March 24, 2009

Thought crimes

Q: Why did the “pragmatic conservative” cross the road?

A: It was the quickest way to turn left.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:59am
91 comments | Trackback

Comments (91)

  1. And Patrick Frey has no honor. In my opinion.

  2. I’ve been avoiding Glenn Beck, should I bother? Bill Maher told the first recorded AIDS joke. I wonder what would happen if you tell a dog joke on his show?

    Welcome back BTW. Off to the airport.

  3. Cookies, I listen to too much talk radio and I can tell you that I’ve had to stop listening to Glenn Beck. I have a sneaking suspicion that he truly believes that President Obama is the antichrist and this is the end of the world. He hasn’t said those exact words, but that spectre is there. His lack of hope is what gets to me. I get the impression that he believes he is the prophet crying out in the streets, when actually there are times he seems like a crazy guy with a cardboard “End of the World” sign. I still want to believe that there are good people out there who will fight to save this country’s future, whether in the voting booth or in the streets.

  4. Going back to Jeff’s CelluloidWisdom days –

    Pat Frey as Colonel Nicholson

    Buidling Bridges

    -

  5. Yeah, we all need to pay attention to the “spectre,” not the words.

  6. I still want to believe that there are good people out there who will fight to save this country’s future, whether in the voting booth or in the streets.

    When only 48% of the people aren’t interested in voting themselves a welfare check, the fight needs to move out into the streets. D.C. is so lovely this time of year. What would Barney, and Chris and Rahm and Hairy, and Nancy and that teleprompter guy do if they had to answer to the people? You know, in person. Not answering what they “think” the people are enraged about, but actually coming face to face with their rage.

    It’s rhetorical. They’d piss their panties, that’s what.

  7. Yeah, rage always makes for a good political movement. Nothing brings people into the tent quicker than rage.

  8. Sugah–I am no Glenn Beck fan. I occasionally listen to a bits of his radio show. I do not watch his television show (I have never seen the Fox show and saw the CNN show twice).

    While I am all for being prepared if the shit hits the fan (and I am prepared to some extent), I have not built a mini arnsenal yet or switched 90% of my investments to gold and end time trade goods.

    But that said I have never ever heard Beck act violent in any way. Beck disliked McCain about as much as Obama and was not particularly partisan after Mitt Romney dropped out of the election. Beck’s argument is both parties are corrupt and America will not improve until it goes thorugh a painful crisis that we need to prepare for. Now I hope we do not have to go through a painful crisis, but given the circumstances I am observing I can hardly call what Beck is saying crazy.

    But this Beck exchange on Bill Maher’s Real Time is an amazing example of what Jeff has been warning us about. Maher and Olbermann, in one of the most self rightous, idiotic, and if they were not serious, hilarious displays of hypocrisy sit around and systematically slander and misrepresent Beck as some sort of mad dog.

    Now what we shoudl do as conservatives in a situation like this is bull whip Maher and Olbermann and defend Beck. Metaphorically of course, I do not want to be accused of inciting violence by the thought police out there. The idea of being a conservative, Republican, libertarian, Objectivist, or classical liberal is not thinking as a collective block, we are far from that, but protecting the backs of people we mostly agree, or even somewhat agree with, from the Mahers and Olbermann’s of the world. First they went after Palin, and I did nothing. Then they went after Rush, and I did nothing. They they went after Beck, and I did nothing. And then one day you will wake up without guns, a job (which will make up for the 75% tax rate), money, gasoline, private healthcare, insipid Air America or NPR on every radio channel, language twisted into something from 1984, and an America transformed into Argentina, and you will say, fuck they finally came after me but there was no one left to defend me!

    Because only a mendoucheous asshole, without any honor, would do something like what Maher and Olbermann did the other night. In my opinion.

  9. I also get the argument that we should not go out looking for a fight, especially with allies (or even potential allies). That guys like Jeff should not bait weaker men and their little Fight Club of weak fans. Well Fight Club is not a fair term, because they are more the types to like to start a fight and then run or hide behind hate crimes, veiled made up threats, and other politically correct and less than manly positions.

    I thought Jeff was getting a paranoid about it, until I saw it unfold exactly how Jeff predicted.

  10. The last time Mr. Beck talked about taking his daughter shooting and he said she started to cry because she was learning in case she had to shoot someone, that was enough for me. There’s a difference to me between teaching a child to safely handle a firearm and instilling fear. The word “fight” can be interpreted a lot of ways. I wasn’t aware I meant pitchforks and torches. I didn’t make my intentions clear, but I can’t write as well as Jeff and that kind of sucks for me…

  11. Yeah, rage always makes for a good political movement. Nothing brings people into the tent quicker than rage.

    Exactly!

  12. I was explaining how Mr. Beck’s words affected ME and why I quit listening. I belong to the NRA, fer pete’s sake. Maher and Olbermann are exactly what you say…and the war on words is getting narrowly focused on anyone who is remotely right-leaning. You’re right, Joe, about the need for diligence. Part of the reason I come here is for the challenge it presents…I learn a lot here. (When I’m not busy being entirely pissed off at the way Jeff gets treated elsewhere…)

  13. Pitchforks and torches would be relatively out-gunned by the power that the Executive and Legislative folks have at their disposal. They would be more symbolic.

  14. Let’s just back away from Glen Beck for a moment (slowly, slowly,) and bathe in the sticky smelly irony of Maher’s comments being as THEY BUUUUUUUURN!!

    … SHREDDING THE CONSTITUTION!!
    … BLOOD FOR OIL!!!
    … BUSHHITLER!!!
    … CRIMINAL REGIME!!!
    … CHIMPY MCDUMASS!!!!
    … NAZI PARTY REPUBLICAN CONVENTION!!!
    … LIAR LYING AND PEOPLE DYING!!!!
    … ANTI-SCIENCE LUDDITE!!!

    These are just a few off of the top of my head. Maher should seriously consider popping the bubble that surrounds his head and and force himself to have a seizure.

    FOR THE CRITICAL CLARITY!!!

  15. No kidding…but if we brought armadillos?

  16. #4 – That really did bring a smile on…

  17. THIS JUST IN: Jeff Goldstein has threatened to bugger Patterico!

    WITH HIS MIIIIIIIND!!!

    Film at 11:00…

  18. flaming armadillos on the ends of pitchforks

  19. I think al has issued a threat.

    BAN HIM, HE’S A WITCH!!!!

  20. Sure, you can ban me. But the alppuccino spirit will live on. In the eyes of a child who swipes the last Swiss Cake Roll from the pantry. In the knurled hands of an old woman who leads her dog to crap on the neighbor’s lawn. In the……you get the idea.

  21. for the Patterico fans out there:

    The LAT is to Patterico as

    Patterico is to Jeff G.

    .

    Patrick’s complaints about the LAT’s OpEd pieces and reportage (Steve Lopez and Chuck Phillips) mirror Jeff’s complaints about Patrick.

    -

  22. Sugah–I got my kids (seven and ten) a decent air rifle and .22 Wildcat to practice with. Not because I want them to shoot anyone, but because it is fun. But I would rather them know that firearms are tools (dangerous tools) and one of their many uses is defending yourself and your family. I doubt I would cry over it. I cry only at the end of Old Yeller or when Mr. Gower slaps young George Bailey’s ears. But there I go digressing again.

    I find Beck a wee too populist for my tastes, a Bill O’Reilly but with about half the ego (which is refreshing). But I actually heard that particular segment too (what was it last week or so) about Beck taking his kids shooting (I did not know you could still do that in New York State! He must have gone far from the City) and I did not take it the way you did.

  23. I hear you, Joe. My kids have the similar firearms…I think that show tweaked my mom sensitivies– that his daughter wasn’t emotionally ready for that serious a take on the situation and he should have known it.

    On an entirely different note, links from here to Patterico to Acephalous reveal that the Pat/Jeff discussion is STILL not over and we’re all crackpots over here and women should never post as all of you manly men get testy…love the Internets!!

  24. Be nice, Goldstein. Losing more slowly is the only way to win. Plus: cocktail parties!

  25. WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY OT:

    Here’s a link to a nice article about the outfit my son, CPL Matt the MArine, is with in Afghanistan, 2/K/3/8:

    http://www.dvidshub.net/?script=news/news_show.php&id=31446

  26. I got a .22 this weekend. It’s a transformer one where you can pop the bullet thingy out and have a .22 or a .22 magnum. It’s really old. My Cabela’s friend is looking at it to see if I should keep it for real. And then I have to figure out the correct way to get it to California and keep it here. This is all cause of that scary article Mr. Reynolds posted. I’m very impressionable.

  27. Why does Afghanistan always look so beautiful and strange I wonder. I should like to go there some day.

  28. It looks… peaceful. This is trickery.

  29. This is Sparta!

  30. Beware Cap and Trade.
    Regressive tax kills the poor.
    Armed and Dangerous.
    ===========================

  31. hf,

    It is beautiful country. A pity the poor folks there have had unedning strife since 1973-1976…

  32. Q: Why did the “pragmatic conservative” cross the road?

    A: Because he was a uniter! What wound up on the other side of the road.

  33. No, Pablo, the answer is, “To reach across the aisle in the spirit of post-partisan reasonableness … just before being run over by the Hope & Change bus.”

    You may thank me later!

  34. Q: Why did the “pragmatic conservative” cross the road?

    He was safety-pinned to a punk rocker?

  35. LTC John, aren’t there too many digits in those dates?

    Regards,
    Ric

  36. I’m not clicking on those links and don’t happen to share your particular fascination for Rightwinglandia and its internecine disputes, but, as the old folks say, whatever turns you on. I am really interested, however, in your notion of revivifying authorial intent. Might I humbly suggest that you do a separate post on it here, which, as recent methods discussions indicate, would quite likely be of interest to us history and philosophy folks as well.

    Cause, frankly, I just don’t get it. I get it from a literary craft angle: “Did the author succeed in doing what they wanted to do” requires the prior question, “What were they trying to do?” I get it as a biographical question, come sophistimacated parlor game. I don’t get it as a component of textual analysis, where it seems entirely beside the point. And from a historical (and, I assume, historicist) perspective authorial intent would be relevant only to the extent that it, or various statements about it, circulated as one of the paratexts accompanying a work of fiction. What am I missing?*

    oh jeez. I can’t decide if that’s really his bestest most honestest framing of the question but either way it doesn’t speak well of him.

  37. Not if it’s B.C. to A.D.

  38. I really enjoyed Beck’s book “An Inconvenient Book”

  39. This is Sparta!

    Well, it sure ain’t CNN.

  40. I don’t get it as a component of textual analysis, where it seems entirely beside the point.

    Hint: that would be because you are more interested in concocting evidence to support your own prejudices than in finding out the truth.

  41. CNN would be busy covering up our foul language in order to keep their news bureau open.

  42. Well nothing, so long as you would insist that there is no author to whom to attribute an intent.

  43. knurled hands

    Now that would be painful and a bad thing to have happened to an old lady what with her hands already being gnarled.

  44. From SEK’s comments:

    He’s a body builder with an English degree, right?

    I had a saucer of milk down on the floor before I even knew I was doing it.

  45. Still, as you always do alppuccino, you made me smile. Even through bad memories of Jr. High shop class.

  46. that would be because you are more interested in concocting evidence to support your own prejudices than in finding out the truth.

    Because, you know, just making shit up is way easier than actual scholarship.

  47. Who is that edgeofthewest guy talking to, SEK?

    Goody. Let him go explain it.

    The thing is, the question contains the answer:

    I get it from a literary craft angle: “Did the author succeed in doing what they wanted to do” requires the prior question, “What were they trying to do?”

    This is the prerequisite for claiming to interpret, and so long as it is a given — as long as this is what we claim to be after when we interpret — we are relieved of having to give serious credence to textual analyses AS INTERPRETATIONS that are based on a theoretics in which the “death of the author” has been proclaimed.

    And from a historical (and, I assume, historicist) perspective authorial intent would be relevant only to the extent that it, or various statements about it, circulated as one of the paratexts accompanying a work of fiction. What am I missing?

    The fact that it is a necessary component of what constitutes interpretation. No paratexts necessary. Just the desire to decode text as speech act.

    If “textual analysis” that ignores authorial intent is your bag, be clear about what you’re doing: you are treating the finished product as a series of signifiers, then drawing on convention and code to see if YOU CAN MAKE IT DO something the author never intended. To then call it “interpretation” suggests it is the primary text you have interpreted. Whereas all you’ve done is interpret your own fancies.

    You may as well take the pages out and turn them into origami birds and offer that up as your interpretation.

    What are you missing? The idea that the signifier is yours; the signs are not, unless they are signs of your own creation. Either way, they are signified through the process of intent.

  48. He’s a body builder with an English degree, right?

    Body builder?

