Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
MSM Derangement Syndrome
Michelle Malkin has returned to earth after a Drudge Report story had her highly suspicious (and a bevy of fellow travelers absolutely convinced) that CNN flashed a big black "X" in front of Dick Cheney's face during video of a speech as some sort of ploy to subliminally influence its audience. (Someone finally slowed down the video and noticed it was a pretty standard TV transition frame that got accidentally superimposed.)
OK, first, subliminal: "sub-" meaning below and "liminal" referring to a threshold, as in "below the threshold of conscious perception." If you noticed it, it ain't subliminal. More importantly, though: Have we really reached the point where upon seeing an obvious technical glitch in a live TV broadcast, the first reaction of many people—not folks living in mom's basement among stacks of old John Birch Society newsletters, mind you, but widely-read and well-remunerated pundits—is "subliminal brainwashing"? Really?
Addendum: And oh dear sweet freaking Jeebus, while I was wading around on that site, I noticed that a couple entries below, Malkin flips out over a quote from a Chris Matthews speech:
"The period between 9-11 and (invading) Iraq was not a good time for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were doing," Matthews said."If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a different perspective."
Malkin then slaps up a photo of bodies falling out of the World Trade Center (classy, Michelle) and asks "Remember this perspective?" Zing! Except it's pretty obvious that in context here the "other side" means Democrats and war opponents—the people with whom Matthews is saying the administration didn't have a "robust discussion." Or rather, it's pretty obvious if you're not in the grips of the assumption that Bush critics are ipso facto terrorist sympathisers.
Addendum-to-the-Addendum: Commenters aver that Matthews has, in fact, said stuff along the lines of the "just have a different perspective" line about Islamist terrorists. That didn't strike me as the intuitive or charitable reading in this context, but punditry, like a good cereal, has many varieties of nuts and flakes, so it's certainly possible.
|11.22.05 @ 8:00AM|#
"not folks living in mom's basement among stacks of old John
Birch Society newsletters, mind you, but widely-read and
well-remunerated pundits�is "subliminal brainwashing"?"
Michelle Malkin is that? Really?
I think I'd believe the John Birch Society basement dweller before
I'd give second thought to any of her drivel. At least the basement
dweller is thinking for himself. Malkin, like most 'pundits' today,
tries to write the most shocking, one-sided analysis she can,
whether it is remotely truthful or not.
See also, Coulter, Ann.
Jeff P.|11.22.05 @ 8:19AM|#
Inconsolable shrieking has become the first line of defense of
the Right over the last five years. Any time something gets thier
goat, be it the "assault" on Christmas or an unpopular nominee,
they go straight into "shocked outrage" mode. The trope of
substituting indignation for moral certainty is a trick they picked
up from the Left.
I'd like to see a Reason cover that features the faces of assorted
pundits at the peak of thier blowhard-ness, with the words
"goddamned crybabies" across them all.
|11.22.05 @ 8:37AM|#
Yeah, Michelle, you got it, honey. Ol' Dickey Boy's approval
rating is hovering somewhere between that of ALF and, oh, I'd say,
Brownie. What, less than 1 in 5 people approve of him? The American
public obviously knows how evil and crooked the VP is---they
certainly don't need a big "X" over his face on CNN to convince
them. Oh, but, yeah, maybe the "Communist News Network" [so clever,
Michelle - do you even know what Communism is?] was really trying
to convince that last 20%.
Quasibill's got it right. Why does Julian actually put entertain
the idea that MM and her ilk have a baseline rationality? Why
should anyone be surprised? You give them too much credit when you
analyze them in rational terms. Idiots like her and Coulter, along
with their kneejerk mirrors on the left, do nothing but play into
the biases and emotions of their readership. Hmm, with those kind
of credentials, maybe she should be a politician.
My favorite part is the one of the last updates from MM, after her
little conspiracy theory has been completely and absolutely
debunked:
"Update IV: Let's stay focused on the importance of what Cheney
actually said. Jeff Goldstein breaks it down here. Paul Mirengoff
shares his favorite part of the speech. Transcript is
here."
Yeah, um, forget that I'm a kneejerk halfwit who jumps to errant
conclusions at the first sign of any potential bias against my
team. Focus on what he said. Yep. Nothing to see here.
And, after she's encouraged her readers to focus on what Cheney
said, she then turns around and links to a Drudge lead about a CNN
staffer laughing when the X came up. Yeah, focus on what Cheney
said. Unless, well, you know...
Jesus, she's a piece of work.
Sandy|11.22.05 @ 8:42AM|#
Well, Tyler Cowen was wondering why UFO reports have declined. I'm guessing they all became OSM bloggers.
|11.22.05 @ 8:42AM|#
Shocking. But let's not forget when that rock of sobriety,
Albert Gore, had his compaign whine and bitch during the DemocRATS
ad campaign.
However, it's definitely worse for the nation when it's pundits
that nobody really pays attention to anyway, as opposed to the man
running for president.
|11.22.05 @ 8:59AM|#
jf:
Yeah, you know, you're right. Gore was worse than MM. We should all
just shut up and talk about Al Gore's actions from years and years
ago.
And Clinton was worse.
*sigh* What in the HELL does that have to do with this issue? Not a
goddamned thing. Nobody's judging MM relative to the
democrats. The only reason anyone would have to bring that up would
be an attempt at obfuscation. Like, uh, yeah, sure they might have
cherry-picked intel to justify their war, but, see, Clinton got
his johnson waxed and then lied about it!!
Bringing up relevant historical incidences is one thing.
But tossing out a completely unrelated, irrelevant non sequitor
like "Gore was worse!" is just worthless.
|11.22.05 @ 9:01AM|#
Now, now, don't be too hard on ol' Michelle -- she doesn't
always write
her own stuff.
Dave Neiwert has had a great series on this twit. Start here
and read all five parts.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 9:03AM|#
I wonder if it was really an homage to the X-Files? Specifically the character "X?" :)
|11.22.05 @ 9:09AM|#
It is silly but how would the various lefty blogs reacted if Fox
News had made the same mistake when say Hillary or Reid or Kerry or
(pick a Big Dem of your choice) was speaking?
I think the current Lefty and Righty positions would simply be
reversed.
This&That
M1EK|11.22.05 @ 9:12AM|#
"But tossing out a completely unrelated, irrelevant non sequitor
like "Gore was worse!" is just worthless."
A while back, I got chided for claiming that people still did this
seriously.
I'm waiting for my apology.
|11.22.05 @ 9:14AM|#
It is SUPER-liminal suggestion. Only blindfolds can save us from this pernicious threat - that and not watching tv news.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 9:18AM|#
Evan,
Well, it all started with Jeff P.'s effort to paint "the Right" as
somehow stepping over some line (of civility?) over the past five
years.
This&That,
I expect Republicans and Democrats to be equally nasty,
hypocritical, etc. when they are in power.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 9:23AM|#
Anyway, Malkin or whomever clearly have way too much time on their hands.
|11.22.05 @ 9:27AM|#
I have this feeling if we would just ignore these people they would go away. They just want to sell books.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 9:33AM|#
Jason Ligon,
Michelle Malkin (and others like her) are the L. Ron Hubbarb's of
political punditry. :)
|11.22.05 @ 9:47AM|#
Right, Sanchez, Malkin isn't the most relaxed conservative out
there.
Matthews's quote is borderline hilarious. After the tone and
content of the questions he routinely throws at GOP/conservative
show guests he has the temerity to counsel us that we need to
"figure out" the other side??? Priceless.
Hypocrisy doesn't necessarily invalidate one's argument, but in
this case it's too blatant.
|11.22.05 @ 9:49AM|#
Hak:
Did you see the scientology South Park? Truly awesome. I loved the
notice "Scientologists Really Belive This".
|11.22.05 @ 9:51AM|#
Yeah, you know, you're right. Gore was worse than MM. We
should all just shut up and talk about Al Gore's actions from years
and years ago.
Well, dipshit, if you can tell me where I made either of those
points, I'd appreciate it.
Now, if you're done changing the subject, my point was: Julian
found this important enough to make a post. Jeff and Quasibill went
over the top with their comments. Hell, Evan, you yourself said
"Yeah, um, forget that I'm a kneejerk halfwit who jumps to errant
conclusions at the first sign of any potential bias against my
team." I made a rational, reasonable reply concerning the lack of
outrage when a presidential candidate did THE EXACT SAME FUCKING
THING as Malkin, and yet Malkin (who I still contend has no real
influence over anything) is the "kneejerk halfwit".
And as for you, M1EK, if you have anything of substance to add to
this thread, it'll be the first time that you've done that in some
time. Perhaps if you considered your role to be less of
"pot-stirring kneejerk liberal" and more along the lines of
"contributer to the discussion" we might be better off.
Timothy|11.22.05 @ 9:53AM|#
Children, do not make me turn this blog around.
Although, apparently there's this "shocking" new development:
CNN SENIOR MANAGEMENT LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION; CONTROL ROOM
STAFFER 'LAUGHED' WHEN X FLASHED, SAYS SOURCE...
OH MY STARS! Somebody laughed! At a technical glitch! Involving the
VP! Quick, ressurect Nixon and restart COINTELPRO, get Bobby Seale
on the case! This is a travashamockery!
|11.22.05 @ 9:54AM|#
It's like JFK conspiracy people, or Creationists: once you know
what the answer is, it's just a game of figuring out how the latest
information proves it.
The possibility of a technical glitch must not be true, because it
doesn't prove that the MSM is engaging in dirty tricks against
Republicans.
|11.22.05 @ 9:55AM|#
"lack of outrage"
Well, I neither blogged nor worked for Reason when that happened...
but I may well have been outraged; I don't recall. Do I have to get
re-outraged about it now because I'm noticing something similarly
silly on the other side?
|11.22.05 @ 9:58AM|#
M1EK and Evan,
I think jf's response to Jeff P. was valid, he just didn't need to
go as far back as the Al Gore rant. He could have simply pointed to
Harry Reid and the other democrats' whiny double-super-secret
closed-door senate meeting. "Whaaaa! We didn't get the indictment
we wanted! We're gonna close the Senate!" :-(
|11.22.05 @ 10:00AM|#
Down the rathole:
jf, the "Rats" graphic had to be purposely designed to appear that
way. There was no way that it could appear unless the person doing
the title designed chose to make it appear.
The X frame, otoh, is standard operation procedure in video
editing. It is spliced into feed when jump cut is made. It's
appearance is no different than when you see the color bars for a
moment.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 10:00AM|#
Jason Ligon,
Nope.
Timothy,
Clearly they need to take some lessons in rat fucking from a
professional. :)
|11.22.05 @ 10:00AM|#
Julian:
Your outrage, or lack thereof, is not the issue. I simply find it
strange that some people are getting so worked up over a nobody
pundit making a big deal out of a stupid alleged "subliminal
message" incident.
And outrage is not the right word, it's just the first one that
comes to mind. Perhaps "disquietness" would be more
appropriate.
|11.22.05 @ 10:02AM|#
Then again, the color bars do look sort of like a rainbow flag.
Aha, more subliminal leftist propaganda!
This is sort of fun.
gaius marius|11.22.05 @ 10:03AM|#
Have we really reached the point where upon seeing an
obvious technical glitch in a live TV broadcast, the first reaction
of many people�not folks living in mom's basement among stacks of
old John Birch Society newsletters, mind you, but widely-read and
well-remunerated pundits�is "subliminal brainwashing"?
Really?
yep.
anyone wants to take bets on how long it is before the shooting
starts?
Rob|11.22.05 @ 10:04AM|#
To her credit though, even an anti-immigration reactionary sees the folly of the drug war.
|11.22.05 @ 10:04AM|#
Then again, the color bars do look sort of like a rainbow
flag. Aha, more subliminal leftist propaganda!
LOL! That is the funniest thing I've seen from you in a
while.
anyone wants to take bets on how long it is before the shooting
starts?
LOL! That is the funniest thing I've seen from you in a while.
|11.22.05 @ 10:06AM|#
How, exactly, was my point over the top, unless you are a
party-line elephant? The point I made was that MM is not worthy of
the moniker of serious pundit. As Jason said, she's selling books,
plain and simple.
But then I guess when you've got blue colored glasses on, anything
that challenges it is over the top?
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 10:08AM|#
When will someone take a cane to Malkin's tormentors? :) Then we can wave the bloody shirt (or whatever piece of apparel happens to get bloodied) and disparage the viciousness of our opponents!
|11.22.05 @ 10:09AM|#
The image on all frames of film to be used for editing purposes
or emergency broadcasts shall hereafter be Rorschach Blobs. We may
now assume left and right reactions will exactly cancel each other
out, so nobody will need to say anything else this stupid.
This has been a public service announcement - not in the loaded
'public sentiment' way, but in a strictly neutral 'more than a
couple of you guys' sort of vein.
|11.22.05 @ 10:10AM|#
You know, you don't have to be a Democrat to want to put an X on
the Vice President.
This is silly. Even if someone at CNN did this on
purpose--a proposition I doubt very much--there's no way anyone in
management authorized such a move. It's a screw up, big flockin'
deal. Though I must say that if I were going to do something like
that on purpose (and probably lose my job as a consequence), I'd
want to do something more dramatic, like put a Manson swastika on
Cheney's forehead or something. Of course, being a nominal member
of the GOP, I suppose I can't do that, since only Democrats are
allowed to dislike the Administration.
|11.22.05 @ 10:11AM|#
quasibill:
I'm guessing that you didn't read Rob's link yet, and you're
probably not as familiar with Malkin's writings as you might try to
claim. Which Republican talking point mentions being anti-drug
war?
Maybe it was only on that one, single column, where she actually
thought for herself. Surprising the Republicans didn't immediately
send her to the re-education camps for that transgression.
|11.22.05 @ 10:12AM|#
He could have simply pointed to Harry Reid and the other
democrats' whiny double-super-secret closed-door senate meeting.
"Whaaaa! We didn't get the indictment we wanted! We're gonna close
the Senate!" :-(
Wow. You couldn't get a more mis-stated version of what occurred
here if you simply picked random words out of a magnetic poetry
set.
And what does any of that have to do with "OMFG TEH EVIL MSM X-ED
OUT TEH VICE-PRES" conspiracy theory nonsense? Do you not actually
see the difference between ludicrous conspiracy peddling and taking
advantage of the internal rules of the Senate?
|11.22.05 @ 10:18AM|#
"I'm guessing that you didn't read Rob's link yet, and you're
probably not as familiar with Malkin's writings as you might try to
claim."
Well, you guessed wrong. Sorry, try again next time.
"Which Republican talking point mentions being anti-drug
war?"
WTF does that have to do with any of my posts? Are you on
crack?
"Maybe it was only on that one, single column, where she actually
thought for herself. Surprising the Republicans didn't immediately
send her to the re-education camps for that transgression"
Well that nails it down. I didn't realize I was dealing with
someone on narcotics or suffering from schizophrenia. Really - what
does that rambling rant have to do with anything I said?
Let me spell it out for you, because apparently my first post was
too complicated. Malkin is trying to sell books, so she makes the
most outrageous, controversial statements she can that play toward
her market. She is not a serious thinker. She is a book-seller.
Granting her the respect of a "well-read" pundit is over-the-top,
IMHO.
MP|11.22.05 @ 10:22AM|#
I simply find it strange that some people are getting so
worked up over a nobody pundit making a big deal out of a stupid
alleged "subliminal message" incident.
