A comment on WaPo's "Why we wrote about the Koch Industries and its leases in Canada’s oil sands," which responds to Power Line's "Washington Post Falls for Left-Wing Fraud, Embarrasses Itself," which referred to a WaPo article by Steve Mufson and Juliet Eilperin titled (apparently falsely) "The biggest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers."
Power Line responds to the material at the first link with "The Washington Post Responds to Me and I Respond to the Post," and I got there via Instapundit, who said: "I’d really like to see a list of who’s married to/sleeping with whom in the Washington press corp, rather than having this drip out scandal by scandal."
Here's the lipsticky pic that Power Line includes at the "Responds to Me/I Respond" post that seems to have fired up the commenter I quoted:
When does it detract from your argument to go after a woman for her looks? When the aspects of her looks that strike you as ridiculous are things that she's done to herself? When your objection to her seems to have something to do with how she's deployed her looks to make herself part of a Washington power couple? When she's been really despicably deceptive and you want to lock onto an image to feel hate toward?
Why go after the female half of a co-written article? Because the male half has maintained the kind of natural look for himself that is really not much of a choice for a man. Only a woman's look — because there's such a range of choice — seems revelatory of the inner space of her mind. But be careful of getting drawn in to your fantasies of what's going on in that female mental vortex. You could get hurt. Badly. Quite aside from the way it distracts us from the meat of your argument.
Whither the meat?
पोस्ट्स
१७४ टिप्पण्या:
Also, making a negative comment that draws attention to a very beautiful picture of your opponent is not helpful to your case.
Why go after the female half of a co-written article?
Because the male half isn't sleeping with Andrew Light.
I mean, as far as we know.
But be careful of getting drawn in to your fantasies of what's going on in that female mental vortex.
They have a brain scan thing for airports that can tell what you're thinking, but it doesn't work on women.
When does it detract from your argument to go after a woman for her looks?
Always. Unless you are arguing about her beauty.
The meat's pretty damning.
The headline of, and substantive claims in, a Washington Post news article are materially false. Ludicrously so.
And the authors respond with, essentially, "See how inflammatory the Koch brothers are!"
Woodward and Bernstein this isn't.
You can't tell much about her from the picture.
You'd have to see breasts.
I can't quite follow who said what when in this referential circle of critique, but as usual a below the belt ad hominem does nothing to advance a debate/discussion.
So, snark by commenters can detract from the meaty arguments made in a serious blog post. You and Hinderaker should trade stories.
At a long distance, bike riding, sometimes you come up on a distant walking figure.
What I've noticed is that you can always tell if it's a woman.
I think hips and, if facing you, the darker shading under the breasts.
Men have evolved to detect this far away so they know whether they need to get their sword ready.
Lipstick is just to let other women know that she's better competition than them.
Eilperin has been doing these hit jobs, in service to the tree hugger lobby, for years. So all is fair IMHO.
What surprised me is that Insty was not familiar with her or her husband's role at Thing Progross [my typos seem appropriate].
"Because the male half has maintained the kind of natural look for himself that is really not much of a choice for a man."
Whoa - you're on dangerous ground there. Men make choices in their look, or don't. Black guys can be very fashion conscious. This guy CHOSE the "I'm just me" supposedly-non-threatening look.
Doesn't mean it's any more accurate than the one his wife's criticized for - he could be a racist for instance - but he has chosen it.
@nonapod - The response of the Post is, yeah, it's a lie, but, hey, Kochs. Debate/discussion doesn't seem to be an option.
Seriously Althouse, is this your takeaway from Hinderaker vs. WaPo? A meta comment about a comment about lipstick? There are more important things going on here, like the character assassination of the Kochs by the Obama regime's water carriers.
I think the commenter is trying to be hurtful, because (s)he thinks that the reporters have betrayed their trust & deserve to be hurt, and (s)he's going after Ms Eilperin in a manner that's calculated to hurt.
Telling a guy how ugly he is, unless done by a woman said man has an interest in, does nothing. Men routinely jibe each other about how ugly they are. The male reporter has had his professional integrity damaged in public, and that is his punishment. But, as has been pointed out above, only one of the reporters here was known to be sleeping with her sources, an act, which, if a male reporter had done it, would no doubt elicit some form of sexual insult relevant to a male.
I leafed through a book about protest art. For the last two hundred years protest art has included fat bankers, bullet headed militarists, and brutish looking cops. What's missing is any standard caricature of a commissar. Considering the impressive body count that commissars and left wing revolutionaries have tallied during the last few hundred years, this is a real deficit......If you were looking for a model of the woman who stabbed Danton in his bath, you do worse than to choose this woman. She really looks joyless and willing to kill anyone to make the world a better place for trees. She's her own caricature.
Because Eilperin is the celebrity one?
"Doesn't mean it's any more accurate than the one his wife's criticized for - he could be a racist for instance - but he has chosen it."
Um, Crackster, we can tel he is racist, because his skin is white. But he didn't choose that himself, it's genetic. Like IQ.
"If you were looking for a model of the woman who stabbed Danton in his bath, you do worse than to choose this woman."
It wasn't Danton, and that woman was actually motivated by Christianity, which means that she was a right-wing kook, by our debased modern standards.
But if you want a model for the Amerikan Kommisar, look no further than Lois Lerner. The sight of that woman's imperious scowl makes my blood run cold. Hell is Lois Lerner.
Maybe I missed something?
I don't see the photograph as representative of anything other than identification...
Why is Althouse going all feminist jujitsu meta here?
Agree with you Bob R and Tyrone. had just read the entire WaPo - Powerline exchange, then came here and was excited for about 5 seconds thinking there was going to substantive discussion about it.
Agree with you Bob R and Tyrone. had just read the entire WaPo - Powerline exchange, then came here and was excited for about 5 seconds thinking there was going to substantive discussion about it.
Freeman Hunt:
The picture might be beautiful but the subject of the picture is "meh" or worse. Let's agree to disagree on that.
As for PowerLine's argument, it would appear the WaPo was full of crap. It was likely biased crap, at that. And the authors have a responsibility to disclose their biases or be called out for unethical behavior.
Comments about looks... Who cares? It doesn't earn points and it doesn't subtract points from the overall point PowerLine made. Or the bull shit claim of the WaPo.
I also see liberal journalists having to bend with the times, and under Obama and Keystone, that's the environmentalist kooks and cries of Koch brother villainy.
She's got to get clicks and throw some populist red meat out there.