    What has that got to do with anything?

    The answer is twofold: no, and yes, one can be in shape and still have time to criticize the way you play your textual games.

    But I can see the need to get to work on diminishing me. I do believe “body builder” might be some of ‘em “code words” the lefties is always going on about…

  49. What Maher is doing is getting out in front with a scapegoat.

    All during Bush’s eight years the Left was, in books, stage plays, TV appearances, and thousands of signs at protest marches, calling for the assassination of G.W. Bush. You never heard Maher being upset about that.

    With the publication of “Liberal Fascism” laying to rest the stupid idea that Nazi’s are on the Right, we can see that the Left has always been the side to engage in thoughts and do the actual actions, action is their favorite word, of assassination.

    If anything now happens to Obama or is even thought of by some nutjob. It will be pasted on the conservatives. They are setting up the grounds now for the scapegoating to come if the opportunity arises. “Will to Power” is scary shit, always has been.

  50. That update by Noel Sheppard is troubling. Is he making a sick joke at Jeff’s expense by twisting King Olberdouche’s words and stealing Olberdouche’s intent, after Jeff had linked the original post?

    If not, look out.

    Here’s the start of Sheppard’s update:

    *****Update: Olbermann also misspoke when he said, “The guy who walked into the church in Tennessee said in his statement to the police that he did this because he could not shoot the liberals who were on the list from Bernie Goldberg.”

    Actually, what Jim David Adkisson wrote in his confession letter was:

    “Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate + House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg’s book. I’d like to kill everyone in the Mainstream Media. But I knew these people were inaccessible to me. I couldn’t get to the generals + high ranking officers of the Marxist Movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickens**t liberals that vote in these traitorous people.” – Noel Sheppard’s update

    What Olberdouche said in his statement was accurate, if not precise. It’s clear, however, upon viewing Olberdouche’s other comments, that Olberdouche was worried about a nut killing people on the list, notwithstanding the (lazy) crazy fucker in this case giving up because he felt the Marxist Generals were “inaccessible,” because Olberdouche is on Goldberg’s new list. For Olberdouche to claim, in effect, this (i.e. these people who were murdered and not me or people on the list) happened because the killer couldn’t kill his top targets is an accurate statement according to the text Sheppard himself quoted from.

    My interpretation of Olberdouche could be wrong, sure. But to claim that any such interpretation is “total, utter nonsense” like Sheppard does is dishonest and against my understanding of intentionalism.

  51. Just the desire to decode text as speech act.

    OUTLAW!!!

    To then call it “interpretation” suggests it is the primary text you have interpreted. Whereas all you’ve done is interpret your own fancies.

    Well, yes, but my fancies are fantastic.

  52. I do believe “body builder” might be some of ‘em “code words” the lefties is always going on about…

    That’s sooo ghey. Faggot!

  53. How is working out gay” Hell doesn’t being in shape help you pick up chicks or does this guy think his level 500 World of Warcraft character does that for him?

  54. Some folks who are overly full of regard for their own intellects probably need to consider that there is in fact a lot of difference between one who is a bodybuilder and one who exercises to be in shape.

    And then those people ought to really consider what either kind of pursuit has to do with whether one who engages in them has posed a well-formed argument.

    And then those same people ought to consider that they really don’t have a point, and are just taking cheap potshots, and are in doing so completely failing to impress those of us with more ordinary intellects.

  55. Ric,

    They had a few breaks in the killin’ and such. However, it wasn’t a very safe job, being King of Afghanistan in the 19th or 20th Centuries. And the 1800s were filled with lots o’ warfare besides with the Brits, each other, any other outsiders that wandered by as well…

  56. You left out this from Noel Sheppard.

    “Olbermann in his castigation of Goldberg conveniently chose to ignore the rest of that paragraph. What he also ignored was Adkisson’s opening paragraph wherein he explained why he did this awful act:

    Over the years I’ve had some good jobs but always got layed [sic] off. Now I’m 58 years old + can’t get a decent job. I’m told I’m “overqualified” which is a code word for “too damned old.” Like I’m expected to age gracefully into poverty. No thanks! I’m done!

    In his conclusion, Adkisson wrote:

    No one gets out of this world alive so I’ve chosen to skip the bad years of poverty. I know my life is going downhill fast from here. I’m sick + tired of being sick + tired. I’m absolutely fed up!

