January 16, 2013

“Matt Yglesias: Sorry haters, Obama’s kids are worth more than yours” [updated]

I tweeted him, providing him the opportunity to clarify whether he meant more at risk, or more important  — though he seems to be doubling down with the “important” bit.   So far I’ve not received a response.

There is some good news that comes out of this, though:  Yglesias, we now know, is not likely to procreate.   Because no one with children would ever say anything so elitist and reprehensible.

So we’ve got that going for us.

****

Still no answer, but I had a few follow-up questions.  For instance, just so we’re clear, is it Matt’s position that Obama’s children are more important than Grace, who loved pink, and wanted to be a painter?  Were the kids of Newtown just some of the “masses,” useful in death as political props in service to an ideology?

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:18am
159 comments | Trackback

Comments (159)

  1. Of course he meant more important. What’s the point of being superior to the inferior, solely by virtue of the fact that you’re you and they’re not, if you can’t make inferiors acknowledge your superiority?

    Tar, Feathers and a Rail

    fresh cut and splintery.

  2. If the succession is to be guaranteed, of course they are more important. Silly commoner.

  3. fresh cut riven from dry stuff

    guaranteeing longer, tougher, splinters

  4. Trayvon Martin was Obazma’s kid, if he had a son that is, so the assaulty teen deserved special attention — right down to today, in fact.

  5. Were the kids of Newtown just some of the “masses,” useful in death as political props in service to an ideology?

    The political/media hysteria in the days that followed provides a sadly obvious (and obscene) answer.

  6. Silly Commoner

    You’re right of course. I still think of myself as a citizen of a republic.

    But they’ll cure me of that insanity, won’t they?

  7. Pretty sure that ChurchBoi is a fascist.

  8. Somone need to contact Matt Yglesias’ parents and let them know that he’s not important by his own admission.

  9. this is why i will never ever long as i live let it go about the british royal whores

    royalty is some nasty shit

  10. and yes it *can* happen here

  11. Someone needs to take Young Mr. Yglesias’ shovel away, even if it is only a plastic toy shovel.

  12. I think you have it – “Fess up. You’re just trying to have a screen cap of your Twitter feed included in the next NRA video, am I right? “

  13. Apparently, Young Mr. Yglesias’ sandbox is bottomless.

  14. “and yes it *can* happen here”

    If I were betting, I’d bet on on a series of de facto emperors, Roman or Soviet Union style rather than a hereditary monarchy.

  15. sandboxes is how you get ringworm

  16. or venezuelan style even

  17. It’s pretty hard to keep a genuine old-school Divine Right monarchy going nowadays. Most of the ones that still exist are basically figureheads.

    The only exception that comes to mind is North Korea.

  18. I think Matt would have done better to have argued that the President’s childrenses would be a bigger risk for kidnapping, not that they are more important.

    But maybe he really thinks they have some intrinsic vitality to the country; that some of Obama’s Hopy-ness is housed in his daughters.

    Which: gross.

  19. The only exception that comes to mind is North Korea.

    Umm.

  20. Okay, that’s two. :-)

    I could weasel and say I meant countries that actually have some standing in world affairs, but I won’t. Heh.

    There are some other old-school kings around, but not in serious countries.

  21. How many times does one need to repeat the clause “We hold these truths to be self evident” before Matty G. Lesias starts to understand?

  22. this is why i will never ever long as i live let it go about the british royal whores
    royalty is some nasty shit

    and yes it *can* happen here

    You’re wrong, happyfeet, about the old royalty, although really aristocracy is probably the better term here, since Obama is merely a representative specimen of a class coming into being.

    Two reasons why: The first is that the old aristocracy owed it’s position to birth, which is to say to accident, and thus was conscious of the fact that it didn’t merit its position, which it need must strive to merit. At least some of the time. The new aristocracy in becoming differs from the old in that it believes itself deserving of its superiority because it’s earned it in some way. (Insert C.S. Lewis and Tocqueville quotes here)

    The second reason is personified by Charles, Prince of Wales. The man may be an utter moron and embarrassment, utterly undeserving to be even so much as a figurative head of state bereft of power and responsibility; and if indeed that is the case, then at least no one was stupid enough to vote for him.

