Listen: is Stacy McCain a racist? I honestly can’t say for certain because I can’t see into his heart (where racism, when it exists, tends first to purchase a modest duplex, then sets about taking over the HOA, populating it with likeminded haters, in an effort to cleanse the neighborhood of undesirables).
But from where I’m sitting, McCain’s never said or written anything that I consider racist — though I’m being led to understand that “reasonable people” engaging in “reasonable interpretations” have decided he might be, and are demanding the godforsaken hick bigot prove otherwise, in the service of pursuing truth. Pragmatically. And with an ear toward delicious sanctimony.
– Which, hey, at least he’s not being accused of making “death threats.”*
Here’s my take, for what it’s worth. What McCain is — judging from what I’ve read, both past and present — is someone who has been candid in his writings about questions of racial politics, and as such, I believe he can be more accurately described as someone seeking a “real conversation on race” than nearly all those who gave lip service to such a noble idea, then worked tirelessly to make sure that said conversation never actually took place, with the punishment, for those who mistook the offer as legitimate, being predictable charges of racism, should any of those commenting question left-liberal orthodoxy.
That aside, I was struck by this response from McCain to Patrick Frey, who, among those on the right, seems to have appointed himself chief prosecutor in the implicit case against McCain and his howling, white separatist, code word-using coterie (who Patterico is nothing like, mind. Really. In fact, doesn’t his very willingness to “examine” the charges of racism in the service of TRUTH show you just how different he is? How much better he is? How much more careful he is at guarding his public utterances so as to keep them from being misconstrued — which of course doesn’t mean his speech is being chilled; rather, that there are certain questions that are simply settled, like, for instance, candid questions about racial politics…? …. DEATH THREAT!!1!):
You further seem to suppose that your accusatory method — “This, That and The Other,” as I’ve sometimes described this type of attack — can result in a perfect distillation of my beliefs. Liberals have composed similar laundry-list indictments of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh, for similar purposes. Lather, rinse, repeat.By this method, you attempt to make yourself the arbiter of what is or is not to be admitted as evidence and then — j’accuse! — you declare that I be judged only on that evidence. And if I refuse to allow you to set the rules, you accuse me of not playing fair, despite the fact that I was minding my own business when you decided to arraign me in this manner, as if I were accused of some crime.
You see that you are arrogating to yourself a most frightening authority. I am not a candidate for public office, and it is profoundly strange to find myself the target of this sort of opposition research project.
Patterico’s claim is that he is after the Truth, the specific truth he seeks here presumably being whether or not Stacy McCain is a racist, or wrote things that can be construed as racist by “reasonable” people once they’ve been removed from their context and repackaged for contemporary consumption.
The question is, why? Is it to “out” “racists” who may damage conservatism at large by dint of their being attached to the movement publicly? Because that may very well be a worthy goal (even if it obliquely smacks of demanding the kind of “ideological purity” so-called pragmatists deplore in others).
But — and here’s the rub — at what point is one justified in opening up a public examination on high profile websites — and what should the ground rules for such a case be? Finally, are there other motivations at play here? — a wish, for instance, to preen unsullied amid the harsh spotlight of political correctness at the expense of forever closing down legitimate areas of inquiry and the free exchange of ideas?
Dunno. You all tell me. Because I really am curious.
– And because I’m only permitted to speak to the issue on one of the blogs involved.
****
See also, “Is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey anti-semitic”?
Comment by Wm T Sherman on 12/9 @ 11:33 am #
In the case of Charles’ Johnson, I think the accusations are based on McCain knowing a lot of people. If McCain is a racist, and if you are dumb enough to buy into the Johnson’s Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon type indictments for racism and extremism, then you can easily make accusations against all sorts of people. McCain is one-stop shopping. It is, how you say, an efficient use of libeling resources.
Comment by Frontman on 12/9 @ 11:35 am #
Submitted for your consideration-I suspect that the questions here are more important than the answers. As noted, some of the answers are held in the hearts of the subjects of discussion and will likely not be revealed in full.
Comment by Pablo on 12/9 @ 11:46 am #
Here’s a blog written by a black guy who clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about and probably isn’t a good man, as he’s cast aspersions on the integrity of a certain blogger.
I’ll bet you could comment over there.
Comment by Rose on 12/9 @ 11:49 am #
It’s really very simple. If you ask questions about Obama’s policies, you are a racist. Because RSMcCain is effective at asking questions, and providing evidence, he is to be destroyed. It’s the “Progressive”/activist way.
At his point calling someone “racist” is a joke.
Comment by Pablo on 12/9 @ 11:50 am #
I liked the one where Sarah Palin is a white supremacist because she wrote her book with Lynn Vincent, who also co-wrote a book with that awful Stacy McCain fellow. That was a scary pink headline for quite a while. QED, bitches!
And in case you were wondering, Amazon.com is pretty much Stormfront.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 11:51 am #
Yes, Rose. But the “examiner” here is a conservative.
Although only in outcome. Structurally, I have my doubts.
Comment by Pablo on 12/9 @ 11:52 am #
Hmmm…shoulda checked all the linkies before posting #3.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 11:55 am #
No, Pablo. I added the link after you brought it to my attention.
This post is not really much about race. It’s more about what it is we’re doing here. And how people who are ostensibly creating new outlets for political expression in theory are in fact doing no such thing in practice.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 11:58 am #
Jeff,
I was unaware that it was possible to even be a racist in this shiny post racial society.
I am referring to the one that Obama brought forth from the wasteland that Amarica was before his inauguration.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 11:59 am #
RSM appears to have come close to a certain line that well, shouldn’t really be bumped up against. I’m not saying that it has to do with his utterances–which may or may not serve a broader inquiry (if Patterico is to be snarked at for pursuing a “larger truth” as it goes, so too McCain for his comments lo those many years ago)–but rather, for apparently hat tips and connection to things like American rennaissance.
Lets cut the humanities dept. mumbo jumbo out—He probably is a serious enough man willing to accept all people for who they are. But he has come close to the flame and has done so willingly; if an Obama admin. appointee was found posting on Marxist blogs and bragged of a red-diaper legacy, we’d hammer the mofo but well. Forget the Southern pride horse-shit….why join a group that could credibly be called neo-confederate, you know?
why now? dunno. But whatever else the guy’s failings, and I’m willing to beleive he treated you sorely, he ain’t the 7th grade petri dish and feedback loop LGF is
Comment by Carin on 12/9 @ 12:00 pm #
I’m so tired of this shit.
I don’t think Patterico is really interesting in a discussion. He’s out to prove something. He thinks RSM is a RACIST (because someone said he was) and he’s fishing for validation under the guise of debate.
To what end? You’ve got me.
Hey, Patt! I get called a racist all the time. Perhaps you should get me booted from the right as well?
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 12:01 pm #
I have read and re-read the alleged comment. I do not agree with such racial biases regarding interracial marriage (and BTW I have heard Beyonce say in the past she would never marry a non black man, and that made me sad). Frankly I have heard similar biases said by people over the years (some who I care about a lot), of many different races, and I did not consider such comments to be racist then and do not consider then racist now.
But why did Patterico decide to give creedence if you will to Charles Johnson’s ongoing slander fest of R.S. McCain? What is motivating Patterico to do this?
Comment by DarthRove on 12/9 @ 12:02 pm #
If I remember correctly, one of the foundations of textual criticism is simply stated as, “Something can never mean what it never meant.” In other, legal terms that Mr. Frey may relate to better, ex post facto applies to what people write. Documents written in AD 96, 1196, or 1996 must be examined in light of what was happining in 96, 1196, and 1996. Would a person engaged in that conversation in 1996 seen RSM’s writing as an attempt to communicate racist thought? And even if that person would, does that in fact make RSM racist?
My opinion? No to both. But YMMV.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 12:06 pm #
…says the guy evidently not banned from commenting there.
But let me repeat myself: “This post is not really much about race. It’s more about what it is we’re doing here. And how people who are ostensibly creating new outlets for political expression in theory are in fact doing no such thing in practice.”
Sorry, but when we begin having public show trials, we’re into an time in this medium’s evolution that needs exploring.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 12:08 pm #
And Wm. T. Sherman is correct, slandering R.S. McCain gives Charles Johnson leverage to call Ace, Allah, Capt. Ed, Michelle Malkin, Powerline and a host of other right leaning sites racists by association. Charles Johnson himself is meaningless, but then Andrew Sullivan picks up the ball, and before you know it the whole MSM is discussing how racist the Republicans and the right wing are.
I will note is is ironic that Wm. T. Sherman is defending R.S. McCain in part over this!
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 12:10 pm #
Of course, very few people read here any more, and my voice isn’t as strong on the right as it once was — for many of the same reasons this post aims to discuss.
Ironically, few people will read it.
Comment by ConantheCimmerian on 12/9 @ 12:12 pm #
Question: I am a white man and married a white woman, does that make me racist that I prefer white women to marry? I am Scots-Irish and she is half Scots-Irish. Does that make me and ethnicist?
Question 2: I am a heterosexual and thus married a woman, does that make me a homophobe because I prefer women and would not try and marry a man? It seems it must.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 12:13 pm #
…”and what should the ground rules for such a case be?”
Two men enter. One man leaves.
Charles Johnson will no doubt demand to get the dog whistle up front.
I swear to God. The PC poo flinging, all the “preening” false positives, the “service my narrative racist!”, the holier than thou white man with navel gazing super powers…fucking beer summits.
Nobody will be able to have a serious conversation about race for the next 40 years.
I can’t take it seriously anymore. I just can’t. All the questions Jeff raises are excellent ones.
I just don’t give a shit about the answers anymore. Too many assholes in the conversation.
Comment by ConantheCimmerian on 12/9 @ 12:14 pm #
Yes this seems to be a show trial by someone that has deemed himself better than others.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 12:16 pm #
Is is racist when a secular Jewish family freaks out when their son comes home with a shiska?
Is is racist when black women get upset when a black celebrity prefers blond white women?
Or is it racist or homophobic (or Christianist) when you cannot state the current PC position on gays and race like it was the Niccean Creed?
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 12:17 pm #
#17. Comment by ConantheCimmerian on 12/9 @ 12:12 pm
No to both.
But it does make you kind of boring. ;}
Comment by Sigivald on 12/9 @ 12:19 pm #
Patterico’s still around?
Huh.
Comment by Carin on 12/9 @ 12:19 pm #
nd how people who are ostensibly creating new outlets for political expression in theory are in fact doing no such thing in practice.”
I have no answer for you. I don’t know what the fuck they are doing.
Comment by ConantheCimmerian on 12/9 @ 12:21 pm #
@#21 Lamont,
Well in my defense, the other half of her is french/acadian-cajun.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 12:22 pm #
Jeff, well yes and no.
The damage to RSM is real enough here, reputation wise, so I take your concerns about show trials.
But show trials were drumhead proceedings for instituting ideological purity via fear among a broader populace….also, with few exceptions, they were totally made up, a mocking of justice–anti-justice as it were.
RSM, a bright and talented man, has very, very clearly written stuff that is damn well hard to defend. In journalism in DC, he was known as a parody of far right memes, and a guy whose views on race were far away from the norms of even the Wash. Times Op-Ed set.
Intentionalism can pound sand. RSM is no Kleagle, but he has said and written ugly things that never wanted for saying.
Comment by ducktrapper on 12/9 @ 12:22 pm #
I’m guess I’m just naive enough to think that actual racism purports that one race is inferior/superior to another. I’m not saying that doesn’t exist but in reality it has been pushed to the fringe of polite society. To merely not like things based entirely on their perceived affiliation with another race is bigotry not outright racism. Let’s face it though, if a liberal hasn’t called you a racist recently, you’re not much of a conservative. With my black daughter and gay son, I just have to laugh at these accusations of intolerance. I believe there is one race of people. The human race. Members of which can be pretty dang foolish.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 12:24 pm #
“Well in my defense, the other half of her is french/acadian-cajun.”
A little cayenne pepper. Well done sir.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 12:24 pm #
The accusation itself seems to provide grounds sufficient to prove the accusation.
You have to love the tools of leftism. They are effective enough to work in anyone’s hands.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 12:25 pm #
mcgruder, read the whole thing:
Comment by geoffb on 12/9 @ 12:26 pm #
RSM
Patterico
You can quote someone accurately, even supply the entire passage, and still mistake (innocently) or misconstrue (if not so innocently) the intent. Misquoting and “mistaking intent” may do the same thing to an author’s statement but are not the same action.
Comment by ConantheCimmerian on 12/9 @ 12:28 pm #
A wonderful one hour documentary on racism, can’t recommend it highly enough:
a conversation about race
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 12:29 pm #
“RSM is no Kleagle, but he has said and written ugly things that never wanted for saying.”
Linkies?
Not being a dick. He has a lot of archived stuff over there, and I don’t know exactly what I’m supposed to be looking for.
Mean time I’ll try Wiki.
Comment by Blake on 12/9 @ 12:30 pm #
Jeff,
What I see is this: A lot of conservatives still flinch at charges of “racism.” And, when such charges are leveled against one of their own, a Patrick Frey jumps up and yells “burn the witch” because Frey is afraid he’s next.
Because Frey has to prove, through burning the witch, that he isn’t, you know, a sanctimonious twit of a racist.
As an aside, I’m so goddamn tired of the race crap. Good God, a black man has been elected president. I would think the whole race thing would be so 1950’s.
The next election should be marvelous. I can hardly wait for the charges of “racism” because Obama is voted out of office.
“I denounce myself” and you all should “burn the witch” because there’s no way in hell I’ll ever vote for that communist lightweight who happens to be black.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 12:31 pm #
R.S. McCain’s lastest response to Patterico. Long but well said.
Comment by Pablo on 12/9 @ 12:36 pm #
It’s too bad that McCain fellow is white. He might be helpful otherwise.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 12:36 pm #
Joe,#20- of course not. RSM has gone hard up against a neo-confederate line though. He probably isn’t racist, but he has poor judgement and a love for arguing minutae in this realm that is distasteful to me. He doesnt deserve to be a right wing thought leader.
Much of the problem with right wing blogs is the problem with the right wing. It hasnt been a great time for us, you know.
Iraq turned to crap and proved beyond expensive and bloody, with so many mistakes being made as to be ridiculous. Afghanistan? Enough said. The economy devolved into a comic disaster under Bush, with no pretense of regulatory scrutiny or effective regulation or oversight from the SEC and other oversight/prosecutorial/regulatory agencies.
Our ideas and beliefs fared poorly from 2001-2009. We are now on the defensive and, at least in terms of DC representation, firmly a minority party. It would seem logical that there is some tumult and the like at the grass-roots (blog) level as we reorganize into something that is both politically sustainable and intellectually more compelling than GOP 2001-2009.
PS I understand that the GOP has never spoken to, or for, many here at least in the recent past. But, sadly, it is the vehicle by which our beliefs are traditionally politically expressed.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 12:37 pm #
As Radley Balko would say–don’t talk to the police (or self appointed PC prosecutors).
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 12:37 pm #
McGruder –
I think asking RSM to expound on his ideas of race is more fruitful than asking him to prove he isn’t racist. One is in furtherance of exploring ideas; the other is in the service of distancing and staining.
Comment by Kresh on 12/9 @ 12:41 pm #
‘Cause this is a distraction. That’s it.
RSM has things that need saying, and reporting that needs to be done, but you can only do so much at one time. If he’s defending himself against “charges of racism” (really now, let’s consider the source as proof of how accurate they are), then he’s spending less time on things that are actually important and need reporting on.
<– is biased for RSM.
Comment by sdferr on 12/9 @ 12:44 pm #
The “Iraq turned to crap” story is still a pile of horseshit, even though the full story isn’t over with. Give it a few years. So. No sale mcgruder. So what sort of Republican thought leader does that make you?
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 12:46 pm #
mcgruder, as you know, I was somewhat critical of Rummy/Bush’s handling of the Iraq War and got plenty of…criticism…for saying so. I agree with you the GOP needs to focus on competency, but that is not the issue here.
I have been reading McCain’s site pretty closely. I have not seen any racism. As for the Neo-Confederate stuff, I did have a brief Lynard Skynard period myself in my youth before I started to listen to the Ramones, Pistols and the Clash.
The Clash started to lose me with the Sandinista album and they were dead to me after Rock the Cassbah.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 12:48 pm #
Jeff, that is true. fair is fair.
Sdferr. No kind of a thought leader is for certain, but I never tried to be. Iraq? The book isn’t finished, I’ll grant you that. Still, I could have thought of a better use of the blood and treasure.
Comment by Brian L. on 12/9 @ 12:50 pm #
Yeah, right. PW is still quite the powerhouse around these parts, Jeff!
Comment by Lazarus Long on 12/9 @ 12:51 pm #
So who died and made Patrick Frey The Weigher Of Souls?
Comment by Dan Collins on 12/9 @ 12:51 pm #
This business has been drummed up by TimB, in response to allegations made by Charles Johnson and his Lysol-swilling coterie.
Stacy is brash and irritating, and delights in confrontation. I don’t believe that he’s a racist, however. Charles’ six degrees of separation guilt by association method of argumentation is absurd, and it’s fundamentally leftist insofar as that what’s objectionable, really, about Stacy is the abject vulgarity of his cultural milieu.
Rachel Maddow last night convicted some guy who’d written a book on overcoming homoerotic impulses, if they bother you, of having sponsored in effect Ugandan laws regarding execution of homosexuals. By those standards, Charles Darwin is an unbelievably evil man. At any rate, one seldom hears this kind of judgment applied to the writings of Louis Althusser or Martin Heidegger: instead, what’s important is their work, per se.
Anyone can appoint himself Chief Hygienic Technician for the Excoriation of Thought Crime, but that doesn’t make it so. If you’ve read this, you’re probably already contaminated.
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 12:51 pm #
Personal preference and the free expression of ideas must be stamped out. We are trying to make the world a better place and if you don’t get in line and shut up we will make your life a living hell.
Comment by sdferr on 12/9 @ 12:55 pm #
Though it’s admirable of you to concede you aren’t a R.T.L. mcgruder, what then are we to make of your judgement that RSM isn’t one either? How would we, who also make no claim to such a lofty position, know one if we see him? Or her? What are our criteria? What the Washington, DC journalism set thinks of said person? Then we want to know, what are their criteria? Who’s interest are they in the business of seeing to? Ours? The GOP’s?
Comment by Blake on 12/9 @ 12:56 pm #
Mcgruder,
Way off topic, however, to me, the invasion of Iraq was a no-brainer. Saddam wanted to expand his empire in the ME, and those he could conquer he wanted to blackmail with nuclear weapons. (no, I’m not claiming Hussein had nukes, I’m saying he wanted them in order to commit nuclear blackmail)
The ME has been a problem for 40 years or so and, prior to 9/11, diplomacy was aimed at containing the mess. 9/11 proved the mess wasn’t contained, so, a new approach was needed.
So, two things were accomplished with the invasion of Iraq. One, a brutal dictator with expansionist aims was removed and, a work in progress Arab democracy was established.
Will the gamble in Iraq pay off? We probably won’t know for another 20 years. At least, though, something different was tried.
Comment by baxtrice on 12/9 @ 12:58 pm #
Here’s my take on the RSM racist smear; RMS wrote a book with a certain Ms Vincent, Ms Vincent ghostwrote for Ms. Palin. Ms Palin is hated by many on the left and right. RMS is just a domino in the long line of dominoes to take down Sarah Palin.
and I’m biased for RMS, I lost my LGF account defending him to Chucky J. Pulling a sentence out of a long discussion and declaring/asking if it’s racist seems scummy. It would seem better if Mr Frey or Chucky J. just emailed RMS or picked up the phone and *ASKED* him about this instead making it some blog scandal.
Comment by baxtrice on 12/9 @ 12:59 pm #
D’oh *RSM* spelling FAIL. not enough coffee. mock appropriately. ;)
Pingback by What Goldstein Said. | Little Miss Attila on 12/9 @ 1:01 pm #
[...] Patrick tries to get the Charles Johnson-ish charges of racism against Robert Stacy McCain to stick, and fails. [...]
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 1:07 pm #
Pablo, you are going to owe me some dough next month.
From the AP…
Sen. Scott Brown is one of just five Republicans in the state Senate. He won Tuesday’s Republican primary and will go head-to-head in the Jan. 19 special election with the winner of the four-way Democratic race, Attorney General Martha Coakley.
Brown and his team are relishing the opportunity.
“The voters will have a clear choice: Do they want to send somebody down there who is going to be in lockstep with (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid and do what they’re told, or do they want somebody who’s going to be down there looking for the interests of Massachusetts?” Brown told The Associated Press in an interview.
Coakley ignored Brown in her victory speech, but she didn’t shy away from aligning herself with President Barack Obama or congressional Democrats during an interview with the AP this week.
…She is toast.
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 1:07 pm #
‘The “Iraq turned to crap” story is still a pile of horseshit, even though the full story isn’t over with. Give it a few years. So. No sale mcgruder. So what sort of Republican thought leader does that make you?”
Also this:
“The economy devolved into a comic disaster under Bush, with no pretense of regulatory scrutiny or effective regulation or oversight from the SEC and other oversight/prosecutorial/regulatory agencies.”
As I remember, Bush inherited a recession, then had to deal with 9/11, and quite dramatically overcame both with sound economic policies Obama should study. The economy fell apart only during the last year of his presidency. Let’s see, what changed at the end of his second term…?
Oh yeah! The same bunch that blocked Bushes attempts to better regulate Fanny and Freddy were elected to majority in Congress.
Comment by psycho... on 12/9 @ 1:08 pm #
Reduce postulates. We don’t know what he thinks, why he thinks it, or what needs it satisfies. He’s not honest enough to convey that information, or probably even to know it himself.
We know that he evinces a desire to appear to be the kind of person who accuses certain other kinds of people of being racist, and he does so in a certain style. We know there’s a certain audience for that. Fill in your identikits. The rest is jibberjabber.
I have my own rare opinions about his occupation, its methods and social function, and of the minds of people who do it (or who even approve of its being done). Oldsters here know my spiel, and I’m tired of it. But this event, like the similar one that preceded it, and other subtler ones, makes me feel all right inside.
That’s not a very good reason to talk shit. It’s a better one, though.
But really, real life here, who do you (general “you”) ask such questions? Suspects. “Fif,” McCain says, usually. But he sometimes says other things he thinks are worth saying. And interesting things are revealed, mostly not by or about him.
Is he a racist? Never in an unconscious, incredibly revealing kind of way. So if he is, he barely is. And so, so what.
I’m one of a kind of people he actually shit-talks: atheists. There’s no resemblance between the goading way he pokes at us and how he talks about black people. He seems uninterested in them as such.
That’s RAAAAACIST, for sure, but not racist.
(And I like him, as a textual entity, even though he jacked my long-string-of-capital-As act.)
Comment by Pablo on 12/9 @ 1:10 pm #
Mr. W, I’m acquainted with Scott Brown. I hope he wins. I doubt he will.
You see, out of that Dem field, MA picked Martha Fucking Coakley, as useless a POS that has ever held public office. Chickens before they hatch, etc…
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/9 @ 1:12 pm #
Patrick Frey sounds like a SoCal limp wristed lawyer fag. Not fag as in someone who likes to suck other men’s dicks, as I don’t think that sexual orientation is bad one way or the other. But fag as in the more modern colloquial…a pansy with no spine and he unceasingly wants, no he needs, to be liked by people he deems as his betters.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 1:12 pm #
Well, psycho, I wouldn’t ask him as a suspect, but rather as someone who wrote on race — with questions coming from someone interested in racial politics.
But that’s me. Others have other reasons.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 1:14 pm #
the dude is something of that though SDferr.
I agree that Frey would have been better served having sought to call him up and interview him. There is an ugly aspect to the inquiry-via-blog method. Not helping matters is RSM’s writing style. He would have defused this more directly–if, indeed, he could have–had he simply written something head on addressing the claims levied against him.
Charles Johnson does indeed have something to answer for with his links between any and all RW blogs as proof of….something….approach to argument.
Blake, I agree with you that we are 20 years away from an effective judgement on Iraq. I just disagree that it was the best use of our resources at the time.
Comment by geoffb on 12/9 @ 1:15 pm #
This is a judgment call and is part of the Left line that to be a white Southerner is to be racist, by definition. I’m going to repeat what I said here.
“The emotions and thoughts that lay behind phrases such as “Don’t mess with Texas” and “What did you say about my wife?” are not limited to Texas or wives alone. It’s a human thing to defend that which you love.
”
RSM loves his city Atlanta, his State, Georgia, and his region, the South. I love mine also. Don’t mess with Michigan!
Comment by TendStl on 12/9 @ 1:16 pm #
What happened to Happyfeet? Over at Pattericos site he really shows his disdain for the party and pretty much calls Malkin, Gateway and Breitbart the real sources of hate.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/9 @ 1:18 pm #
Take Ohio…please!
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/9 @ 1:18 pm #
A horribly executed take on the old Hennie Youngman joke. My apologies.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 1:21 pm #
“What I see is this: A lot of conservatives still flinch at charges of “racism.” And, when such charges are leveled against one of their own, a Patrick Frey jumps up and yells “burn the witch” because Frey is afraid he’s next.”
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” – Winston Churchill
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 1:23 pm #
#53, he overcame both with utterly asinine and unsound policies. Do you really think we–or the American idea–were well-served by the housing boom from 2002-2007? The interest rates were absurdly low, federal spending was demented and there was absolutely no effective federal regulatory scrutiny because utterly ineffective people like Chris Cox were appointed to give business a free reign.
The Bushies had good instincts on Fannie and Freddie but backed off a fight at every turn. I covered this stuff closely; they paid lip service to reigning those two retards in. Much more harmful was the Bush administrations allowing the American banking system to become a leveraged carry trade.
Comment by PatHMV on 12/9 @ 1:24 pm #
On what basis can anyone claim that Patterico is not truly interested in a real dialog? He began by asking a very straightforward question, a question to which R.S. McCain has never given a direct answer, so far as I have been able to tell. Did he or did he not say that a revulsion to one’s sister marrying a black man would be “natural,” and that such a natural revulsion would not be “racism”? If McCain is unable or unwilling to directly answer even so basic a question as whether he said those words, let alone what he meant by them at the time, if he did say them, then how is that Patterico is the one unwilling to engage in dialog?
As for McCain himself, as I noted in comments at Patterico’s, the man has spent a great deal of his career researching, and defending many aspects of, the confederacy. By no means are all those who defend the confederacy today racists. Certainly the guilt-by-association which people like Rachel Maddow have tried to spread against people who merely once co-wrote articles with McCain are insanely wrong. But to be very blunt, speaking as a conservative in the south, anybody who wants to defend the confederacy to me, anybody who wants to say, as McCain has apparently said in the past in the same debate from which his “natural revulsion” comment comes, that southern conservatives imposed segregation to BENEFIT black people, by keeping them separate from the lower-class whites who would do violence to them, needs to stay far, far away from anything which even hints of personal racism.
If McCain were, as some suggest, interested in an actual dialog on race, then he has but to either support or defend the statement regarding natural revulsions towards interracial dating or marriage. If he said it, and he agrees with it, then he should stand by it and explain why. If he didn’t say it, or doesn’t agree with it, he should say that. But he won’t engage in the debate, refuses to even address the basic issue of whether he said it or not.
And to me, that makes him a coward, among other things.
As for the larger question posed by our host, we need to hold our own side to the same standard to which we hold the other side. More importantly, we cannot allow conservativism generally to be tainted by any hint of actual racism. We are routinely falsely accused of racism, in rather ludicrous fashion, by the likes of Harry Reid. It is altogether appropriate that we refute those allegations, fight them for the insidious, destructive lies they are. BUT, the conservative movement will not be able to prosper in the long run, America will not be able to prosper in the long run, if we cannot convince larger segments of the black community to join our ranks. We do not and should not pander to anybody, we should not modify our strongly held convictions in order to reach out to that community, but we should and must make clear that we do not tolerate actual racism, and if there’s a credible allegation that one of our own is racist, or harbors racist thoughts on some level, we should, frankly, shun that person, just as we would demand that Democrats shun actual communists.
Moreover, WE should be the party willing to have the honest debate that the Democrats will not engage in, about race. There are undoubtedly many people who believe one shouldn’t discriminate against another race in business transactions, but wouldn’t want to socialize or intermarry with that other race. I think this is a wrong attitude to have, myself. I’m not trying to go around condemning people for it, but I would like the opportunity to debate the issue with them and try to persuade them to see it my way, and to show why such attitudes are, in my opinion, both un-Christian and un-American.
But Mr. McCain refuses to debate, and lots of conservatives are attacking Patterico for merely asking a simple question… did R.S. McCain write those words?
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 1:28 pm #
On the basis of having tried having real dialogue with him.
And then getting banned from his site.
For starters.
And “merely asking questions” doesn’t cut it. Or maybe it does. Tell me, PatHMV: have you stopped beating your wife?
We are also routinely accused of hurting conservatism by publicly mentioning that we hope socialism fails, if it is socialism that our President is after.
Tomato, tomah-to.
I thought it was established that he wrote those words.
He’s now being told to justify them as NOT RACIST, or else he must BE racist. And the people telling him to do the justifying have set themselves up as judge and jury.
Comment by Fred C. Dobbs on 12/9 @ 1:30 pm #
Patterico isn’t trying to determine if McCain is racist. He’s seeking affirmation of his judgement that McCain is racist. Patterico makes it clear after asking the question if the quote from McCain is racist, that he, Patterico thinks it is racist. One of the first comments has Patterico agreeing with someone who says the quote is racist.
In other words, Patterico makes sure that the commenters know from the start what the correct answer is to his question. He deliberately influences the responses so that he can then use those responses as evidence against McCain.
To me it is intellectually dishonest. It is the same technique he used with his idiotic “dog, kids, and black man” questions.
Comment by sdferr on 12/9 @ 1:30 pm #
So this really is all about Ebonie PatHMV? Ha!
Maybe Elmore Leonard has the blog post title: “Get Ebonie!”
Comment by Pablo on 12/9 @ 1:31 pm #
On the basis that last time he was having one, he banned the proprietor of this blog under utterly false pretenses when he was losing the argument on the merits. He also threatened to do a hit piece on said blogger, ripping a page out of the Sadly No! playbook.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 1:36 pm #
For the record, I’ll have a debate on race with anyone, left or right.
I think it’s high time we had said debate — including attidudes that redound to aspects of tribalism which may or may not be hardwired, what they mean intrinsically, and how they manifest extrinsically.
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 1:37 pm #
More importantly, we cannot allow conservativism generally to be tainted by any hint of actual racism. We are routinely falsely accused of racism,
Racism, which conveniently enough we let folks like Harry Reid define for us and we will further show our ability to fight the ludicrous charges by making sure we shut the hell up.
I still maintain that the statement in question is not in and of itself a racist one.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 1:40 pm #
# 54 made me smarter I think.
But I’ll be goddamned if my dumb ass will be able to explain it at the Christmas party this weekend.
psycho, what are you doing Saturday night? It won’t be a date. We don’t have to hold hands or anything.
Unless you want to.
Comment by Squid on 12/9 @ 1:47 pm #
It’s unfortunate that we even need to have this argument. In a truly “post-racial” world, it wouldn’t matter if RSM were neo-confederate, or racist, or just too cozy with neo-confederates and racists and thus tainted by the icky “sympathizer” label. Because none of that matters. He’s not a leader of men. He’s not in a position of power, nor in a position to influence power in any but the most far-removed way. He’s a pundit, and as such, he should be judged on his ideas and his words and his method of argument.
If some people feel uncomfortable about his writings on race, let them say so. I’ve no problem with anyone who’d say, “Given his past writings on this subject, I’m not sure I really trust his judgment on this.” But there are ten thousand other policy debates going on right now that have nothing to do with race relations, and on most of those debates I find RSM to be a worthy writer. Maybe not as insightful as some, but he’s good at stating positions clearly, and he’s abrasive enough that he can be entertaining (so long as his pen isn’t aimed at one’s own pet cause).
It’s just another layer on top of all the other layers of disappointment I feel over this affair. It’s not just that Frey is appointing himself arbiter of polite company. It’s not just that people allow Frey this appointment in spite of the fact that he’s a fundamentally dishonest California lawyer who can’t be trusted to argue in good faith outside the arena of newspaper accuracy. It’s not just that RSM may have flown “too close to the flame” for many people’s comfort. It’s that none of this should matter.
I don’t give a crap about the messenger. I give a big, steaming crap about the message. If somebody is willing to examine the evidence, connect the dots, and write a coherent argument on the various topics of the day, then I’m happy to look at what they have to say. That holds true even if I vehemently disagree with them on other topics. Sure, such disagreements would cause me to look at their writings with a more critical eye than I might otherwise, but if the writing holds up against a critical reading, isn’t it even more powerful?
These guys need to learn to say “fuck off” to one another and then continue in their orbits.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 1:47 pm #
#66 made me smarter too.
And that one I can explain at the Christmas party!
Yea!!!
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 1:53 pm #
“#53, he overcame both with utterly asinine and unsound policies”
Lowering taxes?
“Do you really think we–or the American idea–were well-served by the housing boom from 2002-2007? ”
Me certainly. ‘Cuz I had a hand in building. A housing boom isn’t bad, it was the community organizers forcing subprime loans onto the banks that were the destroyers.
“The interest rates were absurdly low, federal spending was demented and there was absolutely no effective federal regulatory scrutiny because utterly ineffective people like Chris Cox were appointed to give business a free reign.”
Well, I admit to being unqualified to post-judge Greenspans setting of interest rates, but I agree with you about the demented federal spending part. How I long for those relatively restrained days now!
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 1:54 pm #
“These guys need to learn to say “fuck off” to one another and then continue in their orbits.”
They can’t do that. Their drawn to each other. “Gravity exists.” Al Gore even made it official today in a press release.
And he’s a scientist.
With a prize thingy.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 1:55 pm #
Gentlemen:
When people call me a racist, I take off my hood and look them square in the eyes, when I am sure I have their attention I point to my Grand Kleagle emblem and explain that this is the garb worn by true Democrat party patriots.
Sincerely,
Senator Robert Byrd
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 1:57 pm #
And Pablo, you misunderestimate the fine folks in Taxachusetts. Watch Rasmussen as the election draws near.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 1:58 pm #
You know Byrd still has the robes.
Comment by Blake on 12/9 @ 2:04 pm #
Lamont,
I suggest Frey uses the “Burn the witch” standard when it comes to proof of RSM’s racism.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 2:06 pm #
There are enough ass-hats and bad actors out there, per Dan Collins, claiming that RSM is a rascist to make me want to defend him.
That noted, the guy wrote a re-interpretation of the murder of Emmitt Till that sorta makes me vomit in the mouth a little. Per RSM, Till’s murder was not de facto racisct, but rather, personal (ET had whistled at a white woman’s ass). RSM declares the murderer’s acquittal as wrong, but objects strongly–based on the personal nature of the crime–to his elevation as a sacred symbol of the civil rights movement.
http://www.eschatonblog.com/2006/04/soft-white-homonculi.html [I know its a left wing blog, but, well RSM wrote it.]
His reasoning is suspect throughout the essay, which first appeared on Free Republic. As a starting point, I would simply disagree with the notion that the people who slaughtered that poor kid were anything other than unreconstructed Southern rascists, end of statement. Is he to have us believe that if a blond-haired, blue-eyed boy had done so, he too would have been murdered in the cruelest fashion? More broadly, precisely what was the motivation to spin Till’s death as a crime of passion–defending the integrity of a red-neck woman’s ass–rather than a racial crime? Does this change anything about anything?
The guy who writes this stuff is really, really close to the line. You wanna defend this? You wanna buy a book from this guy. Your time, your dime.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 2:06 pm #
Racist…
racist…
racist…
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 2:07 pm #
How do you get to 81 comments for a cheap taunt?
Oops, 82.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 2:08 pm #
RSM addresses Patterico’s possible motivations in exploring RSM’s heart of hearts:
Comment by Silver Whistle on 12/9 @ 2:08 pm #
Listen: is Stacy McCain a racist? I honestly can’t say for certain because I can’t see into his heart
And that, I think, is the nub of it. As happy pointed out over at Patterico, if the rest of RSM’s post was read, he strongly condemned racism. Taken as a whole, and even with those sentences that have caused such a ruckus, I find it hard to discern racist intent on RSM’s part, but without looking into his heart, who knows? And really, who cares?
Comment by Silver Whistle on 12/9 @ 2:09 pm #
Sorry, messed up the blockquote on Jeff’s sentence.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:13 pm #
RSM has written something that, when taken out of context, could appear racist. I don’t happen to agree that it’s racist, but that’s me, because I still judge it based on what I know of him, and what I would mean if I said something similar (I happen to believe in hard-wired tendencies towards tribalism which “pre-inform” our snap decisions, which is not to say we need to always “listen” to that inherent tribalism, but that it is there).
The fact that the passage has been taken out of context denies the notion of intentionalism, which demands that one interpret the words of another in context and in the context of what one knows of the person from past utterances. For RSM to defend himself, as it were, would mean that he agrees that Patterico et. al. have some kind of point. I get the impression RSM doesn’t think they do, and as such, refuses to enter that particular minefield.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 12/9 @ 2:13 pm #
One big misstep on McCain’s part, IMO, is in allowing the Washington Times to muzzle him for the better part of this decade. The newspaper wouldn’t allow him to defend himself while he was employed there? He should have fought that restriction. Standing up for your good name is paramount, and not doing so would damage him at least as much as fighting back would have.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:15 pm #
Well, wrong again.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 2:17 pm #
That’s the argument he’s making. You can agree or disagree with the reasoning, but the reasoning itself doesn’t scream racism. It explores other plausible motives. In short, it doesn’t accept that the issue is settled just because it has become on a certain level the circumstances surrounding it has become symbolic.
The motivation could be as simple as pointing out that every crime against a black in the south isn’t a racial crime; it could be as simple as suggesting that crimes aren’t all necessarily indicators of a prevailing cultural dialogic, nor, conversely, are they necessarily defined by same. That is to say, the argument could be one that speaks to individualism, and not losing site of individual motives based on how easy it may be to draw important social and moral lessons from a given situation.
The fact is, I don’t really know the motivation. But what I do know is there are plenty of ways I can think of in which the motivation is less than sinister, much less racist. If we don’t ask certain questions, we’re shortchanging ourselves.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 2:19 pm #
Jeff,
If you’re gonna “incite” this conversation (and I mean that in a good way), I’d love to hear you parse racism vs. prejudice.
Cause, pardon my French, but I think that’s what this whole motherfucker has been missing (and a bit of what RSM has been doing). If you’ve done so, somebody will point me to the relevant post(s). If not, isn’t the separate concept of prejudice the equivalent of the sub-atomic universe inside the snow globe thing on the cat’s collar in Men in Black.
Sorry. It was on TBS the other night.
Plus, it’s Wednesday, I’m tired, and my thoughts often run to the lazy.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 2:21 pm #
I think Intentionalism, as I understand how you’ve laid it out, could definitely be used against RSM in his essay on re-interpreting Emmitt Till’s murder as a personal crime, rather than a racist one. Because it is pretty clear what Till’s murderer’s intent was. What was RSM’s?
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 2:21 pm #
See that?
I left out the question mark up there.
Fucking Wednesdays…
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:22 pm #
You would have to look at the entirety of RSM’s work before the essay as well.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 2:23 pm #
Unfortunately, LYBD, I’m in no position to do so. And that’s because I no longer have a clear understanding of what “racism” means. Last I heard, it was anything that caused one to feel uncomfortable about race, such that, for instance, a kid calling for his boy dog in the vicinity of a black man might be reasonably understood to be racist, at least from one of the perspectives involved in bailiwick of that communication’s auditory reach.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:25 pm #
You would probably want to look at everything afterwards as well, to see if he is clarifying or backtracking in subsequent works.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:28 pm #
As far as I can tell, prejudice used to precede racism as far as emotional involvement of the accused went. Not so much any more. The word racist has been so overused it has lost any real meaning. It’s a bludgeon.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 2:28 pm #
Is it?
To go all leftist theorist on you, Till’s murder may have worn all the trappings of “racism,” given that it occurred in a cultural milieu awash is questions and concerns over race and worth; and yet, its perpetrators may have merely used those prevailing trappings of white supremacy as an (culturally acceptable, given the time and place) excuse for sociopathetic behavior that existed regardless of racial animus.
I might not believe this and neither might you. But that doesn’t mean the question can’t be asked.
Comment by Squid on 12/9 @ 2:28 pm #
mcgruder,
I just read the article you linked, and it seems to me that the author said, quite clearly, that Till didn’t deserve to be murdered, that the killer didn’t deserve to be acquitted, but that Till wasn’t a perfectly innocent young man deserving of sainthood. I read the exposition of personal motive in the case not as an excuse for the crime, but as clarification for why Till was not an appropriate candidate for lionization by the hate crimes crusaders.
I agree with you that race was an important factor in the crime. I agree with you that Till would probably be alive if he were a blonde white kid. I agree that the author minimizes the racial component of the crime. But I disagree with you that the author is a racist, or a crypto-racist, or a racist sympathizer, just because he dares to examine the record and to state that the kid wasn’t a saint. I think it perfectly reasonable that an argument regarding the non-racial reasons for a crime doesn’t dwell on the non-non-racial reasons, and I don’t think it’s necessary to read racist intent into those words.
If I begin a rebuttal with “There’s more to it than that,” it doesn’t mean I’m dismissing an argument; it just means there’s more to it than that.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 2:32 pm #
Anyway, it’s time for me to go work out and disengage for a spell.
I’m not a kneejerk defender of McCain’s. I just don’t much care for the way these proceedings have been made to play out publicly. McCain is correct: Patterico only gains from raising the question; and McCain only loses from having it raised in such a way, regardless of whether or not he can successfully clear his name. The accusation’s the thing.
Take it from me. I’m a death threatener.
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 2:32 pm #
Knowing the history between Patterico and Jeff, I have to say Pattericos idea of what an honorable man is, and my own, may as well be different languages. Banning Jeff from his site is way more revealing of questionable character than McCains writings about race are to his.
I mean, in McCains case, he didn’t express revulsion at interracial marriage. He just said he didn’t think someone that did, did so necessarily because of racism. (correct me if I’m wrong, I’m playing catch-up here) I can’t see that as McCain = racist, regardless if I think his opinion on the matter is debatable (and I do). I see no lack of honor from McCain for stating that opinion.
That other feller though…
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 2:33 pm #
There is a goddamn Klansman named Robert Byrd in the United States Senate. Nobody from any side of the aisle is allowed to say anything about racism until that wheezing gasbag shuffles off his mortal coil.
When we get shots of Patterico at a Klan meeting we can guess at what’s in his heart. Until then, an assumption of innocence should be attempted.
What’s that? Byrd is a former Klansman you say? Well Charles manson is a former murderer, are you going to let him stay at your house?
To paraphrase Popeye, he is what he is.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:35 pm #
Some other sacred cows: that gay kid who was murdered “because he was gay” was actually murdered in a drug deal gone bad. The black guy who was dragged to death behind the pickup truck “because he was black” was known by one perpetrators when they were both in prison together, and they apparently had a beef of some kind.
Note that neither final truth negates the crimes, nor the need for punishment. The truth does, however, cast doubts on whether the crimes need to be held up as examples of racism and homophobia run amuck. It doesn’t mean its homophobia whenever a straight guy kills a gay guy, and it isn’t always racism that motivates a white guy to kill a black guy (or vice-versa). People usually kill for more personal reasons than that.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 2:35 pm #
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Democrat party attempts the deconstruction of western civilization.
Comment by Blake on 12/9 @ 2:36 pm #
It’s turning the subjective into the objective. Sort of a mental alchemy of transubstantiation.
Comment by Dan Collins on 12/9 @ 2:37 pm #
Listen up, raaaaacists! Here’s a handy guide to what to buy the people of color in your lives for Christmas, or whatever.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 2:38 pm #
True, left liberals are wrecking havoc on ideas of individual freedom. But we won’t stop them by aiding them, Mr W — which is precisely the point of questioning the kinds of methods they use, particularly when people on the “right” adopt those methods, furthering legitimizing and institutionalizing them. As is the case here.
Forest. Trees. Concentrate.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:41 pm #
Will racism and anti-gay sentiments take someone from just handing out a severe beat-down to murder? Could be. I doubt, however, that they would be the major factors in most cases. Some cases, sure. But this can be argued rationally, if we had a society of rational people. Unfortunately, close to half of them have trouble thinking rationally on matters of race and sexual inclinations.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:43 pm #
Yeah, I lost the point again. It’s the tactics that are the topic of discussion, really. My bad.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 2:45 pm #
Squid,
That’s RSM in a nutshell, you know? That he wasn’t a saint….there was a personal aspect to it….
Bullshit. He whistled at a white woman and, maybe, just maybe, stared at her rack. So he was kidnapped and killed. He has all the proper notations in there: crappy trial, this shouldnt have happened, wrong to have been done….
He leaves out the fact that we can be fairly certain that if a white kid had done that–whistling, presumptive rack-staring–he would not have been kidnapped and killed. That he leaves that bit out should be problematic to those who proclaim him some victim of a witch hunt.
This was not an honorable line of inquiry.
I dont really care that the woman insulted was in a store just above her home
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:48 pm #
I’ll try to be better about not going off-track in the future.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 2:51 pm #
I have mentioned before that I work with a staff that is pretty much all brothers. A while back James Carville came in and a transaction was completed. When he was leaving, he turned to me and said that ‘he really admired the diversity of our staff’. This struck me as funny since our staff is essentially composed of various shades of brown, but it was touching to see that he truly believes what he says regarding race.
On a semi-related note: His and Mary Matalins daughters are as beautiful as it is possible to be on this plane of existence. Go figure.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 2:52 pm #
…”because I no longer have a clear understanding of what “racism” means.”
Who the hell does? It’s a t-shirt now, a worn out Bart Simpson catch phrase from 1996. Means nothing.
Somebody up thread (laziness again) said the “racism” charge was an “effective tool” against us types. Horse shit. Once maybe, but not anymore.
Concerned Race Monitor: I heard you talking, and you’re a fucking right wing racist!
Lamont: Yeah? Well, you’re a Yankees fan.
Concerned Race Monitor: What? That doesn’t even…I’m from Atlanta and grew up watching the
Braves with my Dad. I love the Braves! And they had more black players before any other team, and…
Lamont: How do the Indians feel about that “Braves” thing? The Native ones I mean, not the ball players in Cleveland. You a Redskins fan too?
Concerned Race Monitor: Fuck you man, you’re a racist.
Lamont: Sure I am skippy. Now, you wanna get the fuck away from me and let me finish my coffee?
It’s only an “effective tool” if you let it be.
Or you’re running for office in a blue state.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 2:52 pm #
[i]I think Intentionalism, as I understand how you’ve laid it out, could definitely be used against RSM in his essay on re-interpreting Emmitt Till’s murder as a personal crime, rather than a racist one. Because it is pretty clear what Till’s murderer’s intent was. What was RSM’s?[/i]
You’re making the assumption that a man who murdered someone for whistling at his wife wouldn’t have murdered that person if that person had a different skin color. We’ll never know that. I’m willing to make that assumption with you, but I’m not willing to tar someone with the racist brush because he thinks a murdering psycho would probably be a murdering psycho no matter what color his victim. Having been in a few bar fights, I see his point. Does that make me a racist?
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 2:55 pm #
Send us the approved list of honorable lines of inquiry so we can know what can and can’t be asked / explored.
YOU GOT CHOCOLATE IN MY EPISTEMOLOGY! YOU GOT YOUR EPISTEMOLOGY IN MY CHOCOLATE!
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:55 pm #
LMC, if you have to ask, you’re a racist. In fact, if you’re white and not a cringing liberal, you’re a racist.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 2:57 pm #
And I am, apparently, illiterate.