    As such, Olbermann’s claim “he did this because he could not shoot the liberals who were on the list from Bernie Goldberg” is utter, total nonsense”

    Spree killers are not uncommon in a free society. They always have some “explanation” of why they did it. No one wants to say “Hey I’m crazy”. Can’t get a book deal out of that.

    I agree that Olbermann may indeed fear that some crazy person may get the idea to kill him, maybe even use Golberg’s list as an excuse.

    However this whole thing is being brought up, in this way, to set in place the idea that it is conservatives who are the violent crazies. To put into play the idea that there should be “action” taken to preempt these crazy “rightwingers” before they hurt one of the anointed ones. That is why they aired that “discussion”.

  57. If “textual analysis” that ignores authorial intent is your bag, be clear about what you’re doing: you are treating the finished product as a series of signifiers, then drawing on convention and code to see if YOU CAN MAKE IT DO something the author never intended. To then call it “interpretation” suggests it is the primary text you have interpreted. Whereas all you’ve done is interpret your own fancies.

    So what you’re saying is, that Swift really did want to eat Irish babies?
    Thanks for clearing that up.

  58. You’re being ironic, right, Veeshir?

    If you’re not, then you’re another person who Just Doesn’t Get It Because You Don’t Want To.

  59. I read it as fumbling the grammar of “you” Rob, though I may be proven wrong.

  60. No Rob, I wasn’t being ironic, I was being sarcastic.
    I’m with Jeff on this one.
    I had the same thing out with Patterico long ago (although I use my mouth like a $2 whore, not a $20 one like JG) and haven’t been back since

  61. Comment by Rob Crawford on 3/24 @ 11:10 am #

    I’m going to bet it was ironic.

    Any road, my little puppy Lily has eaten the corners off of my copy of “A Modest Proposal,” so I’m thinking she doesn’t care for Swift. Or might be teething. Or both.

  62. Spree killers are not uncommon in a free society. They always have some “explanation” of why they did it.

    Remember how The Beatles got all those people killed because they wrote and recorded Helter Skelter? Keep an eye on Radiohead. But not Coldplay, because they’re just gay.

  63. My apologies, Veeshir. It’s getting hard to tell…

  64. In the interests of full disclosure, I posted this at Patterico’s site just now, re the 6:18pm post on March 23rd. Apologies. Also have changed my handle from Ronnie Dobbs to Todd, the Sofa King.

    Not arguing with Goldstein is not the same as banning him.

    My take on this whole issue is that you [Patterico - ed] seem to believe that it is better to avoid a head-on collision with those who want to be the code interpreters to serve their own ends; to combat this, you think it’s smart to take into account the likelihood (or virtual certainty) that they will misinterpret what you say to fit their own agenda when making your argument. If the object of the argument is persuasion, not necessarily of the adversary, but the wider audience, this is to me a fair point.

    Goldstein, it seems, does not believe in yielding ground to those who would (self-servingly) interpret what someone says because once that ground is lost, it’s difficult to reclaim, and the self-serving interpreter is going to do it anyway. On top of that, the offending interpreter can then use that position to mount further attacks on your speech, once this beachhead is established. Which is also a fair point. You may counter, if I may continue with the military analogy, that you may lose the war if you win this battle; better to retreat from this particular fight.

    Both positions seem to assume different views about your audience and the point of the discourse. Reasonable people can disagree. That said, since there’s no adjudicator in this fight, it can’t be settled to anyone’s satisfaction, and I’m another audience member throwing my two cents in, for better or worse.

    I’ve been following this dust-up as someone who checks Ace, you, Protein, NRO, Treacher, etc., when they should be working. Also for the record, I think Goldstein is right on this and you are wrong, and that your “death threat” issue is overwrought. Also for the record, I like your work, especially the unmasking of Greenwald’s sock puppetry, and you are, I believe, a force for good. As are Protein Wisdom and the other thought leaders mentioned.

    And the point of this post?

    First, I hope that the first parts of the post demonstrate that I’m not some troll, or am hiding behind a ‘let’s all get along’ banner in the hopes that you’ll mend fences just for the sake of doing so (I have a view). Or that I hate you. I don’t.

    Second, I think you committed a cardinal sin is in banning Goldstein. That’s what really rubs me the wrong way, especially using this “death threat” issue.

    Bad form, sir.

    This incident has made you look smaller. And that’s not good, not just for you, but for your followers.

    No comment or further response necessary, but have at me if you will.

    Sincerely,

    A fan

  65. What geoffb,

    You’ve never seen an old lady with that diamond pattern in her hands?

  66. point is, Jeff, if I’ve misstated your position, apologies. Correct if you see fit. Hope you understand the spirit in which it was intended. No pun intended. Or, not intend – wait…

    man, this gets complicated.

  67. It’s getting hard to tell…
    You know it Rob.
    That’s part of what makes it the Funniest End of Civilization Ever.

  68. “You’ve never seen an old lady with that diamond pattern in her hands?”

    God the machinist? No, only the ones who had recently had a death grip on a checkered gunstock.

  69. Forgetting its actual (rabble-dissociation) function and just looking at the words, you’d think that the label “pragmatic conservative” (or “realist” or “reformist” or whatever) would signal a hesitant sometime-libertarianism, since libertarian policies are the not-conservative ones whose ends are most — or can most readily be understood as — conservative. Pragmatically. In a realist/reformist sort of way.

    That must be “conservative pragmatism.”

  70. Sofa King, I’d offer this one modification of your thrust (and it is a picky modification to be sure, but pointed I think).You wrote “…the offending interpreter…”, this could be better, I think, as “…the offending pseudo-interpreter…” Otherwise, cheers.

  71. Sofa King what?

  72. The self-esteem raising term for “couch potato” perhaps.

  73. oh. I allowed as maybe he sold ‘em in non-trivial numbers and was justly proud.

  74. sdferr 70: good point. I stand corrected. As in, “and when my wife tried to prevent me from doing my duty, I … corrrrrected her.” That won’t get me banned, right?

    alpuccino 72: winner
    geoffb 72: fail
    Sdferr 73: top marks for originality

  75. “and when my wife tried to prevent me from doing my duty, I … corrrrrected her.”

    Are you saying you want to kill me, Todd?

  76. SarahW: No.

  77. That was direct and reassuring. I was expecting “why do you axe?” :)

  78. COL (chuckling out loud)

  79. We will not, however, interpret “I … corrrrrected her” as “Yes dear, as you wish.”

  80. Making an “interpretation” of an author’s intent based upon one’s own [projected or otherwise deranged] intent somehow just doesn’t seem to be a winning argument against intentionalism.

    Nevertheless, I secretly even lust the day when I get to take all of the letters the author uses and reassemble them into my own [even misspelled] words and sentences in order to “de-code” the author’s meaning, because then I will be TOTALLY FREE!

    Uh, that is, except for those darned minders and facilitators of “reasonableness”, ever on the alert for the well-cloaked or crudely lipsticked Swine Capitalist.

  81. Nothing good comes from playing word association games that end up referencing a Kubrick movie, is the lesson here. And here endeth the lesson.

    With hope, and a desire for change,
    Todd

  82. If the object of the argument is persuasion, not necessarily of the adversary, but the wider audience, this is to me a fair point.

    Yes. And is one I make myself. What Patterico was doing however was trying to prescribe how best to persuade — positing that Limbaugh’s rhetoric was somehow not as effective as the rhetoric he would have chosen. Or rather, not as effective to a certain target audience whom Limbaugh may or may not have been trying to reach. Which is the point: you can’ account for every place your words can be recontextualized and guard against them being used as a cudgel without weakening your argument to such a point that it barely registers. You end up constructing arguments around rules established by those who are out to get you anyway.

    Whether or not Limbaugh’s rhetoric is effective of detrimental to conservatism in the long run remains to be seen; after all, it spurred this argument, which has clarified certain strains of conservatism / classical liberalism. Which may in turn affect how we chose to get our message across to the “moderates”.

    Patterico was making rules for persuasion based on what he thought was best; I was pointing out that to argue anything beyond just matters of rhetorical taste opened him up, from a linguistic standpoint, to all sort of problems.

    Thankfully, he has (unwittingly, but nevertheless) performed the critique of his own position, to the point of even taking it to such extremes that we now have imputed to a speaker who is not allowed to respond to his accusers directly “death threats,” or “threats of violence,” of finally, potential threats of violence that only an intercession by Patterico prevented.

    I hope the government never takes it upon itself to assume Patterico’s role…

  83. “geoffb 72: fail”

    Asking the author his intent is a pass/fail thing. Not asking and just making shit up is much worse.

  84. A reminder that the Emperor did take off his clothes in order to put the new ones on. It just seems to always work that way. Funny thing.

  85. 84 for 82

  86. Or, as Jennifer Rubin writes about Obama’s policy gang today “There’s a lot of virtual reality with this bunch. Daily stock market plunges don’t constitute real money losses, just opinion readings. Cooler temperatures aren’t signs of cooler climates, just noise in the system. Success in Iraq is an epiphenomenal condition with no connection to a supposedly unwinnable war. This pervasive detachment from reality goes a long way in explaining the administration’s ability to smile, joke, and make small talk while things nosedive.”

  87. as Jennifer Rubin writes about Obama’s policy gang today….

    This death threat thing has gone viral! I blame Glenn Beck – if not Global Warming.

  88. Back to Glenn Beck: I slept in, ok?

    I have a sneaking suspicion that he truly believes that President Obama is the antichrist and this is the end of the world. He hasn’t said those exact words, but that spectre is there. His lack of hope is what gets to me. I get the impression that he believes he is the prophet crying out in the streets, when actually there are times he seems like a crazy guy with a cardboard “End of the World” sign.

    No, he does not think that Obama is Antichrist. He does not think that this is the End of the World. He does believe that he has a responsibility to warn people that times will get rough and they need to be prepared. He is VERY adamant that if there’s an armed revolt it will be the French Revolution and not the American redux. Which would be a very bad thing. He emphasizes getting educated on the Founding Principles and storing some food for when the economy goes bad.

    Glenn goes to church with a guy in high finance who feeds him information about what’s going on in that area. Glenn’s been “predicting” financial collapse for years because his “deep throat” can see it from his vantage point.

    Frankly, I’ve had the feeling that the economy was going to experience a sudden collapse for several years now, and I’ve got plenty of canned soup on hand (also because I tend to lose my job often; layoffs and health and such).

    Glenn also “listens to his gut” about these things, which is his way of saying that he has prayed deeply about the future of this country, and his gut tells him that we’re in for a rough ride for the nonce but that a Constitutional government will eventually be restored.

    We just have to be ready for it.

    Glenn also finds it easier to believe in imminent collapse because he knows that life can turn on a dime: his mother committed suicide when he was 13, turning his whole life upside down and leading him on a long road to self-destruction.

    His staff constantly chides him for being such a doomsayer, but I suspect that they’ve never had their lives turned upside-down in an instant by forces beyond their control.

    Yeah, Glenn is hard to listen to, sometimes. I’d rather he went back to comedy. HE’D rather go back to comedy. But he feels a responsibility to warn us to be prepared for the “perfect storm” that’s on our doorstep. You think Obama can’t occasion that? Think again.

  89. Frankly, I’ve had the feeling that the economy was going to experience a sudden collapse for several years now

    well yeah, cause they tend to do that. But, now His Hooves the Wonder Unicorn (thanks to, um, whoever came up with that one) will put an end to boom/bust economic cycles.

  90. Oh, never mind, I just saw the highlighted parts in the scribd document. ,

  91. Pablo suggested I post this again:

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I READILY ADMIT TO THREATENING TO BEAT CERTAIN PEOPLE’S ASSES. And you know what? I’d still do it to most of them if we ever met up. So?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Scott Jacobs is one of those guys I mentioned that if I ever met him in person, I’d leave him in a heap, mewling like a baby pussy.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Hey, listen: Doc Weasel is a cover band. The guy who runs their site, Kenny, is a 140lb unpaid roadie and all around lackey living at home with mom, posting amateur porn and tugging at his own little doc weasel. If I ever run into him, I’ll break him like a toothpick.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    Note that I said if I ever ran across some of these people, I’d have no problem — and feel no guilt — about snapping their ACL.

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    As I said earlier, why the fuck should I be embarrassed about telling people who’ve said some vile things to me that I’d be happy to meet up with them in person, where I’d give them the opportunity to say those same vile things directly to my face. Just before I broke their fucking ankles?

    Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:

    I’ve probably gotten into it with about a half dozen people over the years, some of whom if I ran into them in the street I would beat their ass without hesitation.

    From: Jeff Goldstein: Arguing “On Point” — With Threats of Violence.

    Thanks to Pablo for the suggestion. It’s a good one. Sorta makes it clear who wrote this post.

Leave a Reply