  23. I thought about tweeting a reply to Yggy, but somehow the thought of enhancing his trollgasm was unappealing.

  24. “sandboxes is how you get ringworm”

    No, animal feces, (usually feline or canine), is how you get ringworm. Now if the feces happens to be in the sandbox..?

    “at least no one was stupid enough to vote for him.” You know at least some would.

  25. I suppose maybe a better way of putting that would be that the British may not deserve King Charles III, but we deserve President Obama.

  26. without his propaganda slut retainers president food stamp would never have been elected once much less twice

    i believe that in my heart

  27. “but we deserve President Obama.”

    Are you looking at me? Are you looking at me? You must be looking at me. I’m the only one here. Sorry, I couldn’t resist the temptation.

  28. “i believe that in my heart”

    And you would be wrong. Aren’t you the “guy” that had the hardon for the “snowbilly cumslut”? How’s that inevitable thing working out?

    “Fat, drunk and supid is no way to go through life, son.” Dean Wormer

  29. without his propaganda slut retainers president food stamp would never have been elected once much less twice

    They’re all of a class. Which is why if it hadn’t been Obama in ’08, it would have been someone like Obama eventually. You think Hillary Clinton or John Edwards would have been any better? McCain or Romney only marginally so.

  30. interesting Mr. Ernst only one of those mentioned was ever a governor and even Romney was just a one termer with a record of extravagant statism

    which reminders me that looking forward I’m way more possibly a Jindal guy than I could ever be a Rubio guy

  31. “Rubio guy”

    So you’re in for the Hindi, but ixnay on the apist pa. Gothcha.

    “I was looking for love in all the wrong places Looking for love in too many faces Searching your eyes, looking for traces Of what.. I’m dreaming of…

    when you’re in a really desperate situation you can make yourself think you love anyone just? so you can have that feeling…

  32. Buena suerte mi amigo. You’re gonna need it.

  33. i like governors

    senators are whores

    it’s a thing

  34. also Jindal is very christian I think probably catholic cause of his exorcism hobby

  35. “senators are whores”

    Newsflash! When can you tell a politician is lying. When his lips move.

    “it’s a thing” Not really SSDD.

    There don’t appear to be any standards necessary to qualify to run or be seated as President. Why run or back ANYONE with a record in public office? There is a reason things are screwed six ways from Sunday and it ain’t because the Repub pols are in-experienced.

  36. yup the standards are really low

    there’s people what seriously talk about porky porky chris christie as a presidential candidate

    i just don’t know what to tell them

  37. * Because no one with children would ever say anything so elitist and reprehensible*

    I dunno. I can see some Fluke-like vagina warrior giving up the goods “for the cause.”

  38. Bobby Jindal is Catholic. So is Marco Rubio.

    Of course, lots of Democrats are nominally Catholic: Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius to name a few. If I were their bishop, I would have excommunicated them years ago.

  39. “Of course, lots of Democrats are nominally Catholic”

    From what I know, no Catholic is nominal, at least if they take the blood and body of the Christ. You could wait for Leigh to confirm that.

    “Bobby Jindal is Catholic. So is Marco Rubio.”

    That’s not supposed to matter, is it? As long as they are of the current fashionable color and metre; we’re all good.

  40. Nope, no Catholic who attends Mass is nominal.

    Sincerity is between them and their Saviour and is another matter all together.

  41. Maybe Yglesias is bucking for the Strelnikov role ..

    In 1914, the Russian Empire declares war on Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Although he loves Lara deeply, Pasha feels increasingly stifled by her love for him. In order to escape, he volunteers for the Imperial Russian Army. Ultimately, Lt. Antipov is declared missing in action, but is captured by the Austro-Hungarian Army. After escaping from a POW camp, Antipov joins the new Red Army. He becomes notorious as General Strelnikov (“The Shooter”), a fearsome commander who summarily executes both captured Whites and many civilians….

    All he needs now is a scar on his cheek.

  42. The Russian Revolution has been on my mind a lot lately.

  43. a majority of catholics voted for obama is all i know

    those ones are nominally fascist foodstamper buttholes I think

  44. a majority of catholics voted for obama is all i know

    kinda hard on catholics who don’t vote no?

