IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo says:
"I am nobody."Ah, yes! The Emily Dickinson poem:
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
I'm nobody! Who are you?(I added a letter!)
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring blog!
पोस्ट्स
३२ टिप्पण्या:
You're somebody. That's for sure. However, emotional Althouse oftentimes means saying stupid things.
If fear of the NYT is the beginning of wisdom, then you are asking nothing questions that will get no answers. And they say that Stephen Hawkins is sure that you do not exist. Soon the guy that staked out the Palin's house to write another hit piece has rented the house next door to yours, to prove that you like Palin, are nothing. But you have won our hearts and minds.
Wow, that's gotta harsh your mellow. On the other hand, at least we know Taranto reads the blog on occasion.
simple test: is anyone else asking what Paglia thinks of Gaga?
I apologize for getting off point, but Islamophobia simply does not exist in America to any significant extent, no matter how much liberals want us to believe it does. And if you doubt me just ask these guys.
http://30mosques.com/
And even if it did, Barry couldn't do a thing about it.
That's OK.
I'm nobody too.
""I am nobody.""
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
Of course you are. You don't live in New York City.
"I think that at a time when the country is anxious generally and going through a tough time, then fears can surface, suspicions, divisions can surface in a society."
When do they start handing out Soma?
I can remember when the WSJ was a snark-free zone. This trend is no improvement.
I blame Rupert Murdoch, and the desire of high school nerds and geeks to finally seem to be cool.
...so it must be true. To be honest, it wasn't one of your better headlines.
Apparently you are in good company.
I can remember when the WSJ was a snark-free zone. This trend is no improvement.
I blame Rupert Murdoch, and the desire of high school nerds and geeks to finally seem to be cool.
Taranto's been doing that column a lot longer than Murdoch has owned the WSJ.
Muslims can certainly be partially blamed for our current economic situation (that's the source of the headline -- Tarranto says that "no one" blames them).
I don't know if I'd consider them the primary culprit, however. The economy was doing pretty well, despite Chimpy McHitlerburton's war for oil, until 2006, when Democrats won control of congress.
And for infrequent readers: The war-for-oil reference is sarcasm. I'm the biggest proponent of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that I know.
Could be, like Kansas taught us so many years ago, that we're all just dust in the wind.
Taranto's been doing that column a lot longer than Murdoch has owned the WSJ.
Has he snarked it up the whole time? He had plenty of help for this column, too -- the WSJ provided this list of snarkelopes:
Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to David Huff, Brian O'Rourke, Storrs Warinner, Terry Holmes, Roger Heinig, William Schultz, Michele Schiesser, Richard Belzer, Skip King, John Siegel, Thomas Szyszkiewicz, Stuart Sullivan, Mark Zoeller, David Hallstrom, John Lehman, John Bobek, Doug Welty, T. Young, Chuck Smith, Phyllis Harkonen, Bob Wukitsch, Peter Huntsman, Kyle Kyllan, Jim Miller, Rod Pennington, Claude Mariottini, Bruce Goldman, Bryan Fischer, Ethel Fenig, George Parry, Hillel Markowitz, David Neidert, Daniel Mullen, David Skurnick, Ray Hull, Nick Kasoff, John Sanders, Mark Finkelstein, Mike Brennan, Craig Hildreth, Chris Link, Ravi Baskaran, Brian Warner and Daniel Lepanto
I celebrate the nobody.
You've lost Taranto - what say you now?!?
If you wanted to be somebody you'd have taken a job on the east coast between Washington and Boston, or on the left coast between Manhattan Beach and Vancouver.
I blame Obama for accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. It was a good indicator that he's all hat and no cattle, which makes people nervous in a president.
You also said that the Citizens United decisions will not put more corporate money into elections.
Except you're very wrong. Money is pouring into elections from independent expenditure organizations - corporate money overwhelmingly favoring Republicans.
"Outside groups supporting Republican candidates in House and Senate races across the country have been swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts on television since early August as the midterm election season has begun heating up. "
Althouse is very wrong and doesn't understand how modern elections work.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/politics/14money.html
Well, it's sort of like an instalanche, and the WSJ got the address right. (Did it have any traffic-spiking effect?)
So, enjoy the vortex even if it's not yours.
It pleases me to know that people will still be quoting Emily Dickinson long after Lady Gaga is but a footnote in the encyclopedia of American popular culture.
Althouse, come on, you're pleased.
It's a stupid reading, since it wasn't a question.
Taranto is lit crit tone deaf.
Has he snarked it up the whole time? He had plenty of help for this column, too -- the WSJ provided this list of snarkelopes:
As long as I can remember, and with the previous caller, that means well before Murdoch bought the paper.
My guess is that most of those names are the people who send the stuff in, and maybe one or two do the selecting and editing, and he gives the final approval.
I can remember when they were first going online, and I would get it by email every day. That has been awhile.
I think that he has almost got some memes going. To this day, six years after he really got going with this, Taranto still makes sure to mention that John Kerry served in Vietnam, whenever he mentions the Senator in one of his columns. Still, and that is part of the joke.
He has pet lines for a lot of public figures, such as Helen Thomas being the MSM's crazy old aunt in the attic, or some such. Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy (and Mary Jo) are/were also well represented.
I don't think though that it is really snark, or at least not all of it. Yes, Taranto pokes fun at politicians and liberals. And the MSM/news. But it is aimed mostly at being dry humor. It just happens that liberals, and liberal politicians in particular, are the typical brunt of his barbs.
Well, Alpha, I live in Nevada, and you haven't been able to turn on your TV for months without seeing Harry Reid ads at every commercial break. It was so bad that he was even running one on Instapundit.
And how is he able to keep a point or so ahead of his opponent, after being declared dead months ago? By having some $25 million in a campaign chest that he spends burying her.
I don't remember you being upset last election cycle when the Democrats buried the Republicans in contributions. Now, all of a sudden, it is an issue. Who would have thought?
Of course money is pouring in to Republicans. There are a lot of very motivated people right now on the right. And center. Very motivated, and they are determined to take at least the House away from the Democrats in order to stop their madness. Ever hear of the Tea Party movement? Or isn't that covered in the media that you follow?
Taranto is lit crit tone deaf.
And, I am sure that really bothers him or any of the millions who read and enjoy his daily column. I shouldn't flog a dead horse, but the column is humor, even if that humor escapes the average lib.
you haven't been able to turn on your TV for months without seeing Harry Reid ads at every commercial break.
Radio DXing to beat insomnia, I heard a Sharron Angle ad on a NV station that was quite sensible and reasonable. Do the Harry Reid ads play up her armed revolutionary side?
Re Taranto snarking: As long as I can remember... well before Murdoch bought the paper.
Good to know. I wonder if one of the credited names is the anti-Althousiac (a tag not used here).
I had to go back three times to see what you were talking about. Lady Gaga!
The top article sounded awfully familiar, too.
Obama can't be clear about "good Muslims" because he refuses to be clear about "bad Muslims." I think Taranto was right on, right up to the point where he stated as fact that Obama has moral authority with Muslims (that he hasn't used.) Until we see any evidence of it, the moral authority Obama has with Muslims is a *theory*.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा