New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | December 27, 2005

Cathy Young finds enough venom in politics to spatter both sides of the aisle.

Comments

MP|12.27.05 @ 11:24AM|#

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

|12.27.05 @ 11:31AM|#

Having just come back from holidays and families, this kind of bickering ought to sound familiar to most of us!

"It's your fault cuz you did ..."
"No, but that's not nearly as bad as when you..."
"How can you say that, when you ..."

:-/

|12.27.05 @ 11:31AM|#

"zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

No shit. Seems like every Cathy Young article talks about the same thing over and over again.

|12.27.05 @ 11:36AM|#

Aaaarrrgggghhhh!

I clicked on the link, thinking that maybe, just maybe, there might be something in the article besides the same brain dead "pox on both their houses" pablum Young's been mailing in for the past year.

And now I feel like an idiot. No, Charlie Brown, I'm really going to hold the football for you this time. Some people say...but other people say...

I used to like Cathy Young's pieces.

|12.27.05 @ 11:45AM|#

You know, I have no disagreement with "a pox on the kooks in both your houses." I totally agree.

But I figure that by now we're already well aware that both sides have their kooks. Having identified the kooks, how about if we agree to ignore them from now on?

Yeah, I know, they just make for such juicy targets. OK, my thought on Malkin: I saw her on CSPAN once, and she was talking about all the hate mail she gets, and using it to draw conclusions about one side. Gee, what were the odds that a political writer might get hate mail?

Hell, I'll bet that even Weird Al Yankovic gets hate mail. But you don't hear him claim that parodies are so much better than the original songs, and anybody who prefers the original song is a traitor who hates America.

|12.27.05 @ 11:45AM|#

I gotta say, I remember liking some of Cathy's recent columns. When she's not writing about the kooks she's really good.

|12.27.05 @ 11:53AM|#

Both sides on reason have their kooks. For instance, there's joe. And on the other side, there's Hitler. Or something like that.

MP|12.27.05 @ 11:55AM|#

Both sides on reason have their kooks. For instance, there's joe. And on the other side, there's Hitler. Or something like that.

Somebody apparently forgot to put the rum in Cathy's egg nog.

|12.27.05 @ 11:56AM|#

Is the term "lib" really a slur? If so, does that imply that the term "liberal" is a slur? What non-slur term may we use to describe, say, Cindy Sheehan? Does anyone object to "progressive?" Can we shorten that to "prog?"

As to Rove's claim that some folks wanted to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," I'm pretty sure there exist some indisputable examples of that, but I'm not going to take the time to look them up.

I guess what many of us ought to try to do is to avoid broad-brushing entire groups of people with the idiocies of a few. Not every Dem is Ward Churchill, and not every conservative is James Dobson.

|12.27.05 @ 12:06PM|#

Not every Dem is Ward Churchill, and not every conservative is James Dobson.

Are these equivalent extremists? I tend to think so, but you never see Ward Churchill get the same media time without shrieking caveats that Dobson does. Oops...I just forgot that we were supposed to be bending over backwards to pretend that nutjobs on both sides of the aisle are treated equally.

|12.27.05 @ 12:15PM|#

I like Cathy's columns--please remember that she's writing for the Boston Globe, where perhaps the readers are less exposed to her ideas than the H&R website. Cathy's a unique voice in MSM.

|12.27.05 @ 12:49PM|#

No shit. Seems like every Cathy Young article talks about the same thing over and over again.

I'm sure new readers might be interested in some of these "overview" articles that she provides; "Reason" is not just supposed to preach to the choir, IMHO.

|12.27.05 @ 1:09PM|#

Far from being unique, the "pox on both houses" stance is the backbone of the mainstream media.

Remember when there was just no way to tell how much of Bush's tax cut proposal would go to the wealthiest one percent, because the Republicans and Democrats put out conflicting analyses?

|12.27.05 @ 1:11PM|#

...besides the same brain dead "pox on both their houses"...

Yes, because only a moron wouldn't see that American liberals and Democrats are perfect, sinless, creatures who would never dream of telling people how to live their lives. Right, joe?

|12.27.05 @ 1:31PM|#

No, Akira, but only a moron would read my statement as having anything to do with your interpretation.

|12.27.05 @ 2:33PM|#

And only an antagonistic jackass would imply that Akira is a moron.

(This is why vitriol will never disappear from politics. It's too much fun.)

dhex|12.27.05 @ 2:34PM|#

well, in cathy's defense, it is amusing to see just how far from reality the participants in a particular debate - like the war on some drugs that segram's doesn't sell - happen to be at any given time. the manichean nonsense - liberals hate bush v. bushitler mchalliburton - that defines our political age is deeply tiring to people who don't particularly cheer for one puppet billionaire over another.

Ashish George|12.27.05 @ 2:35PM|#

"It is said that there are no atheists in foxholes; perhaps there are no true libertarians in times of terrorist attacks."-- Cathy Young, September 24th, 2001

That`s libertarian hall-of-shame stuff, folks. And almost as discouraging: No else at Reason called her out for it.

dhex|12.27.05 @ 2:36PM|#

edit: that should read liberals who hate america.

sorry.

i mean, it's fucking ridiculous. couldn't we just build a pundit supercollider? imagine michael moore smashing into michelle malkin at a gazillion miles per second!

|12.27.05 @ 2:47PM|#

Has Dobson ever lied about his resume, as Churchill did? Anyway, I don't see the media bending over backwards to favor Dobson; his main media exposure lately was being falsely accused of having called Spongebob gay.

|12.27.05 @ 2:50PM|#

Is your last name really Kabala? You poor bastard.

|12.27.05 @ 2:55PM|#

"Not every Dem is Ward Churchill, and not every conservative is James Dobson." I think this statement is absolutely true as it stands, but since a couple of folks objected to my choice of Dobson, how about this instead:

"Not every Dem is Ward Churchill, and not every conservative is Bill O'Reilly."

|12.27.05 @ 3:45PM|#

But I figure that by now we're already well aware that both sides have their kooks. Having identified the kooks, how about if we agree to ignore them from now on?

I'm happy to ignore the kooks. I'm waiting for the mainstreams (that is, the actual ones with power and significant numbers of votes) of either party to show themselves to be worth throwing in with. You know, crazy stuff like saying "If elected, we'll undo every civil liberty and human rights-violating policy Bush's administration and Congress enacted since late 2001" with no fingers crossed.

Until then, I say poxes a-plenty.

|12.27.05 @ 3:49PM|#

Eric, the difference between you and Cathy Young is that you're saying a pox on people more important than Michelle Malkin and Michael Moore.

|12.27.05 @ 4:10PM|#

Eric, the difference between you and Cathy Young is that you're saying a pox on people more important than Michelle Malkin and Michael Moore.

I consider Howard Dean and Karl Rove (mentioned early in Young's article) more important than Malkin and Moore, so I'm not so sure of that. But I think I'm saying pox on more people than you are, if I understood you correctly.

|12.27.05 @ 5:02PM|#

This "pundit supercollider" idea is a good one. I'd send $20 to someone who would do an animated version of it.

|12.28.05 @ 12:06AM|#

I think Cathy Young's type of analysis could be quite enlightening for people like *Boston Globe* readers. It's also useful for those of us who have to listen to their Republican and Democratic friends talk about the universe in terms of the Sons of Light (Democrats or Republicans, as the case may be) versus the Sons of Darkness (Republicans if I'm talking to a Democrat, Democrats if a Republican). It's nice to see someone take shots at this two-party bipolarity.

There are plenty of people with an intuitive sense that the two-party thing has been taken to absurd lengths, but Young provides chapter and verse, which is much better. Let's not roll our eyes and say "that's so obvious" -- there's clearly a passionate constiuency out there which *does* hold some form of the bipolar worldview Young patiently refutes, so Young is doing necessary work documenting the silliness.

With all the columnists out there who devote their time to elaborating some form of the Sons of Light/Sons of Darkness theory, shouldn't there be someone who defends the "plague o' both your houses" perspective?

(David Broder is not the answer to this problem, because his approach is to urge the Republicans and Democrats forget their petty differences and unite against their common enemy, the public.)

joe:

"Far from being unique, the 'pox [sic] on both houses' stance is the backbone of the mainstream media.

"Remember when there was just no way to tell how much of Bush's tax cut proposal would go to the wealthiest one percent, because the Republicans and Democrats put out conflicting analyses?"

Of course the mainstream media have a liberal bias, but that bias doesn't contaminate *every* story. Sometimes the liberal bias is overcome by a respect for truth. Sometimes the liberal bias is overcome by some more powerful bias. In the case of tax policy, the liberal bias can be overcome by a bias in favor of being lazy and letting others research the economics involved.

|12.28.05 @ 12:08AM|#

"chapter and verse, which is much better."

I mean, better than mere intuition.