  45. good point I didn’t vote either

  46. as a baptized catholic the choice: mormon elite ivy league vs black aa elite ivy league caused me to go little debbie

  47. Maybe it’s time to go Orthodox, nr. Those priests are hardcore.

  48. Ours is a very nice man, very devout, works quite hard. His wife is a wonderful woman and they have raised a good son.

    If you do convert nr you will have to get used to a lot of standing and services that run 2 hours or more.

    One thing is that the history of my Church, and I mean the people of the Church in general and many, many of the martyrs and saints, is a history of fighting, resisting, the two main opponents we face today.

  49. I was interested in joining the Orthodox church at one time when we lived in Pittsburgh. Then we moved here and Orthodox are like hen’s teeth.

    I knew several Orthodox in grad school, mostly Eastern Europeans and Russians. They were really good people.

  50. Orthodox are like hen’s teeth.

    Here too. We are only 10 miles away but many travel 40 or 50 to get to services each time.

  51. That’s impressive. I wish our Church calendars matched up. I always get thrown when you have Easter on a different day than we.

  52. We celebrate on both. Only one is official though.

    BTW martyrs are not just ancient history, they continue to be made by the same forces as in the past. The Coptic’s are our brothers too as are the Romans. We all were forged from the same fire.

  53. Hm. What counts as a “hobby” to the griefer?

  54. hobbies are like making friendship bracelets and rebuilding old cars and going to exorcisms and cooking stuff, usually involving meat but not always

    also some people like to go to the theater

    that’s pretty much it

  55. oh also some people really get into model tanks german ss stuff but hobbity lobbity doesn’t really put it out front you have to ask

  56. Uh huh. How many exorcisms did Jindal attend, exactly?

    Because repetition tends to be needed for something to match the term “hobby,” at least when using a sane person’s definition. I play video games as a hobby, for example. That isn’t because I once played games on an Atari 2400 as a child, it’s because I play them regularly for fun. Like tonight after work, I’ll probably load up ME3 multiplayer and play a few matches.

    So did Jindal attend one or a small handful of exorcisms when younger (which would mean you are simply declaring it a “hobby” to belittle him) or is this some sort of weekly or monthly thing he does all the time? Which would actually fit the term, instead of you being all bitter and spleenful towards someone you don’t like…. as usual.

  57. slewfoot’s hobby?

    I’m guessing public griefsturbation.

  58. There is no factoid about Republicans that hf won’t hit with the fist of Odin.

  59. Chirpyfeet’s hobby is trollgasms.

  60. His verbiage was happyfeet-level stupid, but I’m really at a loss as to what was reprehensible or elitist about what Yglesias said.

  61. A politician’s children more important than anyone else’s? Seriously, Abe?

  62. Not a politician’s children so much as the President of the United State’s children.

  63. More important to whom? Further, the initial point stands re: armed security for me, gun free zones for thee.

  64. Obama’s children are more at risk than ours, unless we are also highly visible public figures. They are not more important.

  65. For as long as I can remember, it has been universally accepted that the safety of the president’s children was of great symbolic importance to the country. I almost can’t believe that this conversation is taking place here.

  66. Mr. Froman, they are more at risk, but they are not more important. They are not in the line of succession. The very words the president uses concerning “our children” would seem to contradict the statement that his children are more important.

  67. And besides, to imagine this is about the president’s children is to miss the point entirely, it is about all the other children who should not be required to be unprotected so some people’s magical thinking about guns can be mollified.

  68. if a killboy is shooting at your kids it’s good to have someone with a gun there to shoot the killboy

    food stamp knows this

    I knows this

    Michael Bloomberg knows this

    who also knows this is Michelle Malkin

    even the sascha and the meliah knows this, probably

  69. They’re more symbolically important to the nation, the fact that there’s a loathsome left wing cockroach defiling the oval office notwithstanding. I didn’t bother reading whatever Yglesias piece the twitter exchanges were pertaining to, but as a general matter, even delving into the secret service protocols for the first family to make arguments about gun control strikes me as lathered up gun nut bullshit.

  70. trollgasms

    Exactly.

