Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Racism. Again.
A brave poster at Democratic Underground dared to reprint (sans permission, but let that pass) the work of Anglachel and yours truly on the attempt to smear Bill Clinton as the begettor of the economic crisis. The response, from one AtomicKitten:
Remember when the left used to believe in reason?
UPDATE: Heidi, a DU moderator, locked the discussion because the original poster had quoted from a "conservative" blog. That means me. Never mind the fact that no-one could dispute my evidence or my argument. Never mind that the post in question is, by any sane measure, skewed in a liberal direction -- it slams conservative commentators robustly.
Conservative? Moi? And here, I thought I had turned against Obama, in part, because his economic advisers -- Goolsbee and Liebman -- are Libertarian Chicago-schoolers. In other words, I think Obama is actually a laissez faire acolyte who talked prog-talk (for a while) for political purposes. Nothing in his record, to the extent that he has a record, suggests classic FDR-style liberalism. Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan and Andrew Sullivan support Obama. Presumably, they are no longer conservatives in DU-vision, and are therefore acceptable sources!
Well, you've heard me deliver this riff before: Libertarianism, having done all the damage it can possibly do via the Republican party, is now infecting the Democrats, and it is doing so by way of the progressive movement. Think Markos Moulitsas; think Arianna Huffington; think Bill Maher; think Andrew Sullivan. Libertarians all. (I'm starting to wonder whether I originally misjudged Josh Marshall -- after all, he is a long-time admirer of Sullivan.)
Meanwhile, those who (like me) favor a return to the New Deal consensus of 1940-1980 are now considered conservatives. It wasn't long ago that DU and Kos were going after Krugman with a vengeance.
Everything and everyone is ass-backwards. Except for the DU moderators. They're just asses.
Nice racist PUMA source, wyldwolf. Shame on you.Do we see any attempt to offer proof of my alleged "racism"? No. Do we see any attempt to mount a fact-based counter-argument to my piece? No. All we see is the odious redefinition of the word "racist" to mean "anyone who does not do homage to the Lightbringer." Any anti-Clinton smear must be taken at face value, even when unsupported by any evidence.
Remember when the left used to believe in reason?
UPDATE: Heidi, a DU moderator, locked the discussion because the original poster had quoted from a "conservative" blog. That means me. Never mind the fact that no-one could dispute my evidence or my argument. Never mind that the post in question is, by any sane measure, skewed in a liberal direction -- it slams conservative commentators robustly.
Conservative? Moi? And here, I thought I had turned against Obama, in part, because his economic advisers -- Goolsbee and Liebman -- are Libertarian Chicago-schoolers. In other words, I think Obama is actually a laissez faire acolyte who talked prog-talk (for a while) for political purposes. Nothing in his record, to the extent that he has a record, suggests classic FDR-style liberalism. Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan and Andrew Sullivan support Obama. Presumably, they are no longer conservatives in DU-vision, and are therefore acceptable sources!
Well, you've heard me deliver this riff before: Libertarianism, having done all the damage it can possibly do via the Republican party, is now infecting the Democrats, and it is doing so by way of the progressive movement. Think Markos Moulitsas; think Arianna Huffington; think Bill Maher; think Andrew Sullivan. Libertarians all. (I'm starting to wonder whether I originally misjudged Josh Marshall -- after all, he is a long-time admirer of Sullivan.)
Meanwhile, those who (like me) favor a return to the New Deal consensus of 1940-1980 are now considered conservatives. It wasn't long ago that DU and Kos were going after Krugman with a vengeance.
Everything and everyone is ass-backwards. Except for the DU moderators. They're just asses.
We will never reach that point, CD.
But we may be approaching a point where being called "racist" or any other insult will no longer have much meaning -- because all words will be subject to on-the-fly redefinition.
Lewis Carroll, I think, warned us about this tendency in the "Humpty Dumpty" section of his Alice books.
(Remind me. Which one had HD in it?)
But we may be approaching a point where being called "racist" or any other insult will no longer have much meaning -- because all words will be subject to on-the-fly redefinition.
Lewis Carroll, I think, warned us about this tendency in the "Humpty Dumpty" section of his Alice books.
(Remind me. Which one had HD in it?)
Obots call people racists the way right-wingers call people commies. Misogynists love to smear people.
This is addressed to the writer of a comment I will not print:
Hamden, I like you, but I'm not posting a link to a Rigorous Intuition thread. Jeff Wells himself strikes me as an all right guy -- weird, but all right. Alas, the folks on his boards are a different story. Nothing those towering intellectuals say or do could ever matter to me. They've hated me ever since I came out against the "controlled demolition" nutjobs.
The last time I looked at an RI thread concerning me, they damned me for being a "Democratic apologist." Nobody disagreed with the idea that being a Democrat is a terrible, terrible thing.
So, Hamden, where does this put YOU? Apparently, you have no problem siding with a group of people who think "Democratic apologist" is a slur. That's an odd position for you to take.
Frankly, I think DU has become just as nutty as any RI thread.
I'm not conservative -- YOU are, only you can't see it. DU has become the mirror image of the Freepers, and right now I can't tell which one is uglier. If you had a conscience, you would leave that festering cesspool.
To over-simplify matters, I now see Clinton as the dividing line. This is an odd position for me to take, since I didn't care for the guy during much of his time in office. I certainly did not want him to get the nomination back in '92. Still, history puts us where history puts us.
Those who admire Clinton are true Democrats. Those who smear him -- and I don't care whether the smears come from right-wing kooks or left-wing kooks -- are the enemy. At least, they are MY enemy.
As I see it, both the left-wing and right-wing anti-Clintonians are really trying to sell Libertarianism under one guise or another.
That assertion may strike you as odd -- but face it, the pattern is unmistakable. Everywhere you look in progland, you see "disguised" Libertarian/Friedmanites: Kos. Arianna. Sullivan. Maher. Aravosis. The Ron Paulies who scampered freely all over DU and other prog sites for quite a while. Goolsbee and Liebman. Obama himself, frankly. I think the Lightbringer is a Libertarian-in-disguise. DU should change its name. Try LU.
That said -- yes, it is true that I am no longer a Democratic apologist. As long as the "progressive" (read: Libertarian) faction remains in control of the party, there is no place for me. I am -- let me say it for the hundredth time -- not a progressive: I am a liberal, a big big BIG guv-a-mint liberal, an FDR-worshipping liberal, and I am damned proud of it.
I'll go back to supporting the Democrats when they NOMINATE a Democrat. And when they go back to running the primaries (and the convention roll call) in a truly small-D democratic fashion.
Jeez, doesn't it say something to you that Obama is greatly admired by Pat Buchanan, Arianna Huffington and Chris Matthews, but not by Paul Krugman? Doesn't that line-up give you any kind of a freaking clue?
Hamden, I like you, but I'm not posting a link to a Rigorous Intuition thread. Jeff Wells himself strikes me as an all right guy -- weird, but all right. Alas, the folks on his boards are a different story. Nothing those towering intellectuals say or do could ever matter to me. They've hated me ever since I came out against the "controlled demolition" nutjobs.
The last time I looked at an RI thread concerning me, they damned me for being a "Democratic apologist." Nobody disagreed with the idea that being a Democrat is a terrible, terrible thing.
So, Hamden, where does this put YOU? Apparently, you have no problem siding with a group of people who think "Democratic apologist" is a slur. That's an odd position for you to take.
Frankly, I think DU has become just as nutty as any RI thread.
I'm not conservative -- YOU are, only you can't see it. DU has become the mirror image of the Freepers, and right now I can't tell which one is uglier. If you had a conscience, you would leave that festering cesspool.
To over-simplify matters, I now see Clinton as the dividing line. This is an odd position for me to take, since I didn't care for the guy during much of his time in office. I certainly did not want him to get the nomination back in '92. Still, history puts us where history puts us.
Those who admire Clinton are true Democrats. Those who smear him -- and I don't care whether the smears come from right-wing kooks or left-wing kooks -- are the enemy. At least, they are MY enemy.
As I see it, both the left-wing and right-wing anti-Clintonians are really trying to sell Libertarianism under one guise or another.
That assertion may strike you as odd -- but face it, the pattern is unmistakable. Everywhere you look in progland, you see "disguised" Libertarian/Friedmanites: Kos. Arianna. Sullivan. Maher. Aravosis. The Ron Paulies who scampered freely all over DU and other prog sites for quite a while. Goolsbee and Liebman. Obama himself, frankly. I think the Lightbringer is a Libertarian-in-disguise. DU should change its name. Try LU.
That said -- yes, it is true that I am no longer a Democratic apologist. As long as the "progressive" (read: Libertarian) faction remains in control of the party, there is no place for me. I am -- let me say it for the hundredth time -- not a progressive: I am a liberal, a big big BIG guv-a-mint liberal, an FDR-worshipping liberal, and I am damned proud of it.
I'll go back to supporting the Democrats when they NOMINATE a Democrat. And when they go back to running the primaries (and the convention roll call) in a truly small-D democratic fashion.
Jeez, doesn't it say something to you that Obama is greatly admired by Pat Buchanan, Arianna Huffington and Chris Matthews, but not by Paul Krugman? Doesn't that line-up give you any kind of a freaking clue?
That's funny Joe!
I too was branded a "Conservative" and my site was tarred with those Repug feathers.
Funny thing though...I have railed against BOTH sides and I make it KNOWN that I am a LIBERAL democrat.
Funny creatures those Obamacrites!
I too was branded a "Conservative" and my site was tarred with those Repug feathers.
Funny thing though...I have railed against BOTH sides and I make it KNOWN that I am a LIBERAL democrat.
Funny creatures those Obamacrites!
--"That said -- yes, it is true that I am no longer a Democratic apologist. As long as the "progressive" (read: Libertarian) faction remains in control of the party, there is no place for me. I am -- let me say it for the hundredth time -- not a progressive: I am a liberal, a big big BIG guv-a-mint liberal, an FDR-worshipping liberal, and I am damned proud of it."---
I am still trying to pick myself off the floor after reading this Joe!
HA! Can I "Pah-wease" use it....LMAO!
I am still trying to pick myself off the floor after reading this Joe!
HA! Can I "Pah-wease" use it....LMAO!
By all means, RD.
You know what pisses me off? The progs have embraced Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens. Christopher freaking HITCHENS! Both of those guys supported the Iraq war and George Bush. Not long ago -- it seems like yesterday -- Hitchens was one of the most despised people in progblog-land. But now?
You see, Hitchens and Sullivan both hate Clinton and both like Obama. The Clinton-hate is the important factor here. As long as you blame Bill and Hill for everything that goes wrong with your life, then the progs will forgive anything. ANYTHING.
You know what pisses me off? The progs have embraced Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens. Christopher freaking HITCHENS! Both of those guys supported the Iraq war and George Bush. Not long ago -- it seems like yesterday -- Hitchens was one of the most despised people in progblog-land. But now?
You see, Hitchens and Sullivan both hate Clinton and both like Obama. The Clinton-hate is the important factor here. As long as you blame Bill and Hill for everything that goes wrong with your life, then the progs will forgive anything. ANYTHING.
"the New Deal consensus of 1940-1980"
Did you just make that up? The war made universal employment a fact, it gave paying jobs, like for the first time, to Negroes, adult girls, and ladies. Progressive policies and laws followed of civic and civil necessity, no? It was a time when persons of color and women knew their place, in so many ways. Racism and sexism had been lawful policy during half the time of that 'consensus'. Does the gentleman from Coinsville wish to revise and extend his remarks?
How can you want to recover, to have and to hold, a past system of institutional values, and also avoid being classified as 'conservative' or (more appropriately) a reactionary? Especially by every enlightened person younger than you.
It's not so much that you have no political party anymore, it's that you've sewn and blind-stitched yourself into the lexical straitjacket of our pathetic shorthand jargon.
Which coalition can you live with? Should a citizen's vote be self-centered or altruistic? You could go around the country, do a video blog, just asking that question. It'd be much much better than anything Michael Moore's done, and his work has been more than excellent.
Abbey
Did you just make that up? The war made universal employment a fact, it gave paying jobs, like for the first time, to Negroes, adult girls, and ladies. Progressive policies and laws followed of civic and civil necessity, no? It was a time when persons of color and women knew their place, in so many ways. Racism and sexism had been lawful policy during half the time of that 'consensus'. Does the gentleman from Coinsville wish to revise and extend his remarks?
How can you want to recover, to have and to hold, a past system of institutional values, and also avoid being classified as 'conservative' or (more appropriately) a reactionary? Especially by every enlightened person younger than you.
It's not so much that you have no political party anymore, it's that you've sewn and blind-stitched yourself into the lexical straitjacket of our pathetic shorthand jargon.
Which coalition can you live with? Should a citizen's vote be self-centered or altruistic? You could go around the country, do a video blog, just asking that question. It'd be much much better than anything Michael Moore's done, and his work has been more than excellent.
Abbey
I watched Hitchens skewer Obama (after Obama's Philadelphia reaction speech to the Wright controversy). The video is at Fora.tv. I'm probably terribly uninformed: I've thought that you and Hitchens were pretty much in agreement about Obama in all respects (except for who you'd vote for).
Clem
Clem
I may be wrong, Clem. I did not see what you saw. I was going by Hitchens' latest at Slate, which is pretty pro-Obama. It also repeats the lie that Hillary tried to infer that Obama is a Muslim.
God, I've always hated Hitchens. I gave up The Nation because of him. Hitchens and Cockburn. GAACK.
God, I've always hated Hitchens. I gave up The Nation because of him. Hitchens and Cockburn. GAACK.
Funny...That is one of the reasons I let my subscription to The Nation lapse. that and all the Pro-Obama...anti-Hillary slant
DU has turned into a cesspool that is guilty of many of the same things they accuse others of... i have kept track of a few lovely examples if you are interested...
http://texashillblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/democratic-underground-bastion-of-sexism/
http://texashillblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/democratic-underground-called-out-for-homophobic-commentary/
http://texashillblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/democratic-underground-bastion-of-sexism/
http://texashillblog.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/democratic-underground-called-out-for-homophobic-commentary/
Joseph,
As I look at the logic of it, of course I shouldn't have expected you to publish the comment with the thread link. No blogger should be expected to post a link to a thread that criticizes himself in those terms. So I apologize for sending it as a comment rather than as, say, an email.
But I hope you did look at it, and perhaps think about the more serious observations. That really was the point.
As I look at the logic of it, of course I shouldn't have expected you to publish the comment with the thread link. No blogger should be expected to post a link to a thread that criticizes himself in those terms. So I apologize for sending it as a comment rather than as, say, an email.
But I hope you did look at it, and perhaps think about the more serious observations. That really was the point.
Now I know why I spend so much time reading your blog and links.
Hitchens, Cockburn, Nation - gave them up a few years ago myself - illogical, mean, nasty and hateful. And RI was fun for a while and yes Jeff seems like a decent person, but the RI board just has complainers left with very little reason. Rigorous intellects they are not. It's all so high school, George Bush, my way or the highway thinking. They are what they hate.
Hitchens, Cockburn, Nation - gave them up a few years ago myself - illogical, mean, nasty and hateful. And RI was fun for a while and yes Jeff seems like a decent person, but the RI board just has complainers left with very little reason. Rigorous intellects they are not. It's all so high school, George Bush, my way or the highway thinking. They are what they hate.
Hitchens calls Obama a "megalomaniac narcissist":
http://fora.tv/2008/06/15/Christopher_Hitchens_on_Barack_Obamas_Race_Speech
I see that Hitchens repeats his disdain for Obama's speech-making in the Slate article, but I don't see anything there you could say is "pro-Obama". Hitchens tries to infer there that Hillary had bad intentions, and you meant 'imply'.
Clem
http://fora.tv/2008/06/15/Christopher_Hitchens_on_Barack_Obamas_Race_Speech
I see that Hitchens repeats his disdain for Obama's speech-making in the Slate article, but I don't see anything there you could say is "pro-Obama". Hitchens tries to infer there that Hillary had bad intentions, and you meant 'imply'.
Clem
From August 2004 until six or seven months ago, I was on DU daily.
I've been there maybe half a dozen times over the last six months.
I now regard it as having become a 'Hate Site' not much more enlightening than a neo-nazi or similar hate-group site.
A couple of my friends who were DU long-timers also never go there at all anymore. We weren't banned, we are just thoroughly revolted.
Post a Comment
<< Home
I've been there maybe half a dozen times over the last six months.
I now regard it as having become a 'Hate Site' not much more enlightening than a neo-nazi or similar hate-group site.
A couple of my friends who were DU long-timers also never go there at all anymore. We weren't banned, we are just thoroughly revolted.
