Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Face of a Racist [Dan Collins]

Details at David Thompson’s. Also with Aldo at the Pub.

Maha doesn’t understand how this is the inevitable outcome of identity politics. It doesn’t make any sense, you see. Also, as you can see from the comments, I’m gay. Well, not GAY gay, but gay. It could be my face, but then it wouldn’t be funny, because anyone who believes as I do is obviously racist, whereas that charge levelled against, say, Glenn or Maha? Absurd!

141 Replies to “Face of a Racist [Dan Collins]”

  1. happyfeet says:

    He has a bestseller yes so I wonder why he doesn’t spring for a little collagen? You can get that shit done cheap in Brazil.

  2. Dan Collins says:

    No, the lips they are the normal size, only introverted by excessive use.

  3. happyfeet says:

    Ok. But I think whoever brought up Beaker was pretty close to the mark.

  4. Pablo says:

    So, Perfesser Caricature is a racist, by definition…

    I’m a little bit brown, so does that let me off the hook entirely, or am I culpable to the percentage of my purely white heritage? Is there a “one drop” policy here, and if so, which way does it run? One drop of what defines me?

  5. SEK says:

    Wait, so he’s upset with Stanley Fish for speech codes, when Fish’s position — they’re unconstitutional, have been struck down repeatedly in court, and will eventually go the way of the dinosaurs — is attacked mercilessly by those in academia who support speech codes? As anyone in academia knows, Fish has a long, long history of contrarianism; to claim that his views are representative of a particular trend is evidence of intellectually dishonest ignorance.

    Strong words, yes, but seriously, he might’ve well as held Fish responsible for post-colonial thought for all his ire remarks on reality.

  6. McGehee says:

    White privilege? Well, somebody must be robbing my mailbox because I’m just not getting my dividend checks for all the profits generated by exploiting the unwhite. And the coupons guaranteeing me unlimited access to the wombs of women of African, Latina or Asian ancestry? By the time I get them they’ve all expired. Not just by a day or two, either.

    One of my great-great-great-grandfathers was from France. Something tells me that’s screwing up my privileges.

  7. Dan Collins says:

    Intellectually dishonest ignorance? I think that he feels that Fish hasn’t come clean enough, but that’s just my guess, Scott.

  8. John Lynch says:

    This story creeps me out. I’ve a daughter now looking at schools to begin her collegiate years. I don’t want to influence her choice much past “pick a good school” and “not a party experience” but I guess I’m going to have to discuss these bizarre evolutions in the current college scene. We’ve avoided, as much as possible, political indoctrination with her – leaving it to her choice later. Well, as much as possible when I’m not railing at network TV.

    How do I even begin this discussion? Well, Virginia (not real name,) you see there are these bad people, called conservatives, which want to . . . well I don’t know how to say this . . . but well, they want you to rely on yourself! (gasp!) Then there are these good people, called liberals, which really, really mean well: want to protect all of the children; comfort all victims and take back ill-gotten property and position of the inflictors of evil. Now, Virginia, it seems these good people have taken over many of the schools you are considering . . .

    For myself, I went late in life, first to an extremely lefty school for undergrad, then to another, less socialist, for their masters program. I got the benefit of having been in the real world, working for quite a while. I’m not sure the school(s) knew how to deal with someone whose opinions had already been fairly firmly formed before their re-education programs.

  9. happyfeet says:

    Stanley Fish and me, we don’t have much of a relationship, but the University of Delaware thing – that’s really horrifying. Is that one of those colleges that forces you to live in the dorms the first two years or whatever? It’s just so madrassa.

  10. Pablo says:

    John, perhaps you’ll just want to explain to her that, because of her skin color, she’s a racist. It will save her the trauma of having to hear it from a stranger.

    I don’t suppose it’s possible to repent.

  11. John Lynch says:

    Pablo,

    Maybe so, although I was wondering if my racist forbearers might not have exploited an Indian, um . . . Native American . . . somewhere, so she can claim that “drop” you were speaking of earlier.

    Else:

    me: You’re a racist.

    Virginia: Dad?

  12. SEK says:

    I’m just feeling feisty tonight, Dan. (That and, well, there’s really no wronger reading of Fish out there. In Annals of Wrongness, that takes the cake, decks the chef and absconds out the bathroom window.)

  13. Pablo says:

    John, I’ve got a feeling that the “one drop” thing is going to go the wrong way for us. Which sucks for Barack Obama.

  14. SteveG says:

    Who the hell gave Shakti Butler a PhD?

    The only proper response to her is ma’am, with all due respect “F*** You”.
    If she was a guy I’d punch him and then say “F*** You your racist bullshit is going back up your a**”

    I saw a Hannity and Colmes where some little white guy sits in for Hannity and some angry black guy pointed his finger at the little white guy, interrupted by calling him a racist and then went on in this aggressive posture. Hey… that is golden. Guy is way bigger than you, it’s on TV with plenty of people around so the fight won’t last more than 10-20 seconds so you say “did you call me racist?” and when he says yes you bust him one and keep going like a Jack Russell terrier humping your neighbors garden gnome. Then do not apologize. Just repeat that anyone who calls you racist on national TV is smearing you with hate speech and you feel you acted appropriately… then kick Alan Colmes’ a** for not having the stones to break in and tell the guest you are not going to let your co hosts reputation be slandered.
    If you lose your job so be it.
    Trust me people will respect you more…

    The RA has a different dilemna and maybe really needs the job to make it through school…. however, I hope he stood his ground told her she is both wrong and evil and then sued.

  15. Dan Collins says:

    Understood, Scott, but I feel he still bears a bit of responsibility for the Duke 88. I’m not very forgiving that way.

  16. steve says:

    Question:
    What do you call a guy who’s obsessed with a gay guy?

    Answer:
    Well, if your Dan Collins – https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9907

    Watch it there, now! Watch it! Ya done slurred yourself now!

  17. SEK says:

    Fish? He was chair of the English department (not the Program in Literature, an important distinction) back in the early ’90s, and left Duke altogether by ’99 (or thereabouts). Fish is many things — hilarious, for one; hilariously argumentative-to-the-death, for another — but I’m not sure how you can pin the Duke 88 on him. Esp. since the faculty were spread over many departments. What, in particular, do you think he’s accountable for?

  18. Dan Collins says:

    You’re.

    I’m not obsessed with his gayness. I’m fixated on the depth of his mendacity. It beetles o’er its base. But then again, you can suck my dick. I’m easy.

  19. Dan Collins says:

    The self-consuming artifactoriness of it all, Scott.

  20. The Ouroboros says:

    This may sound racist but I’m black dutch so I’m qualified to make these observations as well as use terms such as “Nigga”, “Ho” & “My Brotha” without looking stupid.. Did anyone see poor Obama bustin a move on The Ellen Show? He may look like a brother but his rhythm genes and mad dancin skilz are pure lily white (i.e. crappy) .. Or, in a word, Whack.

  21. SEK says:

    Damn it, then, I suppose I’m somewhat responsible too. For three years running — from ’90 to ’93 — I attended Duke Soccer Camp. I was there, man, I was there.

  22. Dan Collins says:

    That’s a shame, Ouroboros. Bust a move, Obama. I’ll still respect you in the morning.

  23. Dan Collins says:

    Yeah, Scott, but you aren’t asking for a museum.
    Also, you weren’t a department chair.

  24. Pablo says:

    Scott, I’m having a bit of trouble tracking your complaint. What, exactly, is wrong with this:

    Presumably, Professor Stanley Fish has no objection to “bridges” being built in this way, or to the term ‘racist’ being applied to “all white people… living in the United States.” And presumably he still believes that students “don’t have to worry” about the spread of campus speech codes and other neurotic sensitivities. Again, I beg to differ.

    While both statements are qualified as presumptive, the second is unquestionably borne out by the link, and the first could well be substantiated by Fish’s indication that this sort of thing is all a matter of politics and not one of intellectual honesty. Where is this grievous error?

  25. steve says:

    I always do the your for you’re…damnit…

    Both of you are (no mistake possible!) completely obsessed with him. Really.

    And I never see where he’s lying, as you guys always say. It’s more of a difference in interpretation of available data that I see. But that’s never good enough for anyone on the blogosphere. It’s always a “lie” or some such drama. Makes things more compelling (I guess…). Where are all the ‘lies’?

    Seriously, though, it’s a little gay, what with all the straight lefties out there to pick on and incessant butch talk you guys have for Glenn.

  26. SEK says:

    Steve, you realize you are using “gay” in the pejorative sense here, don’t you?

  27. Pablo says:

    Are you saying that there’s something wrong with being gay, steve? And why are you obsessed with Dan Collins?

  28. Dan Collins says:

    I’ve been called worse. Timmy B called me a Catholic apologist the other day.

  29. Pablo says:

    And I never see where he’s lying, as you guys always say.

    See here.

  30. SEK says:

    (Missed a few comments.)

    Dan, but that’s a different department. Duke’s unique in that it has both an English Department and a Program in Literature. Your problem’s more with the latter than the former. As for him being the chair while these hires were made, well, faculty searches occur independently of department chairs, so there’s no way to blame him for particular hires.

    Pablo, Fish believes that these matters will eventually be adjudicated in the courts. He’s not trying to back-door speech codes into the academy so much as admonish those who would by pointing out the futility of doing so.

  31. steve says:

    “Steve, you realize you are using “gay” in the pejorative sense here, don’t you?”

    How? What’s wrong with pointing out that someone’s doing something gay? Or might be gay?

  32. Dan Collins says:

    Well, I’ll have to review it all. Most likely you’re right. But I had a feeling at the time that somehow Sodometries far outselling Writing Matters was partly the fault of Stanley.

  33. Dan Collins says:

    I see. So, if I were fascinated with Oscar Wilde, I’d be gay, right, Steve?

  34. steve says:

    I mean lying about content of what he writes. I’ve read the sock puppet thing – he may well have done that (I think he probably did). So he’s a shameless self-promoter.

    When it comes to content, I enjoy the substantive and well researched work w/o all of the personality BS and insults. Where has he lied about what he’s writing about? I’m don’t care about the soap-opera nonsense of the blogosphere, or a little self promotion.

  35. Dan Collins says:

    If I thought Esera Tuaolo was underrated, prolly I’d be closeted, right?

  36. steve says:

    Exactly! I knew it! You ARE obsessed w/ Oscar Wilde, aren’t you?

    Wow – talk about proving me right!

    (Isn’t this the blog that lectured me very solemnly about my lack of a sense of humor? Or was that proteinjisdom.com? I can’t seem to remember……)

  37. Dan Collins says:

    I don’t lie about the content of what Glenn writes. I think he’s a sloppy thinker, and an even sloppier user of “supporting texts.” And I don’t think his tendency toward mendacity somehow stops with the lies he tells about himself.

  38. Pablo says:

    Uh, Steve? Sucking someone’s cock is gay. Getting rammed in the pooper is gay. Writing about someone who seeks the attention is not.

  39. steve says:

    But I wouldn’t F (no pun intended) w/ Tualolo, even over the internets… that’s a lot o’ gay dude there.

  40. Dan Collins says:

    If I thought that Turing was fascinating, I’d prolly be an invert, right, Steve?

  41. happyfeet says:

    You’re gay mostly if you like dick is my handy rule of thumb.

  42. steve says:

    “Writing about someone who seeks the attention is not.”

    Really?

  43. steve says:

    “You’re gay mostly if you like dick is my handy rule of thumb.”

    Now THAT was actually funny….

  44. Dan Collins says:

    I recall that once I thought an Indigo Girls song was kind of catchy. I’m probably a lesbian.

  45. Tom says:

    If you click around enough at Fire you can read Shakti Butler’s 15 page opus on racism, history, Afrocentrism, blahbitty blah. Spain under the Moors, of course, was heaven until the Christofascists conquered it. Where do you even begin a discussion with such ignorance?

  46. Pablo says:

    When it comes to content, I enjoy the substantive and well researched work w/o all of the personality BS and insults.

    And so you like Greenwald? Are you stoned?

  47. happyfeet says:

    My sense is that this conversation rapidly devolved, and that I may have played my part in that. I like Galileo.

  48. Dan Collins says:

    Yeah, but Shakti’s visionary.

  49. B Moe says:

    “How? What’s wrong with pointing out that someone’s doing something gay? Or might be gay?”

    Well, see, because according to you that would mean you are obsessing on someone who is gay, which would seem to make you gay, and that is a bad thing. Or not. In which case, why are you pointing it out. And obsessing on it. Or not. I think I might have confused myself with that one.

    And who the fuck is Stanley Fish and why should I care? As a bit of constructive criticism, I like it better when we all argue our own points, especially when Scott shows up, rather than getting in some tired ass old intellectual quoting contest.

  50. Pablo says:

    Really?

    steve, if you need that explained to you, then you have problems we’re not going to be able to solve here.

  51. steve says:

    “I don’t lie about the content of what Glenn writes. I think he’s a sloppy thinker, and an even sloppier user of “supporting texts.” And I don’t think his tendency toward mendacity somehow stops with the lies he tells about himself.”

    I don’t see it. I check his supporting texts and they usually support what he’s contending (meaning I’m too stupid…yadda yadda).

    Care to give me an example or 2?

  52. steve says:

    I’ll let y’all in on a little secret…

    I’m kidding about Dan being gay. I have no reason to think he’s actually gay at all! But I’m not kidding about him and Jeff being obsessed with Glenn (for whatever reason). they could call this blog GreenwaldWatch for Chrissakes.

  53. gahrie says:

    Why would anyone let their child attend the University of Delaware, much less live in the dorms there?

  54. Dan Collins says:

    Gosh, it’s hard to know where to begin, but there are some good links here.

  55. Dan Collins says:

    But I am! I am too gay!

  56. happyfeet says:

    I didn’t think the Stanley Fish thing was so important in David Thompson’s post so much as that school is really spooky I think. Mandatory door decorations – that’s… who thinks like that? I don’t think like that, for one. I don’t think Scott thinks like that. Does steve think like that? You know who I bet thinks like that? Hillary Clinton. She is so all about the door decorations, that one.

  57. Dan Collins says:

    I’m practically as gay as Glenn is honest.

  58. thor says:

    You say po-tay-to. I say po-tah-to. You say to-may-to. I say to-mah-to. You say she’s Shakti. I say she’s bozo.

  59. steve says:

    The very first one:

    http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/10/glenn-greenwald-hack-once-again.html

    is BS. Glenn fully explicitly and fully disclosed the whole thing, then wrote that follow up post… you read it, I’m sure.

    If it’s that easy, pick 2 things out.

  60. Pablo says:

    they could call this blog GreenwaldWatch for Chrissakes.

    Eh. Tell it to Amanda Marcotte or Jane Hamsher or any number of the left’s other idiot luminaries.

  61. B Moe says:

    “But I’m not kidding about him and Jeff being obsessed with Glenn (for whatever reason). they could call this blog GreenwaldWatch for Chrissakes.”

    Well just between you and me and the enter key, there, Poindexter- if you look around this site you will see Dan and Jeff blog about a million other things besides GiGi. In Dan’s case, often in one post. ;P

    You, on the other hand…

  62. thor says:

    The little Brett Favre in you is screaming to be heard.

  63. Welcome To Metropolis

    This is pretty shocking. The University of Delaware is actually indoctrinating students who live in campus housing. It is nothing less than that, in fact, the  university’s own "teaching" materials refers to it as a &ldqu…

  64. Pablo says:

    Then there’s this. And there’s plenty here.

  65. happyfeet says:

    Dr. Butler received her doctorate from the California Institute of Integral Studies in the School of Transformative Learning and Change.

    That’s neat.

  66. steve says:

    I don’t get it.

    Glenn is citing examples of righties outraged by the outting of Republicans by Mike Rogers:

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/ken-blackwell-and-sean-hannity.html

    so he links to this post:

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/10/lefty-blogger-outs-senator-as-gay.html

    wherein Althouse, speaking about a poll at KOS re: Roger’s outtings says:
    “I’m not cheering on these slimy outings.”

    But somehow Althouse (in the link you provided) doesn’t seem to understand that calling an act “slimy” is an expression of outrage toward said act. WTF?

    Is the lie over the deinition of “outrage”? Is this the best EG you can come up with? It’s not even sloppy or a mistake….

    outting Republicans by
    Althouse calls the outtings

  67. Dan Collins says:

    This is the characterization that Althouse objects to:

    “Right-wing pundits this week spent several days expressing such intense outrage over the outing by Mike Rogers, claiming that the conduct of this single, obscure blogger somehow shows how depraved and evil The Democratic Party itself is.”

    And yet, this is exactly the kind of thing that Glenn continually does. For example, I wrote (overstriked) Faggot, and I, an obscure blogger, became poster child for all the evils of the right. Dennis Perrin held forth about my psychosexual fear of being rammed up the ass by foreigners, and James Wolcott cheered. What if I should take your quotes here, jocularly accusing me of faggotry, and held them up to the world as evidence of liberal homophobia?

    That’s Glenn. That’s who he is. That’s what he does. Fuck him.

  68. B Moe says:

    “Dr. Butler received her doctorate from the California Institute of Integral Studies in the School of Transformative Learning and Change.”

    There is a School of Transformative Learning and Change? Goddammit nobody knows more about that shit than me, how can I not be a doctor or somesuch? Imma byGod gonna sue somebody, I guarantee.

  69. SEK says:

    Steve:

    How? What’s wrong with pointing out that someone’s doing something gay? Or might be gay?

    Because pointing it out means it’s something worthy of being pointed out? Look, I’ve done plenty of gay things in my life. I’ve lived with a gay man for two years. I’ve spent weekends in West Hollywood. The best friend I’m not married to — he’s gay. Thing is, when he’s over here watching South Park with me and I say something’s “gay,” I’m fully cognizant that I’m using “gay” in a pejorative sense, i.e. as if there’s something wrong with “gay.” I know there isn’t — and in that context, so does the person I’m talking to. But on the internet? Where no one knows you’re a dog? Unadorned uses of “gay” in the pejorative sense aren’t acceptable.

    Dan:

    Well, I’ll have to review it all. Most likely you’re right. But I had a feeling at the time that somehow Sodometries far outselling Writing Matters was partly the fault of Stanley.

    I recommend you checking that out. Not only is Fish not what you think he is, he might even be to your liking. I recommend Is There a Text in This Class?.

    B. Moe:

    And who the fuck is Stanley Fish and why should I care? As a bit of constructive criticism, I like it better when we all argue our own points, especially when Scott shows up, rather than getting in some tired ass old intellectual quoting contest.

    Sorry about the (minor) hijacking. On the page linked to, Fish was brought up as someone who tacitly supported speech codes, which is the intellectual equivalent of saying that Bush doesn’t support the war in Iraq, i.e. the truth of the truth-claims notwithstanding, someone hasn’t done some basic research, and is lashing out at all academics for the sins of some.

    happy,

    I’m opposed to mandatory anythings … which is one reason I like Fish. (Contrarians flock “together.”) But Thompson’s post goes all awry from the moment he says “presumably.” This is to be expected, of course, since his presumptions are all entirely wrong. (So much so I thought they had to be the product of intellectual dishonesty, hence my strong statement above. Thompson could just be that wrong … which would be sad, you know, for the human race.)

    All that said — and despite his history of sock-puppetry — ninety-nine percent of the time, I’ve found Greenwald’s citations check out. So I take what he says seriously. Before y’all pile it on, let me say this: ninety-nine percent of the time, I’ve found Jeff’s citations check out. So I take what he says seriously.

    People can make mistakes. They can engage in vainglorious sock-puppetry or threaten to slap someone with their cock … but those are fleeting, not definitive moments, and ought to be treated as such. There’s more to a thinker than their least-finest moment, no?

  70. SEK says:

    (Just like there’s more to a writer than his “least-finest” sentences, I pray.)

  71. Steve is obviously not seriously considering the long history of Gleens dishonesty. Check the IP and see if Steve is blogging from Gleen’s cabana in Brazil.

  72. Topsecretk9 says:

    This story creeps me out.

    Does me too — Recently I flipped through my son’s world history book – noticed an inordinate amout of attention given to Islam. Arguing about a textbook is a futile effort, and I was more peeved that his language arts reading book contained a story about children camping with little Jonny’s 2 mommies – one child said camping was stupid but at least they weren’t camping with dad’s cuz they just sit around and drink beer and belch!

    I went online looking for a study guide for my son’s world history book and was sorta surprised to find that there were many links to controvery about the book.

    Today, while jogging, listening to the radio, I learned others are pissed

    Indoctrinate U!

  73. SteveG says:

    From the wesite I think they offer white guys PhD’s in arrogance, provided they have completed the prerequisite self loathing and groveling.
    The PhD is good only when used against white males and self destructs when confronted by women and minorities.
    Curiously it will spontaneously turn into a PhD degree in the Art of Patronization if you travel to the Democratic Republic of Congo or another subsaharan African nation. Watch the diploma closely when you cross the Azores…

  74. Topsecretk9 says:

    JWF – says

    How long does Sockety plan milking this trainwreck for?

    It’s a sad day when Glenn is promoting an appearance on the lefts favorite tipsy radio fabulist – did she qiuz Glenn on Blackwater’s arson?

  75. It’s a sad day when Glenn is promoting an appearance on the lefts favorite tipsy radio fabulist – did she qiuz Glenn on Blackwater’s arson?

    ha ha! and Carin thought her show couldn’t get any more annoying.

  76. Topsecretk9 says:

    Steve — see if you can spot the wee little bit of embarrassing irony in this Glenn special—-

    Does The New Republic have a new Stephen Glass in Jason Zengerle?

    (updated below – updated again – updated again)Over the last few days, Jason Zengerle of The New Republic has been engaged in a bizarre crusade to depict “liberal bloggers” as a bunch of mindless, obedient zombies who take orders about what to write from Markos Moulitsas,

    Ah, but I thought Greenwald was a “conservative” ? We go on…

    Zengerle published what he purported to be various e-mails regarding recent accusations against Jerome Armstrong, which Zengerle claimed were sent to the “Townhouse” Google group — comprised of 300 or so journalists, political operatives, bloggers, advocacy organizations, and others designed to facilitate communication between these usually isolated groups. To the extent the “substance” of Zengerle’s accusations are worth responding to, Ezra Klein and Max Sawicky (among many) have done so quite thoroughly, respectively here and here.

    Notice Glenn the journalist’s use of “purported” — this made my toes curl in delight. You, Steve?

    continues

    But in spinning his laughable conspiracy, Zengerle published — based on what Zengerle said was “three sources” — what appears to be a completely fabricated e-mail, which Zengerle falsely claimed was sent to the “Townhouse” list by blogger Steve Gilliard

    Got that cowboy ? A completely fabricated email. out of a bunch of authentic emails… HEH, is the immediate response because it’s, well hilarious. Glenns’ is peeved about TNR. Glenns’ is peeved that ONE email isn’t authenticated. Glenns’ – sock extroidinaire – is just peeing his pant on the lack of journalist duties shown by TNR (ahem Beauchamp ahem ahem)

    We go on…

    Zengerle owes his readers and The New Republic an explanation, and soon. Did Zengerle really have three sources for these e-mails (as he claimed), or did he simply receive things from an anonymous source and then blindly rely on the veracity of what he was sent, only to claim that it was from “three sources” in order (a la Jason Leopold) to enhance the credibility of his claims? Or, a la Stephen Glass, did Zengerle simply fabricate e-mails in order to bolster his “story”?

    OK – I got tired, didn’t make it all they way through…

    That’s what you call sweet, juicy, pluck worthy Glenn knee slap in light of his “outrage” of his own stupidity.He hates TNR? He doesn’t. He hate publishing 3 sourced kinda emails or he doesn’t? It’s just more of the same Glenn…what he says today he will almot assudedlt denounce tommorow.

  77. Topsecretk9 says:

    Also – forgot to point out how bat poo funny it is that Glenn Greenwald thinks journalistic standards consist of TNR answering to publishing an explanation about 1 erroneous email – ahem Boylan – while he’s intentionally avoiding his OWN lack of integrity – you know, like asking TNR to come clean about a story more FUBAR than Greenwald’s one Townhouse hack.

  78. steve says:

    “And yet, this is exactly the kind of thing that Glenn continually does. For example, I wrote (overstriked) Faggot, and I, an obscure blogger, became poster child for all the evils of the right. Dennis Perrin held forth about my psychosexual fear of being rammed up the ass by foreigners, and James Wolcott cheered. What if I should take your quotes here, jocularly accusing me of faggotry, and held them up to the world as evidence of liberal homophobia?”

    I still don’t get where he lied. Your EG has nothing to do with Glenn, but is instead re: liberals in general. He said the right was outraged about X, then linked to the posts with the outrage in them. I think your objection is with his conclusions (like I said above).

    The sock puppetry was lying. This simply is not lying. I do love the “The other side mischaracterizes us by pointing to obscure sources” argument, becasue I see both sides doing that about equally – i.e., never ignoring the chance to do so.

  79. steve says:

    http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/185790.php

    Oh no! He didn’t put “emphasis mine”! Clearly a lie. Or an oversite…

    And as far as the content, clearly, what he’s saying is that Jeff et al. were trying to paint all of the left with the comment by Frisch, yet they give a pass to Frisch’s rightwing counterpart. YOu have to be a retard to read into thia that Glenn is saying that Misha is literally stating his homicidal intentions. I would disagree with Glenn that the two are equivalent (Frisch is much more creepy – that’s awful and inexcusable), just as I’d disagree with Jeff that Frisch somehow represents leftist temperment.

    It’s the same crappy hasty gen argument, it’s just OK when our side does it….

    Still no lying. I guess you’ve got the missing ’emph added’, but do you really think he was trying to get away with something? That the origin of the emph was that imporant to some point he’s making?

  80. steve says:

    SEK: It’s a joke.

  81. steve says:

    topsecret:

    Despite your saying things like:
    “Notice Glenn the journalist’s use of “purported” — this made my toes curl in delight. You, Steve?”
    and
    “Got that cowboy ?”

    which I think were supposed to taunt me, but really just made me feel vicariously embarrased for you, I read your post. You also said:

    “OK – I got tired, didn’t make it all they way through…”

    which is a pity, becasue if you DID make it all the way through, and then investigated some more, you’d find that Glenn et al. were quite right to be suspicious:

    http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/06/lessons-drawn-from-zengerletnr-debacle.html

    So how is this lying when he was completely right. Please don’t say anything about…toes curling in delight…creepy…there is no God….

    Still no lying…

  82. JHoward says:

    steve, maybe it’s just me, but I must say I find your forced irony — we laughed and laughed — perfectly balanced by your very obtuseness. The tension of that internal banter is quite exquisite.

    I was going to suggest you buzzed off but then that came up. Nicely done. The side thanks you.

  83. alppuccino says:

    steve,

    you might help conserve bandwidth if you changed your handle to “i don’t get it”

  84. klrtz1 says:

    “how this is the inevitable outcome of identity politics”

    Me ‘ats off to the Duke! With delicious irony SEK uses his identity as “best friend of gay” to savagely cock slap steve for calling Collins gay. And steve, God bless him, thinks SEK is serious! Excellent work SEK. You have truley showed us the way.

  85. klrtz1 says:

    Q: I’m banned now aren’t I?

    A: You are so banned! You might as well move to Cuba and try to post a comment from there, is how banned you are!

  86. ducktrapper says:

    “Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session …”

    Uh, can we say cadre? Communist re-eduacation camp? Wholly Fook! Is this happening in the USA???

  87. Pablo says:

    And as far as the content, clearly, what he’s saying is that Jeff et al. were trying to paint all of the left with the comment by Frisch, yet they give a pass to Frisch’s rightwing counterpart.

    That, steve, would be a lie. And here’s another from the post in question:

    If your only source for news was reading right-wing blogs, you would have thought that the most significant world event in the last few days was that some crazy woman who nobody ever heard of before (someone by the name of “Deb Frisch”) left some vile comments on Jeff Goldstein’s blog, a venue which itself is devoted to some of the most vile, deranged and psychosexually disturbed commentary that can be found on the Internet.

    Complete with links to Sadly, No! and Liardogfake. Gleen(s) are a fucking liar, period.

  88. Darleen says:

    gotta love that “last word” from Maha has s/he closed comments less than 12 hours after they opened.

    It’s not that s/he “didn’t get it”, it’s that s/he refuses quite deliberately to “get it.”

    Leftists live in a magical world where none of their programs ever fail.

  89. Darleen says:

    oh .. one more thing about GiGi and his credibility

    he left his Salon column to be guest written by Pandagonite Pam Spaulding for a bit

    ’nuff said

  90. McGehee says:

    What do you call a guy who’s obsessed with a gay guy?

    I’m pretty sure Jeff Gannon has a few suggestions.

  91. Slartibartfast says:

    he left his Salon column to be guest written by Pandagonite Pam Spaulding for a bit

    Shocking, that a former staunch Republican would do such a thing. My whole universe is crumpling in on itself at the contradiction.

    Y’know, I was a former staunch Republican, once…

  92. Carin says:

    It’s a sad day when Glenn is promoting an appearance on the lefts favorite tipsy radio fabulist – did she qiuz Glenn on Blackwater’s arson?

    ha ha! and Carin thought her show couldn’t get any more annoying.

    The bar is high, Maggie. Unfortunately, I am unable to listen to the drunk one out here in the country. How sad is that?

  93. Alec Leamas says:

    The magical White Privilege Power must have been offline for these two poor honkeys:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

  94. Scott Beauchamp's Ass says:

    Glenn Greewald is gay?

  95. Jeffersonian says:

    But I am! I am too gay!

    Don’t think that gets you out of the racism rap, white boy. Now off to your self-criticism session to get rid of this false conciousness.

  96. BJTexs says:

    Calling all Racialists! Calling all Racialists!

    I need some help identifying myself in the slotted racial matrix as put forth by Shakti Butler. I’m unsure as to how I should answer the questions or objectify myself.

    Let’s start with the fact that I’m Portuguese, 100% true blue. I bronze nicely in the summer and my diet tends to be meat and fat heavy. However, I am relatively light skinned compared to many of my relatives and I grew up in relative prosperity as my father owned a sewing business that employed almost 400 people, most of them Portuguese.

    Now the last time I checked Portugal was still a part of Europe but I’m a bit confused with the whole “white Eurocentrism” thing as it applies to myself and my Spanish brothers and sistahs. I mean, the State of New Jersey (holla!) considers Portuguese to be a recognized minority eligible for consideration on the awarding of minority contracts. There is no such designation in Delaware so can I bring an interstate brown recognition to the discussion or will I be slotted into the all racists all the time Euro-Bigots? Does my skin color automatically disqualify me from racial consideration or do my genetics play a bigger role? Maybe the fact that I grew up privilaged has caused my brown status to be leached from me like the mold from a power washed deck.

    Where do I fit in the racial profiling matrix, Dr. Butler? Anyone? Bueller?

    Because I don’t want to leap to the conclusion that this is an anti intellectual victmization construct that should be laughed out of society, polite or not, for the frothing, absolutist absurdity that it is.

    Won’t someone help me identify myself?

  97. Slartibartfast says:

    The face of racism is Guy Smiley?

  98. Pablo says:

    Alec,

    The magical White Privilege Power must have been offline for these two poor honkeys:

    And these two.

  99. Slartibartfast says:

    Well, maybe not Guy Smiley, but you have to admit the dude has a face that’s nearly already a Muppet.

  100. N. O'Brain says:

    The thought just struck me:

    It’s no wonder that the reactionary left are anti-Semites, also.

  101. JD says:

    Here is my standard when reading the Gleens. When he posts a link that is alleged to support his position, I disregard it. His links usually direct you to another Leftist blogger, who dishonestly mischaracterizes some conservative blogger’s position. Or they ignore the actual words of a Republican politician, and insert their own interpretation.