  71. And besides, to imagine this is about the president’s children is to miss the point entirely…

    Indeed it is. The point is that guns keep people safe. It is most certainly not that the POTUS’ kids shouldn’t be protected. That would be exceedingly dumb (with scattered hilarity.)

  72. everybody run the homecoming queen’s got a gun

    oh wait sascha’s bodyguard just dropped her nevermind

  73. I’m not missing the point. I’m suggesting that the point is cheap and moronic.

  74. So, you think that gun free zones are a good idea for non important people, then?

  75. Gun free zones are idiotic, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is not a rational, winning argument.

  76. The fact that armed protection works and Obama damn well knows it is not rational?

  77. For as long as I can remember, it has been universally accepted that the safety of the president’s children was of great symbolic importance to the country.

    Tradition!

  78. Maybe it’s time we break with tradition and place everyone’s children as right up there in importance with those of the President?

  79. No, it isn’t. Not unless you’re suggesting that blanketing an area with highly-trained armed professionals shows the hypocrisy of not enabling every Tom, Dick and Harriet who doesn’t have a felony or mental health issues to carry a gun. I don’t see how this argument is supposed to win over anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.

  80. So, armed protection doesn’t work? The logical disconnect here is yours, Abe.

  81. it’s also symbolically important that the president’s kids don’t have to live off food stamps but they’re good enough for the rest of us hey you gonna finish those vienna sausages

  82. How do you figure, Pablo? I’m critiquing a stupid argument, not disagreeing with it.

  83. You seem to be saying that this “stupid” argument is factually correct. That seems to be wading into PC blather. Gun free zones are stupid. Protection via arms is not. Obama knows this. How is that not rational?

  84. It just isn’t rational to liken the highly-trained force that the Secret Service brings to bear with the idea of allowing random people to be armed in school zones. It isn’t an apples to apples argument. I’m all for ending gun free zones, but, Jesus, get a better argument than this one.

  85. i think a good argument for ending gun free zones is what happened in newtown where all those kids got shot and nobody had a gun to shoot the evil killboy

  86. freeze or i shoot you head, evil killboy

    the hell you will this is a gun free zone hahahaha

    oh. man that sucks

  87. It isn’t an apples to apples argument.

    Yes it is. The ability to neutralize a threat with arms is the same. You either have it or you don’t. You’re either allowed to have it or you’re not. How that ability is achieved is a secondary matter of semantics, logistics, etc…

  88. i think a good argument for ending gun free zones is what happened in newtown where all those kids got shot and nobody had a gun to shoot the evil killboy

    …and how those same school kids are now protected by people capable of shooting an evil killboy.

  89. Look, this isn’t difficult: I actually value the President’s children less than my own. My kids are mine; I’ve known them nearly their entire lives, in a way that I never could know the children of someone else. So of course I value them more.

    And I acknowledge that the President’s children may need more in the way of protection from people who value them a lot more highly than I do.

    These are nonconflicting statements; I have no idea why you’re having trouble with this concept, Abe.

  90. They’re more symbolically important to the nation

    A “nation” is not an intelligent being capable of valuing anything. It is a collection of individual people who may or may not, in general, conform to this claim.

  91. Good luck with your circle jerk, fellas.

  92. …he said, lacking anything intelligent to say.

  93. Because rational. And compelling.

  94. I am (and all Americans should be) furious that Barack Hussein Obama surrounded himself with kidprops whilst signing his radical, anti-Constitutional, long-sought by Democrats as their bestest wet-dream EVAH! gun controls. Somebody should pshop his kids into that photo, to make that point.

    Gimme 8 hours…

  95. I think Abe’s been hacked. The Abe that had been posting here knows what “circle jerk” means in both figurative and literal contexts.

    This one doesn’t seem to realize that some of us are disagreeing with him.

  96. It just isn’t rational to liken the highly-trained force that the Secret Service brings to bear with the idea of allowing random people to be armed in school zones. It isn’t an apples to apples argument. I’m all for ending gun free zones, but, Jesus, get a better argument than this one.

    Sidwell Friends had armed security before and aside from the Secret Service protection once the President’s kids enrolled.

    The fact is, these people believe their progeny is more important than ours. And they’re wrong, because we don’t live in an aristocracy. And because, well, Dana Plato.

  97. Sidwell Friends has snipers on the roof of the school. I have seen photographic evidence. They had the snipers prior to the daughters O attending and are currently hiring more security.

    Bob Beckel can shove it up his large ass when he says they don’t because they are a ‘Quaker school’.

  98. Ok, so several possibilities:

    “circle jerk” means:

    a) I am wrong and everyone else is right
    b) I am right and everyone else is wrong
    c) I am more right/wrong than anyone else in the conversation
    d) I can’t be bothered to explain myself
    e) Other (specify)

  99. e) Abe is feeling cranky today.

  100. Drudge posted links of Hitler and Stalin with children. The one that sprung to mind for me was Stuart Lockwood and Saddam Hussein.

  101. There are pictures of little children flocking to Chairman Mao, as well.

  102. Abe is feeling cranky today.

    He sure as hell better not be.

    Plus, I didn’t notice anything.

  103. Heh. That would be problematic since neither of you hits for that team.

  104. I don’t see why this is so hard. While my children are far more important to me, I readily concede that the President’s children need more armed security than mine.

    Which does *not* mean mine are not entitled to any at all. Which is that shithead Yglesias’ basic argument.

  105. it’s like in jeepers creepers 2 where you have all those kids getting jeeper creepered so finally they just impale the jeeper creeper on a harpoon like thing while the sascha and the meliah just stand there looking vaguely impatient for jeepers creepers 3 which will come out later this year

    it’s supposed to finish the trilogy plus set up a tv show all about the jeeper creeper and his adventures

  106. Crimeny, happy. You need to watch some gritty crime stories once in a while.

    OT: Did you know Sasha’s name is reall Natasha?

  107. Do you guys remember how important the country considered Dubya’s daughters to be? How the press and the new bloggers went out of their way to respect the girls’ privacy and dignity, because any harm or embarrassment caused to them would redound to the detriment of our nation? Yeah, we sure do have a country that considers a President’s family to be sacrosanct.

    Do you guys remember how in History class, we learned about how America was founded on the idea that all of us were equal under the law, and equal in rights and dignity as endowed by our Creator? About how the idea of America was that we wouldn’t bow to some monarch, nor subscribe to a rigid class structure that granted nigh-limitless privilege to the aristocracy? About how government officials — those who write and enforce the law of the land — would themselves be subject to those laws?

    If any of you guys remember any of that stuff, could you maybe explain it to Abe?

  108. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

    No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

    Just sayin’.

  109. i don’t really buy this whole families are sacrosanct business but a lot of people do

    personally I think Ashley Biden for example can be a sacrosanct coke whore or a plain old regular one for all I care

    either way works

  110. “Abe Froman says January 17, 2013 at 9:13 am
    For as long as I can remember, it has been universally accepted that the safety of the president’s children was of great symbolic importance to the country. I almost can’t believe that this conversation is taking place here.”

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-05-31-bushdaughters.htm

  111. Meanwhile, Chelsea Clinton made it all the way through college and grad school without the American press showing the pictures of her drunk off her ass, dancing on bars and falling into the street or being poured into her car, a lot of which happened while she was underage. I believe she may have tried to clobber Ken Starr’s daughter when they were both attending Stanford, as well.

    Charming girl.

  112. i wish one of these sacrosanct lil hoochies would bring me a latte

  113. a three shot non-fat latte and just bring me like 2 yellows on the side you don’t have to put em in

  114. Abe, got any kids? If so, whose are more important to you? Would you like to be able to protect yours to the extent any president’s kids are?
    Yeah, I thought so.

  115. Once again, Big City Sophistication(TM) gleams like the north star from the dark vault of hillbilly heaven.

  116. “Do you guys remember how important the country considered”

    Objection: countries have no consideration.

  117. If something happened to the Obama kids, I’d be interested in a detached sort of watching the news cycle fashion. If something happens to my kids, I’m hunting the responsible motherfuckers down. Which I could do, because guns. Which I’d have to go buy first, because of that stupid skiff incident.

  118. Abe’s kids are just as important as Manti Te’o's girlfriend, God rest her soul.

  119. Sidwell Friends has it’s own armed security, does it not? I think the NRA’s point, in the context of what is to be done about school shootings, is that the Obamas send there kids to a (private) school with armed guards, not that the Obamas’s daughters have armed protection.