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 2:59 pm #
mcgruder
The wife claimed that Till grabbed her at the waist and made lewd comments, so the assertion that a white kid woulda got away with it is not quite as certain as you claim.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 3:00 pm #
YOU GOT CHOCOLATE IN MY EPISTEMOLOGY! YOU GOT YOU EPISTEMOLOGY IN MY CHOCOLATE!
Jeff’s just outed himself as a racist by removing the contribution of the black man instead of that lilly-white Hershey dude.
Comment by Danger on 12/9 @ 3:00 pm #
“….Will the gamble in Iraq pay off? We probably won’t know for another 20 years. At least, though, something different was tried.”
Blake,
Thanks for that! (from someone that is working his @ss off to make sure it pays off:)
Comment by SteveG on 12/9 @ 3:04 pm #
Am I an “animist” for using the word muleheaded?
“I don’t practice santeria; I ain’t got no crystal ball”
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 3:06 pm #
Jeff, that was a good one. I concede the point. I suppose it’s like the old saw about pornography…
Makewi, I acknowledge that, though if i recall, the wife was not supported in her acusation. let’s stipulate that she’s right though. I’m pretty sure a white kid wouldnt have been found a few feet under a stream though. An unprovable assertion of course.
Political correctness is an ox every conservative is duty bound to gore; this is something else. RSM seems quite bright. I submit that his skills would be formidable used away from these ugly arguments.
Comment by Squid on 12/9 @ 3:07 pm #
Fine, mcgruder. You win. Frey was right to start his inquisition, and we’ll change the secret password to the clubhouse and not tell Stacy what the new one is.
Comment by Squid on 12/9 @ 3:08 pm #
Bah. Bad timing.
Comment by Adriane on 12/9 @ 3:11 pm #
So … if a Canadian-Indian teenager drags a white man behind their truck for 2 miles … leading to his horrific death … is it a racist crime?
{Answer, since he was only a teen, he was given a nine-year sentence, with 21 months credit for the time in custody since his arrest.
A three-member appeal court panel further cut the nine years down to five years, 10 months. … They found the trial judge hadn’t given enough weight to the accused troubled upbringing, his youth, or his aboriginal heritage in determining sentence…}
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 3:11 pm #
I won nothing Squid, and was justly illuminated by several souls who appear sharper than I–you included. This is called damning by feint praise.
The clubhouse passcode key isnt a terrible idea though.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 3:13 pm #
is it a racist crime?
Not if the white man was also Canadian.
Comment by dicentra on 12/9 @ 3:14 pm #
What happened to Happyfeet?
This.
Start at the link and keep going.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 3:18 pm #
I have no dog in the “Till fight.”
That said; whistling at my wife I will take as a compliment (type a gal I’d marry would too). Laughs all around.
Grabbing her around the waist and making lewd comments, regardless of skin color, will get you beat with a tire iron.
I’m not up on the particulars of RSM’s position, and it may not be that cut and dry, but, for me, that one seems like a no brainer.
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 3:20 pm #
“I submit that his skills would be formidable used away from these ugly arguments.”
mcgruder
Comment by McGehee on 12/9 @ 3:22 pm #
On what basis would we assume RSM is obligated to answer any questions at all?
Comment by Is you is or is you aint my constituency on 12/9 @ 3:23 pm #
“There is a goddamn Klansman named Robert Byrd in the United States Senate”
What next? Klan members supporting black men for president over white men and women? Now we’re talking about a conversation on race!
Comment by B Moe on 12/9 @ 3:24 pm #
We can be fairly certain that if a white kid had done it you would never have heard about it, regardless of the outcome.
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 3:25 pm #
Oops, hit the wrong key at the wrong time.
“I submit that his skills would be formidable used away from these ugly arguments.”
mcgruder, you are sounding dangerously close to Patterico during the “I hope he fails” dustup. The argument being, we need to be aware our words can be twisted, and tip toe around any PC topics. That way lies chaos.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 3:26 pm #
lamont, pretty sure Till didnt assault her. Im also pretty sure you wouldnt kidnap and kill anyone who did act like an asshole to your wife. There is a difference between knocking a man’s tooth out because he’s an ass and murder.
Comment by dicentra on 12/9 @ 3:26 pm #
Without having read the whole thread, I thought I’d bring up one issue tangential to Jeff’s: non-Southerners don’t understand Southern Pride.
I know I don’t.
Because like most non-Southerners, I don’t get why they’d want to fly the Confederate flag for even a second. For non-Southerners, the entire issue of the War Between the States was slavery—to abolish or not to abolish—and the South was on the not-to-abolish side.
Shouldn’t they be deeply ashamed of that, and therefore of anything linked to the Civil War?
But to the South, it was the War of Northern Aggression, when a bunch of uptight, school-marmin’, self-righteous Yankees nagged the South for so long that it decided to secede, and then the Yanks went to war to stop the secession, those tyrannical busybodies.
But it was nagging about slavery, and there would have been no secession if the South had done the right thing and abolished slavery on its own.
So it’s difficult to for us to see Southern Pride as anything but pride at holding onto slavery in the face of persecution from the North.
So I go on record saying that I’m not altogether comfortable with RSM’s links to American Renaissance, etc., and yet I have to allow that I could be misconstruing the nature of his connections to such groups based on my difficulty in understanding Southern Pride.
And therefore might also misconstrue the meaning of those “uncomfortable words.”
I also go on record saying that it’s very easy to fall into the “holier than thou” temptation by accusing others of that which you do not want to be accused.
Of.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 3:30 pm #
mcgruder,
Honesty and integrity sir. Unlike so many in the blogosphere, you have argued and escaped with both (you’ll have to teach me that trick).
Everybody is going to disagree on matters of race (those trees have deep roots), but your racism : pornography analogy is perfectly apt. Most of us know it when we see it.
The rest is just noise.
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 3:30 pm #
mcgruder
Yes, Tills friends/co-workers who were in the shop with him did not support her assertion. Which doesn’t mean that she didn’t tell her husband that it occured. Till didn’t deserve to die in any case.
I don’t agree with McCain’s premise that the possibility of more untoward behavior by Till should have been a disqualifying factor for his elevation as a Civil Rights icon. I also don’t agree that this is some further proof of racism on the part of RSM.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 3:31 pm #
133, No I dont. The plain meaning of my words is clear: RSM seems bright and is hard-working, but to me, has engaged in some truly asinine argumentation in defense of reprehensible ideas. Ashame, that. But so be it.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 12/9 @ 3:33 pm #
“Pretty sure”?
You’re right mcgruder.
I wouldn’t kidnap him.
…
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 3:34 pm #
Two words: Hybrid vigor.
Comment by Danger on 12/9 @ 3:35 pm #
“Of course, very few people read here any more, and my voice isn’t as strong on the right as it once was — for many of the same reasons this post aims to discuss.
Ironically, few people will read it.”
Jeff,
I believe it to be more important that the right people read it. Personally I would love to see my “Volleys Downrange” OPORDER catch fire but I’m willing to let the message spread at the pace that others here feel that it deserves.
I am confident that a splash of wisdom applied with consistency and tenacity will wear down even the largest of barriers.
Or put another way It’s not the size of the Dog in the fight….
Comment by alppuccino on 12/9 @ 3:44 pm #
In journalism in DC
says the DC “journalist” who couldn’t find Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and a Democratic Congress because his tiny hate-boner for George W Bush obscures the view. So, it’s easier just to spew the tired Bush-disaster meme.
Like I’ve said so many times before. Dig deeper and you find a new headline mcgruder.
Comment by alppuccino on 12/9 @ 3:44 pm #
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 3:58 pm #
This guy is probably an obvious racist. If not a racist, he at the very least, has picked the wrong arguments to make, because they’re vile, are obviously wrong, and shouldn’t be brought up in polite company. Hell, he’s racist, you’re all racists if you follow the link, and anyone who may attempt to defend him or his writings is also a racist. I’m not going to bother to inform this guy that I’m writing this, because if he defends himself that will only prove how racist he is. All of you should remember to shun him. Because if you don’t you’re a racist.
Racists.
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 3:59 pm #
The HotAir essay that Jeff links is definitely worth reading for those who haven’t before.
Incidentally, the essay got plenty of trackbacks and comments, was mentioned quite favorably by Mark Levin on the air, and Jeff was invited on Breitbart tv to discuss it. Yet, to my knowledge, Jeff wasn’t ever asked to submit another essay.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 3:59 pm #
Oh, and, here’s, a few, more, commas,.
Comment by SteveG on 12/9 @ 4:00 pm #
Jeez
The Jena 6 became civil rights icons.
Did you see that picture one of the 6 posted of himself with all the $100 bills?
The civil rights icon bar is set pretty low.
I think McCain does have a serious reflex toward defending southerners against racism and is willing to pursue whatever back story that may be there.
I thought he did great work on the faux murder of Mr. Sparkman up in backwoods Kentucky.
That was the: Glen Beck and Michelle Backman inspire murder of federal census worker; Obama is next; meme that peripherally smeared white rural Kentuckians.
I have not read his piece on Till, but I am guessing that the back story had more to it and he was reporting from the vantage of having been a small town rural southern journalist.
I once read a story about a man in a southern town who shot some younger men who routinely hassled him from the store next door where they hung out…. he was acquitted by the jury, one of whom who commented something like “he wouldn’t have been much of a man if he hadn’t stood up to them, would he?”
From what I have read of McCain, I see a man who understands a part of America that few do.
Thus some people will never understand McCain’s context.
On the Till case, is it possible the heavyhanded injection of race polluted a murder trial and left a verdict that was clearly wrong?
Overplaying the race card has consequences, perhaps this was one of those times.
(Jeff, maybe you could ask to do some writing over there to increase your visibility?)
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 4:01 pm #
Jeff was in fact not asked to do so, bh. Though he offered.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 4:04 pm #
SteveG –
Writing over where? At McCain’s?
Meh. Not my scene. And if I really wanted to increase my visibility, I’d get with the program, set up a network of linkers, and not rock the boat vis-a-vis the “Republican” message. And that ain’t my scene, either.
Besides. If I ever need to post at another blog on the right to gain visibility, I’ve already failed as a blogger.
Comment by Blake on 12/9 @ 4:05 pm #
Danger,
You’re more than welcome and keep up the good work.
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 4:07 pm #
Do the Republicans have a message?
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 4:09 pm #
“Jeff was in fact not asked to do so, bh. Though he offered.”
Yeah, didn’t think so. Hmmm, strange, isn’t it?
BLACKBALL! Oh, sorry, I meant OUTLAW!
Comment by dicentra on 12/9 @ 4:09 pm #
He leaves out the fact that we can be fairly certain that if a white kid had done that–whistling, presumptive rack-staring–he would not have been kidnapped and killed.
Wait. If a white guy grabs a black woman by the waist and whispers lewd stuff in her ear, her black husband won’t mind?
I’m pretty sure you have to reverse all of the polarities or the circuit won’t complete.
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 4:11 pm #
“has engaged in some truly asinine argumentation in defense of reprehensible ideas”
Ok mcgruder, I haven’t read any thing much of McCain, mostly what I found here, so let me see if I have the premise right.
You think the idea to explore another motive for the Till case is reprehensible and McCain did a poor job of treating the topic.
If not, what reprehensible idea did McCain defend? Because I’m sorry, I don’t see putting forward a different theory based on a different motive as reprehensible.
Comment by sdferr on 12/9 @ 4:11 pm #
Is political correctness a demand for virtue, human excellence, under its own reading of itself, in any sense (apart from its use as a hammer to bang down dissent or cut off dialog, that is)? Is any explicit demand for virtue an American political characteristic, taking American as indicative of the principles propounded in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Federalist Papers or other foundational documents (Do we demand an adherence to the minutiae of particular moral doctrines)? Do the tenets underlying the usual accusations of political correctness amount to principled tenets from the point of view of Classical Liberalism?
What gets hit by PC?
*Intimations of racism or less (such as speech, i.e. the mere use of anachronistic terms like negro, darky, schwartze), even, but not racialist thinking or action.
*Expressions of distaste for or prejudice against homosexual behaviors or homosexuals, but not sexualized political categorizations.
*Too great a stress on sex difference between males and females tending to suggest male superiority, but not against overmuch praise of female qualities tending toward denigration of rough animalistic male-ishness.
What else?
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 4:11 pm #
Patterico said this back on March 20, 2009:
I guess R.S. McCain is one of THEM ***wink wink***.
Comment by DRJ on 12/9 @ 4:18 pm #
I think some conservatives feel besieged right now (and with good reason given the Democratic President and majorities) and are “circling-the-wagons” around any conservative who they believe is being attacked. But part of being the Party out-of-power means we need to do some soul-searching about what we believe in and stand for. Part of the beauty of blogs is that we can discuss that in open forums like this.
I see nothing wrong with asking R.W. McCain to explain what he meant by this statement that sounds prejudiced:
“As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.”
Asking McCain to explain what he meant is not a “When did you stop beating your wife?” question. It’s an “Explain what you meant” question whose answer is well suited to an internet discussion.
I know I’ve written things that, when I read them later, I realized they didn’t convey what I intended to say. Maybe that’s the case here and hopefully Mr. McCain can make that clear. Or maybe in trying to change the minds of the people he was corresponding with, he was trying to understand their views without condemning them — because condemnation would probably end the discussion. Or maybe there is another answer. I don’t know but one way to find out is to ask McCain what he meant. I hope he answers.
Comment by SteveG on 12/9 @ 4:21 pm #
LMC beat me to the Jena 6.
The national media almost always “assume” racism whenever the small town south is involved.
The media doesn’t even get their patriotism, honor that leads them to choose the military… the meme is a variation of “hillbilly tries to claw path out of southern backwoods meth fueled hell and is dead now and we are here to honor him by publishing a photo of his bloody last gasp over his tobacco chewing hayseed parents dissent as we show them how us urban patriots do it”
Comment by Adriane on 12/9 @ 4:22 pm #
Not if the white man was also Canadian…
So as long as I kill another American, I can asked that my white heritage be a factoring in getting a reduced sentence?
Comment by DRJ on 12/9 @ 4:22 pm #
It’s R.S. McCain, not R.W. McCain. My apologies to Mr. McCain.
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 4:22 pm #
Yeah, we know you in the “booming Socialist Takeover industry” are pretty loose with your terms.
Which pretty much makes your comments gibberish.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 4:23 pm #
Let’s Learn About Racism!
Otherwise known as, Racism is Fundamental!
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 4:24 pm #
Of course, such soul-searching cannot include postulates that, say, Patrick Frey (among others on the right) have a adopted a view of language that structurally ties them to progressivism. Doing that means you are attacking someone’s honor, and you’ll get accused of making death threats and be banned from his site. Which throws a bit of cold water on that “discuss” and “open forums” thing you mention.
IRONY BLIZZARD!
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 4:25 pm #
Heh. Gibberish gets erased I guess…
Comment by SteveG on 12/9 @ 4:25 pm #
Jeff,
I was tossing out an idea. A guest post here and a guest post there and expand your reader base. I really enjoy your writing, I’ll probably throw out another idea or two in the spirit of elevating your visibilty.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 4:27 pm #
In the course of a debate on racial politics, it is an “explain what you meant question.” In the course of BREAKING: IS STACY McCAIN A RACIST? OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS DONE BY ME SUGGESTS YES, HE IS — BUT I’LL GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO REPLY” it is not an “explain what you meant” question. It is a way to buy yourself some grace with a certain set, and in the process pretend that what you are doing isn’t harming a person’s reputation, but “merely seeking the truth.” It is the WORST sort of public sanctimony.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 4:33 pm #
Regarding RS McCain’s latest post on the subject: he doesn’t seem to get that Ace is not on his side in this.
Meh. I’m not defending the principal. I’m defending the principle. Thankfully.
Comment by geoffb on 12/9 @ 4:35 pm #
There are many crazy, psychopathic even, people in this world. You never know till it’s too late.
As a teen I was at a New Years party with friends. An older brother of one of them had bought the booze for us. He and his girlfriend were seated in the kitchen at the table. I’m in another room with my girlfriend. Suddenly the older brother jumps up swearing and comes at me with a kitchen knife. Several people intervene to slow him down and I grab my girlfriend and get in my car to leave. He smashes my window as I start the car and go.
Later I find out his girlfriend had told him I had winked at her across the two rooms. She was just bored and wanted to see some action. If I had been closer or he had had a gun I might not be here. There are wack-jobs out there especially combined with some booze. As it was I had to explain to my Dad why the car window was busted.
I work at a place where on any given night there are from 100 to 600 people most of whom have had at least a bit to drink. Crazy shit happens on a regular basis. It doesn’t need a reality based reason.
Comment by sdferr on 12/9 @ 4:41 pm #
Damned Dairy Queen tried (and nearly succeeded) to teach me that Blizzard’s are a good thing. I fooled ‘em though and ordered the Chocolate Malt instead.
Comment by Squid on 12/9 @ 4:42 pm #
P.S. The new password is “peacoat”. Nobody tell Stacy or Patrick.
Comment by Squid on 12/9 @ 4:44 pm #
When a guy whose very existence defines the need for a paywall, comes into a thread with a crack about the proposed paywall, and opens his gambit by quoting the words “IRONY BLIZZARD!”, well, I gotta take my hat off.
I’m not sure Jeff himself could pack that much postmodern irony into so few words. It’s poetry, and I stand in awe.
Comment by SteveG on 12/9 @ 4:45 pm #
DRJ
Mr. Frey rigged the comparisons.
One woman quoted said she would not have voted for Obama if his bride was white.
That is not philisophical musing on the very large question of small town southern racial attitudes. That is stated racist intent. Revulsion and aversion can be overcome by a grander nature. Obviously the ladies quoted were not interested in plumbing the depths of their nature and grasping for the better.
If Mr. Frey had done a similar comparison to me and we could teleport back a couple hundred years, I’d have to go Aaron Burr on him
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 4:50 pm #
Not if the white man was also Canadian…
So as long as I kill another American, I can asked that my white heritage be a factoring in getting a reduced sentence?
Good Lord no, white people who use the word “heritage” are racists, you’ll be lucky if you don’t get lynched. Not lynched lynched, because white people can’t be lynched, more like stabbed or shot or something. 60 minutes will be all over you. Better stick to killing Canadians.
Comment by SteveG on 12/9 @ 4:58 pm #
Jeff
What makes you think Ace posted that wit McCain in mind?
I didn’t read through his comments to see if McCain was in there making anti gay or racist statements or jokes.
I would note that Mr. Frey has made a few milky loads buttocks of steel jokes about Andrew Sullivan that didn’t bring the funny and seemingly wouldn’t meet the new standards over there at Ace’s. hey, maybe he prosecutes more blacks than gays.
On McCain’s site it seems like it was an attitude of “I am not like the people Ace is banning, so it ain’t about me”
On that one you’d have to ask Ace if McCain was any part of the reason for the “banhammer” to come out
Trackback by South Texian on 12/9 @ 5:04 pm #
The McCain Defamation…
Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom weighs in with “On blogging and its discontents”……
Comment by Adriane on 12/9 @ 5:04 pm #
Better stick to killing Canadians…
Now there’s an idea. I can offer up my services as a compassionate medical care denied hopelessness alternative therapist and see if I can make some money while I’m at it …
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 5:16 pm #
This is somewhat off topic because it doesn’t relate to Jeff’s larger framework but it’s been mentioned a number of times that one can simply reverse races and see if something is the same.
I don’t think that’s true. Try this, think of it in terms of available mates. When I was in college the predominant interracial (feels antiquated typing interracial, but never mind) was white guy and asian girl. This bothered the asian guys yet they never had any problem with the white guys, not a hint of racism. They had a problem with the differential as they noticed that there were many more white male/ asian girl couples than asian male/ white female couples. Imagine watching a game of musical chairs where you feel less likely to get a chair and a chair is sex, love, companionship.
I hear similar things stated directly by black women. Explicitly stated, “stealing a brother” is one less chair when the music stops as they’ve noticed the differential of white/black/asian/latino dating patterns.
When I look at this dynamic, that’s what I see. And frankly, it’s not rational to be super psyched about seeing diminished odds at coupling. So, I’d kinda cut people some slack if they’re on the negative side of the equation.
Comment by LBascom on 12/9 @ 5:17 pm #
If your going to ply your trade as a compassionate medical care denied hopelessness alternative therapist in Canada, stay out of Alberta. They’re like us in that part of the country. You might receive return fire.
Comment by Big D on 12/9 @ 5:22 pm #
The banhammer post at Ace’s had nothing to do with RSM. There were two posts yesterday, one dealing with Tiger and one with Sullivan. In those a couple of commenters made some tasteless jokes and Baldilocks took offense, rightly so. Anyway, that’s what set him off. Turned into a lively discussion that went in excess of 2700 posts. I didn’t read through all the posts so RSM might have come up at some point, but he was not the genesis of the post.
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 12/9 @ 5:22 pm #
I’m not real comfortable with the what-if postulations with the Emmett Till case. He was a northern visitor to a small southern town. He got fresh with one of the local white girls. He was abducted by white townsmen–they showed up at his relatives’ home and demanded that he be handed over. Some time later, his bludgeoned and decayed body was recovered. His mother gave him an open-casket funeral–there are photos–to emphasize the horror of the crime. And the civil rights movement of the late got a fresh impetus.
And that’s why his death was noteworthy. After decades of this stuff going on, with little objection from the broader populace, the country finally got a heart and decided that enough was enough.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 5:22 pm #
a chair is sex, love, companionship
reminds me of that Lay-Z-Boy I had in my old apartment… *sniff* COME BACK FREDRIKA! I’m sorry. OH GOD I’M SORRY! *sob*
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 5:23 pm #
Actually, the pay wall isn’t designed to protect me from “cruel, thankless world that can’t be bothered to appreciate his genius.” In fact, quite the opposite. It’s designed to make a living — or not — from said genius, such as it is.
Oh. And to prevent leftist trolls using proxy servers and dozens of names and email addresses from using the bandwidth that I finance — even those who are so super busy with all their employment that they have the time to show up here time and time again, each time using a new proxy IP.
IRONY BLIZZARD!
Comment by The Sanity Inspector on 12/9 @ 5:24 pm #
…of the late Fifties, he meant to say.
Comment by Molon Labe on 12/9 @ 5:24 pm #
The problem is that RSM foolishly used the word “revulsion” when he meant “apprehension”.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 5:25 pm #
Poor little RD. Most of his posts have been vanquished from my archives, and soon he’ll have to pay the cover charge if he wants to heckle.
AND THAT’S JUST NOT FAIR!
Comment by RTO Trainer on 12/9 @ 5:26 pm #
Really?
Given this:
…I find it hard to credit much to your judgment of such matters.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 5:28 pm #
SteveG –
I’m not saying Ace’s post had anything to do with RSM. Just that Ace is likely not on the side of RSM, given his willingness to distance himself from things that Might Hurt the Party.
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 5:29 pm #
I’m not real comfortable with the what-if postulations with the Emmett Till case.
And that’s fine. I’m not really either. But bringing those postulations doesn’t automatically make someone a racist.
…unless they’re doing it at a Klan meeting. That would. To me, anyway.
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 5:30 pm #
“reminds me of that Lay-Z-Boy I had in my old apartment… *sniff* COME BACK FREDRIKA! I’m sorry. OH GOD I’M SORRY! *sob*”
Lay-Z-Boy, huh? That’s class, you never should have let her go.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 5:30 pm #
No, I’m not a fragile one, RD. I just glory in wiping out your entire output here on my site. Now. After months and months of letting you stockpile material you likely look back on, lovingly, as if you’d bested some hateful foe. From behind a fake name. Using a fake email address. And a proxy server. Your little trophies? Taken away.
And soon, you’ll have to find some other place to pitch your wares.
That’s the internet people like you made, RD. Exult in the fruits of your labor!
Comment by Adriane on 12/9 @ 5:32 pm #
dicentra -
it probably won’t mean much but here goes …
But it was nagging about slavery, and there would have been no secession if the South had done the right thing and abolished slavery on its own. …
The North needed a cheap work force, which runaway slaves usually ended up in.
Blacks in the South were slaves, but they were family (often unwillingly, IFYWIMAITYD). That meant a shack and meals and somebody to bury you when you died.
And as God Awful as being a slave is, the agrarian nature of the South meant seasonal down times. Seasonal down times means times to pass on culture to the young – hence jazz, dance, storytelling, singing, et cetera – contributions from Africans to American culture came from the south to the north as blacks migrated.
Northern blacks no longer had an African culture because factory work has no down times, and no body gives a hoot if you’re fed and/or buried and/or singing in your native language and tonal structure to your children. You are just a warm body and there are plenty of other starving masses when you’re too crippled or too old to work. Freedom does also mean freedom to starve.
Southerns pointed out that blacks in the north were ghettoized and lynched and certainly not respected as free men of wealth or color, equal to whites.
Northerners could have had the US pay for waves of slave purchases such that blacks would be free and southerners would have not lost what was still legal wealth … Why did the North not find black families worth purchasing with tax dollars?
{The importation of slaves was a moot point, with British warships patrolling the Atlantic to intercept slavers …} So, with a gradual removal of slavery, and compensation for southern owners … or even 40 acres and a mule, which was a good idea but never went anywhere … the Civil War might have never happened, either.
But since the South lost, only the South is required to do the soul searching… Racism against blacks, and other non-white Americans certainly did not end with Northern victory. The Indian wars and the Chinese exclusion acts soon followed.
So from a Southern perspective, clean the speck out of your eye before you comment about mine.
But since 1)I was raised in Florida, which is the least Southern of the Southern states and 2)My parents are military transplants from the north … I probably am not the best person to speak of Southern Pride …
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 5:32 pm #
I ignored RD’s comment as soon as he misused irony. I don’t have many but that’s a firm rule of mine.
Comment by Adriane on 12/9 @ 5:35 pm #
I don’t even know how to cooks grits fer’gosh’sakes!!!!
Comment by Adriane on 12/9 @ 5:40 pm #
If your going to ply your trade as a compassionate medical care denied hopelessness alternative therapist in Canada, stay out of Alberta. They’re like us in that part of the country. You might receive return fire.
Heck, I was going to offer my services via the internet so they could bill the Canadian Government on my behalf. Only those that truly want to be killed, cooked, and eaten with raw grits will be the ones that I’m dealing with.
Probably with not a full deck, now that you mention it…
Comment by Lost My Cookies on 12/9 @ 5:40 pm #
bh,
Just be careful who you ask to help you move. Might cost you *sniff* more than pizza and beer…oh God…
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 5:47 pm #
Oooh. One of them last RD IPs netted me six other names he’s posted under. Check, check, check, check, check, check — delete.
Meanwhile, I remain a not particularly noteworthy blogger. Which makes the time and energy some spend here under multiple names with IP addresses all the more amusing to my insignificant self.
IRONY BLIZZARD!
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 5:49 pm #
That last one took care of four more.
I’m so invigorated I may not have to drink myself to sleep tonight!
Comment by Adriane on 12/9 @ 5:51 pm #
What’s wrong with hot cocoa?
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 5:51 pm #
“I’m so invigorated I may not have to drink myself to sleep tonight!”
I think that was meant to be deeply hurtful, Jeff. No fair joking about it. You should be hurt. Deeply.
Comment by geoffb on 12/9 @ 5:53 pm #
Note to self. Do not use the word “irony” as you may not be using it correctly, except when discussing the healthiness of fried liver because it is so irony.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 5:54 pm #
RD left a pic of himself under one comment once (you could only see it from the server side). Probably commented from one of his online profiles and forgot to remove it. I have that pic. My own trophy.
I plan on using it a lot behind my pay wall. The bemused head cock, the dead eyed, would-be hipster expression, the unbuttoned top shirt… All so fraught. So sexy…
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 5:56 pm #
Oh, bh, I’m deeply hurt by the hurtful hurtiness of RD’s hurtful hurt barbs.
I don’t rate. He said, constantly monitoring what I say — and clicking on my site over and over and over again in order to reiterate just how much no one pays me any mind.
Uh oh. I see a cold front a-comin’! Moisture in the air. That can only mean one thing:
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 5:59 pm #
Heh, Geoff. I’m going to need a judges ruling on a pun though…
Okay, allowed.
Comment by Kresh on 12/9 @ 6:00 pm #
Pay Wall’s a’ Comin’! Gird your loins you sissy lefties! YEEEEE-HAAAAW!
Or something.
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 6:01 pm #
I wonder if this interaction will at least teach him to use irony correctly, Jeff.
Kinda doubt it, “can a fish tell it’s wet?” sort of thing.
Comment by bh on 12/9 @ 6:04 pm #
IRONY BLIZZARD!
That didn’t take long.
Comment by geoffb on 12/9 @ 6:06 pm #
At home it rates a loud groan usually.
Comment by John Bradley on 12/9 @ 6:06 pm #
I ignored RD’s comment as soon as he misused irony. I don’t have many but that’s a firm rule of mine.
Wait, so RD is Alanis Morissette?
It all makes sense now.
Comment by Hanah on 12/9 @ 6:11 pm #
Here’s the rub, can we let bloggers like Darleen Click and news organizations like Faux News get off scot free after slandering ACORN for months now that they’ve been cleared of any illegality?
Comment by Adriane on 12/9 @ 6:13 pm #
“YES WE CAN!!!”
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:14 pm #
My shirts don’t have buttons. It’s how we rightwingers avoid temptations of the flesh. So that GAWD doesn’t RAIN HIS FIRE DOWN UPON US!
Of course, if I did wear shirts with buttons, I don’t think I’d go with the male cleavage plunge configuration. That is, unless somebody threw in a free bottle of Drakkar and an Italian horn.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 6:17 pm #
I made the mistake of drinking as I was reading the posts. I just injested coffee into my sinuses. Very stimulating!
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:18 pm #
“Hanah” must think this one of them lefty sites where no one clicks the links. The story in question is the pimp-prostitute amateur sting. There’s no “illegality” because, so far as I can tell, there was no actual pimp and prostitute, and so there was no actual monies involved. Still, here’s what the lawyer for ACORN said:
So. They didn’t follow through on their promise to net a pimp federal money for housing his stable of underage illegal whores.
VINDICATED!
Comment by Molon Labe on 12/9 @ 6:18 pm #
When is the wall coming, Jeff?
Comment by Wm T Sherman on 12/9 @ 6:20 pm #
Jeff G. was banned by Patterico for threatening to enable his own lynching by bringing the tree? Jeff G. was banned for threatening himself?
Comment by Nidal Hassan Highway. on 12/9 @ 6:21 pm #
“So it’s difficult to for us to see Southern Pride as anything but pride at holding onto slavery in the face of persecution from the North.”
They have to feel that way. Otherwise they end up with logical conclusions like how Robert E. Lee is akin to Nidal Hassan. And they can’t do that.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:21 pm #
That last one from RD netted me six more. ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL SNARKY ASIDES, GONE AT THE CLICK OF A BUTTON! IS THERE NO JUSTICE?
Comment by John Bradley on 12/9 @ 6:21 pm #
When is the wall coming, Jeff?
Not soon enough for my tastes. It’s so tedious reading Alanis and all her filthy, dirty lies.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:22 pm #
ML –
They’ll be some free stuff. But the subscription business will start sometime after the new year. My wife and I will be working on the site when she has some time off before Xmas.
Comment by Hanah on 12/9 @ 6:23 pm #
So. They didn’t follow through on their promise to net a pimp federal money for his underage illegal whores.
More than that. A real news network would have spent the time necessary to prove the accuracy of the tapes. FAUX News never tried to act like a news organization when they received the tapes. Deliberate manipulation:
“The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O’Keefe’s and Ms. Giles’s comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions. “
Comment by Wm T Sherman on 12/9 @ 6:23 pm #
214. Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:18 pm #
Still, here’s what the lawyer for ACORN said:
————————————————-
ACORN paid to have themselves investigated and the investigation found what they paid for it to find. It’s just PR anyway; it won’t protect them from prosecution.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:26 pm #
This is from the report by the lawyer ACORN hired, Hanah?
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 6:27 pm #
This one learns quickly. No link on that last one.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:27 pm #
And really, FAUX NEWS?
How 2003.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:28 pm #
Yes, Makewi. But it’s bolded. So there.
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 6:28 pm #
How can you not take seriously a comment by a person who spells it FAUX news. That there screams credibility.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:29 pm #
Oh, and wait. These videographers didn’t air RAW footage?
Why, how unprofessional, editing and what not to shorten the footage. I mean, who DOES that?
Comment by JD on 12/9 @ 6:31 pm #
The real Hannah is hot. The Hanah here is a lyin’ twatwaffle.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 6:33 pm #
Well CNN would have not edited the O’Keefe Giles tapes, they would have put them in the round file.
Journalistic ethics! Do not bite the hand that feeds you!
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 6:33 pm #
True, bold does carry with it a certain weight. Some might even call it a font-weight.
Sorry, bad geek joke.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:34 pm #
Only got 3 on that last one, RD.
Don’t worry. When this site cuts you off, you’ll be able to find a home over at Patterico’s place. Just remember the password: “GOLDSTEIN IS AN INSUFFERABLE PRICK.” You’ll have to sit with timb at the kiddie table, but you’ll always have a home, provided you agree to hate the right haters.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 6:35 pm #
The self-investigation may not protect Acorn from investigation, but Eric Holder at Justice will.
They’re gonna need a lot more fake voters this time.
The bloom is off the Barry.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 6:35 pm #
DRJ at Patterico has some post on Jennings that might piss happyfeet off. Then maybe not. Hard to tell since DRJ is not really taking a position. Might be a ploy to flush out the paleocon haters like Michelle Malkin supporters and such.
Comment by Molon Labe on 12/9 @ 6:36 pm #
Re: Wm T Sherman. Yes. It was like a game of rock-paper-scissors, with one guy showing “rope” and Jeff showing “tree”. I can’t do it justice, it was a striking comeback.
Comment by dicentra on 12/9 @ 6:36 pm #
But since the South lost, only the South is required to do the soul searching
Hardly. I fully recognize that the North may have abolished slavery but they didn’t accept blacks as fully human, either. I just don’t understand the desire to fly the Confederate flag. Unless it was used in another context before Secession.
And besides, I’m from the West: most of my ancestors came straight to the Great Basin from Europe and skipped being Yanks. I can sneer at them with equal aplomb. :D
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 6:37 pm #
Feh. That should have been ‘prosecution’ in #232.
Not that you care.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 6:37 pm #
Pearls before swine, as it turned out, ML.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 6:40 pm #
Rednecks fly the confederate flag because it pisses hyper-sensitive people off.
It’s like a monitor that detects how empty liberals lives are.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 6:44 pm #
I don’t understand why liberals insist on deifying mass-murderers like Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, but I will defend their right to fly their Che flag too.
Comment by dicentra on 12/9 @ 6:45 pm #
Rednecks fly the confederate flag because it pisses hyper-sensitive people off.
Well, during my last visit to Nashville, I bought a baseball cap with the Confederate flag on it because the rest of them at the truck stop were explicitly trucker. I thought I could wear the flag ironically or summat. Like flaunting redneck creds when I’m clearly not. I think.
But I don’t have the courage to wear it in public. I ended up buying a second one that says Nashville, which I assume is less offensive except maybe in Knoxville or Louisville.
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 6:50 pm #
dicentra
When I was a youngin, the confederate flag stood for Bo and Luke Duke getting in heaps of trouble, again.
Comment by Molon Labe on 12/9 @ 6:52 pm #
Rednecks fly the confederate flag because it pisses hyper-sensitive people off.
They also fly it because they’re died-in-the-wool racists. I grew up in that environment. Don’t doubt me.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 6:53 pm #
That really is a shame that you were unable to bring yourself to wear it, dicentra. I have always imagined you as a rebel (after a fashion).
In our post-racial utopia, the one ushered in by Mr. Obama, one can wear what one pleases. For example, tonight, in honor of the communist party, I am wearing a jaunty set of black silk pajamas and mapping out where the killing fields will be in my little cul de sac.
The homeowners association is first…
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 6:54 pm #
I call Fox FauxNewz just for the irony. It’s the only news station I can stand to watch any more.
At least, I think that’s ironic if I do that. I forget.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 6:56 pm #
Enjoy your one minute of fame, RD. You’ll be gone, and this post of mine will look weird. Moron.
Comment by DRJ on 12/9 @ 6:56 pm #
SteveG #172,
I think you’re right that this started when Patterico posted on this statement by a black woman about Tiger Woods:
“On the one hand, Ebonie Johnson Cooper doesn’t care that Tiger Woods’ wife and alleged mistresses are white because Woods is “quote-unquote not really black.”
“But at the same time we still see him as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference,” said Johnson Cooper, a 26-year-old African-American from New York City. “There’s just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other.”
It reminded him of this R.S. McCain statement:
“As Steffgen predicted, the media now force interracial images into the public mind and a number of perfectly rational people react to these images with an altogether natural revulsion. The white person who does not mind transacting business with a black bank clerk may yet be averse to accepting the clerk as his sisterinlaw, and THIS IS NOT RACISM, no matter what Madison Avenue, Hollywood and Washington tell us.”
I think there are similarities, too. Do you?
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 6:58 pm #
They also fly it because they’re died-in-the-wool racists. I grew up in that environment. Don’t doubt me.
I don’t doubt you. I have lived there too. That said, the New York Times just segregated it’s gift guide by skin color. It should be noted that not all the racists are flyin’ flags.
Some racists are fancy newspaper men.
Comment by SteveG on 12/9 @ 7:00 pm #
Thanks Jeff
Don’t hide your light for so long.
Gifts have a way of demanding release…
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:02 pm #
I told you to Google it. Always ask your parents permission before visiting Google.
Britain. Third. World. Hospital.
Comment by Jeff G. on 12/9 @ 7:03 pm #
That last RD comment got rid of 5 more prior comments of his.
A lot to surrender for a brief smirk at a use of cap locks that I’d already long ago ironized in just the way you he tried to. In fact, that self consciousness is the genesis of it’s usage here.
Signed,
GAYPORN COCK OF LIES / HUGH HEWITT IS NOT MY MASTER!
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:06 pm #
Of course we have third world hospitals too, RD. They’re the ones run by the Veterans Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Walter Reed Army Hospital fell into that category for a while…
You know, Government healthcare.
Comment by cranky-d on 12/9 @ 7:09 pm #
Keep at it, RD! Pretty soon there will be no trace of you here, which on the whole is a good thing.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:15 pm #
At the risk of being a pariah, I like having RD post comments. You can’t really engage him in a battle of wits since he’s pretty much unarmed, but it keeps things lively.
Remember, no matter how unpleasant he makes the PW experience, when you wake up tomorrow, you will not be RD, and he will.
He is trapped in an horrible Kafkaesque nightmare where he wakes up every morning and is himself.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:23 pm #
You have to admit that that Kafka comment was good, RD.
Comment by Joe on 12/9 @ 7:29 pm #
I lived in an HOA community and joined the board only to add a vote of sanity when a few of them tried to start measuring grass heights and determining “architectural asthetic” issues. We just outvoted them and they lost momentum.
Then I grew tired of it and moved to a community that had bigger yards and no HOA. Freedom!
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:29 pm #
Dear RD,
I had hoped that you would engage me in a serious discussion of why government healthcare always leads to a radically diminished quality and quantity of said care based on the article that your Google search led you to, but the ad homenim attack was a good response for you.
Like I always tell you RD, you don’t have the facts, or history, or even a first rate intellect, but you can hurl invective with the best of them! So keep hurlin’!
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:35 pm #
They aren’t too bad here, Joe. But their ranks are filled primarily by Federal Government employees since they have the time and the innate love of meetings that characterizes most HOA people.
The upshot of this is that our HOA gets nothing done. Nothing.
It is really quite amazing from a sociological standpoint.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:35 pm #
Not now, RD. The adults are talking. Thank you.
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/9 @ 7:37 pm #
RD, just walk away. RD is a racist, btw. Nah, it doesn’t feel right. RD is an idiot. Yeah, that feels about right.
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:40 pm #
No, Obstreperous Infidel (if that is your real name), I disagree,
RD is a very lonely person with some tragically inadequate people skills. If people would look past his puerile writings, they would see that.
Comment by DRJ on 12/9 @ 7:41 pm #
Joe @ #233,
You’re right! I don’t think that post was happyfeet’s favorite but I didn’t post it for that reason. I have opinions about some topics but I don’t have strong opinions on everything I post. Sometimes my goal is simply to open a forum for discussion. I think both of these blogs are alike in that respect.
Comment by SteveG on 12/9 @ 7:41 pm #
DRJ
The woman quoted expresses a personal racist ideology and follows it up with threat of racist action to punish the object of her racism.
McCain is musing philisophically aloud about race and attitude.
1. No personal racist ideology (musing aloud about racist attitudes in a philisophical way isn’t racism… no matter what Mr. frey says it is conversation about a loaded topic)
2. No stated intent to apply racist attitude in a punitive way.
Can I have a candid conversation about a loaded topic like racism without having some clown compare me to a woman cleary expresses racism and who then would follow her racist thoughts with racist action?
How insulting.
Mr Frey does this kind of thing frequently and I find his modus disingenuous and possibly dishonest…
This isn’t “when did you stop beating your wife” it is “you used ‘wife’ and ‘beating’ in a conversation about wife beating where you mused that some men might think about wife beating… BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE WIFE BEATING!!!!! so I thus deem you must answer me as to whether you condone wifebeating…”
Apologies, you (DRJ) have my respect, but the only real world response he’d get from me is a “*bleep* you.”
Comment by Mr. W on 12/9 @ 7:43 pm #
Just try to wrap your minds, and your hearts, around the sad fact that you guys are probably as close to friends as RD has. That is some seriously tragic shit there, my brothers.
Comment by sdferr on 12/9 @ 7:45 pm #
The Phillisophical Society was that group Ben Franklin founded, right?
Comment by DRJ on 12/9 @ 7:55 pm #
SteveG,
I have the same respect for you, and thank you.
As for the topic, I read both statements as comments on how some people are more comfortable with or supportive of same-race marriages. To the extent one is racist, I think they both are — although I would describe them as prejudiced and I wouldn’t call either speaker a racist.
Furthermore, have I missed something? I don’t see anything about Ms. Cooper threatening action.
Comment by Makewi on 12/9 @ 7:56 pm #
It’s important to be very clear with children on what comprises a promise and what is merely a possibility. Failure to do so will result in actions like you are witnessing here in RD.
Comment by Mike LaRoche on 12/9 @ 7:57 pm #
“RD” must be an acronym for “Really Dense”. Some people just can’t take a hint.
Comment by Darleen on 12/9 @ 7:58 pm #
DRJ
It reminded him of this R.S. McCain statement
I believe that’s the real rub. Did that woman’s statement really remind Pat or was it merely a tactic in which to assemble all to observe the Star Chamber proceedings about RSM?
I mean, if Pat really was merely confused or troubled by RSM’s singular quote, why didn’t he try to email or get in touch with RSM before doing a public gotcha?
It is not as if RSM is Markos or Amanda. Even Pat is admitting RSM is on “our team” as it were. Usually team members are afforded the benefit of a doubt of some attempt to private contact/interview before a public specticle.
Maybe you should check out what Joy McCann has to say
DRJ, I think you were closer to what what some of melanin-enriched people who are upset with a Cablasian preferring to bed blondes are prejudiced which isn’t necessarily synonymous with racist.
Comment by geoffb on 12/9 @ 8:02 pm #
If anyone is interested there is an article by Matthew Vadum at American Spectator on the ACORN Harshbarger report.
The link I found at POWIP.
Comment by Molon Labe on 12/9 @ 8:05 pm #
Note that Pat was just coming off a scrape where he had accused SEK of race-baiting. I think he somehow computed that he needed some compensatory red-on-red action to build his credibility.
There’s no doubt that guy can link to newsy stuff like the best of them, but in the end it’s always about his self-interest.
Comment by guinsPen on 12/9 @ 8:09 pm #
I was somewhat critical of [whatever] and got plenty of…criticism…for saying so.
No, the…criticism…was for repeatedly doing same thing reporter keeps doing.
Repeatedly.
Comment by SBP on 12/9 @ 8:10 pm #
Sooner or later SFAG is going to get tired of supporting RD and boot him out of the house, at which point he’ll be reduced to posting from the library.
Unfortunately for him, I think they make you take a bath to do that these days.
Comment by DRJ on 12/9 @ 8:11 pm #
I think it was a coincidence, Darleen. I don’t know about you but some of my posts happen like that. Some stories trigger comparisons and those can be interesting to talk about.
I also agree there is a concern about attacking conservatives — speaking of comparisons, it almost reminds me of Harriet Miers — and that’s why I mentioned “circling-the-wagons” above. I don’t like to see conservatives squabbling but sometimes discussions lead to that.
Pingback by Five Reasons To Use Wordpress As Your Blog System on 12/9 @ 8:13 pm #
[...] On blogging and its discontents. [...]
Comment by Timstigator on 12/9 @ 8:16 pm #
Did you all note this quote? Could win Best of 2009. Thanks, ducktrapper. Made my day.
Comment by guinsPen on 12/9 @ 8:28 pm #
Still, I could have thought of a better use…
Yes, round up all the reporters and make them grow their own whiskey in Nebraska.
Comment by mcgruder on 12/9 @ 8:41 pm #
Alpuccino,
peace.
I pissed you off. I take back what I said. You are a good commentor and I learn a lot from you.
Comment by SBP on 12/9 @ 8:51 pm #
My shirts don’t have buttons.
I bought a shirt that uses studs recently. I figured that since I am one, my attire should reflect that fact.
Comment by donald on 12/10 @ 6:12 am #
Dicentra, there’s a lot of people living in the past, and hanging on to stuff for stupid reasons.
However, the Civil War was about States rights and responsibility. The fact of the matter is that the constitution did not require any state to stay in the Union for any reason.
My family fought in that war, my father is a a member of the Sons of Confederate veterans. None of those family members had any slaves or were working to keep the slaves for the powerful. I know, I’ve read the letters and the book (!).
Comment by B Moe on 12/10 @ 7:43 am #
Foreign trade policy was screwing the agrarian south rather harshly, also. The vast majority of southern slave owners knew slavery was a losing proposition, all they had to do was look at the ledgers to see that. The problem was how to go about turning your world upside down with as little damage as possible. The solution wasn’t a very good one for any involved.
Trackback by baldilocks on 12/10 @ 7:45 am #
Say Goodbye…
Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! Racist!!! And… Racist!!! What the flock is up with the Right side of the Blogosphere? LGF is gone. Charles Johnson is gone. Face it. He was never ours. How about we let him……
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 12/10 @ 9:05 am #
Mr. W. I agree that he’s lonely and this is where he gets his attention. However, the guy is still an idiot. He has never uttered anything in here that even resembles thoughtful dialogue. Never.
Comment by Danger on 12/10 @ 9:06 am #
Jeff,
So who else has RD been posting as?
(Enquiring minds need to know;^)
Comment by Danger on 12/10 @ 9:17 am #
Comment by sdferr on 12/9 @ 4:41 pm #
“Damned Dairy Queen tried (and nearly succeeded) to teach me that Blizzard’s are a good thing. I fooled ‘em though and ordered the Chocolate Malt instead.”
Yeah sdferr, but you did obey the Texas stop sign.;) Of course; if you add Heath bar to your Blizzard its not good, it’s GRRREEEAAAATTT!!!
sigh, I miss home
Pingback by The Recent Unpleasantness (and happyfeet) on 12/10 @ 9:35 am #
[...] has a cogent analysis of the dialogical dynamics here, and revisits the linguistic issues here. Attila and Mike also weigh in on Stacy’s [...]
Comment by Danger on 12/10 @ 10:30 am #
Patterico said this back on March 20, 2009:
“And I think it’s about time we conservatives started firing volleys outward and not inward. We agree on the basics. They’re wrong and we’re right. THEY are wrong and WE are right. So let’s stop tearing each other up and go tear THEM up.”
Man what a concept! Someone should label it and make it their cause;^)
Pingback by Blogging To The Bank 3.0. | Improve Your Debt on 12/10 @ 8:52 pm #
[...] On blogging and its discontents. [...]