It strikes me as more interesting that between her journalism and personal/political connections there may be a conflict of interest.
That wouldn't be the first time in Washington on either side of the aisle.
Commentary on commentary.
Boring.
Because the male half isn't sleeping with Andrew Light.
Who is the male half sleeping with?
"The meat's pretty damning."
I know! So don't taint it.
According to Coleridge, in an 1800 op-ed, conflict of interest is the pulley on which good character is hoist into public view.
Don't step on a landmine in the war on women.
It was Marat, not Danton, who was killed in his bath by Charlote Corday. But yes she was also a zealot and I think she lost her head.
Because in the modern 'social' society, you have to have to say something, even if you have nothing to say.
I bet she's fat, too...
Ok, now I see where Althouse is going:
Don't look at her lipstick, boys. It's a trap!
Time to require journalists to disclose conflicts of interest in political matters. Financial journalists disclose whether they, their family, or their firm own shares in the stocks or funds they are touting. Maybe it doesn't make a difference; it should be up to the viewer to discern.
When you go through a long string of comments, chances are %95+ you're going to find something objectionable. Who the hell cares?
The question is: When confronted with a pseudo-journalist parroting the Democratic party line - in a false, misleading and thus patently dishonest manner - and when this same journalist is revealed to compromised by an undisclosed relationship with an (in effect) government-affiliated think tank which is spreading the same lie against the same target....
....why does Althouse seek to distract by focusing on same random, anonymous commenter?
I've always found the liberal's choice of bogymen in the Kochs to be a little odd. As libertarians, they make strange villains. I mean do they envision them in their evil lair rubbing their hands together saying: "We want you to be able to live your life how you'd like with minimal government intervention! We want to give you as much personal freedom as possible! Mwhahahaha!!!".
William: If you were looking for a model of the woman who stabbed Danton in his bath, you do worse than to choose this woman. She really looks joyless and willing to kill anyone to make the world a better place for trees.
Edit: I see others have got here already, but anyway...
Marat, William, Marat. (Danton came to his end compliments of Robespierre and Mme Guillotine). And anyhoo, Marat was far more the joyless psychopath "willing to kill anyone" than his murderess ever was. Dude wanted killin' just about as much as Max Robespierre.
Charlotte Corday was a far more interesting and sympathetic person than popular history (at least in English) usually paints - young (she was all of 24 when she was guillotined), heroically idealistic, painfully politically naïve. Roman courage and Roman virtue. Obviously, somebody who had no business mixing it up with the hard boys of the Terror. But not at all the crazed harpy that flits briefly through the popular imagination's idea of the French Revolution.
Just FYI. Thought I'd put in a good word for poor slandered Corday.
Time to require journalists to disclose conflicts of interest in political matters. Financial journalists disclose whether they, their family, or their firm own shares in the stocks or funds they are touting
BINGO!
There should be a law requiring this disclosure. Conflicts of interest whether real, acted on or not acted on must be disclosed to the buyer/reader.
Just like in the financial industry, there should be fines and jail time for hiding conflicts.
"Woodward and Bernstein this isn't."
Actually, the comparison is apt. W & B were coached and lied to by Mark Felt. He and the FBI had been spying on Nixon for years. Felt got revenge on Nixon for passing him over when Hoover died. W & B were stenographers.
They were more successful, I suspect, because Nixon gave them more material than the Kochs will.
I dunno, maybe because she overdid it just a tad?
There IS a much broader (lol) range of options open to a woman. Those range from al naturel up through natural-looking, and up into Bozo The Clown.
Althouse womanplains...
"With so much gender politics pandering to women, it's strange that men, feel the need to adopt a "woman's look" approach to talking about problems..."
The author of the piece at Powerline says nothing about the lady's looks, mentioning only who she is sleeping with. I think that mention is entirely legitimate given the slant and inaccuracies in the article. It appears that Mufson was there more as a "beard" since he is the regular energy staffer.
The WaPo clearly got caught with it's liberal pants down on this one. Apparently it's not the first time this woman has been the cause.
The original WaPo article was fantastically stupid, Powerline took it down without reference to that awful picture, the WaPo response is laughable, and that awful picture makes the woman look like a caricature of what she apparently is: a leftist, leaning-in, castrating something-or-other.
There really wasn't any reason for Powerline to have included a photo of the author other than to stir up a bit more negativity toward that WaPo piece. A pity. Powerline's rebuttal of the article was damning, and now this distraction.
Sort of like Paul Ryan turning a discussion on how to "lift people out of poverty" into one about inner city culture.
"When does it detract from your argument to go after a woman for her looks?"
Nearly always, except in the special case that the looks are an obviously integral part of what you are criticizing.
I usually have to exercise mindful restraint in cases of crunchy granola looking women who want to hector me over some environmental outrage. But restraint I exercise. If ever I fail in the restraint, I will claim that the look is a trigger rooted in past trauma and I just could not help myself.
Kimberley Strassel thinks that the Democrats' stir about the Koch Bros. at this time is mostly about trying to motivate their "deep pocket" donors to open up their wallets. They want to get going to try to stem the tide that is running against them for the fall elections.
Althouse, what if you wrote a serious post on some topic and another high-profile blog chose to ignore what you wrote and instead respond to some wingnut commenter here as if it was pertinent? Why shine a light on an mindless comment buried among hundreds of other mindless comments? Are you going to turn into one of those people who demands everyone disavow every stupid/offensive thing said or written by someone who purports to be on the same side of the ideological spectrum?
The old WaPo management of the past 30+ years would have let a mistake like the Koch/Tar Sands go right by without disciplining the miscreants responsible. This is why the commenter uses the phrase "once-grand".
It'll be interesting to see if Bezos lets this go by without disciplinary action. My bet is that he will take disciplinary action, and that, after a goodly period of time meant to obfuscate cause from effect, Ms Eilperin will be wished well as she moves on to greener (no pun intended) pastures.
"....why does Althouse seek to distract by focusing on same random, anonymous commenter?"
Althouse is doing the same thing as the corrupt liberals who wrote the article, trying to divert attention away from an argument the liberals know they can't win.
Ann Althouse said...
Don't step on a landmine in the war on women.
It's an amazingly effective land mine. Right wingers step on one and it blows their legs off. A lefty steps on one and it's always a dud.
"distract by focusing on same random, anonymous commenter"
"putting lipstick on a squirrel", my daddy used to call it...
Time to require journalists to disclose conflicts of interest in political matters.
Be The Change You Want To See In Others.
How much have you donated and to whom?
"Because serious muckrakers who parrot their husband's captive political POVs in a once-grand newspaper buy lipstick at Kmart..."
I believe they are calling this sort of comment a "microaggression" now.
The reason why I'm not sure is because I don't know if slights of this kind towards women are covered under the "microaggression (two gs) scope of verbiage unbecoming.
You have been warned... however, whichever way that turns out.
Make necessary adjustments... check your witticisms at the door... some of that stuff is not funny anymore... hold your tongue and all that.
Unless you are Titus.
Because the female half was married to a Democratic propagandist, an Obama operative. The article was a Democratic press release.
What is that about lipstick on a pig?
When you put on makeup with a shotgun, all is fair.
What a stupid ridiculous post.
War on women? Yeah, right.
Let's call it by its real name - a war on Republicans.
A war using a fake, made-up, ridiculous meme that, as someone above pointed out, is blatantly biased in its application. The party that loves Bill Clinton can hardly be trusted to recognize a war on women when they see one. But they sure are good at corralling the press into carrying water for them in the cheesy, self-serving war on Republicans. And now if the WaPo is going to start refusing to correct outright lies in a news story, then don't expect this "war" to end any time soon.
Be The Change You Want To See In Others.
How much have you donated and to whom?
WE are not public figures. Nor are we journalists who write supposedly fact filled articles meant to sway public opinion in major publications. Journalists are limited purpose public figures. "A limited purpose public figure is someone who is not so famous as to be a household name, but who has become well known with regard to a particular issue."
Who we voted for or what we had for dinner is none of your business.
"Let's call it by its real name - a war on Republicans."
Fine. Learn how to fight and defend yourselves from attacks. The continual reckless mistakes encourage further attacks. It's pathetic.
Just a painted lady.
This is another example of why the Dems are known as the mommy party and the Republicans are known as the daddy party, the Dems and women are verbal whereas the Republicans are doers. Also, I refused to take ownership of something someone else says.
Had the male half of this blogging duo been wearing shorts we may have had a very different post.
And the authors respond with, essentially, "See how inflammatory the Koch brothers are!"
Misdirection. Which is also what Althouse is doing. And based on a blog comment. Naughty, naughty, Powerline. But Althouse managed to prove their point about leftist deception.
Whither the meat, indeed.
Don't step on a landmine in the war on women.
It's kind of difficult to avoid the landmines, Althouse, when women keep planting them.
It's incest, all the way down.
Fine. Learn how to fight and defend yourselves from attacks.
Good advice. John Hinderaker clearly took it to heart.
Quoting her husband's boss, hmmm...
Too bad Washington Post reporters don't have the same "full disclosure" requirements as do stock touts on CNBC.
don't step on a land mine in the war on women
There is no #WarOnWomen.
What a shame that you can't win an argument without reflexively grabbing the #WarOnWomen from your pants and using it to club those with whom you disagree.
I'm struggling to figure out why anyone would give a shit....
Nope. Nothing.
Like others, I don't get how an anonymous commenter has any impact on the argument made by a blogger. Certainly you don't agree with everybody who posts here and would find it more than a bit unfair to have the comments of anybody used to attack your post.
There really wasn't any reason for Powerline to have included a photo of the author other than to stir up a bit more negativity toward that WaPo piece.
In what other arenas is showing who is being criticized now verboten?
Fine. Learn how to fight and defend yourselves from attacks.
...attacks not made by the writer and not having anything to do with the writer.
Would it be unfair to say that you hate white people because Crack Emcee does and he posts here?
This seems like a meaningless distraction, but YMMV.
Ann: ". Learn how to fight and defend yourselves from attacks. The continual reckless mistakes encourage further attacks. It's pathetic."
The left, AA included, will manufacture whatever is required to keep the "War on Women" meme alive.
AA has already played her part admirably in this instance.
I have seen this very woman on the faculty of every university i have attended or visited. Upper West Side. All the right scarves and politics. A ripple of anger quivering under the surface. A look like she is holding a live wasp in her mouth.
And lets be honest here, any conservative/republican etc who even begins to "defend" themselves from such "War on Women" attacks will simply be labeled "ugly".
There is no win here.
But then again, what do you expect from all of us Dixiecrats?
Sort of like Paul Ryan turning a discussion on how to "lift people out of poverty" into one about inner city culture.
Actually, that was ThinkProgress.
" “We know young black men are twice as likely as young white men to be ‘disconnected’—not in school, not working. We’ve got to reconnect them,” Obama said in February announcing the My Brother’s Keeper program "
"Learn how to fight and defend yourselves from attacks"
Well, as this response from the Post indicates, the only reasonable defense, TRUTH, is irrelevant. What then? As long as a paper with the circulation and influence of the Post (abetted by the connivance of the Democratic Party) is uninterested in truth and will shamelessly print anything that promotes their political agenda in a straight news story (along with most of the rest of the media outlets) it doesn't much matter what the Republicans do. You can't win when the game is rigged from the get-go.
"The continual reckless mistakes encourage further attacks"
Again, rigged. It's a sucker's bet to play by someone else's rules when they make them up as they go along. Considering the number of reckless mistakes Obama's made as president that have been given a pass (or active help by Candy Crowley) just exactly what do you suggest?
I'll rephrase: When the arbiters of truth (the media) actively refuse to care about truth or balance, a "mistake" will come whenever there's a need for one. And there will never be a need for one on the Democratic side.
In the continuing Republican "War on Women", when will Prof. Althouse address the steadily-mounting Democrat bodycount?
By the way, the authors of this piece are bona fide moral criminals without a shred or honor or decency. Both Powerline and Instapundit illustrate that clearly; Juliet Eilperin most egregiously.
In fact I can think of nothing that condemns current journalists more forcefully than perhaps the Journolist incident. And of the two authors, given the biography and associations, Eilperin is far and away the least decent human being of the two authors. The mind staggers that she would have a job, given her clearly obvious personal agenda.
As for putting up her picture - this is completely in keeping with Ephesians 5:11 - expose these people. Keep exposing them. If you need the Alinsky rule, feel free to look that up. But by all means, post her picture over and over and over again. And if you see her on the street, curse her if you so wish. These people need to be shunned from polite and decent society. They are vermin as nasty and evil as the perverts who have to register with legal authorities.