If even one person reads her post and says "damn liberal MSM",
that's all the justification anyone needs for calling her a
twit.
You seem to be much more worked up than anyone else is.
Jeff P.|11.22.05 @ 10:27AM|#
WHat did I say that was over the line? There hasn't been a shred of actual philosophical thought thrown out by either party since mid-Clinton. I'm talking about mainstream media and big name punditry, here. Neither official party has done a damned thing to counter it.
Timothy|11.22.05 @ 10:33AM|#
The possibility of a technical glitch must not be true,
because it doesn't prove that the MSM is engaging in dirty tricks
against Republicans.
A friend of mine at The Hotline has a hypothesis about this: that
the "liberal bias" in the media isn't a part of some grand
conspiracy, and generally isn't malicious, but just sort of the
practical upshot of the vast majority of reporters leaning liberal
a bit. And it has more to do with story selection than anything
else. Are there counter examples in the more partisan media? Yes,
yes there are. Then again, partisan outlets don't pretend to be
anything but.
I think as long as a viewer is aware of this on some level, and I
think most are, it isn't that big a deal. So Clinton got better
media treatment that GWB, big deal. Both are mediocre, forgettable
presidents anyway.
|11.22.05 @ 10:34AM|#
What should we expect from a bitch who thought that sending
Japanese-Americans to concentration camps during WWII was
kosher?
Like I said a couple of days ago: After 9-11, conservatives went
stark, raving, nuts. Any disagreement with war or anti-terror
policy is tantamount to treason. Any despicable tactic from
conjuring up tales about yellow cake uranium so we could invade
Iraq to outright torture of terrorism suspects that is now somehow
justifiable. Malkin's paranoid ravings about "subliminal messages"
from the liberal media are just another symptom of a larger
problem. We've got a bunch of power-mad, nationalistic loonies in
the White House and no one in the mainstream has the guts to stand
up to them.
The American Right needs collective therapy, or a collective
straight jacket.
Polunatic|11.22.05 @ 10:38AM|#
They used an "X" for goodness sakes. What more proof does anyone
need?
Cheney
and the X-Files
Viking Moose|11.22.05 @ 10:40AM|#
Akira:
but don't you dare criticize the democrats for their part in this.
that'll upset others :)
(as usual, "heiter..." etc etc)
Timothy|11.22.05 @ 10:42AM|#
Oh, and yes, blah blah blah, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes. Rather has had a personal thing with the Bushes for a few decades, and even if the story had been true I fail to see how weasling out of service in Vietnam by getting into the AirGuard has to do with being president in 2005. I also fail to see what being a hero/being a criminal/whatever on a swift boat in the jungle 35 years ago has to do with running for president in 2004, but maybe I'm just naieve.
|11.22.05 @ 10:43AM|#
Well, according to Technorati the "nobody pundit" runs the 8th most-linked blog on the planet and routinely appears on TV, but it was more a point about the mentality than about Malkin per se.
Ron|11.22.05 @ 10:47AM|#
"So Clinton got better media treatment that
GWB..."
You am the smartest historian on Bizarro World!
Timothy|11.22.05 @ 10:49AM|#
Ron: So Clinton may or may not have gotten better media
treatment, either way I honestly think the whole issue of "media
bias" is unimportant.
I seem to remember Clinton's media treatment as better, but I was
like 12 then so I could be misremembering it.
Jeff P.|11.22.05 @ 10:50AM|#
I still contend that the Right learned this trait from the Left,
whom it served well.
Go re-read Sowell's Visions of the Anointed
http://lfb.org/index.php?stocknumber=TS8476
|11.22.05 @ 10:52AM|#
"Well, according to Technorati the "nobody pundit" runs the 8th
most-linked blog on the planet"
Seriously? Egad. That many people like a little Jerry Springer with
their punditry, I guess.
|11.22.05 @ 10:52AM|#
"Well, it all started with Jeff P.'s effort to paint "the
Right" as somehow stepping over some line (of civility?) over the
past five years."
Several people (most of them more civil than JF himself) have made
a similar proclamation on JF's behalf. So, shall we go back and
look at the Jeff P. post in question? We shall:
"Inconsolable shrieking has become the first line of defense of
the Right over the last five years. Any time something gets thier
goat, be it the "assault" on Christmas or an unpopular nominee,
they go straight into "shocked outrage" mode. The trope of
substituting indignation for moral certainty is a trick
they picked up from the Left".
So, to everyone who claimed that JF was just responding to Jeff
P.'s supposedly unfair criticism of the right while letting the
left off easy: I remind you all that Jeff P., in the very post in
question, stated that the Left actually invented the whole "trope"
that is being discussed here. Thus, leaving jf's original posts,
and subsequent rabid rants, a bit lacking in rationality.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 10:54AM|#
See, there used to be this period when political discourse in the U.S. wasn't silly, petty, filled with paranoid rantings, etc. :)
Viking Moose|11.22.05 @ 10:59AM|#
"See, there used to be this period when political discourse in
the U.S. wasn't silly, petty, filled with paranoid rantings, etc.
:)"
:) :) :)
when would that have been? say, 1837-1860?
heh
|11.22.05 @ 11:03AM|#
JF:
"Well, dipshit, if you can tell me where I made either of those
points, I'd appreciate it."
Thanks for the childish name-calling. It most assuredly shores up
your already astounding credibility!
Anyway, why else would you bring Al Gore up? Jeff P. had already
noted that the Left actually invented this kind of stuff. You don't
have to explicitly state something for it to be implied. Subtlety,
anyone?
"my point was: Julian found this important enough to make a
post. Jeff and Quasibill went over the top with their comments.
Hell, Evan, you yourself said "Yeah, um, forget that I'm a kneejerk
halfwit who jumps to errant conclusions at the first sign of any
potential bias against my team." I made a rational, reasonable
reply concerning the lack of outrage when a presidential candidate
did THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING as Malkin, and yet Malkin (who I
still contend has no real influence over anything) is the "kneejerk
halfwit".
Yes, she is. Again, you are attempting to redefine the point of
reference here. Our point of reference was objective rationality,
and how absurd on its face this kind of thing was. You, on the
other hand, want that point of reference to be how much outrage Al
Gore generated some years ago.
And I'm the one trying to change the subject?
P.S., I think someone needs to take some Ritalin or something. The
fact that your very first response was to hurl some childish
insults at me because I dared to challenge your
assertions, should cause at least a little bit of
self-reflection.
|11.22.05 @ 11:09AM|#
The link to Chris Matthews is not the text of his speech but
rather a story that takes that quote and implies he is talking
about the Dems instead of the terrorists. I can't find a text link
to his speech.
The quotes as reported above appear to be slightly mixed for
example here is the quotes I found,
"The period between 9-11 and (invading) Iraq was not a good time
for America. There wasn't a robust discussion of what we were
doing," Matthews said."If we stop trying to figure out the other
side, we've given up. The person on the other side is not evil.
They just have a different perspective.
[and]
"The smartest people understand the enemy's point of view, because
they understand what's driving them."
This is in context of a speech about the idea that "... Americans
have still not learned to know their enemies instead of just hating
them, said American political journalist Chris Matthews
yesterday."
Americans include both Dems and Rep last time I checked.
So how can one tell if his quotes support the idea that he is
talking about the Dems or the terrorists? I fail to understand how
the people "know" one way or the other....yet what they 'know' fits
their already known opinions.
For example if one wanted to assume that Chris was talking about
the terrorists he has done something akin to understanding the
terrorists about a year ago; that the terrorists are not bad guys,
just people who disagree:
(via ACE) "MATTHEWS: Well let me ask you about this. If this were
on the other side, and we were watching an enemy soldier-- a rival,
I mean, they're not bad guys especially, they're just people who
diagree with you; they are in fact the insurgents figthing us in
their country -- if we saw one of them do what we saw our guy did
to that guy [the playing-dead terrorist], would that be worthy of a
war-crime charge?"
I would like to see a text of the full speech with the quotes in
context, before I believe one side or the other.
Not that it will stop partisans for either side from demonising
that "B*tch" or that "B*stard".
For some odd reason the speech text is not on the web.
This&That
|11.22.05 @ 11:13AM|#
"The American Right needs collective therapy, or a collective
straight jacket."
A serious case of the American Left pot calling the kettle
black.
MP|11.22.05 @ 11:16AM|#
A serious case of the American Left pot calling the kettle
black.
I know leftists sir, and Akira is no leftist.
|11.22.05 @ 11:28AM|#
"Have we really reached the point where..."
20 years ago, where have you been? Or is this news because it is
someone on the Right and we expect this out of lefties and
libertarians?
|11.22.05 @ 11:30AM|#
Evan:
You did not "challenge my assertions", you put words in my mouth. I
come here off and on during the workday to hope to participate in a
discussion, and instead some clown turns the assertion I did make,
that "Pundit A doing the same thing that Candidate B did is somehow
worse", into something quite different.
|11.22.05 @ 11:35AM|#
Furthermore, the point I was making had nothing to do with Right
versus Left, so I don't know why everyone is injecting that into
this. It's "Presidential Candidate vs. Pundit".
I'm done with this, but I can't believe how thick some of you are.
Even Julian asked me some nonsense question about "the other side".
I don't live in your Right/Left world, people.
Viking Moose|11.22.05 @ 11:35AM|#
Hi JF:
here's your first comment on this thread:
"Shocking. But let's not forget when that rock of sobriety, Albert
Gore, had his compaign whine and bitch during the DemocRATS ad
campaign.
However, it's definitely worse for the nation when it's pundits
that nobody really pays attention to anyway, as opposed to the man
running for president."
to get back to discussing, what do you mean by this? are you
excusing one side by juxtaposing the other side in a worse case?
i'd like to give you your due on this, as we do have times where
there is the pot and kettle, as David C. says (incorrectly about
Akira, however).
Has "tighty whitey" Gore weighed in on terror, treason, and
tricycles (couldn't think of a third "t") that makes the
juxtaposition topic relevant as well as polar-relevant?
And what exactly was the particular whine by the dems in this
case?
thanks!
cheers!
VM
TallDave|11.22.05 @ 11:35AM|#
Julian's take on this makes no sense. When did Republicans ever
call Democrats "evil?" That word has been reserved for terrorists
and Saddam Hussein's regime.
Also, Matthews has made these statements before.
http://morethanloans.blogspot.com/2005/11/compare-and-contrast.html
MATTHEWS: Well let me ask you about this. If this were on the other
side, and we were watching an enemy soldier-- a rival, I mean,
they're not bad guys especially, they're just people who
disagree with you;
No, actually, they're people who are trying to kill you.
|11.22.05 @ 11:40AM|#
20 years ago, Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan were knocking back
drinks after work.
Things got looney when the "hippie traitor" charge failed to sink
Clinton's campaign.
Timothy|11.22.05 @ 11:41AM|#
I think calling Akira a leftist is about as accurate as calling Jimmy Carter a libertarian.
|11.22.05 @ 11:42AM|#
We've got a bunch of bright people here, which makes it all the more astounding that the majority seem to be under the impession that MM means what she says. For dog's sake, people, she's just like Coulter-demagoguery for fun and profit. They're both sophists, and are both getting rich doing their schtick. Don't for a second think that it's anything other than a performance.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 11:43AM|#
Yes, Tip O'Neill, that paragon of virtue, you know, one of these paranoid fucktard, scumbags that brought us the "Better, More Improve War on Drugs."
TallDave|11.22.05 @ 11:44AM|#
joe,
Actually it was "pot-smoking draft-dodger who 'loathes the
military'" and Clinton didn't deny any of it, because it was
true.
But I only hold two of those against him, and I thought he was a
reasonably good Prez.
|11.22.05 @ 11:56AM|#
Number 6, I would posit that the problem with all of them -- Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, the whole sheband -- isn't that they don't believe the crap they say; it's that mainstream Republican voters do.
|11.22.05 @ 11:58AM|#
"20 years ago, Tip O'Neil and Ronald Reagan were knocking back
drinks after work."
And what were the lefty pundits saying about Reagan?
Anyone else remember the mystery device at the back of Bush's
jacket?
"Well, according to Technorati the "nobody pundit" runs the 8th
most-linked blog on the planet and routinely appears on TV, but it
was more a point about the mentality than about Malkin per
se."
Well, Malkin never fully embraced it as you said, and has backed
away from it after a little consideration. So what's your point
exactly? Western Society is collapsing because there are wingnuts
who can post ill considered opinions on the web? We should all be
glad of that, especially you, Julian.
Do you think this is uniquely strange? A 1 day consideration of a
wacky conspiracy theory is pretty tame for what goes on out
there... Have you read antiwar.com over the past 4 years
libertoid?
|11.22.05 @ 11:59AM|#
A serious case of the American Left pot calling the kettle
black.
--Dave C.
I know leftists sir, and Akira is no leftist.
--MP
I think calling Akira a leftist is about as accurate as calling
Jimmy Carter a libertarian.
--Timothy
To conservatives, I'm a "liberal." To liberals, I'm a
"conservative." At this point, the terms have become so meaningless
that I really don't give a well digger's chicken what people call
me.
If you want to label me politically, I would say the term
"curmudgeon" works best.
|11.22.05 @ 12:02PM|#
Haven't RTFA, but I suspect that here and elsewhere, accusations of subliminality mean "I noticed this nefarious plot but I don't think other people are smart enough to, so I must save them from themselves."
|11.22.05 @ 12:02PM|#
Just for fun, will someone comment on Ms. Malkin's Glamour Shots photo and the old photo it replaced?
|11.22.05 @ 12:03PM|#
Don't feel bad, Akira. On this board I've been called everything from a statist to a Randroid.
|11.22.05 @ 12:08PM|#
"You did not "challenge my assertions", you put words in my
mouth. I come here off and on during the workday to hope to
participate in a discussion, and instead some clown turns the
assertion I did make, that "Pundit A doing the same thing that
Candidate B did is somehow worse", into something quite
different."
Once again: that was what your post implied. I'm not the only one
who picked up on it. You call it "putting words in your mouth", I
call it "calling you on your implications". So be it. At least I
have the wherewithal and maturity to refrain from calling those who
disagree with me "clowns" and "dipshits". If you came here to
"participate in a discussion", you sure as hell did a good job of
sabotaging that attempt with your incessant personal insults.
Furthermore, I have a problem with your claim that you weren't
commenting on the left or the right: you have subsequently asserted
that you were responding to Jeff P's and Quasibill's posts. Their
posts were pretty much about partisan (left and right)
tactics.
So, if you were, in fact, responding to their posts, then I find it
contradictory for you to absolve yourself of any commentary on
partisan fighting, seeing as how that was the subject of their
posts.
Meanwhile, your assertion that MM is a nobody has been thoroughly
debunked as well.
So, after denying this and absolving yourself of that, where does
that leave you? With a rather vapid point about how the outrage
against Al Gore was insufficient. So?
How does that tie into this discussion? Are we too
outraged at MM? Relative to what? Al Gore?
Well, then, either you're CYA'ing now to fix your prior mistakes,
or you're left with a pretty empty point about standards of
outrage.
|11.22.05 @ 12:14PM|#
Wow, all this fighting over a technical glitch and a usual
suspect pundit being ridiculous?
In the last 24 hours my wife has been sick, she got into a car
accident while trying to drive to the doctor (she's fine, but the
body work means we just coughed up a $500 deductible), I feel
guilty for not leaving the lab to drive her, we spent the entire
rainy evening dealing with the aftermath and trying to keep the
other driver happy until the tow truck came (late), we're crossing
our fingers that they just send the bill to our insurance and don't
call a lawyer, this morning I ran into every conceivable technical
and scheduling glitch before delivering a presentation on my latest
calculations, and the mechanic can't get started on the car until
Monday at the earliest.
Fortunately, the presentation went far better than I hoped and
we've just started a nice new collaboration and will be publishing
some good papers soon. But the roller coaster of the past 24 hours
puts a lot of things in perspective.
So I'd be happy to trade places with anybody whose biggest fucking
problem is that a politician from their party was the subject of a
technical glitch on TV. Or whose biggest fucking problem is that an
idiot pundit said something stupid.
The only people that I won't trade places with are idiot pundits
and corrupt politicians. I need to keep my brain functioning and my
soul reasonably pure.
|11.22.05 @ 12:21PM|#
JDM:
Well, Malkin never fully embraced it as you said, and has
backed away from it after a little consideration. So what's your
point exactly? Western Society is collapsing because there are
wingnuts who can post ill considered opinions on the web? We should
all be glad of that, especially you, Julian.
Never fully embraced it? Jesus, what standard are you using? She's
still frothing over a CNN staffer laughing about it.
Julian never said anything about western society collapsing. His
point, it seemed, was that this kind of kneejerk reactionary,
jump-to-conclusions, kind of shit is pretty foolish---and MM is one
of the main culprits. Is he required to make a more grand, "deep"
point than that?
And regarding the "wingnuts" sentence: I don't think Julian has any
problem with the fact that they can do so...it's just
pretty foolish that they do do so. And that "wingnut",
while she is a wingnut, is pretty widely read and linked to.
clarityiniowa|11.22.05 @ 12:24PM|#
thoreau - Dude, you and I are having approximately the same
week. Hang tight, it's a holiday weekend.
Unfortunately,there appears to be a whole new generation of
Michelle Malkins out there. The Omaha Weird-Herald is shepherding a
little ray of nutty sunshine by the name of Rainbow Rowell. Some
days she comes off like the granola-munching
child-of-Dead-head-parents her name suggests, other days she can
outrant MM, Coulter or O'Reilly all rolled into one. If she were at
all consistent, I'd say she was dangerously insane. Apparently
young, female and reactionary is chi-chi these days.
|11.22.05 @ 12:27PM|#
She is not a serious thinker. She is a
book-seller.
True enough. Problem is when the babblings of Malkin or Coulter or
Michael Moore (or for that matter just about any
politically-oriented talk show host) get mistaken for serious
political discourse.
|11.22.05 @ 12:28PM|#
She is not a serious thinker. She is a
book-seller.
My wife sells book. Malkin spews lunacy. Get it straight.
|11.22.05 @ 12:29PM|#
Evan:
Nowhere did I say I was respond to Jeff and quasibill; I said I was
reply (to the original post by Julian) because of the quasibill and
Jeff remarks concerning the rantings of a pundit. Quit making
things up.
As far as my assertion that Malkin is a "nobody" and that being
"debunked", please tell me one piece of legislation, one social
issue, or one anything that Michelle Malkin has had any role in
affecting. Can't do it? Thank you.
|11.22.05 @ 12:32PM|#
Killing Bush's immigration reform, by helping to whip up public
scorn towards paperwork-deprived America-joiners?
Now we get to see jf go from "has had any role in affecting" to
"singlehanded caused the outcome."
Timothy|11.22.05 @ 12:34PM|#
thoreau: hang in there, man, hope next week is better.
Actually it was "pot-smoking draft-dodger who 'loathes the
military'" and Clinton didn't deny any of it, because it was
true.
I can only hold the 'loathes the military' against him and I'm not
even sure that's demonstrably true.
The draft is an immoral, repugnant thing and I can't really hold
dodging it against anybody. That's like trying to get me upset that
somebody evaded taxes. As for pot smoking? Well, it makes me
paranoid as all get-out, but other people can do what they want. Of
course, I'll hold the man's taste in women against him, but his
punishment for that is being married to Hillary.
|11.22.05 @ 12:36PM|#
More importantly, though: Have we really reached the point
where upon seeing an obvious technical glitch in a live TV
broadcast, the first reaction of many people--not folks living in
mom's basement among stacks of old John Birch Society newsletters,
mind you, but widely-read and well-remunerated pundits--is
"subliminal brainwashing"?
Yes.
...and if you play what Michelle Malkin says on Fox News backwards,
it sounds like, "Kerry would have been worse."
It's a lot better than what she says played forwards.
Jeff P.|11.22.05 @ 12:43PM|#
I once heard a comedian say something to the effect of "They got mad at Clinton for smoking pot, and Bush for not going to Viet Nam. SO what they want is someone who went to Nam, but didn't smoke pot..."
Smart Torontonian|11.22.05 @ 12:58PM|#
I once heard a comedian say something to the effect of "They got
mad at Clinton for smoking pot, and Bush for not going to Viet Nam.
SO what they want is someone who went to Nam, but didn't smoke
pot..."
So they want Al Gore then? :p
As for political pundits I get the impression that the whole point
is to say some party line talking points and yell a whole lot. Not
for me.
|11.22.05 @ 12:59PM|#
'His point, it seemed, was that this kind of kneejerk
reactionary, jump-to-conclusions, kind of shit is pretty
foolish---and MM is one of the main culprits. Is he required to
make a more grand, "deep" point than that?'
No, but the "have we reached the point" language is foolish, which
is my point. It is a knee jerk reaction in itself. We've been there
a long time, and this is pretty tame as far as conspiracy theories
go. A libertarian especially ought to understand that.
People far more read and respected than Malkin have been saying
crazier stuff for a long time. More importantly, they have been
standing by it. Ever hear the name "Noam Chomsky?"
|11.22.05 @ 1:04PM|#
Thanks for the sympathies and well wishes. My plan is to finish
up a few loose ends here, go home, wait for our tow truck (last
night's tow truck was for the other guy's car), then exercise and
relax, and start everything all over again tomorrow.
On the plus side, those calculations that I've been hinting at for
a few weeks got somebody really excited during my presentation. He
came up with an excellent application for them, so when I start
over fresh tomorrow it will be to start writing a journal article
and get started on our joint project.
Yeah, I know, leaving in the middle of the day sounds bad, but
considering that today was my most successful presentation yet, and
on the heels of my worst day in a while, I don't feel too bad about
it.
gaius marius|11.22.05 @ 1:05PM|#
I would posit that the problem with all of them -- Malkin,
Coulter, Limbaugh, the whole sheband -- isn't that they don't
believe the crap they say; it's that mainstream Republican voters
do.
amen. and i'd include as many leftist pundits vis-a-vis democratic
voters. people are wonderfully complex creatures, but are
susceptible to propaganda and get a lot of propaganda in the united
states that has the effect of making them senseless. keep
increasing the level of vitriol, and people will start shooting
each other over it.
R C Dean|11.22.05 @ 1:09PM|#
For what its worth, I think that CNN and big swathes of the
establishment media have a serious case of tunnel-vision and
Bush-hatred.
But the Cheney X isn't part of it.
Michelle Malkin? Seems like a right-wing Michael Moore, only with
smaller boobs.
|11.22.05 @ 1:11PM|#
Remind me again, how many papers is Noam Chomsky published in? Because Malkin appears in hundreds.
|11.22.05 @ 1:15PM|#
Michelle Malkin? Seems like a right-wing Michael Moore, only
with smaller boobs.
R C, you put a smile on my weary face!
|11.22.05 @ 1:16PM|#
"Remind me again, how many papers is Noam Chomsky published in?
Because Malkin appears in hundreds."
Remind me again how many papers his followers are published in, and
hom many university faculty positions they hold...
|11.22.05 @ 1:19PM|#
thoreau,
I just caught up on the non-Evan and me stuff. I'm really sorry to
hear about your run of luck, and I sincerely hope things get better
for you.
|11.22.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Oh, you know those powerful holders of faculty positions - the
ones that are so out of touch with mainstream America that they,
er, exert a powerful influence on public discourse.
Name a lefty college professor that has a cable show. Name one that
has a popular talk radio show. Tell you what, I'll spot you Krugman
- name another lefty college professor that writes a syndicated
column. Name a college professor that my mother would recognize if
she met him walking down the street.
|11.22.05 @ 1:32PM|#
Tell you what, name me one of Chomsky's "followers." Go ahead, the most famous follower of Chomsky in America. Take a minute, and come up with the most famous name you can.
|11.22.05 @ 1:47PM|#
"Remind me to point out to JDM what a "tu qouque" fallacy
is"
Please do, then point out where I'm making one. Or, try paying
attention to what I'm saying. Or just butt out, you pick. (To be
fair, you also have the option of continuing to post
irrelevantly.)
I'll say it again - this is no special high water mark, or even a
good barometer for where we are. There are lots of idiotic things
said every day, and have been for a long time. She even took this
one back.
joe,
What are you blathering on about? There are no lefties saying
stupid things in the public discourse? Or are they different
because they don't take them back the next day? Or is it because
many of them pretend to be objective? What do you think my point
is?
|11.22.05 @ 1:51PM|#
Please do, then point out where I'm making one.
Let's see...
People far more read and respected than Malkin have been saying
crazier stuff for a long time. More importantly, they have been
standing by it. Ever hear the name "Noam Chomsky?"
|11.22.05 @ 1:55PM|#
Ok, you've started with a premise, now you just have to figure
out how it relates to my proposition, then you'll have it.
Almost there...
|11.22.05 @ 2:02PM|#
You essentially downplayed Malkin's rhetoical drivel by playing
the "the lefties like Noam Chomsky say cray things too" card.
That sounds pretty Tu Quoque to me.
|11.22.05 @ 2:04PM|#
"If we stop trying to figure out the other side, we've given
up. The person on the other side is not evil. They just have a
different perspective."
Even if he were talking about terrorists, I don't see why this is
bad. You have to understand your enemy in order to anticipate his
moves and defeat him. Critics of Matthews' statement need to get a
dictionary and look up the difference in meanings between "empathy"
and "sympathy." Not the same.
|11.22.05 @ 2:09PM|#
"Michelle Malkin? Seems like a right-wing Michael Moore, only
with smaller boobs"
A-f'in-men. Neither is a serious analyst. Both are focused more on
sensationalism than truth. Which, again, was my only point - her
opinion is worth nothing more than a good laugh (at her, not with
her), just like Moore's.
|11.22.05 @ 2:10PM|#
"That sounds pretty Tu Quoque to me."
So someone just has to say "this is a transgression worse than all
that have come before" and no one can challenge that in your world
without it being a tu quoque?
|11.22.05 @ 2:15PM|#
Subliminal influence: an imaginary creature.
See
http://skepdic.com/subliminal.html
|11.22.05 @ 2:28PM|#
Who, thoreau, I'm sorry to hear about your tribulations! I hope
things get better.
At least your presentation went well.
A bit of synchronicity on the car accidents. Over the weekend, one
of my relatives got rear-ended on the highway. He's OK, but the car
was totalled. Moreover, for loony reasons I won't go into here
(not drug-related or illegal, but he's rather eccentric),
he was carrying $5,000 in cash on him. In the course of the
accident, approximatly $1,400 went blowing down the highway. I have
yet to hear what the police response to that was. Luckily
he's old and extremely unhip, or they'd peg him as a dealer for
sure.
R C Dean|11.22.05 @ 2:41PM|#
I have yet to hear what the police response to that
was.
Running down the road stuffing bills into their pockets?
|11.22.05 @ 2:44PM|#
So someone just has to say "this is a transgression worse
than all that have come before" and no one can challenge that in
your world without it being a tu quoque?
Unless you are willing to equally condemn both sides and not play
favorites. However, saying that "Noam Chomsky is worse than Malkin"
in no way excuses, dismisses, or justifies what Malkin have done or
said.
|11.22.05 @ 2:46PM|#
Stevo-
So, you're a libertarian, your uncle is eccentric, yet he carries
$5000 in cash? Not gold?
:)
|11.22.05 @ 3:04PM|#
In the course of the accident, approximatly $1,400 went
blowing down the highway. I have yet to hear what the police
response to that was.
I would have helped him stuff the cash back into his mattress
before properly securing it in the bed of his pickup truck.
|11.22.05 @ 3:08PM|#
Why don't you try to make your argument for yourself, JDM?
In general, you seem to be trying to make a "you, too" argument,
but you keep being made the fool whenever you attempt to
demonstrate your case. Like when you present Noam Chomsky as some
who is "more read" than Michelle Malkin. Or that the existence of
leftist college professors is somehow equivalent to the right wing
shrieker industry.
|11.22.05 @ 3:19PM|#
I'm influenced by neither righty shriekers or lefty profs, but one could make the argument that profs are, you know, teaching the next generation of folks that may go on to become politicians or another form of policy maker.
|11.22.05 @ 3:21PM|#
I will point out, while acknowledging that this has no more to do with adult, mainstream liberals than The Turner Diaries has to do with mainstream conservatives, that it was Chomsky who had a bestselling book out rather quickly about 9/11, not Malkin. As for fans of either, Malkin probably has an edge for selling beyond academics and college students who think they're being rebellious.
|11.22.05 @ 3:22PM|#
If it was somebody else, you know, I'd just think, well
eccentric is eccentric, but it's Stevo we're talkin' here!
...To Stevo, what is eccentric? ; )
|11.22.05 @ 3:38PM|#
Wow, you guys are so nice!
Now, if only that tow truck driver would show up....
|11.22.05 @ 3:46PM|#
"Why don't you try to make your argument for yourself,
JDM?"
I have been, why don't you try paying attention to it? (Yes, that's
a rhetorical question. I know why you don't.)
"In general, you seem to be trying to make a "you, too"
argument,"
I've restated my point several times. Poor joe, how will he ever
figure out what I "seem" to be saying?
"but you keep being made the fool whenever you attempt to
demonstrate your case. Like when you present Noam Chomsky as some
who is "more read" than Michelle Malkin. "
Noam Chomsky and his ideas are more widely read and accepted than a
thought on Michelle Malkin's blog that is taken back the next day.
Call me crazy, but I stand by that statement. It is foolish, I'll
grant, to "argue" with the likes of you.
"Or that the existence of leftist college professors is somehow
equivalent to the right wing shrieker industry"
You're right joe, I see my error in arguing that that right wing
pundits are the equivalent of of lefty college professors. Now if I
could just figure out where I did that so I could perform a proper
rectraction.
Here's some help for you - substitute Michael Moore for Noam
Chomsy, or Eric Alterman, or any other *example* you like.
Either that or come out and say that linking without endorsing a
stupidly mistaken interpretation of an X on a broadcast that no one
saw because her readers were asking what she thought about it, then
saying it was an innocent mistake once more information came in,
(linking the info voluntarily, I'll add) should be a revelation to
any sane person about how low the discourse in this country has
sunk.
|11.22.05 @ 4:01PM|#
Wow, gee, now that you've make a snippy, dickish remark, I've
completely forgotten that you can't address any of my arguments.
Brilliant!
But wow, you certainly have a remarkable number of different ways
to write "I didn't say..." what you just said.
"I see my error in arguing that that right wing pundits are the
equivalent of of lefty college professors. Now if I could just
figure out where I did that so I could perform a proper
rectraction."
Uh, right here: You quoted me saying, "Remind me again, how many
papers is Noam Chomsky published in? Because Malkin appears in
hundreds."
And then responded with: "Remind me again how many papers his
followers are published in, and hom many university faculty
positions they hold..."
Sigh, poor joe, if only he was smart enough to understand that I
didn't really mean what I meant.
The only reason you're more dickish than easily refuted, is because
you are such a dick.
|11.22.05 @ 4:09PM|#
So, you're a libertarian, your uncle is eccentric, yet he
carries $5000 in cash? Not gold?
He's neither a libertarian nor a goldbug. His eccentricity defies
description.
But at least he's neither a whacky leftist college professor nor a
hottish Asian but hyperventilating Right-wing columnist, either.
(Deftly pushing the thread back on track...)
|11.22.05 @ 4:11PM|#
Thoreau - Ouch. My sympathies. Look at it this way: at least
everything can be fixed with a bit of time and money (I'm hoping
your wife's illness is of that sort).
Timothy - I don't particularly mind that Clinton dodged the draft.
I do mind that he thought he should be Commander-in-Chief
after that. It kind of says, "I'm too important to die in a
pointless war! You aren't, though."
|11.22.05 @ 4:13PM|#
(Deftly pushing the thread back on track...)
I dunno Stevo- your uncle sounds much more interesting than this
thread.
|11.22.05 @ 4:21PM|#
"Remind me again, how many papers is Noam Chomsky published in?
Because Malkin appears in hundreds."
And then responded with: "Remind me again how many papers his
followers are published in, and hom many university faculty
positions they hold..."
Convenient that you weren't quoting anything I'd previously said
when you made your comment. And that there was no context to my
remark. Otherwise, it might be obvious that you were dodging my
point, while hypocritically accusing me of doing the same. Oh wait,
now that I re-read it, you *were* quoting me, and I was bringing
the argument back to my original point. It's all there in black and
white, how sad for you...
But really, even out of context, that means righty pundits are the
equivalent of lefty professors? Really? I couldn't maybe be saying
something else that requires the context of the conversation to
interpret? That's just stupid. Here's some more help for you. I was
saying that the number of papers she appears in are utterly
irrelevant. Especially since the comment at hand didn't appear in a
newspaper.
And here you are, ironically, conveniently ignoring even
that.
You haven't made a relevent argument. You've just tried to pretend
you think my comments mean something they obviously don't.
"The only reason you're more dickish than easily refuted, is
because you are such a dick."
So where have you refuted my proposition? I'd like to see. You
know, I'd just like to see you state my proposition. I don't think
you will.
Seriously, try to figure out what someone is saying before you
start talking, or writing. Just a little free advice.
|11.22.05 @ 4:22PM|#
I dunno Stevo- your uncle sounds much more interesting than
this thread.
Hey! I just said he was "a relative." How did you know he was my
uncle?
My lord -- what else do you know?
gaius marius|11.22.05 @ 4:34PM|#
mercy -- mr jdm, you might at least admit that you really don't understand what is meant by to quoque. not that you're going to, in the midst of this fit of hostile insecurity... but it is pretty evident that mr mackenzie caught you out -- so you might as well admit it to save some face. try a bit of self-deprication. :)
gaius marius|11.22.05 @ 4:39PM|#
Even if he were talking about terrorists, I don't see why
this is bad. You have to understand your enemy in order to
anticipate his moves and defeat him. Critics of Matthews' statement
need to get a dictionary and look up the difference in meanings
between "empathy" and "sympathy." Not the same.
absolutely, mr elvis. the degree of failure that has accompanied
american militarism since world war 2 is directly correlated to the
indulgence of the myopic paranoid fear of exposing oneself to the
views of one's ostensible opposition -- as though the other view
were viral!
we would do far better to understand our enemy than demonize him --
perhaps finding that he needn't be an enemy, perhaps finding our
opposition ever more justified, but at least finding.
|11.22.05 @ 4:46PM|#
"mr jdm, you might at least admit that you really don't
understand what is meant by to quoque."
A tu quoque is a fallacy of relevancy. It's hardly possible to make
a point about the degree of stupidity in ideas compared to other
ideas without bringing up the stupidity of other ideas.
Here's some simple logic for you: all tu quoques are fallacies, my
argument is not fallacious therefore...
Go ahead and finish the sentence.
Timothy|11.22.05 @ 4:47PM|#
JD: I don't really see a problem with it, as during Clinton's
term we had an all volunteer military. You know what the job is
when you join up: the job is getting shot at and killin' fools. Not
a job I'd want, but some folks want in.
Or that the existence of leftist college professors is somehow
equivalent to the right wing shrieker industry.
I think that the lefty college professors and left wing shrieker
industry have a non-zero interection. But that doesn't make Malkin
any less of a psychotic hose beast.
|11.22.05 @ 5:13PM|#
We can all read what you just wrote, JDM. It doesn't matter if
you adopt a dickish tone while you try to walk it back.
We can all read what you JUST WROTE.
|11.22.05 @ 5:18PM|#
gaius, "...this fit of hostile insecurity..." is pefect.
He does this every time he's challanged, and hopes that nobody will
notice his backsliding and spinning.
But, unfortunately for him, we can all read what he just wrote.
It's all still right there, a little higher up in the thread.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 5:28PM|#
gaius marius,
You've come up with some crackpot shit in the past, but the idea
that we didn't demonize with a passion Germans and Japanese in
WWII, or Germans in WWI, etc. is flat out absurd.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 5:29PM|#
People who think that Malkin is even remotely good looking don't get out much. That chick is as ugly as homemade sin.
Viking Moose|11.22.05 @ 5:34PM|#
On demonizing Japanese:
(also: see Dr. Seuss's depictions of Mussilini etc. And of Tojo and
Hirohito et al)
From "Time" 22 Dec 1941:
"How to tell your friends from the Japs"
"Virtually all Japanese are short. Japanese are likely to be
stockier and broader-hipped than short Chinese. Japanese are seldom
fat; they often dry up and grow lean as they age. Although both
have the typical epicanthic fold of the upper eyelid, Japanese eyes
are usually set closer together. The Chinese expression is likely
to be more placid, kindly, open; the Japanese more positive,
dogmatic, arrogant. Japanese are hesitant, nervous in conversation,
laugh loudly at the wrong time. Japanese walk stiffly erect, hard
heeled. Chinese, more relaxed, have an easy gait, sometimes
shuffle."
|11.22.05 @ 5:37PM|#
I'll leave it there. If any readers are still interested, "Ok, go ahead" and read the progressions of JDM's comments over the course of the thread.
|11.22.05 @ 5:45PM|#
You got me joe. Because Michelle Malkin is in more newspapers than Noam Chomsky, her linking to a conspiracy theory on her blog, then saying it's false is a new low in public discourse. I can't beleive I was ever foolish enough to argue against it.
|11.22.05 @ 5:57PM|#
Yup, I got you, cold, attempting to equate Noam Chomsky to
Michelle Malkin in terms of their significance in public discourse,
then trying to back away from it.
And gaius and Akira got you cold making a tu quoque argument,
denying it, and having to look up what it meant.
Ha ha.
|11.22.05 @ 6:02PM|#
quasibill,
As a political analyst, Chomsky is for the most part no great
shakes. He's a one trick pony, and the ferocity with which he's
determined to explain everything with his pet "American Empire"
theory harms his credibility, even when he discusses issues that
could benefit from being looked at in that light.
But he is a linguist by education and profession, and the analysis
he does that is closely related to the examination of language - as
opposed to his free-range opinionizing about the world - is
actually quite good. His investigation into the press's treatment
of Central American politics during the Reagan years in
"Manufacturing Consent" is sharp as a tack.
And I understand he's quite well respected in his academic field,
too.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 6:03PM|#
JDM,
Will you ever be able to live down the shame of being on the wrong
end of an argument on a blog? :) You better kill yourself now and
get it over.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 6:06PM|#
joe,
And I understand he's quite well respected in his academic
field, too.
You'd be wrong then.
|11.22.05 @ 6:12PM|#
"To conservatives, I'm a "liberal." To liberals, I'm a
"conservative." At this point, the terms have become so meaningless
that I really don't give a well digger's chicken what people call
me.
If you want to label me politically, I would say the term
"curmudgeon" works best."
Heh. You sounded leftish to me. But far be it for me to label
someone a leftist if they aren't, so I apologize. I have a weird
mixture of opinions that manage to offend people across the
political spectrum myself, so I'm familiar with the difficulties of
neatly categorizing everyone.
|11.22.05 @ 6:20PM|#
"Yup, I got you, cold, attempting to equate Noam Chomsky to
Michelle Malkin in terms of their significance in public discourse,
then trying to back away from it."
Right, "equate." You really got me. One comment on Michelle
Malkin's blog is more important than the writings of Noam Chomsky.
Keep peddling that one.
Also, keep peddling that I was trying to say that lefty professor
Chomskites have more newspaper column exposure than righty
commentors. Frankly, I think they may, but I'm not arguing that
here.
"And gaius and Akira got you cold making a tu quoque argument,
denying it, and having to look up what it meant."
Here, I'll help you out again. I'm saying that linking a conspiracy
theory on her blog (then denying it) is not comparatively worse
than lots of other things that go on in public discourse. If I were
trying to use that to make some larger point to which it was
irrelevant, that would be a tu quoque fallacy. But I'm not, so it
isn't. See how that works?
|11.22.05 @ 6:21PM|#
People who think that Malkin is even remotely good looking
don't get out much. That chick is as ugly as homemade
sin.
What's so bad about homemade sin? It's 100 times better than the
storebought kind.
I wouldn't kick her out of my internment camp for eating crackers
in the interrogation room, is all I'm saying.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 6:22PM|#
JDM is right (if he is accurately describing his statements)
that he isn't involved in that particular fallacy.
Anyway, the idea Malkin's particular silliness is a new low just a
lack of historical perspective.
|11.22.05 @ 6:23PM|#
" that would be a tu quoque fallacy."
I should say, I could accept that as a tu quoque fallacy.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 6:32PM|#
BTW, there are few conversations more pointless than arguing who is worse, Michelle Malkin or Noam Chomsky.
|11.22.05 @ 6:36PM|#
"BTW, there are few conversations more pointless than arguing
who is worse, Michelle Malkin or Noam Chomsky."
Of course there are, just tune in tomorrow...
|11.22.05 @ 6:58PM|#
BTW, there are few conversations more pointless than arguing
who is worse, Michelle Malkin or Noam Chomsky.
But which one is hotter?
|11.22.05 @ 8:15PM|#
jf, the "Rats" graphic had to be purposely designed to
appear that way. There was no way that it could appear unless the
person doing the title designed chose to make it appear.
At risk of going from zero credibility to negative...
I just watched that ad again, and framed through the RATS segment.
joe, you are absolutely correct that it had to be intentional. I
therefore revoke every argument I made equating that ad with the
Malkin piece. I also apologize for the names I called Evan. Not
because he was right, but because I was wrong for stooping to such
levels.
|11.22.05 @ 8:24PM|#
Slainte'-I would say that the Senate action had more to do with
pulling attention away from the Alito nomination than the
indictment. Which might be worse, actually...
Gaius-I don't know when the shooting starts, but I call June of
2013 in the inevitable "Towards a New American Civil War"
pool.
Akira-I don't care what you are, I just want to sneak
"well-digger's chicken" into a conversation somewhere.
|11.22.05 @ 8:51PM|#
jf,
I think that was very big of you. It doesn't lower your
credibility, it raises it, in my eyes at least.
|11.22.05 @ 10:29PM|#
Wow, I had completely forgotten about that RATS ad until I read
this thread. I just googled it to watch the ad again, and I found
it on a CNN page with a story that included the following:
"Bush said he was "convinced" that the ad was not intended to send
a subliminal message. (Bush more than once mispronounced the word
as "subliminable.")
That parenthetical statement wasn't very nice of them. You can also
listen to audio of Bush responding to the ad, which I did in hopes
of hearing him call it a subliminable message. No luck there, but
it did include this gem: "One frame out of 900 is hardly a
conspiracy to me." Don't think too hard about the logic of that
one.
Hakluyt|11.22.05 @ 11:04PM|#
jf,
Remember, only joe is allowed to insult people here. Move along
now. :)
|11.23.05 @ 3:26AM|#
Am I wrong in thinking that H&R used to have more
intellectually stimulating discussions and fewer flame wars?
(I am in no way implying that I'm a perfect human being, so there
is no need to flame me for my question; I'm being serious.)
Hakluyt|11.23.05 @ 3:44AM|#
The Real Bill,
Its basically an issue of everyone already having staked out their
ground on the major and even minor issues of the day.
TallDave|11.23.05 @ 9:48AM|#
"Bush said he was "convinced" that the ad was not intended
to send a subliminal message. (Bush more than once mispronounced
the word as "subliminable.")
That was all part of his strategery to get people to
misunderestimate him.
Ironically, in his early Texas political career Bush was actually
criticized for being too well-spoken (he sounded too much like an
Eastern boy). He reportedly vowed never to be "out-countried"
again.
TallDave|11.23.05 @ 9:54AM|#
Chomsky's investigation into the press's treatment of
Central American politics during the Reagan years in "Manufacturing
Consent" is sharp as a tack.
Actually, it's laughable. Despite all Chomsky's alleged "filters"
(which somehow fail to weed out the 80% of journalists who describe
themselves as left-leaning), the press was extremely anti-Reagan.
From the logically farcical method Chomsky "proves" his point
(finding any two situtations that were reported differently and
pretending they have anything at all to do with each other), I
doubt even he really believes what he wrote in that book.
|11.23.05 @ 10:29AM|#
"Am I wrong in thinking that H&R used to have more
intellectually stimulating discussions and fewer flame wars?"
Yes, they were. There were a few months there when the discussions
were quite good, shortly after a certain banning.
Then, a couple months ago, the started to go downhill.
You never read it, did you ToolDave?
gaius marius|11.23.05 @ 11:45AM|#
the press was extremely anti-Reagan
now that IS a grand revision of history to satisfy a persecution
complex! "the great communicator" -- the cameras actually hated
him, you know... lol.
Am I wrong in thinking that H&R used to have more
intellectually stimulating discussions and fewer flame wars?
it's a product of increased popularity, imo. the more people you
attract ot the board, inevtiably the more likely it is that you'll
attract silly people. and silly people tend to be the loudest, of
course.
|11.23.05 @ 11:54AM|#
Then, a couple months ago, the started to go
downhill.
Speak for yourself, commie pinko booger-eater.
|11.23.05 @ 12:07PM|#
"Am I wrong in thinking that H&R used to have more
intellectually stimulating discussions and fewer flame wars?"
It did, but that was years ago. Too clubby nowadays.
|11.23.05 @ 12:25PM|#
It did, but that was years ago. Too clubby
nowadays.
Yeah, back in the old days it was a freakin' symposium.
...Gimmie a break. ...How our memories glorify the past!
|11.23.05 @ 12:57PM|#
"Yeah, back in the old days it was a freakin' symposium."
It could actually ocassionally be a symposium. People like John
Hood, who just had an article for Reason.com used to post pretty
regularly. Even the lefties here were smart people like SM
Koppelman or Kevin Carson. Both a little crazy at times, but
compare them to M1EK and joe. Also, the writers used to mix it up
more often. It was a far more interesting place.
"...Gimmie a break. ...How our memories glorify the past!"
Eh, disagree if you want, but it was better by any standard I can
think of - more intelligent and informed commenters, more
interesting discussions, more humorous.
|11.25.05 @ 4:49PM|#
more humorous
Um, you may have a point on some of the other stuff, but I don't
think the humor has gone downhill at all.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245