the hackneyed twaddle we have come to expect from Nancy Pelosi. Are you Nancy Pelosi?
As yours are typical of the hackneyed twaddle we have come to expect from Rush Limbaugh. Are you Rush Limbaugh?
Nice inability to differentiate between hatred of a group and a simple, if unsympathetic comment toward an individual, Hombre. The others here aren't so stupid as you are being here. Or at least, they wouldn't make such blatant blunders so arrogantly.
So, in your tautology, that makes him "left wing"? Why?
Yep, it is too simplistic. Two sides polarized like never before (well at least in quite a while).
But as I see it (and you may criticize at will) only one side is calling for censorship; only one side is theatening the "fairness" doctrine (what a load of crap that idea is); Sullivan is now calling for Althouse to delete or otherwise censor free speech. That is why I lumped him with the leftists- he's carrying the water for them now.
Am I really as interesting as Sarah Palin's womb?
Well, both you and Palin are pretty cute, for older chicks.
Pompous Montanus dissembled (2:51): You did not read the thread.
I read the thread, but I was addressing your comment. Be responsible for it. The sticking point is that you don't understand the concept "hypocricy."
PM, dissembling further: ...I'll have elHombre's assurance that his use of graphic gay sex imagery is not a way of incorporating homophobia into his attacks on Sullivan.
I'll take it that this is just another example of your inarticulateness rather than a false asertion that I have attacked Sullivan and used "gay imagery." I have not.
Given that, this is still another of your straw men. The issue was whether personal insults directed at Sullivan were intended to further some political agenda, not whether they might incorporate homophobia.
Are you so steeped in leftist claptrap that you claim every personal slur using gay imagery is homophobic and every homophobic remark is in furtherance of some political agenda?
I see now that you aren't Nancy Pelosi. You are a caricature of Nancy Pelosi.
CL, if anyone is calling for censorship, particularly by the government, put me down as against it. I much rather prefer to err on the side of letting comments as hateful as anything that Goebbels or Loki could muster drift through the more brackish currents of public discourse than to cater too quickly to an impulse toward hypersensitivity.
As for the "fairness" doctrine, I simply don't know enough about this charge to have a really informed opinion about it.
But I really do think there is a difference between calling someone to account or being selective about what stands on a privately-owned blog and a crackdown on speech generally. Just because nearly any comment, no matter how hateful, is still an example of free speech - that doesn't mean the owner of the forum is doing a service to society by not having the time to address what is objectionable about the certain forms of hatefulness that it contains. So while I recognize the distinction between deleting an especially egregious comment and simply denouncing (and/or explaining) its egregiousness, and prefer to err on the side of the latter, I really don't think a line toward calling for a more pernicious form of censorship has been crossed in this instance - especially on a blog that is privately owned by an individual who claims that a homosexual is being personally insulting to them.
If anything, allowing sentiments like these to stand can be a valuable teaching lesson. For instance, I don't assume that elHombre is a hateful man who wears bedsheets and white robes and burns crosses on other people's lawns just because of his equivocating comments regarding homophobia. I just think his ignorance allows me the opportunity to display to him and perhaps others that in the 21st century, we can differentiate between what if anything is objectionable about Andrew Sullivan's remarks and how his being gay has nothing to do with that other than to rile people up about his homosexuality.
I get the impression that the rest of you guys are probably young enough to see the difference anyway. I, personally, would rather err on the side of attacking destructive ignorance and attacking hate than attacking the speech that carries it. But make no mistake, I don't think there's anything wrong in compelling others to be willing to do something to prove they recognize the problems behind what I would be attacking. Especially when they are complaining of being attacked themselves.
I read the thread, but I was addressing your comment. Be responsible for it. The sticking point is that you don't understand the concept "hypocricy."
And yet, I somehow seem capable of spelling the word "hypocrisy".
Here's a hint, humble hombre: When the red dotted lines appear under the word, you've misspelled it.
And when they appear under the word a second or third time, you've misspelled it once again.
And here's another hint: When you want to convey to others that they don't understand the concept of H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y, you might want to state why you think accusations of furthering personal hatred are worse than allowing hatred to be furthered against a whole category of people.
I'll take it that this is just another example of your inarticulateness rather than a false asertion that I have attacked Sullivan and used "gay imagery." I have not.
No. It's an example of your pretending that those comments (which you didn't state, but whose presence your argument defends) either went unread by you, or that you are too stupid to realize that they are the crux of the disagreement between Althouse and Andrew Sullivan.
Given that, this is still another of your straw men. The issue was whether personal insults directed at Sullivan were intended to further some political agenda, not whether they might incorporate homophobia.
Of course, these two aims are presumed mutually exclusive in your mind because of what, exactly?
Are you so steeped in leftist claptrap that you claim every personal slur using gay imagery is homophobic and every homophobic remark is in furtherance of some political agenda?
Are you so steeped in right-wing claptrap to believe that homophobia serves some purpose other than a political agenda?
Do let me know what that agenda would be.
I see now that you aren't Nancy Pelosi. You are a caricature of Nancy Pelosi.
Oh, ok. And you are a caricature of Glenn Beck.
Keep up the stupidity, though.
So when "Milky Jane Loads of Milk" or whoever, waxes poetically about gay sex as a way to ridicule and direct hatred toward Sullivan
You are obviously not familiar with the phrase "Milky Loads," but it's AS's own phrase from his infamous solicitation on Barebackcity.com. So we can't quote AS when discussing AS?
This is all part of the blinkered and censoring nature of modern "liberalism": Freedom of abortion, but we can't show the aborted fetuses. Freedom of expression (and funding) for Robert Mapplethorpe, but we won't show his sadomasochistic "art." Freedom for homosexuals, but no discussion of what homosexuals do.
And what do you have against gay sex (or descriptions thereof) btw? Homophobe.
You are obviously not familiar with the phrase "Milky Loads," but it's AS's own phrase from his infamous solicitation on Barebackcity.com.
No. And it was only one of about a dozen or so homophobic/salacious comments quoted. How does his having uttered it preclude your ridiculing him for being gay and engaging in sex with other men? And what does any of that have to do with the matter at hand? Oh, that's right. Nothing.
So we can't quote AS when discussing AS?
You weren't discussing Sullivan, but ridiculing him for having engaged in sex with other men.
This is all part of the blinkered and censoring nature of modern "liberalism": Freedom of abortion, but we can't show the aborted fetuses. Freedom of expression (and funding) for Robert Mapplethorpe, but we won't show his sadomasochistic "art." Freedom for homosexuals, but no discussion of what homosexuals do.
Blah blah blah. The political agenda comes out. Who cares what homosexuals do? How does what homosexuals do have anything to do with whether it is right or wrong for Sullivan to figure out whether or not Palin is a liar? And why do Ann Althouse's commenters feel that a need to fixate on his sex life has anything to do with whether or not Palin is a liar?
And what do you have against gay sex (or descriptions thereof) btw?
Do you see me picketing gay erotic establishments? Gay bars? Gay publications? No. So STFU, stop with the witless counter-accusations of prudery, and accept that you've been called out for focusing on Sullivan's sex life as a means of intentionally associating his homosexuality with something depraved.
Homophobe.
Oh. So you accuse me of what you resent being accused of. Brilliant tactic on the part of the right these days. I know you are but what am I? I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you. Ingenious stuff there. I guess the subtlety defense only goes so far.
Pompous Montanus wrote: When you want to convey to others that they don't understand the concept of H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y, you might want to state why you think accusations of furthering personal hatred are worse than allowing hatred to be furthered against a whole category of people.
Evidently, I have misspelled hypocrisy -- twice. For shame.
On the other hand, I do know what it means. It is: "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."
Hypocrisy is unrelated to your abstruse statement, quoted above, falsely suggesting that I am quantifying hate-peddling.
Pompous Montanus wrote unresponsively: "[elHombre wrote]: Are you so steeped in leftist claptrap that you claim every personal slur using gay imagery is homophobic and every homophobic remark is in furtherance of some political agenda?"
Are you so steeped in right-wing claptrap to believe that homophobia serves some purpose other than a political agenda?
In light of this mischaracterization of my question, I assume your short answer is "yes."
In answer to your unresponsive question, homophobia is an irrational personal characteristic like arachnophobia or phobophobia. It is incongruous to ask what purpose it serves. It may or may not manifest itself politically.
Oh. I missed this.
Here's Pompous Montanus lying his/her ass off: For instance, I don't assume that elHombre is a hateful man who wears bedsheets and white robes and burns crosses on other people's lawns just because of his equivocating comments regarding homophobia.
I have made no equivocating comments regarding homophobia. I have pointed out that homophobia is an irrational personal characteristic -- by definition.
On the other hand, opposing the gay political agenda, disapproving of gay behavior and even speaking disrespectfully of or to gays is not per se homophobic. Similarly, opposing reparations for the descendants of black slaves, speaking against affirmative action and even speaking disrespectfully of or to African-Americans is not per se racism regardless of the ranting on the left.
It is unimaginable that someone who claims to have your education is unaware of these axioms. The only explanation left for your ongoing distortions of my statements and positions, and those of others who comment here, to bring us within the umbrella of the warped, politicized definitions of homophobe favored by you and others of the left is that you are dishonest.
This, of course, equates perfectly with Sullivan's chickenshit implication that Althouse is a "sympathizer" because she does not censor comments that offend him and refer to his homosexuality. You, and he, are an affront to critical thinking. "Chickenshit" works too!
Hello everyone. How was your day? Was it a productive day?
Or was it wasted arguing with people on the internets? Especially with some people who won't ever read and think about your reasoning, who just want to kick shit at you for the fun of it?
As for me, I spent this beautiful autumn day in northern Wisconsin and Michigan's U.P., along the shore of Lake Superior and in the Keweenaw Peninsula.
The leaves have turned, the wind was howling, and we went through bursts of heavy, blinding snow, sleet and hail. It was wonderful.
We stopped at a small shop in Houghton for lunch, and had home-made pastys. Delicious. Then off to the orthodox monastery south of Eagle Harbor to buy jams, jellies and cookies made by the monks. Nothing else like it.
Anyhow, it's cottage time now, with logs on the fire and a few glasses of wine.
Hope you got the whole freedom of speech/censorship/hetero/homo/uterus/penis thingie worked out. Otherwise, your day was wasted.
wv = sornies Sore knees. Insert own joke.
On Twitter it was recommended that sornies sufferers use #cowmats.
Hi Freeman! Yes, cowmats are very useful around the house.
You can, for example, slip your laptop under one if you're tempted to comment on a thread like this.
Typical cowmat weighs 200 lbs. Great for sornies!
wv = woodsto
Another place you can put your laptop.
Are cowmats the same thing as cowpads?
I note, for the benefit of anyone with a brain, that sympathy is not required for passive support of something.
The rest of what I have to say applies to someone who has clearly lost his mind.
The Homunculus Hombraneus has, thankfully, clarified his stance. He seems to hold to the scurrilous position that disrespect/hatred of gays is not homophobia just as he believes that disrespect/hatred of blacks is not racism. In doing so, he obviates my prior presumption of goodwill on his part (one that he fatuously and arrogantly shoved back in my face), and reveals that he is, after all, someone who defends (irrational) bigotry against blacks and gays.
My mistake.
Remind me to never again assume any good faith on the part of such an obviously atrocious and spiteful excuse for a human being. To look a gift horse in the mouth the way he just did says quite a lot. Of course, I had my doubts - despite giving him the benefit of a more charitable doubt. But apparently the disrespect which he thinks blacks or gays might somehow deserve just for being black or gay reflects the disrespect he thinks should have been afforded him. Oh well.
Of course, he is too much of an imbecile to realize the indefensible nature of his moral depravity - even as he takes to politicized conspiracy theories as explanations for why no one else of any repute will defend it either. But this is because he is as much an affront to criticial thinking as he is to basic morality.
Keep spitting embittered assholes like him out of your system, America. Let him blame the rejection his warped mind has apparently faced on "liberals". They can handle it. The rest of America has moved on with them and leaves bigoted cranky old farts like him to roll around in the Texas sun like a rotten piece of tumbleweed.
Oh, and just in case that was too abstruse for you, remember to go fuck yourself. That will achieve the desired effect of my communication as much the words which you will refuse to read or pretend to lack the capacity to understand.
Ralph L: Cowmats are soft, heavy mats used for cows to lie on. They also have other uses, possibly around the house, if you need really soft flooring.
Cowpads are what you see dropped around here.
Pompous Montanus aka Montana Urban Legend squealed at 12:28 AM: The Homunculus Hombraneus has, thankfully, clarified his stance. He seems to hold to the scurrilous position that disrespect/hatred of gays is not homophobia ... and yamma, yamma, go fuck yourself, yamma, yamma.
Hm-m-m. What were those characterizations I applied to Pompous Montanus' posts yesterday (6:12PM and earlier)?
Oh yeah, "inarticulate, lying, chickenshit leftist claptrap."
I rest my case.
I'm trying to figure out what's different about speculating whether Sullivan suffers AIDS-related dementia and speculating whether Palin bore her fifth child. Both are bizarre, even hateful. I guess one difference is that Sullivan uses his bizarre speculation to drive traffic, while Althouse suffers her commenters' bizarre speculation in the comments.
Oh, I LOVE bizarre speculations.
I just wish someone would come up with better ones.
I think the problem is that they've all been used up.
You know how geniuses sometimes just seem to appear and spark a civilization on to greater heights?
We need a speculative genius, NOW!
I feel like it's 1760, and we're waiting around for Mozart, or it's 1480, and we're wondering where Michaelangelo is.
Andrew Sullivan does his best, but, really, he's just a Salieri or a Botticelli: Good, but no towering, culture-shattering figure.
The larger question, I suppose, is whether we need a hero, or just a paradigm shift to better fit the general run of bizarre speculation to the needs of our time.
In either event, Sullivan is inadequate. And all I can sadly say is that without crazed speculation a people perish.
Sarah's womb doesn't have a comments thread...
Just finished reading the comments and I must say that Montana UL is an amazing null set in the equation of readability. Monty: take a breath and catch up on your meds. Sheesh! You are a real opaque intellect. God bless your efforts.
Texas Tom
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा