Apologize-apalooza
Bill Maher writes for the NYT about the recent slew of bullshit apologies and the demand that people make them:
THIS week, Robert De Niro made a joke about first ladies, and Newt Gingrich said it was "inexcusable and the president should apologize for him." Of course, if something is "inexcusable," an apology doesn't make any difference, but then again, neither does Newt Gingrich.Mr. De Niro was speaking at a fund-raiser with the first lady, Michelle Obama. Here's the joke: "Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?"
...This week, President Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, described Mitt Romney's constant advertising barrage in Illinois as a "Mittzkrieg," and instantly the Republican Jewish Coalition was outraged and called out Mr. Axelrod's "Holocaust and Nazi imagery" as "disturbing." Because the message of "Mittzkrieg" was clear: Kill all the Jews. Then the coalition demanded not only that Mr. Axelrod apologize immediately but also that Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz "publicly rebuke" him. For a pun! For punning against humanity!
The answer to whenever another human being annoys you is not "make them go away forever." We need to learn to coexist, and it's actually pretty easy to do. For example, I find Rush Limbaugh obnoxious, but I've been able to coexist comfortably with him for 20 years by using this simple method: I never listen to his program. The only time I hear him is when I'm at a stoplight next to a pickup truck.
When the lady at Costco gives you a free sample of its new ham pudding and you don't like it, you spit it into a napkin and keep shopping. You don't declare a holy war on ham.
I don't want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone. That's why we have Canada.
"The only time I hear him is when I'm at a stoplight next to a pickup truck."
And that sums up why he's worth about a tenth (just guessing) of Rush: his contempt for Americans.
This guy shows it every time, and he insists on a double standard, vending every nastiness and pretending that's the example of free speech everyone should aspire to.
Radwaste at March 26, 2012 12:52 AM
Demands for apologies don't bother me. The Obama apology tour does. He thinks he can apologize for things I didn't do? He thinks he's empowered to apologize for me? I am sorry he thinks that way, because he is wrong.
I don't expect him to apologize for the Watts riots. Contrary to what the left thinks of conservatives, I don't think he was there, I don't think he rioted, and I don't think he should apologize for anything he didn't do.
He has enough to apologize for. He could start by firing Holder and apologizing to Mexico for the more than three hundred Mexican citizens killed by guns his justice department sold to the cartels.
I'd bet my job that that is not happening soon.
MarkD at March 26, 2012 4:45 AM
> The answer to whenever another human being
> annoys you is not "make them go away forever."
Sometimes people on the left say that, and sometimes they say this:
Which do you think most sincerely represents the liberal outlook on political engagement?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 26, 2012 5:24 AM
Of course, Bill Maher will never feel obliged to apologize for being a sneering, strutting, vainglorious, contemptible douchebag.
damaged justice at March 26, 2012 5:34 AM
The Obama apology tour does. He thinks he can apologize for things I didn't do? He thinks he's empowered to apologize for me?
Clinton was the master of apologizing for things while not taking personal responsibility for them. My favorite was when he apologized for the lack of action in the first world in Rwanda. He used the passive voice and third person "mistakes were made" mode, which was particularly notable because he was the one in charge at the time!
Astra at March 26, 2012 6:44 AM
He wouldn't be saying this if his tit hadn't got caught in the wringer that was set out for Rush Limbaugh. Maher is misogynist creep.
BlogDog at March 26, 2012 6:55 AM
Also:
Flip a coin to decide which to read first. Done? OK.
[Heads.] A perfect example of why the trend of comedians in politics is to be loathed. Does he really mean that Canada is a place where nobody says offensive things? (Well, no.) Does he mean that "we have" Canada as some sort of backup plan in our project of making the United States more excellent, or that God has given us this neighbor as a casual afterthough? (Well, no, he doesn't mean that either.) Does he mean anything at all?
Well, no, he doesn't. That last line is just a comedian's way of reminding you that he won't be held accountable for any of this.
Teenagers (and fools) adore this kind of political instruction, because they think it means they're isolated from the responsibility of the rhetoric... So that it doesn't matter what Maher said about Palin.
But in adult life, it does.
[Tails.] Even when reviewed as a piece of humor, that line is sarcastic, faux-naive, and bitter... Again, the characteristics of a witless teenager seeking to avoid sincerity, and therefore responsibility. That's how it works with lefties... They can't tell a joke for its own sake. It has to express some resentment towards someone.
They're not really into joy... Their lives are just grumbling bundles of hurt.
Crid at March 26, 2012 6:55 AM
I prefer Maher's conversations to Rush's blatherings any day. Maher will at least have people on that differ in their views and can defend themselves (I've seen Hitchens and Gillespie rock his show).
Rush has had few guests, and never any that disagreed with him. Rush won't debate anybody. He's a big wussy. He just tries to snipe targets. He is a pretty shitty standard bearer for "conservatism" compared to Buckley. Buckley would debate anyone. Can't stress enough how much of a wussy Rush is.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 6:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/26/apologize-apalo.html#comment-3099890">comment from CridCome on, my own joke about Canada, after 9/11, was that Americans in Europe should pretend to be Canadian because Canadians are too boring (ie, inoffensive) to be of interest to terrorists.
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 7:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/03/26/apologize-apalo.html#comment-3099891">comment from AbersouthMaher will at least have people on that differ in their views and can defend themselves (I've seen Hitchens and Gillespie rock his show).
I haven't been on the more recent show, but I did Politically Incorrect a lot. They wanted disagreement and they liked me because I'm disagreeable...uh, er...because I have strong opinions that run contrary to what's PC.
Amy Alkon at March 26, 2012 7:03 AM
> Can't stress enough how much of a wussy Rush is.
You can rest tonight knowing that you've tried. It's still the case that for all his humor (which is professional, offered without the reassurance of audience feedback, and I think effective), Rush is sincere and nuanced in his arguments in a way that Maher is not. It's preposterous to call a guest shot on a comedian's program a "debate", when audience of hundreds is begging for an opportunity to laugh, or at least snicker about something, before trotting off to dinner at Appleby's.
Of all the attributes you might ascribe to Maher, courage is perhaps the weirdest... This guy's entire life has been devoted to tracking populist sentiment by the millisecond.
In parlance, "Timing". It's everything.
> my own joke about Canada
You missed the point.