  120. That is exactly the NRA’s point, Ernst. One that apparently flies right over a lot of people’s heads.

  121. That’s because you don’t exploit other people’s children for your vile propaganda,

    Democrats do.

  122. “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

    — Hitler, Mein Kampf

  123. let us exploit vile proggtards™

    We shall go on to the end, we shall mock them fight in France, we shall mock them fight on the seas and oceans, we shall mock them fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall mock them fight on the beaches, we shall mock them fight on the landing grounds, we shall mock them fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall mock them fight in the hills; we shall never surrender

  124. You know what they say about something being too good to check?

  125. I lifted it from a UK paper. I figured they checked. Oops.

  126. The only way to know is lay hands on a copy of Mein Kampf.

    I’m happy to attribute it to The Book of Stuff Some Totalitarian Bastard or Other Either Said or at Least Thought.

  127. Works for me.

  128. Honestly Leigh I’ve only ever read a translation of Mein Kampf and that was to shock people in high school who were conditioned to think of it as an almost supernatural talisman of evil but that was a bit better written than the real thing. The real thing was boring and preachy and more than a little bit stupid. The assumptions of what would appeal to the patriotic german reader were more than a little bit off putting to an American boy who had little patience for hearing about long lists of so called indignities.

  129. …using kids as cheap props should INFURIATE! all Americans.

    He’s got 3 kids, let him use his own.

    http://pic.twitter.com/cRjmbs88

  130. palaeo, I tried to read Mein Kampf and Das Kapitol and a bunch of other commie screeds to see what all the fuss was about and it was all boring, preachy bullshit that even little wide-eyed me, as a college sophomore, had no problem saying “What a load of bullshit!” to.

    Same deal with all my hippy friends getting into the mystics and Eastern religion and all of that and naturally, misunderstanding a huge part of it since they had no grounding in religion of their own to draw from.

    Pro tip: If someone (Western) tells you they are a Buddhist, run the other way.

  131. “Sidwell Friends had armed security before and aside from the Secret Service protection once the President’s kids enrolled.

    The fact is, these people believe their progeny is more important than ours. And they’re wrong, because we don’t live in an aristocracy. And because, well, Dana Plato.”

    Those are separate matters. They aren’t, however, winning arguments for eliminating gun-free zones. Or eliminating secret service protection for the children of the president, whether it’s a Reagan, a Bush, or the progeny of a leftist jungle bunny.

  132. I wasn’t aware the argument was about eliminating secret service protection for the children of the president.

    I’m aware, however, that a lot of people would like to make it about that.

  133. I don’t see an argument at all.

  134. Those are separate matters. They aren’t, however, winning arguments for eliminating gun-free zones.

    Sure they are. They are an argument that shows, explicitly, that armed protection for their children is routine among those who wish to deny that same protection to ours. It wasn’t just Obama the ad singled out. It included David Gregory, and a note about the armed security at the school.

    Nobody ever said anything about secret service protection. That’s the trope the left (and many on the right, looking to get out in front of what they knew was coming) relied upon to pretend to outrage.

    What’s reprehensible is the cowardice it takes to intentionally misread that ad, particularly by those in power on “our” side.

  135. I see it more as a rhetorical question than an argument. If gun free schools are the social boon they claimed to be, why don’t the rich and powerful send their kids to one?

  136. What’s reprehensible is the cowardice it takes to intentionally misread that ad, particularly by those in power on “our” side.

    Whaddya mean “‘our’ side” bub? There is no our side, because we’re not part of the debate, we’re the subject of it.

    Oh, that’s why they’re called scare quotes!

  137. The NRA put out two ads on the same day the President made his gratuitous power-grab against the Second Amendment, the first a short ad, the second a longer, approx. 4 min ad. In part what we see play out here again is a recurrence of the old problem: can the NRA be made to say in their short ad what they did not say? Not so much, what did they say, exactly, as how can the NRA be made to appear to the inattentive?

    And this question in distinction to the other questions swirling around, such as: “What are the best solutions to address the dangers revealed in the slaughter at Sandy Hook?”, “What are the limits to government’s usurpation of a fundamental human right expressed in the Second Amendment?”, “What is the relation of the Federal Government to the conduct of security measures in a local community?” and so on, along with the attendant arguments pro and con on each of these and other unenumerated issues.

    It’s deep into the sham art of rhetoric, that is to say, together with those other questions running side by side with any deployment of rhetorical purpose: who do we aim to win over, to what end?, how will they best be won?, how will we know when we have won?, etc.

  138. Sorry, Jeff, but I have no knowledge – or interest, really – in the backstory that inspired the twitter exchange. My reaction was to THIS Post, and Yglesias’s comments which inspired it. I agree with his twitter comments (in the post) and don’t get your outrage, plain and simple. I kind of thought my first comment made that clear, but I suppose that on a blog where most people never fucking leave, one comments at his own risk.

  139. “Good luck with the circle jerk”? “a blog where most people never fucking leave”?

    What’s bugging you Abe?

  140. Sorry, Jeff, but I have no knowledge – or interest, really – in the backstory that inspired the twitter exchange. My reaction was to THIS Post, and Yglesias’s comments which inspired it. I agree with his twitter comments (in the post) and don’t get your outrage, plain and simple. I kind of thought my first comment made that clear, but I suppose that on a blog where most people never fucking leave, one comments at his own risk.

    I don’t get why you wish to double down. Yglesias was asked to clarify, and he went with “more important” rather than “more at risk.”

    He was taking a shot at the NRA ad which equated Sidwell Friends — where both the Obama and David Gregory kids go, and which has been using armed security not related to the secret service — to the NRA’s initial call for armed presence at schools, a proposal scoffed at by these two men and the rest of the professional left.

    Yglesias wished to deflect the point of the hypocrisy that was being illustrated by claiming Obama’s spawn is more important than, say, mine. And yet, we are born in a country founded on the idea of the inherent equality of all men.

    If you can’t fathom the “outrage” — which wasn’t so much outrage as disgust with such ostentatious elitism — you aren’t looking hard enough.

    I’ll forgive your last shot at my site; though it was uncalled for and an attempt to suggest that I run some sort of echo chamber, I know from your very public fights with other commenters here that this isn’t so.

  141. Meh. You know what? Fuck it.

  142. What do you mean, Ernst? Aside from maybe JD, I don’t think this blog has a more reliably vulgar regular than myself.

    The circle jerk comment strikes me as perfectly apt. I mean, as more of an action-driven person, the incessant toothless whining here can be a little hard to take at times.

    And as to people never leaving, well, is that really arguable? It ain’t a criticism, it’s just a fact that small, focused arguments are difficult when a blog has so many 24/7 regulars that posts are frequently in short-hand.

  143. I mean, as more of an action-driven person, the incessant toothless whining here can be a little hard to take at times.

    Fuck you.

  144. Maybe the blog should have the ability to reach out and strangle some leftist fucktard. But alas, the technology isn’t there yet. So it’s reduced to written arguments and attempts to reason through and dissect preposterous leftist gambits, usurpations of power and language, etc.

    It lacks the action that I’m sure you’re taking everyday. Silently. Like an ideological ninja.

  145. Algernon Sidney (republican), writing against Robert Filmer, and the divine right of Kings [1698]:

    *** IF any man ask how nations come to have the power of doing these things, I answer, that liberty being only an exemption from the dominion of another, the question ought not to be, how a nation can come to be free, but how a man comes to have a dominion over it; for till the right of dominion be proved and justified, liberty subsists as arising from the nature and being of a man. Tertullian speaking of the emperors says, ab eo imperium a quo spiritus; and we taking man in his first condition may justly say, ab eo libertas a quo spiritus; for no man can owe more than he has received. The creature having nothing, and being nothing but what the creator makes him, must owe all to him, and nothing to anyone from whom he has received nothing. Man therefore must be naturally free, unless he be created by another power than we have yet heard of. The obedience due to parents arises from hence, in that they are the instruments of our generation; and we are instructed by the light of reason, that we ought to make great returns to those from whom under God we have received all. When they die we are their heirs, we enjoy the same rights, and devolve the same to our posterity. God only who confers this right upon us, can deprive us of it: and we can no way understand that he does so, unless he had so declared by express revelation, or had set some distinguishing marks of dominion and subjection upon men; and, as an ingenious person not long since said, caused some to be born with crowns upon their heads, and all others with saddles upon their backs. This liberty therefore must continue, till it be either forfeited or willingly resigned. The forfeiture is hardly comprehensible in a multitude that is not entered into any society; for as they are all equal, and equals can have no right over each other, no man can forfeit anything to one who can justly demand nothing, unless it may be by a personal injury, which is nothing to this case; because where there is no society, one man is not bound by the actions of another. All cannot join in the same act, because they are joined in none; or if they should, no man could recover, much less transmit the forfeiture; and not being transmitted, it perishes as if it had never been, and no man can claim anything from it. ***

  146. We hold these truths to be self-evident:

    That some men are simply better than the rest;

    That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable privileges over the hoi-polloi;

    That among these are armed bodyguards, unbridled arrogance, and the guarantee of positive press coverage;

    That to secure these privileges, Governments are instituted over the mass of Men, deriving their arbitrary powers from a monopoly on violence;

    That whenever the uppity peasants become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Beautiful People to set the peasants against one another, and to institute new Government programs, laying their foundation on such principles and organizing them in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect both the diminishing of the peasants’ protests, and their power to do anything about it.

    Seriously, people — I don’t understand how you can possibly find any of this objectionable. Just shut up before you freak out the normals.

  147. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of our phony-baloney jobs, we mutually pledge to each other the Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor of our serfs.

  148. I didn’t mean to suggest that the whining is unique to this place or more vociferous here, Jeff. It’s everywhere on our side. This just happens to be where I most often visit, so it’s the largest source of my fatigue from it.

  149. awl my life i had to fight

  150. Manti Te’o fights for his fake dead girlfriend. So there.

  151. Man is born to whine as the sparks fly upward.

  152. Founding Fathers: “[A] decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation . . . .”
    Abe: “I’m tired of the whining.”

    Sorry, Abe. Hanging curve-ball. :)

    Serious question: You have any kids or guns?

  153. It ain’t a criticism, it’s just a fact that small, focused arguments are difficult when a blog has so many 24/7 regulars that posts are frequently in short-hand.

    Ah, somebody still doesn’t understand how the intertubes work.

    Serious question: You have any kids or guns?

    Another: You got any room to maneuver? That might be a proper action item for you. Cities are death traps.

  154. why are you being so hard on Mr. Abe he just has a difference of opinion on this subject is all

  155. If I’d attended a proper school, I could be throttling a proggie as we speak.

    But, no.

  156. Those are separate matters. They aren’t, however, winning arguments for eliminating gun-free zones. Or eliminating secret service protection for the children of the president, whether it’s a Reagan, a Bush, or the progeny of a leftist jungle bunny.

    Abe. I don’t get to be here 24/7, so listen up.

    There’s no one here wanting to eliminate SS protection for Obama’s or any other Dear Leader’s now-protected children. We just want to share the wealth, and keep our guns, and hate, hate, HATE that Mr. Obama has seen fit to use children as props for his agitprop displays of anti-Constitutional rhetoric and executive order signings. On the one hand, his children are cocooned and protected; on the other, he rejects any proposals that would extend that protection to the lesser masses’ children.

    You live in the largest overpopulated hellhole-city in our Republic, and daily you’re repressed by laws and rules and enveloped in group-think that I would find unacceptable. I’m not surprised you’re finding the push-back against your life’s normalcy unexpected and surprising, and discomfiting. But it’s for your own good, so’s you can keep from succumbing to what surrounds you.

    I like you, man. Can I send suitcases?

  157. I didn’t mean to suggest that the whining is unique to this place or more vociferous here, Jeff. It’s everywhere on our side. This just happens to be where I most often visit, so it’s the largest source of my fatigue from it.

    You’re ‘losing more slowly’, Abe. Snap out of it!

  158. It’s everywhere on our side.

    “Our side” has a certain circle-jerky quality to it that I tend to disdain, from afar, because it makes me feel better about my own snowflakey point of view.

Leave a Reply