Regarding her lipstick. Put "Juliet Eilperin" in images.google.com. She's the one who chose that color. Repeatedly. You (althouse) were the one who busted the Clinton worshiper for thrusting her boobs against Bill Clinton. Remember the reaction you got from your fellow Feminists. Feminism is a culture of gender hate. Try and convince me otherwise.
Finally, the days when we (men) let you (women) tell us which arguments we are allowed to make is over. We no longer submit to your Bossy, solipsistic hamster.
Man, this is so easy.
Why go after the female half of a co-written article?
Because the male half isn't sleeping with Andrew Light.
Because the male half isn't uncritically quoting his bed-mate's boss.
*ahem*
The Washington Post, a great newspaper, publishes this description of Mrs. Harris: "Her lips were overdrawn with berry-red lipstick--the creamy sort that smears all over a coffee cup and leaves smudges on a shirt collar. Her skin had been plastered and powdered to the texture of pre-war walls in need of a skim coat. And her eyes, rimmed in liner and frosted with blue shadow, bore the telltale homogeneous spikes of false eyelashes. Caterpillars seemed to rise and fall with every bat of her eyelid, with every downward glance to double check -- before reading -- her latest 'determination.' Her mouth is set in a jagged line. She has applied her makeup with a trowel. One wonders how this Republican woman, who can't even use restraint when she's wielding a mascara wand, will manage to . . . make sound decisions."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB122409010128236907
What is WaPo whining about? They have this coming. And more.
Hey "journolists" - you want to work for MiniTru and fuck the rest of us over? Fine. Don't whine when we mock you. Be thankful thats the most we will do to you.
I'd like a #CivilityBullshit tag please.
Althouse,
"I know! So don't taint it. "
What the heck???
It would be as if someone faulted you personally for the cr*p that Crack or Cedarford produce.
Double standards are the only standards Althouse has.
I mean come on, diddling the gardener?
Somehow the human race manages to reproduce itself.
Remember when Robin Givhans of the same WaPo went after John Roberts' family back in 2005? She described the kids as "costumed" and referred to Mrs. Roberts as "the wife" instead of Jane. I understand that Jane Roberts is quite accomplished in her own right.
Just say-in!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072102347.html
And with this post I now know how Althouse managed to vote for President Obama.
It's true that Ann is a very intelligent and educated woman. But this blog post demonstrates she is quite the fool.
On the other hand, if she is joking or this is snark and I'm somehow missing it, I recant.
Jesus, I'd mock that photo, too. She looks like something that lives in a tree and drinks blood. Madonna has better taste.
When does it detract from your argument to go after a woman for her looks?
Never, as long as it successfully pushes the woman and her supporters off balance and they respond with what looks like mindless tribal loyalty, since that automatically cheapens the value of their support.
You are only supporting her because she's also a woman, or because she was attacked for her looks. That's what people will think. And then it doesn't matter what you might say about the actual virtues of her position, since you've already been tagged -- indeed, tagged yourself -- as being a supporter for the crassest of emotional reasons, without much regard for the rational merits of the case.
Panama Boy was fair game for his looks. So have been Arnold Schwarzenegger and Paul Ryan.
We're supposed to lay off because this lipstick goddess is a female?
Hey "journolists" - you want to work for MiniTru and fuck the rest of us over? Fine. Don't whine when we mock you. Be thankful thats the most we will do to you.
Oh pleazzzzzzzze. What the fuck are you even talking about? This is a war and the enemies are......Althouse and Think Progress.... against Power Tools? LOL. You might as well play something more real like Xbox.
And don't call her bossy either!
garage: " You might as well play something more real like Xbox."
I'm quite sure that's precisely what Dan Rather was thinking circa late October 2004.
Garage. Most stuff does go over your head, doesnt it?
Funny, I had assumed the photo was the male half of the writing team -- in drag.
In other news, the WaPo dumped their independent ombudsman with a 2 year contract, nonrenewable... an actual ombudsman with TEETH, in favor of an on-staff 'reader representative' who still has to suck up to the WaPo suits.
The first guy didn't last long. I guess he realized how useless the position was. Now it's his former assistant, who graduated in 2008, so she can't be very old.
We're supposed to lay off because this lipstick goddess is a female?
The linked picture of the male co-author -- who would be lucky as hell to get a date with the linked picture of the female co-author of the piece -- is for some reason drawing all the hate. Why do you think that is? That's the culture we are living in.
If this woman were conservative, most people here would be talking about how beautiful she is.
Her article was nonsense. That's the real issue. So why even go into the looks?
@Fen: What is WaPo whining about? They have this coming. And more
It's not the WaPo that is whining. It's Althouse. You know, the hostess here.
The Feminist-when-I-wannabe and the Independent-thinker-when-I-wannabe and when everything I say sounds like a walking, talking, cackling contradiction, well, just remember about my Feminist-when-I-wannabe. Because, #WarOnWomen.
You can run down the quotes from incident after incident where DemoNcrats and Lib-tards performed the same look-at-her-looks-ism and you can run them down day in and day out.
And you can't find a single one deprecated by Feminist-when-I-wanna-be Althouse.
Well, to be honest, there was that tits-on-Bill-Clinton thing where Althouse chose to unleash her Independent-thinker-when-I-wannabe self.
Me, I need a neck brace from the head jerks. Call the chiropractor, please.
The Post obviously knows of her conflicts and doesn't care or check her work. That makes them guilty as well.
By Andrew Alexander
(WaPo) Ombudsman
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Post reporter Juliet Eilperin covers the contentious issue of climate change. Her husband, a noted expert on the subject, coordinates international climate policy as a part-time senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. She has quoted officials from the liberal think tank in her stories, although not her spouse. Climate change is discussed at home, she said, but a "church-state separation" exists for areas where their work overlaps.
@Freeman Hunt: If this woman were conservative, most people here would be talking about how beautiful she is.
Not even close. If this woman were beautiful, people here would be talking about how conservative she is.
She is neither. And you're still peddling that don't talk about looks party line. She looks like what she is and we no longer buy the party line.
Freeman, I'd like for you to give me an example of a "beautiful" conservative in regard to your comment.
Althouse said: "Learn how to fight and defend yourselves from attacks"
You know how I "fight and defend" against these attacks?
I respond with: "Piss up a rope you whinging simp."
I refuse to let members of the cult of the perpetually offended distract me from the real point being made and dismiss them forthright.
Can't take it like a man? Then get the fuck out of my game.
@Freeman Hunt -
Her article was nonsense.
No, that article was not nonsense. It was well-written and well-crafter propaganda. Coming from a despicable human being who has continued to peddle the nonsense that she is a journalist.
The article was definitely not nonsense. It was pure, unadulterated evil.
That's the real issue. So why even go into the looks?
Did you miss the citations here pointing to situation after situation where the DemoNcrats did the very same thing (engage in look-ism)? Really? Did you have your brain on cruise control for the last 40 years to the delivery of this stuff by the enemy?
Why go into the looks? Because Ephesians 5:11. Because Alinsky's Rules. Because War is war. Figure out whose side you are on and let us know - whether we can count on you or not.
If this woman were conservative, most people here would be talking about how beautiful she is.
Hardly. Her looks are her looks. Whether she is conservative, liberal or whatever. She looks like a muskoxen with lipstick. BUT....that is beside the point.
It seems to be OK to make fun of Rand Paul's hair. Mitt Romney's Ken doll looks. McCain's teeth. Waxman's grossly gigantic ratlike nostrils. Ryan's Eddie Munster hairline. Men are basically fair game, I guess. No objections about using their looks to marginalize their message or to just make fun.
However, let it be a woman and everyone loses their minds. War on Women....my patooty. Maybe women should stop being such whining wimps. If they want to be equal then "Learn how to fight and defend yourselves from attacks." instead of having the fantoid vapors when someone points out that a woman is distinctly unattractive. You can't have it both ways ladies.
Take it like a man.
Did you miss the citations here pointing to situation after situation where the DemoNcrats did the very same thing (engage in look-ism)? Really? Did you have your brain on cruise control for the last 40 years to the delivery of this stuff by the enemy?
Why go into the looks? Because Ephesians 5:11. Because Alinsky's Rules. Because War is war. Figure out whose side you are on and let us know - whether we can count on you or not.
What side am I on? The one that doesn't aspire to be more like the Democrats.
Did somebody say there were racists here?
Who? Where?
They've GOT to be here somewhere,…
(Hi, Freeman!)
What side am I on? The one that doesn't aspire to be more like the Democrats.
Because...something...Democrats make life a lot easier....and something about that doesn't sit right..?
Ha ha, garage.
I think it's strange to say, "The Democrats are terrible. They launch all of these awful, sexist, superficial attacks. Let's be more like that!"
Ha ha. Hi, Crack!
"If this woman were conservative, most people here would be talking about how beautiful she is"
Except she isn't. Quite seriously and all ideology aside, she looks like a heavily made-up dude.
Since we're talking about looks and all...
Maybe it's time to pony up for that LASIK, Freeman.
Who cares what this woman looks like? The real issue here is her expressing opinions predicated on made up facts. Buts lets assume them to be true. So what? The Koch brothers make outike bandits due to lower distribution costs? Gee they might pass on some of the savings to their customers! So the Koch brothers are the bad guys for wanting to make extra money but Warren Buffet who is making out like a bandit on rail freight on that very same oil and opposes the pipeline for that very same reason is supposed to be the good guy? Or is because Buffet gives money to the Democrats and the Koch brothers don't?
In this awful story of a blatant and defamatory lie from a famous newspaper, one that exposes their collusion with the White House, how is it possible that Althouse plucked some lame comment from the discussion thread as the focus of her ire?.
Althouse in 2006: "Let's take a closer look at those breasts"
Althouse in 2014: "Let's take a closer look at that mean anonymous comment about those lips."
I didn't bother looking, but how far down the thread did you have to go to find some useful nugget that in your mind undid the evil that WaPo committed?
Shit.
I didn't mean to malign the honored memory of Charlotte Cordray, nor, for that matter, her victim, Marat. What I was driving at is that there are some people, eg Marat and Cordray, who are not into microaggression. None of this rapier wit crap. Bring out the rapiers and the guillotine......I don't know anything about Juliet. Her looks are within normal limits, but there's something focused and judgmental about her stare. One wishes, as Oscar Wilde would say, to be as sure of anything as she is about everything. Mussolini looked like a fascist. She looks like an ideologue. This is a face to murder a thousand kulaks.
Is she leaning forward?
The picture Powerline uses is one that comes up when you Google Juliet Eilperin's name. Not image search bet WEB search. https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=juliet+eilperin&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest
I have no problem with them using this photo. Do I think it was a jab at her? Yes! And good for them for not being hesitant to "punch back twice as hard" as Anne's counterpart law professor blogger, Glenn Reynolds, likes to say. The wapo doesn't hesitate to do the same. They use unflattering pictures of their subjects and intentionally so.
I'm not going to bring up a certain unmentionable aspect that I think the person who had a problem with the photo was really, let say, kvetching about or as Maureen Dowd would say, kvelling about.
Hint: Her attire says she'll be retiring to Boca Raton in 35 years.
I think the two main choices for describing this Althouse post are: lazy, or link-bait.
Powerline's John Hinderaker meticulously describes the lies in the story and their origin in the conveyor belt that delivers left-wing press releases to the front pages of major media. Then, in a second post, he details in particular the relevant personal relationships of well-known (to anyone who follows this field) environmental reporter Juliet Eilperin, along with a photo of her. As stated, this type of thing is a huge problem in elite journalism.
The big takeaway from all this is supposed to be something said by a random commenter on WaPo's site.
There is a third way to classify this post: Commenting about what interests you. I'd accept that except for the many times that Althouse rebukes commenters here for not falling in line and focusing on The Official Topic.
Low point for a top blog.
"Whither the meat?"
Even or especially with that swinish application of lipstick, she's got a visage that'd almost certainly "wither the meat", indeed.
I skipped most of the comments but I will add that she looks like a typical lefty with a bad attitude. By no means is she attractive, even to those who go for dumpy looking women with the right politics. Lesbians, I mean.
Is that Sacha Baron Cohen in drag?
@Freeman Hunt - What side am I on? The one that doesn't aspire to be more like the Democrats
Yep. The loser side. As in big, red "L" burned into your forehead.
Get out of the road if you can't lend a hand. (Bob Dylan).
geez. Is that what you say to your girlfriends when you're chatting over a nice glass of sweet white wine? I'm from the side that doesn't aspire to be .
whatever.
Juliet Eilperin on Youtube talking about her journalistic philosophy in the context of "sustainability" and sharks. It is clear she views journalism as a tool for political ends. The picture posted of her seems to have been heavily Photoshopped.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XNBNHznrSE
veni vidi vici said...
"Whither the meat?"
Exactly. Withered my meat darned-near instantly.
circa 2009 or so Freeman was an eminently sensible and perceptive writer/commentator. Her essay "He is not coming" on her blog is still perhaps one of the the finest essays on the state of conservatism I've yet read. But as of late she has seemingly lost her way. I'm no psychologist or mind-reader, but I would hazard the guess she has a) tired of the struggle and no longer willing to, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, "Challenge the Bastards on their own turf." and b) as a maturing mother she wants to be thought well of by her social "peers." Perhaps the "white wine crowd" has gotten to her...whatever the reason, it would seem Freeman really IS ignorant of certain parts of Americana, Romney's experience only proving yet again the truth of Leo Durocher's quote that "Nice guys finish last" But perhaps Freeman is no baseball fan and too young in any event.
"Politics ain't bean-bag" Freeman. Surely even you have read that in HS Civics and/or history class.
Signed: Disappointed
Time to require journalists to disclose conflicts of interest in political matters. Financial journalists disclose whether they, their family, or their firm own shares in the stocks or funds they are touting. Maybe it doesn't make a difference; it should be up to the viewer to discern.
I think that was what struck me, more than the photo, or the lame attempt to tag the Koch brothers with pushing the Keystone pipeline (which she and her environmental-wacko friends are trying desperately to side track), was how incestuous this sort of thing is. You have a writer for the house organ for a company town with extremely close ties to the extremist side of the environmental movement writing a hatchet job on the Koches, really just to gin up opposition to the pipeline, based, I would suspect, on progressive reflexes at any mention of their names.
This is the part that is so interesting to a lot of us (for any who didn't bother to read the last PowerLine article):
“Green” energy is also controversial because it has been used to enrich government cronies. Let’s take, for instance, the billionaire Tom Steyer. Steyer has made much of his fortune by using his government connections to secure support for uneconomic “green” energy projects that have profited him, to the detriment of consumers and taxpayers. See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is explained here, Tom Steyer is a bitter opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. His financial interests, in “green” energy and perhaps also in pre-pipeline oil sources like BP, stand to benefit if Keystone is killed.
Haven’t heard much about Tom Steyer, you say? Maybe that’s because he isn’t heavily involved in politics. Heh–just kidding. Steyer, as you probably know, is one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party and its candidates. This year, he has pledged to contribute $100 million to the campaigns of Democratic candidates, as long as they toe the line on environmental issues–which includes, presumably, taxpayer support for “green” energy and opposition to Keystone.
...
And yet, a still deeper level of corruption is on display here. Juliet Eilperin is a reporter for the Washington Post who covers, among other things, environmental politics. As I wrote in my prior post, she is married to Andrew Light. Light writes on climate policy for the Center for American Progress, a far-left organization that has carried on a years-long vendetta against Charles and David Koch on its web site, Think Progress. Light is also a member of the Obama administration, as Senior Adviser to the Special Envoy on Climate Change in the Department of State. The Center for American Progress is headed by John Podesta, who chaired Barack Obama’s transition team and is now listed as a “special advisor” to the Obama administration. Note that Ms. Eilperin quoted Podesta, her husband’s boss, in her puff piece on Tom Steyer.
Oh, yes–one more thing. Guess who sits on the board of the Center for American Progress? Yup. Tom Steyer.
So, we have Eilperin using her post at the WaPo to do a hatchet job on the Koch brothers in order to further enrich billionaire Steyer (by driving up energy prices), who sits on the board of environmental advocacy group that Eilperin's husband works for. Same guy who was behind those Dem Senators staying up all night last week railing about AGW/AGCC (and then voting to continue subsidized flood insurance).
When they start turning on Freeman Hunt, this blog has lost it BIG TIME.
"There is a third way to classify this post: Commenting about what interests you. I'd accept that except for the many times that Althouse rebukes commenters here for not falling in line and focusing on The Official Topic.
Low point for a top blog."
3/22/14, 8:44 PM
Yes indeed. I predict that by next year this time this blog will have fallen even deeper into the shitpile. Lack of standards, double standards and a general lack of ethics.
She looks like one of the residents in The Capital in the Hunger Games.....You can tell just by looking that she's not nice like Jennifer Lawrence. Jennifer only kills the bullies and even then only reluctantly. Jennifer went out of her way to protect that cute little girl and gave her a nice floral arrangement after she was killed. Women like Juliet never end up in the Hunger Games, but, if she ever did, she'd probably kill that cute little girl and even Jennifer if she ever got a chance.
I'll give one thing for that lipstick smeared twat, she isn't quite as unattractive as the sockpuppeting bug eyed boozy old bitch here.
I dunno....I just looked at the picture.
Tranny surprise??
Bruce H: excellent summation. Boil it down: prestitute with a byline.
"When they start turning on Freeman Hunt, this blog has lost it BIG TIME."
I think she ought to take bow. Like the man said, "Politics ain't bean-bag," so Free can only judge her ideas by A) her power to influence events, and B) the enemies she makes. And this is a good crowd.
Freeman, don't hate them because you're beautiful:
That's my job,...
circa 2009 or so Freeman was an eminently sensible and perceptive writer/commentator. Her essay "He is not coming" on her blog is still perhaps one of the the finest essays on the state of conservatism I've yet read.
Aw, shucks. Thanks.
But as of late she has seemingly lost her way.
As evidenced by my thinking it is stupid to call this woman ugly. Something I would also have thought in 2009.
I'm no psychologist or mind-reader
You don't say?
but I would hazard the guess she has a) tired of the struggle
True that.
and no longer willing to, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, "Challenge the Bastards on their own turf."
May I direct you to my comments re: Jeffrey Toobin of not so long ago on this very blog.
and b) as a maturing mother
Age does come for us all.
she wants to be thought well of by her social "peers." Perhaps the "white wine crowd" has gotten to her...
Such creative imaginings. By "social peers," do you mean "friends?" My friends don't talk politics. They don't read political commentary as far as I can tell. Thank God.
And white wine? Iced tea or coffee maybe. A sugary Coke on a daring day. The last woman who drank a glass of wine while having a political discussion with me ended the meal by suddenly bursting into tears and leaving the table. So it goes.
Or by "social peers" do you mean all my acquaintances from all the parties I attend? Do I strike you as someone who would want to go to a lot of parties?
whatever the reason, it would seem Freeman really IS ignorant of certain parts of Americana, Romney's experience only proving yet again the truth of Leo Durocher's quote that "Nice guys finish last" But perhaps Freeman is no baseball fan and too young in any event.
"Politics ain't bean-bag" Freeman. Surely even you have read that in HS Civics and/or history class.
Signed: Disappointed
And all because she won't say the pretty lady looks ugly because her editorial was.
The Alinsky rule is to hold them to their own rules. So go for the jugular when they attack the appearance of conservative candidates. Rhetorically eviscerate them when they're sexist.
But calling people ugly because someone sympathetic to their cause does it? That's not in anybody's playbook. That's not hitting back twice as hard. That's being a chump.
A lot of women really and truly wish for that sort of "striking", "exotic" look. We can thank our lucky stars that so few of them are able to achieve it.
Dear Freeman/
I go by the old adage: "Might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb." The right is going to be savagely attacked anyway no matter what we say or how we say it. Might as well employ sarcasm, ridicule and character assassination to the maximum extent allowed by the Geneva Conventions--the stakes are, IMHO, THAT high. To hell with honor and civility, this is a matter of national physical survival. Besides, does not ALL political analysis of negative ads/attack campaigns conclude that they are exceedingly effective? So why fight with the figurative "one arm tied behind the back?"
Ask any lawyer. Juries do not like ugly defendants/witnesses.
Poor Dr. Mireille Miller-Young. I've read caustic comments about her appearance and the circumstances of her pregnancy all over the Internet. Yet I don't see Althouse rushing to the defense of a fellow academic.
Is it because Miller-Young is black?
Poor Dr. Mireille Miller-Young. I've read caustic comments about her appearance and the circumstances of her pregnancy all over the Internet. Yet I don't see Althouse rushing to the defense of a fellow academic.
Is it because Miller-Young is black?"
No. More likely Althouse sorta, kinda, believes in AGW. Astrology for the academic class. A more "scientific" new agey thing. Paging Dr. Crack. Stat.
"But calling people ugly because someone sympathetic to their cause does it? That's not in anybody's playbook. That's not hitting back twice as hard. That's being a chump."
Freeman, I can appreciate your delicate sensibilities, and those of our proprietress. I mean, poor woman! Someone commented negatively on her looks. That's just terrible. It's right up there with, what did crack emcee say? Raping someone's mother? Or how about when some of our guys in Iraq were strung up and killed and Markos Moulitsas said they got what they deserved?
This ugly (on the inside) woman ought to feel too ashamed to show her face in public. She is lying and distorting the truth to push a political agenda. She ought to hope that the worst that happens to her is that someone comments negatively on how she looks.
Let's not faint over this, yeah?
virgil xenophon,
"The right is going to be savagely attacked anyway no matter what we say or how we say it."
Wait - what happened to "beanbag"? You're scared of being attacked? I get attacked every day. Multiple times. Ooooh.
So - you might as well continue making asses out of yourselves, huh? Great plan. Never do self-inventory, turn the chess board around to see another angle, or plug those holes in the sinking ship - what's done is done.
If you can't say "whites don't even THINK about race" AND cheer Paul Ryan ignorantly trying to lecture about it at the same time (!) then politics is just not worth it because - let's face it - who wants to sort out their own cognitive dissonance, right? Better to yell at some black who, eventually, will explain it to you after being forced to figure it out for survival.
Then ask for his vote.
Or not because GAME OVER, MAN! GAME-OVER!
I knew, when most of you slunk to Romney, there was nothing holding those "principles" up you're so proud of - because Romney didn't represent them. It was all talk and a bad reason to scream at black people. And I agree:
Keep that shit up and - whatever you do - someone's going to rub your face in it.
It might even be the "mud people".
Jesus, virgil, what's gotten into you?
I thought blogger etiquette held that attacking bloggers for the statements of anonymous commenters was off-limits. The only way to prevent off-color comments is to strictly police and censor them, and bloggers I thought were against censorship?
Except in this case? Why is Powerline uniquely culpable for something said in the comments? Is it because they should've known better than to post a picture of a woman who looks like Frankenfurter? Should looking that hideous grant some kind of "immunity" from pictures in blogs? "Powerline should've known better than to post a picture of someone that awful-looking," seems to be the meat of your attack against them.
This is well below your usual high standards and high-concept wit. I appreciate the warning not to go after looks, but in this case you ambushed an innocent party to teach the rest of us a lesson.
You're better than this!
I'm with Freeman on the personal attack issue, let the Dems be assholes, use all of the readily available facts to dismantle their arguments; take the high road- not because liberals will credit you for doing it, but because it is the better route.
But I'm with some of the critics of Althouse here too (Laika said it well and I probably should have let him/her have that last woof.) I can't help but wonder why Prof Althouse decided to blog this. My top two speculations are:
1. Hypersensitivity and embarrassment due to her liberal peers who likely harass her for expressing any common ground with conservatives.
2. Perhaps guilty conscience, for having looked at the photo that Instapundit posted and feeling incitement to comment on her appearance, but thinking better of it.
I really can't imagine why else she might have thought it was important enough to blog about one random, anonymous commenter and then imply that Instapundit's column is guilty of inspiring it.
reeman Hunt said...
If this woman were conservative, most people here would be talking about how beautiful she is.
She ain't all that bad. I'd tap it.
"I didn't mean to malign the honored memory of ... Marat"
Marat was a right bastard. Somebody whose memory just isn't maligned enough.
On second look I might have already.
Because in the age of equality, it's fair game.
Women like this use their beauty and their femaleness to shield themselves from harsh critique and accountability.
This "beautiful woman" is a fraud, a political operative posing as a reporter, writing outright lies and propaganda in service to her political party and her HUSBAND and calling it "investigative journalism".
She's a liar and her make-up is overdone.
"Politics ain't beanbag."
Women need to get over the idea that they are special snowflakes to be shielded from the harsh realities of public commentary.
Althouse, as well as a lot of otherwise smart women, are stuck in the 1950s, expecting public deference and exclusion from the way men and women treat other men in public life, simply because they are female and thus, more sensitive, and thus, unable to handle it.
So, instead of women being required to up their game and grow thicker skin, we are to shut up and Do What the Women Want. Because #waronwomen and #frailandfragilefemale.
Female Supremacy is alive and well on both sides of the aisle.
Notice Althouse and Freeman focus on the anonymous commenters insult of the liars looks to the exclusion of the substance of her lies revealed in the actual article.
It's the expectation of deference to women's sensibilities in public life in operation.
You could catch a man at random and put makeup on him with good odds of making a better looking woman than that one.
I've always found that haircut on women to be ugly as well.
It IS the Washington Post after all.
Best High School Newspaper in America!