Crid at March 26, 2012 7:19 AM
Nuanced humor like calling a girl advocating for contraceptive medicine to treat ovarian cysts a slut? (I don't agree with her position on healthcare, but Rush is a real POS trying to turn her testimony into that of a slut begging for freebies)
Good thing I didn't call Maher courageous. And Rush tracks his own populist sentiment by the day. Maher's humor is also professional (he gets paid) and I think often effective.
I've seen what I would call closer to debates on Maher's show much more than anything by Rush. Few and far between, to be sure (and I don't regularly watch the show), but they happen. People disagree and get rough versions of their argument out. Rush lives in his bunker bubble of conservatism.
Maher sneers, Rush is an asshole.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/why-does-rush-limbaugh-get-away-with-calling-a-young-woman-a-slut/253903/
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 7:42 AM
"The only time I hear him is when I'm at a stoplight next to a pickup truck."
So, pickup truck = Rush Limbaugh...so if we can just get rid of the trucks...hmmm. Yesss. Excellent.
Pricklypear at March 26, 2012 8:22 AM
I deal with Maher the same way Maher deals with Rush: I change the channel as quickly as possible.
Nick at March 26, 2012 8:27 AM
The conservative blogosphere does routinely criticize Bill Maher for his statements, but that's all it is. What the true story here is the Liberal hypocrisy. The Left want Rush Limbaugh sued and fired after forcing an apology yet they remain silent on Maher's even more offensive language against conservative women, especially Sarah Palin. That is why there's a call for Obama to return Maher's million dollar donation, not for what Maher said but for quid pro quo if the Liberals believe Rush should be fired for his freedom of speech.
hadsil at March 26, 2012 9:38 AM
"Nuanced humor like calling a girl advocating for contraceptive medicine to treat ovarian cysts a slut? (I don't agree with her position on healthcare, but Rush is a real POS trying to turn her testimony into that of a slut begging for freebies)"
Umm, what is "nuanced" about that. It's the reality. (And it wasn't her cysts, it was her unnamed friend's cyst)
She isn't “advocating” anything that looks like it should be found in the same sentence as “health” or “women”, so let's get that straight right off the bat.
She WAS however, there on behalf of another ANONYMOUS law student's ALLEGED uterine ailments (if true, which I doubt, this was presumably yet another privileged welfare princess attending the rather expensive and prestigious law school unaccompanied by a swarthy mafia type holding a gun pointed at her head?)
This was nothing short of political Kabuki porn for the mentally challenged. It was perhaps the most transparent cases of situational irony packaged as “Feminism” - we've seen to date. She deserves to be mocked. And mocked harshly for what she is doing and for what she represents. She is by all and every definition a political slut begging for freebies and showcasing the need for special government programs like Obamacare (written by lobbyists from Drug and Healthcare monopolies) that involve the theft of my money by government henchmen.
Never mind that this Pelosi-esque-political-Cora Pearl enjoys a less than difficult lifestyle with her very wealthy socialist boyfriend - (since 2009, I believe she's had three romps through Europe). Surely if affordability were the case, her beau would be kicking down some Benjamin’s. Rather, she wants the government pimps to hold a gun to my head and take the money from me and give it to her because she and her privileged friends can’t be bothered to squirrel away $10 bucks a month for contraceptives or have their boyfriends provide rubbers. In English: She wants FREEBIES and she wants them TAKEN, without PERMISSION, from ME - without asking.
It's criminal. It’s evil. And it is the ANTITHESIS of what modern day feminism was supposed to bring about. Sexual freedom. She’s fucking everything up – yet, she’s got the microphone, and she’s asserting herself as the spokesperson for women everywhere so fuck her, slut.
Hey, Ms. Fluke, how bout I pay for you, and all your friend’s birth control in exchange for the over-priced (politically backed scholarship) law school education I could never afford and we'll call it even...Slut.
Feebie at March 26, 2012 9:47 AM
Here's what Camille Paglia said about Rush in 2009 in Salon. I agree with her.
President Obama — in whom I still have great hope and confidence — has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.
Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.
Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his “Barack the Magic Negro” satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about “feminazis,” whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush’s show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience — and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base.
If Rush’s presence looms too large for the political landscape, it’s because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn’t responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.
And I’m sick of people impugning Rush’s wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big — Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn’t run with the elite — he goes his own way.
Ally at March 26, 2012 9:52 AM
"If only" Rush did his show the way I want him to do his show. Then I would listen to him. Yeah, right.
I don't agree with anything Rush says so I don't listen to him. If I listened to him I might agree with something he says. I know all about Rush. I wonder if Abersouth knows that is how he sounds.
Dave B at March 26, 2012 10:03 AM
Good luck appealing to people with arguments like that Feebie. In actuality, I agree with you about the injustice inherent in Flukes sense of healthcare policy. But the venom inherent in your reply won't win over anybody. And just because I think Fluke is wrongheaded doesn't mean she should be called a slut, in a political or literal sense.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 10:12 AM
@ Dave B
I do know how he sounds. My mother and father listen to him regularly. My father puts him on at job sites all the time, and sometimes I work with him. I've had to listen to him since approximately 1998 on 850 koa out of Denver. I much prefer Mike Rosen who comes on before him (likely because he has obviously modeled his show on Buckleys Firing Line and will debate anyone - look up how he took CU Boulder professor Ward Churchill to task for academic fraudulence and his infamous "little Eichmann" comments). How else can I prove that I have listened to him?
I also remember the moment I decided I couldn't stand him. At some job site, I remember how he mocked Jane Goodall. Mockery seems to be Rushes stock in trade. I had just read three of Goodalls books about chimpanzee behavior in the wild, and she is a very smart individual concerning that. I don't look for expertise from people outside their realm of expertise, but the way Rush lampooned her, totally over a nothing comment that she made at some fundraiser to raise money for chimpanzees was just callous. I remember being turned off by him right there. He didn't seem to have any curiosity about the world. Just wanted to engage in culture war and call Goodall an environmental whacko.
I never learned much of anything from Rush.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 10:30 AM
"I never learned much of anything from Rush."
Obviously.
Dave B at March 26, 2012 10:53 AM
Please, oh wise Dave B, do share just a sliver of the monumentous pile of knowledge you have learned from he who has talent on loan from God and is dean of the Advanced Institute for conservative studies.
Teach me something weasel.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 11:01 AM
If you don't like Limbaugh, or Maher, or Mr. Rogers, or whomever: don't listen.
If you're truly offended and want to take action, whether it's boycotting a TV network, a radio station, sponsors, whomever, do that too.
Neither concept is complicated, but I'm weary of those who feel the need to categorize themselves as LEFT RIGHT not seeing that the other side behaves in the exact same way. Blow-a-gasketers, from any point on the political spectrum, are a bore.
Kevin at March 26, 2012 11:03 AM
I liked it, venom and all.
You see, Feebie gets it. There is no virtue in advocating government confiscation of someone else's money in order appease your own conscience.
If Fluke felt so strongly about preventing her supposed friend's ovarian cysts, she could have given up a trip to Europe or two and used the money to help her friend pay for the medication she needs. She could have recommended her friend go to a cheaper law school and use the tuition differential to pay for the medication she needs.
But Fluke was lying ... and she knew it. She exaggerated the prevalence of ovarian cysts and exaggerated the cost of prescription contraceptives.
And the people who gave her the national forum in which to do so knew she was lying.
The Catholic Church already allows for using and/or providing contraceptives for non-contraceptive medical needs (i.e., ovarian cysts).
I'm willing to bet that if someone looked into it, they'd find that Georgetown University already provides prescription contraceptives for medical reasons (i.e., to prevent ovarian cysts) and has no conflict with the Catholic Church in doing so.
Conan the Grammarian at March 26, 2012 11:40 AM
"Teach me something weasel."
Probably not possible since you haven't "learned much of anything" from the "Dean of the Advanced Institute for Conservative Studies."
"But the venom inherent in your reply won't win over anybody. And just because I think Fluke is wrongheaded doesn't mean she should be called a slut, in a political or literal sense."
Was there venom in your calling me a weasel?
"I do know how he sounds."
See my comment at 10:03 AM. You misunderstood what I said. I was referring to you, not Rush.
Dave B at March 26, 2012 11:48 AM
Conan, were you converted from an opposing view into Feebies perspective? No. You weren't even on the fence about it. It appealed to a view you already hold.
Again, I agree with the argument. I loathe socialized medicine. It opens the door for massive government intrusion and is the end of anything resembling limited government. I just don't think hysterical seeming rants will win over anyone. It doesn't sell the argument.
I realize I've vented on this and other blogs before, so don't think I'm trying to posture as someone without sin.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 11:55 AM
@Dave B
Way to hide in a bunker Dave. Here you have a professed willing applicant desiring to learn something, anything that El Rushbo has taught you, and you didn't even attempt to bunt. Did he teach you how to be a wuss?
There isn't venom in my calling you a weasel. I think it adequately describes your unwillingness to engage in a real discussion. If Rush has redeeming qualities, list them. Show me where I fail in seeing them. Defend him.
I see you were talking about me now at 10:03. No biggie. Seems sort of weasilish to ascribe an attitude I don't have to me. Whatever. Rush is who he is, isn't changing, and it seems pointless to me to go on a tangent of if only he were different, things would be different. He is his show. Reminds me of the narrator of Notes From Underground, just Rush has found a way to make money griping.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 12:25 PM
What Feebie said.
The WolfMan at March 26, 2012 12:45 PM
"I think it adequately describes your unwillingness to engage in a real discussion."
I don't think you know what that means.
"If Rush has redeeming qualities, list them. Show me where I fail in seeing them. Defend him."
You claim to listen to, and know all about, Rush. Then you say you do not see any redeeming qualities in him. Then you appear to dare me to defend him. Do you realize how nutty you sound?
"Whatever. Rush is who he is, isn't changing, and it seems pointless to me to go on a tangent of if only he were different, things would be different."
Obviously you have your mind made up on Rush yet you want me to change your mind about him. You are sounding nuttier.
"Here you have a professed willing applicant desiring to learn something, anything that El Rushbo has taught you"
Then you have me, someone who does not think you desire such a thing. You are a phony. If you truly did you would go about it in a friendly manner.
"I see you were talking about me now at 10:03. No biggie. Seems sort of weasilish to ascribe an attitude I don't have to me."
You do not understand what I wrote at 10:03 AM. I did not "ascribe an attitude" to you. I was simply stating how you sound.
Dave B at March 26, 2012 12:52 PM
@Dave B
I do not claim to know all about Rush. You claim that I claim that, weasel. I don't see anything redeeming about him, and therefore I don't listen to him when given the choice.
I have made up my mind to the extant that I don't think Rush is worth listening too. I haven't closed it. And you haven't stepped up to the plate giving me a reason why I ought to listen to him.
In this exchange, I do believe it was you who first cast a stone trying to cast me as a whacko or something at 10:03. Or is that whole comment just filled to the brim with friendliness and I'm too dumb to understand? Seems pretty disparaging to me. Then you have the gall to say I ought to bring things up in a friendly manner. Some paragon of decency you are.
You did ascribe an attitude to me. What else could the first sentence of that comment mean? And the rest? Do you mean what you say? You seam like a grand little weasel to me.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 1:17 PM
Abersouth, I did see that we're on the same side of the argument on socialized medicine.
However, I disagree that an emotion-based argument has no place in this debate. Not as long as the other side keeps bringing out a parade of sufferers and victims to evoke pity and spur demands that somebody do something to help them.
Not as long as that parade of sufferers continues to define the "progressives" as the party of compassion because they want to help the sufferers (using someone else's money).
Too many "progressives" frame their arguments in terms of "pity the poor..." and demand that we cave into their sentimental argument - in the name of fairness or social justice (without ever defining what social justice actually is).
Generally, the people arguing against socializing things don't put it bluntly that all these government programs are paid for with money taken from someone who worked for it (and who may be struggling to keep his own head above water).
He's working hard and making the sound financial choices (delayed gratification) while money taken from him goes to funding programs that aid "victims" (like a certain spoiled 30-year-old Georgetown Law student) avoid having to make that choice or even face the consequences of choosing not to delay gratification.
Not enough anti-socialization folks frame their arguments in terms that make it personal for the poor sap stuck with the bill for yet another government program to help yet another victim who demands "fairness" and "social justice."
Feebie made her argument on the emotional level and, in doing so, reminded those for whom a rational argument doesn't get across that it's our money that Sandra Fluke is demanding for her use.
Limbaugh crudely attempted to do the same thing. He tried to point out that Fluke is demanding our money for her use. That she was demanding the rest of us provide funding so she could avoid the paying for - and avoid the consequences - of her choice.
His joke fell flat and unfortunately, in his crude attempt at humor, he also gave the Left a straw man "war on women" and provided publicity for yet another "social justice" activist who was unheard of until then.
=========================
If politicians start getting wind of growing middle-class taxpayer unrest, they might start thinking about how they're spending the middle-class' money.
That growing unrest is what the Tea Party is all about.
And, bombast that he is, Rush Limbaugh can be effective in channeling that unrest and voicing it to politicians that no longer listen to mere voters like you or me.
Conan the Grammarian at March 26, 2012 2:10 PM
"Teach me something weasel."
Is that an example of the free exchange of ideas, or just the alternative when there's no way to shout someone down?
If you want a clue about how to behave, look around and see what others are doing, and see what part you want of it.
If you excuse Maher of anything, you have no complaint re Rush. None.
So, check yourself.
Radwaste at March 26, 2012 2:43 PM
Abersouth. I am done being nice and rational while the treasury is being pilfered by thieves and people like Ms. Fluke are willingly assisting these fascists while they shackle us to a post.
I hate, HATE how these statists demand not only that I not resist their unlawful force, but that i do it quitely while giving them a smile and say "thank you" while I'm being made to eat their shit sandwiches. No more.
It is evil to force someone else (either you or some third party) to pay for someone doses lifestyle choices or consequences for their own actions. It is amoral. And I AM pissed. I already give half of my paycheck to the government!! How much is enough?!?!
I can't even tell you how livid this woman makes me!!! She is a complete sell out. She is a liar. Yet she gets the exposure and the authority bestowed on her to speak for all "woman". Fuck that!!! She doesn't speak for me. Not even close.
Slut! Slut! Slut!
Feebie at March 26, 2012 3:45 PM
What Feebie said.
The WolfMan at March 26, 2012 4:36 PM
@Conan
I follow your argument all through Limbaugh crudely trying to explain the same sort of argument Feebie makes. I still don't see that argument winning converts over. Also, Rush is polarizing, and any side he takes in a debate is sure to push a lot of otherwise reasonable people away, even if he is correct. He is a lightning rod, which I think makes him at best a sort of frenemy to the best parts of the tea party movement. More to follow on Rush channeling plebeian unrest.
@Radwaste
What did Dave B mean with his comment at 10:03? Am I completely tone deaf, or was it not a snide comment designed to raise my hackle? I'm talking about his comment, not yours. I read his initial comment quick, and responded to what I thought he asked, if I ever listened to Rush. I didn't write a single unfriendly thing in my reply. I didn't harbor any unfriendly thoughts at the time. I guess you'll have to take me at my word there. How did he reply? I wouldn't call it friendly. I responded in a way attempting to challenge him to show me what is good in Rush Limbaugh. I called him a weasel at the end, not really unfriendly where I come from. Just something I will call anyone who tries to twist out of honest arguing. What did he do but answer in a weasel like fashion at 11:48. He probably couldn't teach me something because I hadn't already learned it, he said. Asked if I had venom, I still answer no, then told me I misunderstood his original comments last sentence.
I re-read it and finally got that he was being an ass. He in his last sentence at 10:03 disowns the first six in a disingenuous way. It casts aspersions with out having to own what you are saying. My throw away comment of calling him a weasel really came true. Did I induce his contempt before 10:03? I don't think so. I was arguing forthrightly. He made snide comments that I didn't catch. Then, after 11:48 I sorta got torqued. I started defending myself and calling him a weasel more.
I don't think I have to justify anything about my 1:17 comment. It stands on it's own merits.
And then we come to directly addressing your comment. I didn't write that in a way to shout Dave B down. Unbeknownst to me, he already was an ass to me at 10:03. I thought I was playfully inviting him to prove me wrong. He didn't. He played the weasel. I don't think I need a clue as to how to behave around here. I'm not looking to make friends. I like arguments and enjoy differing perspectives getting hashed out here on the blog frequently. I've been around for years and think I get along with others well enough. And your statement about having the same pox on both the houses of Rush and Maher is wrong. It is a false if/then. If you care to read, perhaps you'll notice I didn't exactly champion Maher anyways. I said "Maher will at least have people on that differ in their views and can defend themselves. . .Not exactly a booming endorsement. I wrote that as compared to Rush who toots his horn on his own forum always attacking others but never having to defend anything he posits himself. His prerogative, whatever, doesn't bother me that he does it. I think it makes him a wuss.
Have I checked myself sufficiently?
Now, finally, I wanted to add that Conans response to me actually made a sort of argument for a redeeming quality of Rush, as a conduit for some unrest about middle class woes. I can sorta buy that, with big quibbles. Like I said, he's polarizing, which doesn't bode well for any across the aisle common cause happenings. That said, How come Dave B couldn't bring something like this up? He didn't engage. I don't care who brings that up. Its a quasi argument for him having some value.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 4:41 PM
Forgot to add that I also defended Maher's humor as being often funny. If I could go back in time I would write it as sometimes funny, but I can't. I would also say I would take him as a dinner guest 7 days of the week compared to Rush. Damn, I endorsed him again. Why does Rush turn me off so? I guess I can see Maher as being pleasant day in and day out. Rush's larger than life personality just doesn't do it for me. Even if I more often agree with Rush on issues than Maher, why can't I stand him?
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 5:12 PM
Perhaps the opening to your earlier statement contains the seeds of an answer to that question, "My mother and father listen to him regularly. My father puts him on at job sites all the time...."
Hmmm. You see as "pleasant" a man who refers to women with whom he disagrees as "c***ts?"
Conan the Grammarian at March 26, 2012 6:02 PM
I thought this one was over... I'll be back to pick fights later. Check in before bedtime! OK, thanx
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 26, 2012 6:12 PM
Ya know. Let us also remember PAlin didn't walk on the scene talking about her vagina or her sexual proclivities. She was a VP political candidate for President of the United States and considering who our current VP is, I think it's safe to say she was a serious contender at that!
Fluke? She divisively chose to insert herself in a very public, hotly contested, political debate by using her sexual activities all the while expecting some type of protection Or no go zone around that topic. Cowardly. Slut!
You know who Fluke reminds me of? Those spineless, manipulative, cowardly women who think they can kick a man in the nuts and expect not to receive a right hook in return , because men shouldn't hit women.... Dontcha know?!
There is a difference. To not recognize this is intellectually dishonest.
Feebie at March 26, 2012 6:29 PM
When I wrote I saw Maher as being pleasant day in and out, I didn't mean for that to be an endorsement of everything he has ever said. Yes, his calling Palin a cunt is uncalled for, and the legacy media seems to have largely given him a pass on that. There is a liberal bias. I think his calling her that is repulsive. Is everybody happy about that now? Have I shown my bonafides? I could still see my self having a beer with Maher in (shudder of shudders) Applebee's after a show, watching him sip a Heineken while I downed some beer with a bit more taste. I can't imagine doing that with Rush. Can anyone here? I won't defend anyones indefensible remarks. But I still see him as basically more genial than Rush. Is that so wrong? I would love to hear some input from the only one that I know has had any interaction with Maher. Is or was he basically genial? Or am I just swimming with sharks.
I think surmising that my disinclination to Rush because my parents listen to him is silly. I don't like him because I don't care for what he says and the bombastic way he delivers it. Also, I haven't learned anything from him of substance (yes, i changed my phrasing from earlier, take note!) and he seems to love engaging in a culture war that I don't care for at all. I don't buy the shit he peddles.
I can see the differences between Fluke and Palin and their inquisitors (if that isn't too strong a word). Can't say I really care for either. I would never vote for anyone like Fluke under any circumstances for any office and I would only vote for Palin for low level offices if I absolutely had to. Based on dirt that came up in her vetting (while considering the sources). If you feel differently, ok. Thankfully she isnt on any tickets right now where I would have to hold my nose. She isn't all roses and everything wonderful herself. Not really a tangent I care to indulge.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 7:23 PM
Sorry. The question near the end of the first paragraph of my last comment submitted was directed at Amy. Did you find Maher basically genial? Sorry to request your assistance in a discussion to attempt to settle what is to me a picayune. But such is life on the Internets, and this is your blog and you seem to be in a position where you can shed clarity where I so abundantly fail.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 7:29 PM
Da weasel is back. Had to do a few chores. Abersout you still do not understand what I wrote at 10:03 AM. That's OK since it pissed you off. At my age pissing off a progressive a day makes life worthwhile.
I wish I was as eloquent as Freebie, Conan et al. Years ago I was - a little feeble now days. Oh yeah, and Crid, see what I mean. I would never put Crid in an et al.
P.S. - Aber, if you could, try to be pithy. I cannot concentrate long enough to read you screeds.
P.S.S. - Aber, you are probably overreacting because of our history. We went at it once before. You made as much sense then.
Dave B at March 26, 2012 8:10 PM
I watched both Limbaugh and Maher when they had TV shows. I then sort of took a hiatus from both sides and the political scene, but have always been more right leaning.
About 2 years ago I bought a new car and SirusXM in the process. I now listen to the Patriot channel (125) almost exclusively. I can do without some of their hosts. But I have taken the founder's red pill. I would like to see every bit of federal legislation be required to be done with an attribution to where it fits into the U.S. Constitution. *constitutionus.com
That includes everything from ObamaCare, to DOMA, to USDA, to Welfare, to the DOE's or anything else. I'd bet that 90% without the abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause could not find attribution. And even with the ICC and GW clauses 99% would still be ruled not Constitutional.
I think the reason that Limbaugh gets such a response is that is that middle and moderate Americans aren't listened to. I hate to pick on the Trayvon/Zimmerman case -- but if you listen closely to the NBC Ann Curry interview on Monday you here the reference about Zimmerman being 250 pounds. I'm 40 plus, 5'11" and about 250 pounds. Ann initially brings it up. Then when challenged on it, she essentially dismisses it and/or disavows it as an issue. She brought it up as an issue.
I have heard but not sourced that in February there were 49 gun homicides in southwest Chicago. Why isn't this in the news?
This happens repeatedly with everything from the Tea Party to the latest "controversial" incident.
I just want to put perspective on all this.
Jim P. at March 26, 2012 8:20 PM
Gonna get in here, although Feebie is just on fire tonight. Aber, just going to have to disagree with you. I don't care for Limbaugh - I like the way he lays out middle America conservative values, I like that he exists only because those values were not (and are still not) being given a hearing in the MSM, and I LOVE the fact that Lefties are driven to distraction by his continued existence. On their planet. IN THE MEDIA no less. But his politics? I see a man who could be a great voice for a sane policy on drugs(not just because of his position but because of his widely publicized troubles) and I suspect (although I don't listen to him enough to back this up - admitting that up front)that he, like the Left, will merrily turn his back on the constitution if it gets in the way of a policy he endorses.
But as for the whom to have a beer with question, its hands down Limbaugh. This guy is consistently gracious to his callers, has a great sense of humor, lets it all roll off of him, and I really get the sense that in conversation he and I would end agreeing to disagree.
Maher is a malevolent toad and has to be one of the least funny "comedians" to ever claim the title, and I have trouble crediting anyone who see's him as anything else.
The WolfMan at March 26, 2012 8:21 PM
Maher does sort of have a point about the constant demands for apologies for everything. Then again, it's a curious coincidence that he brings this up just as he's being called on the bucket of shit he dumped on Sarah Palin.
As for apologias: I saw one of the worst I've ever seen this week. A baseball player, Matt Bush, was driving drunk and ran over a motorcyclist, and then he left the scene. The guy he hit is in serious condition. I offer the following from his agents, via ESPN:
"Bush's attorney, Russell Kirshy, said the baseball player likely would enter a rehab program once he gets released.
Kirshy said, 'We hope and pray the victim is OK, and we hope and pray we can get Matt back on track.'"
So let's recount:
1. His agents expect him to be released, without charges.
2. They also expect that he'll get a 30-day "rehab" vacation, at his team's expense.
3. They apparently don't even know the name of the guy he hit.
P.S.: This isn't Bush's first time for crashing while DUI and then leaving the scene.
Cousin Dave at March 26, 2012 8:26 PM
P.P.P.S. Fluke is a slut.
P.P.P.P.S. I'd love to have a beer with Rush and most others that post on this board, including the owner (especially the owner - don't worry Gregg, I'm too old to be competition). Mayer and Abersout, not so much.
Dave B at March 26, 2012 8:34 PM
@Dave B
Wish you would give me a hint at what I'm missing.
Where did you piss off a progressive?
No over-reaction here. Just taking a weasel to account. Pithy 'nuff?
P.S. Wish you had substantive rebuttals once. Guess it isn't in you.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 8:39 PM
Yeah, and on the "Slut" thing, I would have advised her to just shut up about that. "Slut" at least is subjective, a matter of opinion. The objective truth is that she is a spoiled, self entitled, over educated, under - candlepowered little hothouse flower who injected herself, her vagina and her straw man arguments into the public square for all to see. That is a whole lot worse.
The WolfMan at March 26, 2012 8:43 PM
What am I supposed to rebut Aber?
Dave B at March 26, 2012 8:46 PM
Gee I wonder Dave. I have no clue. Really none. What could you possibly have to address. Drawing a blank here.
I wasted my time with you. Won't happen again. Have a nice life.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 8:52 PM
> I don't agree with her position on healthcare
You don't want to start with that? Isn't that what this is about?
> Rush is a real POS trying to turn her testimony
> into that of a slut begging for freebies
1. Freebies is exactly what this is about. The people who want all this health care to happen for third parties don't seem to understand that second parties (often themselves) are going to be compelled to pay for it.
2. There are people who don't think they should have to pay for the expression of other people's sexuality, especially as regards birth control... And birth control is what's under discussion. The fact that there are ancillary health benefits is irrelevant: This health care could have implications for the way strangers fuck each other. And there are a lot of profoundly decent people who think that in matters of fucking more than any other, we ought not take part in the fulfillment of strangers. It's more than modesty: The fucking other people do is their own beeswax...
3. ...Right up until the President says you're on the hook whether you like it or not. So, golly, some of less articulate people find themselves being roped into the sexual dramas of strangers, and the word "slut" comes flying out of their lips.
I think if you're surprised by that, you're more naive than a registered voter ought to be; if you're offended, you're prissy and/or isolated and/or authoritarian.
> Maher's humor is also professional (he gets
> paid) and I think often effective.
Here's the best and perhaps funniest thing Maher ever said. We note that its quintessence is a mature, stoic understanding of the world and the weakness of childish spirits. If only he could do more like that.
> Rush lives in his bunker bubble of
> conservatism.
You don't even bother to tell us why we should trust you to have a broader perspective than Limbaugh does. We're just expected to believe it when you imply that you do... But I don't. I think you live "in a bubble" of cowardly, and isolated, egotism. Why shouldn't I? What experiences of the world have you had which should cause us to trust your judgment? Have you built things?.... Businesses, families, houses or parks, anything? Have you traveled through a tremendously diverse array of cultures, testing your understanding of human nature in each? Because we're gonna need some evidence that you're a nice guy.
> I deal with Maher the same way Maher
> deals with Rush: I change the channel
> as quickly as possible.
But you do it better, Nick. (Seriously.) These people are show business figures. When you turn off their media, they essentially cease to exist...
...And anyone then tempted to say that they're worried on behalf of the little people who consume these media will (again) be asked to demonstrated that their own perceptions and virtues are in impeccable, exemplary order... (Fat chance.)
> And it is the ANTITHESIS of what modern
> day feminism was supposed to bring about.
Exactly.
> what Camille Paglia said about Rush
> in 2009 in Salon. I agree with her.
Ally, we need more Paglia readers in here. (BTW, you still married?)
> the venom inherent in your reply won't
> win over anybody
Is being popular what this is about?
What are we to think of people who insist that truths be flattering? In this case, we're talking about policy; Are you like that when presented with challenging information from science, too? Are you like that with cosmology? A lot of religious people are like that... They just can't handle being on a planet like this until they're told that a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being has an intense personal interest in their lives. Goofy, right? So where else are you afraid of "venom"?
> just because I think Fluke is wrongheaded
> doesn't mean she should be called a slut
Then (again) perhaps you need to think carefully about the magnitude and poignance of this policy intrusion. Personally, I think people who say 'Golly, sex is really no big deal' are probably no fun in bed.
> Mockery seems to be Rushes stock
> in trade.
You want a friend, buy a puppy. Public affairs discussions of this kind (by definition) concern things that mean a lot to us. Complaining about the word "slut", while being obvious to the financial, religious and erotic implications of this policy slamdown doesn't recommend you as a perceptive rhetor.
> It doesn't sell the argument.
Virtue and sales are different offices.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 26, 2012 9:32 PM
Finally. Something I can respond to.
I agree with point 1 and get the point of 2. 3 is all over the place but I'll respond to the parts directed at me.
I'm not surprised by the flying sluts. I'm not exactly offended by them, but I do think Rush singling out that student was poor taste. I think he was a POS for doing it. It seemed like the behavior of a bully to me. It galvanized people in her defense. I fail to see how he advanced any conservative cause with his behavior.
No comment on Maher's humor.
Now I get to talk about me, and my bubble of cowardly isolated egotism. Firstly, I should note that I scored an 80 or 84 on Charles Murrays redneck test, depending on the flop of question nine. I've framed four houses and completely built one, for my parents, minus some of the plumbing and electrical and the concrete foundation. So I did the floors, windows, roof, garage doors, drywall, painting, and everything else you can think of. I've done the drywall for more than 25 houses and quite a few business. I've installed over 500 suspended ceilings (some for my own company, most with my old man, who is a pleasure to work with before he starts drinking). I couldn't tell you how many square feet, I would guess well over a million. I've also built more than 25 monopoles for telecommunications companies and 18 self supporting trestle towers for a petroleum company. And when I say built, let me stress installed and tightened every single bolt on each face for over 100 ft, dug and installed the caissons, and layed all rock or whatever was called for in the spec around the tower. Telecom has had me do numerous not so fun jobs. I've painted antennas in a blizzard. Dug trenches by hand in San Antonio summers. I've worked aloft for over 20 hours numerous times. I've worked numerous 80+ hour weeks. I have climbed hundreds of towers for work. Highest I've been is 500ft. Not so fun hauling a rope up that. Ever had cramps in your forearms at 400' at 7am with ten more hours to go? Been there, done that. I've had close calls from previous shoddy workmanship. I've swapped tons (literally) of antennas. You probably would not know what I'm saying. Part owner of that company, and I like it. I've worked in CA, NC, CO, WY, UT, KS, IA, NM, TX, and once in AZ. I've seen a few things. I haven't widely travelled. I have been to Mexico three times and Canada once. I will go to London in October. I've been to many states and know a lot of poor people, and a few well off. Employed up to nine people (two crews) and try to always pay wages on time. Doesn't always happen, because we are too small and been fucked over by turf vendors numerous times. Always pay them when we can. They stick around, so something is working there.
I won't ever get married, so I can't brag about that. I'm not interested in it. I prefer living alone. I really don't like getting tied down. Not just saying that. A very possible reason for that is seeing my parents fight. I won't ever get involved with anyone where I could hurt them. That's another blog. I have a nephew and niece who seem to idolize me and my adventures. I love spoiling them, and making their life a joy. I try to direct them towards interests that may make them useful to somebody someday, but we will see. I have three brothers in what I would call arrested development. Also likely for another blog. What else can I say? I've rebuilt 3 motors, one with my father. I've swapped out six motors, the most recent one being the blown up one in my '98.5 dodge diesel. That wasn't all fun and games. I built a sweet bumper for it specialized to telecom work, for installing a rope winch. I've flown in a B-17 airplane at my own expense when I was sixteen. I'm pretty good at drawing. I spend the majority of my free time reading books. I've read a lot of the classics, and I try to stay aloft of current trends. I have over 2000 books and last I checked, which was a while ago, I had read over 5/8 of them. I would say that is why I sometimes have a cluttered mind.
I've gone to college but the experience didn't really appeal to me. While there I worked as a CNA. I had to care for twelve people per shift and virtually every day I stayed two hours extra for no pay because I wasn't fast and tried to just make each individuals existence there bearable in that hell hole. Hardest job I ever had. I watched a person die in front of me and I couldn't take it anymore. It took a tole on my health. That's when I got into telecom. I've never once taken a handout in my life, and though I've qualified for unemployment, I won't ever accept it.
I engage people when I'm out of the house all the time. I love bars and barflys. My sense of humor in person is rather dry. I like lightening up the mood in groups. I typically avoid confrontation but I've still found myself in a few fistfights. I've never started a fight since middle school but I have ended some. Never been to jail, never driven drunk, and I generally try not to be a dick to people. Not looking for a medal.
Hopefully that suffices as to my humanity. Please forgive if it seems solipsistic.
Venom and popularity. I do think that being popular is what this is about. Unless we get really lucky and the supreme court knocks it all down. Not sure on this, but the other side seems to have the numbers, and the bums are growing. If we can't sell them the idea of personal responsibility, we are all fucked. It's a tough sell.
I don't think truths have to be presented in a flattering way. Nor need they be told in the most offensive way one can think of. I prefer dispassionate discourse as a rule. I get the why and how (and sometimes I partake) passionate recriminative back and forths happen. I would prefer truth straight up when I can get it that way. And if I want to persuade someone of the truth of any assertion I make, I typically don't call them a slut. I do remember telling a person "Fuck You" repeatedly not so long ago on this blog concerning "In God we trust" on printed money, certainly to bang home a point. That's a tangent. I pretty much accept science's (if it can own this) pursuit of the truth in explaining the universe, so I don't know where you are coming from there. I've read a fair share of academics for someone of my age and score on Murrays redneck test.
But then you seem to accuse me of being afraid of venom. I said a few times I get it. I understand why it is personal. They are picking our pocket. Spitting venom isn't going to change their behavior. It isn't useful. If anything, I would argue that it induces (again) them to galvanize up and rally round their flag of what they thinks is women's rights and their other progressive ideas. Is it not enough that I think they are wrong headed? Must I approve or commend calling them sluts? I don't care for this culture war bs so fuck no, I won't join you in castigating them. It has nothing to do with being afraid. I don't think it accomplishes anything.
Pretty good joke about the magnitude and poignance of this policy intrusion. You already know it, but you are brilliant.
Friend puppy we've all heard before. Did you mean to write obvious or oblivious in your second to last point? I'm not really worried about the religious implications(I will admit to a very potential blind spot here, but I bet people who want to will still get married), the erotic is funny but people get layed all over the world and always will. What's most obvious to me, and my chief concern would be the financial implications. I'm not oblivious to them. I've read more than a few economic books, including one by Rothbard, a few by Hayek and Friedman. I follow a lot of economic blogs and I really worry about the future. I'ld never come across the term "rhetor" before tonight. I don't know if it ought to be applied to me. Someday I hope to publish a few books but it won't include any grand sweeping perceptive statements that awe anyone. I won't claim to be super perceptive. I think I'm quite a bit more perceptive than most of my friends, but that's neither here nor there. I'll never have a blog or be part of the professional chattering classes. I will happily attempt to hold them to account though.
Virtue and sales are different, and I happen to think they are intertwined in this mess.
Bottom line-I'm still not comfortable calling anyone sluts or cunts. If that isn't good enough for ya, tough.
Abersouth at March 26, 2012 11:59 PM
I want to make it very clear that I don't think Fluke is a slut because of the amour of men she chooses to sleep with or how many times she does so in a day, week or month.
I am calling this woman a slut deliberately because there should be no protection for women who use their femininity to kick society in the nuts like she is doing. She is using this special protection, she is selling her womanhood out for political purposes -'by doing this she is assisting our gOvernment in taking away what little freedom we have left. That is FUCKED up.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for prostitutes mind you. I think the ones who operate freely are about the most honest human beings put there as far as their impact (lack of impact) on my life. I would never, ever use the word slut to define these women.
Sandra wants to take my freedom away and she wants to do that by being dishonest. She wants to do it through sophistry. She wants the government to hold a gun to my head and confiscate the money from me so she doesn't have to be responsible not only for herself but for any of the details that would actually bring about real and lasting change ( which would let's face it put many in her future chosen Profession out of work).
THAT is why this woman is a slut. I'm done being nice.
Feebie at March 27, 2012 2:38 AM
I thought of a few more things to add about my
life, since Crid asked, and I can't sleep tonight.
I've only worked with one person that I think ever out worked me in attitude and abilities at what I do. I learned a lot from him and he was a grounded Navy Seal. Bad HALO drop put a lot of pins in his feet. It was a bummer when he killed himself.
A small triumph in my life is fighting the law and winning. In college iI had a house party. Before the party I went to all my neighbors and told them what I was going to be having a party, as that seemed like the responsible thing to do. Come 11pm got a knock on the door. Two policeman saying there was a noise complaint. Took the ticket and next day talked to all my neighbors, none of whom called the police. Went to court and represented myself. It felt sweet getting all my neighbors to testify on my behalf, and showing where each lived in relation to my house. Then the cop took the stand. I asked him to say who called the police to complain about noise. Then I got schooled on admissible evidence by the judge and learned I should have done a little more homework for proper procedure. I bungled that part. I got to do closing arguments where I stressed reasonableness of my argument. I will always cherish the memory of looking in that cops eyes and seeing the contempt he had for me when the judge dismissed the citation. He was pissed because I beat him. Or so it seemed to me. Him and his partner were fishing for violations when they cited me. Nobody called. Damned liar taken to account. I love remembering that day. Now, I'll never free someone who's innocent from prison or likely ever really truly alter anyone's life for the better, like Balko could claim. My fight against a $240 fine can be called quixotic. But it is a fucking moment of glory to me. I'm batting 1000 there. I beat that bastard cop at his lies.
Abersouth at March 27, 2012 3:03 AM
> Now I get to talk about me
That's what a lot of people want from policy discussions, but it makes it hard to believe they were paying attention.
> Firstly, I should note that I scored an
> 80 or 84 on…
You took the question too literally. (Irony and humor are peas in a pod, and liberals are often starved for both.)
> I've framed four houses and completely
> built one, for my parents, minus some
We weren't looking for a resume. The question was why should we let you tell us when others are "bunkered"? Through what experience have you become so remarkably decent that we'd trust your judgment?
> I really don't like getting tied down.
Do strangers on a blog care about that when they're weighing your policy proscriptions?
> Please forgive if it seems solipsistic.
Sorry, can't do that. It's exactly the point. There are people out there who select the policy positions as demonstrations of their own radiant wonderfulness... AS if the rest of us were blind, terrorized souls, just waiting for some little feller with a hammer to show us the way...
> Bottom line-I'm still not comfortable calling
> anyone sluts or cunts.
That bottom line had too many uninteresting top lines above it.
> I thought of a few more things to add
> about my life, since Crid asked
I didn't. Again, the question was more like Who died and made YOU Pope? The glory of your emotional life is not of interest. Plenty of people have deep feelings... It doesn't mean we should trust them for the time of day, let alone policy guidance.
Crid at March 27, 2012 8:01 AM
@Crid
You asked about my perspective. I gave a snapshot into my life. I think literally. Cursed that way. So what if you are smarter. I get irony, and will admit I'm not talented at giving it.
You accused me of living in a bubble. How can I show that I don't without giving a damn resume? How would you have answered if someone accused you of the same?
There are a lot of decent people in the world. I know people that I think are plenty more decent than me. I don't get into pissing matches about it, I have better things to do generally.
Strangers on a blog likely don't care about my lack of relationships. And why did you ask about building families? Was I too literal again? Silly me for answering your question. You should do us both a favor and not ask things you don't care knowing of in the future. And where does the policy prescription thing come in? I thought I was in agreement with the majority of everyone here that socialized medicine could be Armageddon? Or are we talking about the selling of the prescription to people that don't share our point of view?
I don't think I selected what I advocate policy wise as reflective of my talent on loan from god. Confusing me with Rush. I guess I am pretty spectacular in my own way, but you'll never meet me to know. I support policies that I think make sense. I enjoy vigorous debate in a marketplace of ideas, to test them. I don't think this is unreasonable. I try to mean what I say, and of I'm called out I'll defend what I believe. And I'll try to poke holes in other positions. I think all of this is to the good.
Your AS If is childish. I don't consider anyone of you blind, terrorized souls. I like people to think for themselves, and many commentators on this blog deliver there. If we come to the same conclusions, great. I don't care to lead anyone. I don't claim to have life figured out. I do the best I can.
Again, I gave a snapshot of my life, answering what I thought you asked for. Didn't realize I came off as a pope making proclamations. I didn't ask anyone to trust me for the time of day, and I prefer to argue about policies on their strengths and weaknesses. I'm aware the Who died and made me pope aspresion is likely supposed to be rhetorical, not asking for an answer but I don't function that way.
Abersouth at March 27, 2012 9:52 AM
> So what if you are smarter.
Brains aren't the topic, moral authority is the topic.
I think most liberals have this fantasy that the whole world is (or should be) waiting for them to step out of their Clark Kent identities and boldly lead the world to a promised land of safety, ease, and compassion. It's how they view almost every issue: What would make people see me for the heroically sensitive individual I believe myself to be? In such a mentality, spending other people's money to make trivial-but-intrusive improvements in society is not a problem. But when you point out that they aren't actually superheroes, and that their thinking isn't actually bold or compassionate, and that there's nothing admirable about forcing OTHER people to spend money, the fantasy dissolves.
It's a POWERFUL parallel to the Internet Tough Guy effect. When people sign on anonymously, they assume everyone in this new, faceless realm will respect them as if they had advanced degrees in philosophy, high-energy physics, and religious history, as well as a few successful campaigns of warfare and investment. And then you find out what their lives are really like, and power of their comments is diminished.
You might even be right about Limbaugh... But you ought to make a better case than what we've heard.
Besides: Limbaugh does 15 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, extemporaneously. Maher does 22 minutes a week, heavily scripted, including support from staff writers... And that's only when he's working. These are different challenges.
Crid at March 27, 2012 10:29 AM
Fair enough.
But I got a "Referral Denied" on your link.
Abersouth at March 27, 2012 10:38 AM
Never mind, got it to work with copy paste. I hope I haven't ever come off as seeming like that kid.
Abersouth at March 27, 2012 10:42 AM
"I guess I can see Maher as being pleasant day in and day out."
I see you haven't read about him being rude to people; apparently he is. I don't really know because what is reported is often hyped. But are there such stories about Rush?
As far as checking yourself, the answer is NO, Abersouth.
You just invoked a Two Wrongs fallacy.
Meanwhile, let us remember the wisdom of Andrew Garland, who basically said that if the ideas espoused by self-identified liberals are so wonderful, then where are the thriving communities operating by those principles?
I suggest that they are right next to those people who complain about Rush, then utter things even worse; in the dirt somewhere, imagining that if they were put in charge somehow, as opposed to earning a position, there would be Heaven.
Radwaste at March 27, 2012 3:14 PM
> But I got a "Referral Denied" on your link.
How dare you criticize my blog comment technique. How dare you.
OK, sorry. Here he is again.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 27, 2012 8:56 PM
I've been trying to understand how so many people, most of them urban and educated, seem so easy to scold. (For example, "You should believe me when I say that Obama is the Messiah, because I'm a very smart person!") The people least like to fall for this scam are rural and uneducated, but I don't think racism is their problem.
Maybe when you live without having "intelligence" and cunning as the center of your life, or without even pretending to care about those things, you become a much better judge of courage.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 27, 2012 9:03 PM
Also, where's Ally March 26, 2012 9:52 AM? Can I date Ally?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 27, 2012 9:04 PM
Leave a comment