    His links vary in their mendacity. Some simply do not contain that which he claims. Some he just takes a lot of literary license with. He alters thw degee of support. He ignores the context from which his passages are taken.

    In short, he is one great big faggotty liar.

  102. JD says:

    BJ – You are a vile evil racist, spawn of a capitalist pig, who made their life on the backs of poor endentured brown people. That your family was willing to exploit their own kind in order to get ahead makes them self-loathing minorities, inauthentic, and thus, no better, and in some cases worse than the evil whitey.

    ;-)

  103. Alec Leamas says:

    “And these two.”

    White privilege, it seems, is no match for bullets.

  104. MarkD says:

    Racist is now an emoticon. The word is devoid of meaning.

    My daughter told me that SUNY Fredonia made the same, lame attempt at PC indoctrination. It was funny, because she, by virtue of being half Japanese, was the only one in the dorm who was not 100% of the white privilged oppressor class. Now on to discussion of the effect of race on her life: utter silence. It never came up, anywhere.

    I’m sure the residence hall staff made sure to have some aggrieved individual in each dorm for the next run of this charade.

  105. psychologizer says:

    Dan, if you make the mistake of falling for the dishonest pitch for Fish here, remember that when Fish seems to be saying something you think you like the sound of, he’s flattering you so you’ll buy something — or allow him to sell you something — entirely contradictory, that he really does mean. (Seem familiar, maybe?) He’s best ignored, unless you think the stereo salesman is the model scholar.

  106. Dan Collins says:

    Thanks, psychologizer. I did actually read considerable Fish back in the day, but it didn’t make much of an impression.

  107. BJTexs says:

    That your family was willing to exploit their own kind in order to get ahead makes them self-loathing minorities, inauthentic, and thus, no better, and in some cases worse than the evil whitey.

    JD: Is this better or worse than giving intellectual cover for racists? Have I surrendered, as the brown progeny of a brown person who exploited brown people, my authentic brownness? Am I worse than the Euro-Centric racists because my family was, in effect, collaborators in whitey’s oppression?

    Or…

    Is this discussion so indescribably absurd as to warp the space time continuum?

    Nah! I’ll accept my inauthentic browness and apologise for collaborating in the oppression of people with color.

    FOR THE COLORY PEOPLESES!

  108. The Thin Man says:

    Won’t someone help me identify myself?

    TDL published the definitive list of Lefty approved victim scores. If you ain’t on the list, you ain’t gettin’ in.

    http://dicklist.blogspot.com/2006/07/tdl-gaming-world-series-of-victimhood.html

  109. JD says:

    BJ – You are not as vile as those who give intellectual cover to overt racists, as their effects are more insidious. Your brownness was cast aside the moment that you entered this world, spawn of a capitalist pig, and then confirmed when you showed your truly vile conservative character as you aged.

    I think that Shakti clown would rank you slightly above a Jew that was willing to help the Nazis.

    I keeed, I keeeed ;-)

  110. N. O'Brain says:

    “…endentured brown people.”

    Yeah, the poor mooks who break their backs working on the Poli-Grip farms.

  111. JD says:

    BJ – Your children’s grandchildren will owe restitution to generations and generations of brown people, born and not yet born.

  112. JohnAnnArbor says:

    UDelaware does have the winged football helmet like Michigan, which is cool. But then they make it metallic, which isn’t.

    This irrelevant comment brought to you by the letter A and the number 2.

  113. Aldo says:

    Won’t someone help me identify myself?

    As a member of the PW community you are automatically a hater of the brown other. Sorry.

  114. Epitaph

    Under this post at Protein Wisdom, MarkD carves the tombstone for a word long abused by the Left:

    'Racist' is now an emoticon.

  115. Pablo says:

    Socky McSockpuppet, slayer of Colonels, supporting the troops.

    Col. Boylan’s implosion accelerates

    In which the Gleen(s) destroy the Public Affairs Officer with their mind!

    Several things are notable: (1) Col. Boylan is now resorting to demonstrable, outright lying; (2) he is expressly claiming that the original email is not “real,” rather desperately though clearly insinuating — without the slightest basis — that I fabricated it myself; and (3) the more Col. Boylan writes, the more evident it becomes that he shares numerous viewpoints with the original e-mailer and, more importantly, expresses those viewpoints using the same unique and recognizable style of “English” used to write the disputed email.

    Yawn.

  116. Pablo says:

    …the more evident it becomes that he shares numerous viewpoints with the original e-mailer and, more importantly, expresses those viewpoints using the same unique and recognizable style of “English” used to write the disputed email.

    Of course, the irony in that statement may cause my head to explode, so I’m gonna wrap it in duct tape, just in case.

  117. JD says:

    Which one of the Gren Gleenwalds is writing that? English is now recognizable because it is English! Now you, my friends, can think like a Constitutional scholar.

  118. Andrew says:

    To summarize:

    Gay racist :) lies not-lies lies brainwashing endentured brown mooks identify myself gay.

    Where IS that boat back to the 19th century?

  119. Aldo says:

    In order to rationalize the real-world siginificance of his obsession with Col. Boylan, Greenwald approvingly cited a comment by someone named Zack, who explained Boylan’s behavior as part of a military conspiracy to keep journalists from stepping out line in their reporting on Iraq.

    I think the Occam’s Razor explanation is that Boylan is pushing push against the baseless attacks by the Left on his boss, Gen. Petraeus. It is human nature, especially for a warrior, to respond when being attacked. In Greenwaldian spin, defending against politicized attacks makes the Army a “political actor.” So be it.

  120. The Thin Man says:

    “…the more evident it becomes that he shares numerous viewpoints with the original e-mailer and, more importantly, expresses those viewpoints using the same unique and recognizable style of “English” used to write the disputed email.”
    _______________________________________________________________________

    “Greenwald only has a New York Times Best Selling Book on the Bush Administration and its abuses of power. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after 9 months of blogging. And Senators read from his blog at Senate hearings and his posts lead to front-page news stories in major newspapers.
    Why would anyone think what he has to say matters? It’s not like anyone listens to him. It’s not like he’s Ace, or Jeff Goldstein, or Patterico, or Sister Toldjah or Glenn Reynolds, or someone who really matters.

    Great advice, you super-important bloggers should only to each other and about each other. Don’t bother with anyone in the Left because if you ignore them, they’ll just go away.

    Posted by: Ellison on July 13, 2006 08:14 AM”

    Sorry I couldn’t resist going back and having another look……

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/186941.php

  121. Dan Collins says:

    Thanks, Thin Man. I’m going to use that.

  122. Slartibartfast says:

    Ok, I take it all back. Glenns are, by all accounts, perfectly gorgeous human beings.

    I’m guessing that’s once you get underneath the deadly, tight-mouthed earnestness, the broad-brushing and overgeneralization and the like. Or, possibly, that’s like attracting like. Given Maha’s propensity to literally shutting down opposing viewpoints, I think I’ll go with that.

  123. Slartibartfast says:

    Then again, given maha’s history of writer of vitriolic crapola for DU, I don’t give a flying fuck what she thinks.

  124. The Thin Man says:

    I know everybody has probably already seen this but in the context of Glans Greenwood’ s latest tizzy it made me laugh out, loud all over again!

    http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2006/07/greenpuppet.html

  125. Phil K. says:

    I’m not gay, but I love my dead gay son.

  126. Dan Collins says:

    Because you’re an idiot, dear.

  127. steve says:

    Pablo

    Nahh, that’s not a lie at all. it’s easy to get caught in this binary – calling everyone who disagrees with you every terrible thing possible.

    The irony is that the examples everyone here used (save for sock-puppetry) are instances of hastily generalizing a particular instance to say the other side is X (usually in response to someone on the other side doing the same). Talk about boring….

    “The other side are liars and Hitlers and puppy dog tales, but my side is noble and wise and brave and everything nice! ”

    Whatever. Group-think is for groupies.

  128. bonhomme says:

    California Institute of Integral Studies Transformative Studies program’s curriculum just doesn’t look very rigorous.

  129. Pablo says:

    Nahh, that’s not a lie at all. it’s easy to get caught in this binary – calling everyone who disagrees with you every terrible thing possible.

    Bullshit. It isn’t true, he knows it isn’t true and he said it anyway because baboons like you and the rest of his minions gobble it up. It’s a lie and you’re either a fool or a liar if you assert otherwise.

    Simplisme.

  130. JD says:

    Pablo – Go yell at a brick wall. There is a greater chance of a brick wall writing Shakespeare than there is of steve acknowledging the the Gleens are patently dishonest.

  131. JD says:

    steve – Gleenwald’s specialty is re-stating someone’s positions and then giving them his interpretation of the actual words, which ironically, rarely, if ever, resemble the actual position he was “describing”. He then proceeds to beat the holy hell out of the position of his opponent, a position that his opponent never held in the first place.

  132. happyfeet says:

    bonhomme – Integral Thinkers: Gebser, Aurobindo, Chaudhuri, Wilber – Not a one of these is ringing a bell, but then I would be me. This part is trippy enough to reproduce I think:

    Courses focus on: 1) basic academic skill-building such as academic writing, critical and creative thinking, and literature review

    2) development of experience as a member of a community of inquirers, or learning community, and creation of a context that facilitates transformative collaboration and learning

    3) awareness of one’s own role as knower and participant in the process of inquiry in a variety of ways of knowing—somatic, emotional, intellectual, spiritual—and the ability to develop one’s own voice as a scholar

    4) development of a solid knowledge base in transformative and integral studies, at the transdisciplinary meta-level, and in the knowledge base of the student’s chosen area of inquiry.

    The transdisciplinary meta-level. Good God. Set phasers to ironize.

  133. Pablo says:

    Plus, he’s a mindreader. He knows just what you’re thinking and he’ll argue with that, instead of what you actually said. IOW, he’s full of shit.

  134. JD says:

    transdisciplinary meta level – Is this one of those degrees that you can buy online? It sounds like training people to be self-aware “change agents”. Ugh.

  135. McGehee says:

    transdisciplinary meta level – Is this one of those degrees that you can buy online?

    I’ve always wanted a Ph.D. that cost exactly what it was worth…

  136. steveaz says:

    Steve, your argument reminds me of a sweaty old sock.

    First you accuse Dan of “obsession” with Gleen and gayness, completely excusing Gleen’s brazen sockpuppetry and the fact that he (and his proxies) have simply been wrong on every momentous development since 9/11.

    Then, when the gang casually calls you out on this, you essentially tuck tail, taking a “just joking, what I really meant was…” exit.

    Lame, dude.

  137. JD says:

    Can’t you take this picture down yet? It is worse than that Halloween costume one posted further up this page.

Comments are closed.