There is a lesson here: when it's time for warriors to rise to the occasion, women will not be among them.
Witness Althouse and Freeman Hunt.
Of course, not just women. There are the White Knights who are struck powerless by the chance to once more get a chance to be close to that organ for which they so long.
But let this lesson go learned. When it's time to go to war and to strike serious blows against the enemy, hope for no women to the side of you or behind you.
"Ask any lawyer. Juries do not like ugly defendants/witnesses."
Except they do. At least in the cases where the Left bashes conservatives. Wapo certainly didn't pay a cost for going after Katherine Harris. Sullivan et al didn't for going after Palin.
"Ask any lawyer. Juries do not like ugly defendants/witnesses."
Except they do. At least in the cases where the Left bashes conservatives. Wapo certainly didn't pay a cost for going after Katherine Harris. Sullivan et al didn't for going after Palin.
"Notice Althouse and Freeman focus on the anonymous commenters insult of the liars looks to the exclusion of the substance of her lies revealed in the actual article."
Powerline exposed this woman's piece as a fraud. Althouse notes that commenters going after her looks doesn't add. I agree. That's what this post is about, focus on the issue, not the woman's looks. It's okay to talk about more than one thing.
Some of you have playbooks for talking to women that are every bit as good as your playbooks for talking to blacks.
I also think you'd be surprised how personal rather than issue driven negative attacks play. They don't play well among conservatives in the South. Super liberals here sometimes like that stuff, but start going on about how ugly you think an opponent looks among most conservative earnest churchgoers, and they'll pin you for a fool. Republicans lost a gubernatorial race here because they thought the Republican's attack ad was too snide.
Freeman Hunt:
How would this woman be played on SNL? Would it be different if she were a conservative than as a liberal?
Again, I think the photograph is well done but the subject is lacking. No need to make fun of a 4, one supposes.
But here are the facts:
PowerLine played this above board.
One anonymous commenter said something marginally offensive and we do not know the motivations of the commenter.
Althouse would pretend that she knows that it is a Republican who made the allegedly offensive statement, asserting facts not in evidence.
Then Althouse would accuse Republicans at playing the political game poorly.
My response:
Get the fuck out of here with that weak shit.
I get what you're saying, Birkel. But I think it makes sense on a blog with such a robust commenting community to talk about effective commenting.
Michael: "I have seen this very woman on the faculty of every university i have attended or visited. Upper West Side. All the right scarves and politics. A ripple of anger quivering under the surface. A look like she is holding a live wasp in her mouth.
3/22/14, 5:03 PM"
Brilliant. A clear thread-winner; if we could figure out what this thread was about.
Freeman Hunt:
How does one stop concern trolls?
How does one stop Nancy Pelosi and the CBC asserting racist things were said on the way to passing ObamaCare when no video exists and when all video of the alleged incident shows an absence of racism?
Come on!
Challenge me to an unfair game and then criticize me when I lose?
And then criticize me for noting the unfairness of the game?
And then get official press mouthpieces to mimic the unfair claims?
Fuck that!
"Althouse notes that commenters going after her looks doesn't add. I agree. That's what this post is about, focus on the issue, not the woman's looks. It's okay to talk about more than one thing."
I guess it's okay to miss the forest by focusing on one ugly tree that may actually be fake. Seems foolish, but it is what it is.
If Althouse had written a Gospel, we'd expect a few paragraphs on some guy in the crowd who said mean things about Mary's hairstyle when Pilate was interrogating Him.
Now, he may have been a provocateur, but you can't be too careful, and you won't win women and blacks to Christ if you allow bystanders to say ugly things.
This is the most stupid post I've ever seen on Althouse. Prof should be ashamed. And I'm sorry I only yesterday recommended her blog to a member of my family...
But maybe it's just a post-vacation hangover.
It's like going to the Grand Canyon and Facebooking about offensive graffiti in the john.
"When it's time to go to war and to strike serious blows against the enemy, hope for no women to the side of you or behind you."
It's true. The hallowed, sacred halls of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists Cenotaph & Man Cave hold not a single memorial to those of the excessively estrogen'd sex.
It seems to me that Powerline definitively vanquished the column. What are you wanting from Althouse? You think she should limit her blog to Important Things? She should have blogged, "Quite a takedown," with a link to Powerline as though she were Instapundit? This has never been that kind of blog.
You're right; it isn't, not anymore.
dwick said...
"This is the most stupid post I've ever seen on Althouse. Prof should be ashamed"
It's been a slow grievance day.
No, not the stupidest by a long shot. One of very many stupid blog posts. Let's take a look at those breasts, NIG on the pajamas, now that was stupid.
Freeman Hunt:
I am having an honest discussion with you because I know you are fair-minded and considerate. So let's keep our motivatiosn in mind!
Althouse has it in her to be much more discrening. She can talk about the likelihood of disinformation and concern trolls. But Althouse pretends in this post to play it straight. And I call bull shit.
A warning to conservatives not to speak in racialized or gender-ized terminology is hardly necessary. Most of the conservatives I know are peculiarly, intimeately aware of the need of careful language. Conservatives do not include Cedarford, for example.
I am specifically critical of Althouse because she should be more discerning and has chosen otherwise. And that is a result of her intense Leftism, tempered only a bit by her skepticism and empiricism. She came by her Leftism honestly but that does not make her more likely correct. It makes her incapable of seeing beyond her own assumptions and prejudices. And here we are.
"A warning to conservatives not to speak in racialized or gender-ized terminology is hardly necessary. Most of the conservatives I know are peculiarly, intimately aware of the need of careful language."
I would agree that some are, but judging by the comments here, a whole lot aren't. There are even charges that if you won't join in with that ill-advised nonsense, you're not a real conservative. I assume those are the people this post is for.
But I will agree with you in this: Kudos to Powerline for such a thorough take down.
And here you judge by the Leftist standard, Freeman Hunt! Does it not bother, that you have adopted the tone of the Left?
I say, verily, "fuck that" and would ask you to be so discerning. By what right are those who refused to yell racially charged comments at Nancy Pelosi to be charged with such indiscretion? The videos show no such infractions. So why should Althouse be allowed such an indulgence?
"And here you judge by the Leftist standard, Freeman Hunt! Does it not bother, that you have adopted the tone of the Left?"
How do you figure that?
George Orwell did a better job describing the standards, such as they are, of the Left than I could ever hope to accomplish.
We should wait around for Althouse's attention to similar offenses on the Left.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा