Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

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

Archives

Uh, Jeff? Now that you seem to be back semi-regularly — and this being Friday and all — we were just wondering if, you know…

Afraid not. Maybe next week, though — provided I don’t make the mistake of leaving an entire tray of hash brownies on the counter again, where it turns out any little bastard with curled toenails and access to a step stool can can reach it.

— On the other hand, the pantry is suddenly filthy with bags of Cheese Doodles and those single-serve packets of peanut butter and pretzel Combos, so, like, you win some, you lose some, I guess…

145 Replies to “Uh, Jeff? Now that you seem to be back semi-regularly — and this being Friday and all — we were just wondering if, you know…”

  1. John Cheshire says:

    I love Friday!

  2. happyfeet says:

    I love these vanilla fudge tam tam thingers from Manishewitz.

  3. cranky-d says:

    It has been a long, long time, and it’s a welcome relief from this week. I think the lefties are trying to drive classical liberals insane.

  4. John Cheshire says:

    I blame the stool for making itself available.

  5. John Cheshire says:

    Cranky – I think the Outlaws are starting to come out of the woodwork though. The more the lefties get worked up into a lather the more I think we are doing something right.

  6. Tman says:

    ..and suddenly, I feel as though the tides are shifting and will soon be right with the world…..all because of one ugly-ass marsupial with a drug addiction.

  7. Sdferr says:

    Possum? They’s nasty and stupid.

  8. phreshone says:

    Better than pie…

    maybe he’ll leave some red pills behind the sofa cushion

  9. possum says:

    You’re a dick, Sdferr. And you’ve just alienated this moderate voter. Good day, sir!

  10. RTO Trainer says:

    maybe he’ll leave some red pills behind the sofa cushion

    That looks like a death threat to me.

  11. The Pragmatic Republicans says:

    Just imagine how crazy certain people would go if you brought the monkey back now…

  12. Sdferr says:

    oh, *cough* lemme puts down mah ceegar, sorry Pogo, I’uhs only jessin’ ya, channeling Albert there for a second, *cough* no really, you’re a splendi-diddy chap, just so. A gentilmain an’a scholar you are.

  13. Dan Are says:

    “…where it turns out any little bastard with curled toenails and access to a step stool can can reach it.”

    I’d swear I overheard that at a nudie bar.

  14. happyfeet says:

    when do these ads go away? The Roger wants me to give him $60 a year ones. At first they were funny.

  15. T&T says:

    Do the brownies go better with tequila or Gin&Tonic?

  16. psycho... says:

    I got three text messages today from numbers I don’t know:

    Hey baby

    Hey guh.

    and just now

    hey bitch!

    He must be getting closer.

  17. psycho:

    Text him back. Get creative.

  18. Rich Cox says:

    Heck… what if he brought back Jesusland pictures.

    jeff, seriously, it has been awesome having you around so much again.

    And everyone else too. Thank you.

    Now have a good weekend.

  19. spurringirl says:

    TGIF! My weekend is looking better already. Thanks Jeff!

  20. Eric in Atlanta says:

    How are conservatives and classical liberals supposed to woo the mushy-middle if we don’t, you know, dance?

  21. Eric in Atlanta says:

    Tman, that was almost exactly what I was feeling.

  22. oh lord, you’ve got RTO singing and dancing. wrong.wrong.wrong.

  23. hey ho!

    Or is that hey-hey ho-ho?

    Mmmmm, ho-hos…

  24. dicentra says:

    Both of my Utah Republican senators voted FOR the GIVE act.

    They are SO not going to be reelected if I have any say.

  25. Seth says:

    If the ‘dillo is afoot again, it truly must be the days of swine and poses.

    And AppleJack. Can’t forget the bottom-shelf booze. Can’t start a movement without it.

    OUTLAW!

  26. ThomasD says:

    A sure sign sanity is returning to America.

    Somewhere, but certainly nowhere near the Potomac.

  27. LTC John says:

    Almost a sign of the End Times, had he danced….

  28. easyliving1 says:

    Commentary (What’s JPod been up to?) Quote: 7

    easyliving1 Says:
    March 27th, 2009 at 7:52 PM

    So the key to commenting here is no links?

    No problem.

    Everyone here should read and champion Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom for a joyous display of epistemological optimism — grounded in an effort to require an honest interpretation by a receiver; or, if such “good faith” as it were is lacking, a firm effort to highlight the abuses of interpretation as they occur.

    It is good advice to always remember, as Iowahawk is once rumored to have said, “Never stop laughing at the left.”

    I assume Shakespear or Marlowe or Homer said as much, but it is always important to affirm the message.

  29. Freedom (The Original) Patrick says:

    Do the brownies go better with tequila or Gin&Tonic?

    Jaeger?

  30. Swen Swenson says:

    When hash brownies are outlawed only OUTLAWS will have hash brownies!!

    Oh. Right. Nevermind then.

  31. Phinn says:

    Maybe Geithner should have the power to seize any step stool that poses a systemic risk to trays of hash brownies.

    (Now that I mention it, something tells me that this is a plan that soft-middle-moderate-pragmatic conservatives can get behind.)

  32. Freedom (The Original) Patrick says:

    oops

  33. John Cheshire says:

    Dicentra – I am with you. Hatch and Bennett are worthless. Bennett was knee deep in the Fannie/Freddy mess and Hatch has been on vacation for years. I am a big term limit supporter and those two are a good supporting argument.

  34. router says:

    Maybe Geithner should have the power to seize any step stool

    give geithner the power to seize stools NOW

  35. John "Mav" McCain says:

    Stool confiscation! Now that’s something I can get behind!

  36. Mr. Pink says:

    Is it possible that if I eat enough hash brownies I will actually agree with anything the new Prez is trying to do?

  37. John Cheshire says:

    I denounce myself.

  38. phreshone says:

    maybe Turbo-Tax Timmy and Bawney Fwank can share an upside down bar stool…

  39. DCLex says:

    Happy Days are here again! Fridays are once again pie WITH ice cream on top! Thanks Jeff and all you regulars. This place is my sanity-homeplate.

  40. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    I think the lefties are trying to drive classical liberals insane.

    Bingo. Problem is, though, the desire to kill is usually a dominating unintended consequence amongst the adults, suppressed only if, you know, real children are the perps.

  41. just wondering says:

    In your average closet, more gay dudes or skeletons?

    And what do they do in there? Is it just some sort of Carnivàle disco party?

  42. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    “the pantry is suddenly filthy with bags of Cheese Doodles and those single-serve packets of peanut butter and pretzel Combos”

    Ah, I fondly recall the days of making my kids entreat me to get them some food:

    Please, Master, I beg you on bended knee.
    Please, get some food for me.

    Sigh.

  43. Jeff G. says:

    In your average closet, more gay dudes or skeletons?

    And what do they do in there? Is it just some sort of Carnivàle disco party?

    No. Just a bunch of friends sitting around in our sweats playing Risk and making fun of people who search out to proper diacritical mark so that they can type “Carnivale disco party” with a certain dramatic flourish.

  44. just wondering says:

    I’m thinking the ancient Greeks were so good at geometry because they had to tile everything. No carpeting or laminate floors.

  45. Jeff G. says:

    Unless by “your” you were speaking in the general aggregate.

    In which case, never mind.

  46. just wondering says:

    I didn’t get the diacritical right on purpose. I didn’t know how to spell carnivale and it was a bonus from a google cut and paste.

    You give me far too much credit.

  47. Jeff G. says:

    Who is Sparky? And how did I lose him?

    HAS ANYONE SEEN A LOST SPARKY?

  48. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    In your average closet, more gay dudes or skeletons?

    I keep my one skeleton in the Living-Dining room area. It’s only been sexually abused once, and that was by some hetero chicks, or so I heard. They apparently took it up on the table with them and did some got damn perverted things up there in the interests of some kind of ritual performance for the rest of the got damn perverts, which I don’t know if qualify as a Carnivale, but I guess it’s possible.

  49. guinsPen says:

    Here, boy, here!

    Quick, someone grab a pork chop!

  50. Mr. Pink says:

    I will help find him I will put some pictures of Sparky up around my neighborhood. Can you describe his coloring for me? Oh wait…..

  51. Sparky says:

    Circus life was too tempting. I’ve left for the carny life.

  52. J."Trashman" Peden says:

    Come back little Sparky! Come home, boy!

    I lost one Sparky, too, a Yorky, which I think was stolen twice. Then just the other day Handy Randy, “the Picasso of weed eater lawn cutting”, tried to sell me some Yorky pups, but I don’t blame him for what he has to do to survive when trapped, so far, amongst us redneck Capitalists.

    But the giant Ducks were definitely murdered.

  53. Just wondering says:

    The horse with no name? Wasn’t his name, “The Horse With No Name”?

  54. Adriane says:

    No, the man’s name was a Man Called Horse with No Name. The horse’s name was Feitlebaum.

  55. RTO Trainer says:

    I thought I was Sparky. I didn’t go anywhere.

  56. Jim Ryan says:

    Well, Fleetwood Mac is touring.

  57. Jeff G. says:

    Okay. I won’t mind that Jeff G. But if another Jeff G comes along that I believe should be minded, no promises.

  58. blowhard says:

    I’ll admit it. I’m confused. Damn that ‘dillo and his mind grenades.

  59. Jeff G. says:

    Seems our troll is a fan of late-70s, early-80s wrestling.

    I think s/he is trying to make some connection between that and the stuff I do.

    It cuts me to the quick, is what it does.

  60. blowhard says:

    I’ve mentioned this before Jeff, but, undersexed geeks have certain verbal tics and themes.

    For instance? Wrestling, gay. Having sex with women, gay.

    If it doesn’t involve other undersexed geeks, well, gay.

  61. Jeff G. says:

    That doesn’t make it any easier to take, bh. I’m wounded. Heartbroken.

    Like when Larry Zybisco turned on Bruno Sammartino.

  62. blowhard says:

    But, you are an undersexed geek, right?

  63. blowhard says:

    C’mon, Indeterminism, you fit the pattern. Admit it and you’ll feel better, you’re an undersexed geek.

    There are groups you can join. There is help.

  64. Mr. Pink says:

    I need a group for people that hate having a socialist President.

  65. Cepik says:

    I think that is here, Mr Pink

  66. Graduate Indeterminism says:

    But, you are an undersexed geek, right?

    You should probably ask Jeff that. I don’t know jack about wrestling.

    Besides, Sammartino had it coming.

  67. blowhard says:

    Yeah, that’s it, Inde.

    “Damn those jocks and their woman humping gayness.”

    Can’t you hear yourself?

  68. Cepik says:

    Oh hi, Graduate Indeterminism,

    This is PW where you nance around like a sap and we heckle you. Kind of like crashing a slumber party you weren’t invited to, knowing full well everyone will rag your ass at school til graduation, but hey . . . negative attention is still attention and you can at least say the OUTLAWS! still talked to you. Isn’t that right sweetie? What goals you have!

  69. Graduate Indeterminism says:

    Can’t you hear yourself?

    I mostly hear you projecting some complex self-identity problems.

    To wit – “woman humping gayness”. I have honestly have no idea where this is going.

  70. blowhard says:

    People reveal themselves in ways they don’t even realize.

    Inde, for example. Jeff’s form of wrestling? MMA, submission/injury based.

    I mentioned it in a different thread but it bears repeating. There aren’t any strikers who can compete now without developing that aspect of their game.

    But, Inde, you’re right. Sports, gay. Having sex with women, gay.

    One day your testicles will drop and you’ll grow facial hair. We won’t hold these preteen, Disney-channel comments against you.

  71. blowhard says:

    C’mon, inde, admit it. You feel inadequate. That’s okay. You should work on yourself first. Take some “me time”.

  72. Mr. Pink says:

    It seems like a troll found a SAT verbal guide and decided to use it.

  73. The Pragmatic Republicans says:

    Blowhard,

    Interesting thing when MMA was first developing everyone assumed the strikers would dominate, but the Gracie brothers and others put lie to that. Since then all the strikers have been forced to learn mat skills and the grapplers have picked up some pretty stiff strikes as well. Fascinating stuff.

  74. blowhard says:

    Pragmatic Rep, absolutely. And I speak from a decent bit of amateur experience. Years of jiu-jitsu, a decent bit of striking. And I still get taken down into bad positions by the wrestlers.

  75. Cepik says:

    Now Blowhard,

    Let’s not be so hard on our little visitor. Often times, the timid express themselves on the internet under “wish names” that express what they truly wish they could be (thor attempting to appear rugged and tough, cameron wishing to appear sophisticated and our newest tiger cub Graduate Indeterminism who is trying desperately to be cool, sophisticated and so chic!) if only they could be more . . well, assertive of their intended identity.

    They start in a virtual realm; internet chat and hope to some day work up to you know, actually talking to someone . . . well ok, talking to them self in a mirror. But hey, watch out for someday!!!!!

    It’s ok ID, put down your worn, mega-creased copy of “I’m ok, you’re ok” and dream big.

  76. The Pragmatic Republicans says:

    Yeah, I read in a sports illustrated years ago that really good amateur wrestlers were the toughest hombres around. And if you watch MMA it’s hard to argue the point. Most stuff ends up on the mat.

  77. blowhard says:

    Inde, you’re just confused. Across the board.

  78. blowhard says:

    Prag Rep, yeah, it really is true. Look at all the young up and comers, they were all high level college wrestlers.

    It might just be the work discipline but all the skills they’ll build off of are there, too.

  79. oh gawd, RTO’s at the office and the helicopters are here. even the animals are kinda worried looking.

  80. okay, okay, it’s quiet now.

  81. happyfeet says:

    that doesn’t sound good

  82. guinsPen says:

    helicopters

    In search of Sparky, maybe?

  83. guinsPen says:

    There was this one time we got lost

    quiet now

    Sparky found!

  84. so, I mentioned making some special brownies for a particular cast member that is obnoxious, but then was thinking it would need to be more targeted. suggestions?

    also, there should be some kinda law about making sure your gut is always covered.

  85. guinsPen says:

    suggestions?

    Depends. What’s the production?

  86. Sdferr says:

    I got the sense from Mike Totten’s piece today that he’s thinking that the Obama admin is going to find a way to screw Iraq up by withdrawing too much too soon. Anybody else read it that way?

  87. Dropout Autoeroticism’s favorite song: The (Down)Low Sparkly of High-Heeled Bois.

    ‘Cause I’m thinkin’ there’s more than one pair of sparkly pink pumps in that armoire, if’n y’all ketch mah drift.

  88. heh. Sweeney Todd. don’t wanna kill them, just turn the volume down a few notches before someone does commit murder.

  89. oh, chicken pot pie, maybe?

  90. Jeff G. says:

    Just thought I should note this now while I can: I’m hearing rumblings that someone is writing a post about me that he hopes will be the rightwing complement to the “Sadly, No” post, one in which I’m depicted as a crazed, psychosexually confused thug. This “nuclear” post will depict “the REAL Jeff Goldstein” or some such, with things pulled from my archives and comments threads, etc, and then arranged in a way that makes me look as bad as possible.

    If this happens, I’m not sure how I will react.

    I’ve got 7 years or so of posts and comment threads to choose from — many of which have gotten heated, as I happen to draw a lot of fire from a lot of trolls. So it ain’t like he’ll lack for material.

    But the project is inherently dishonest.

    I can’t tell you how offensive I find this. I’m hoping this person doesn’t go through with it. If he does, I guess we’ll just go from there.

  91. heh, Billy Joel just said, “Don’t take any shit from anybody” (concert version of Piano Man just wrapped up) I think that was meant for you.

  92. delurked lurker says:

    If that happens I’ll never read whatever blog you’re talking about again.

    I’ll never read a blog that links to whatever blog you’re talking about again.

  93. JakeT. says:

    Are you kidding, Jeff? (love the blog)

    You’re going to be attacked by a conservative? What’s going on?

  94. Sdferr says:

    The Clouds was the same sort of deal, only more farting and scratching going on. Soc got up in the theater and took a bow and laughed, they said. I doubt he saw then what was coming, though he may have. What’s clear is that the label “sophist” stuck to him and in the end proved impossible to be rid of in time.

    Certainly the general hostile reaction along the way tipped him off to the danger of it all though. But tolerance was the rule for a long time there, no one was particularly worried about the weird philosoph, since they were busy building ships, making money and creating a little empire. Things did change toward the end, none of them for the better.

  95. blowhard says:

    Sdferr, your allusion relates your thoughts on the probable culprit, right?

    No names, but the one who asks questions, yes?

  96. thor says:

    Hmm, worries so grand. How do you do in the face of such overwhelming disasters?

    Go nuclear. Push the big red button, Jeff. Threaten to fuck their women with rattle snakes you caught by hand, or something.

    Say, I bought some of this oil stock, ATPG, yeah, when it was really cheap, and I’ve been wanting to buy more. Think Monday is the day for that? I’m in it at $2.90 and $3.65 and $4.42, a thousand times each. It’s still cheap, but maybe they’ll get sold below five again, hmm. And SGY finally got perky, could use more of that, I’m below $3 on 5K, and you just know it’s gotta move sooner or later somewhere where close to pricing sanity. Then there’s MTSN, $2 a share in pure cash with no debt and the little fucker couldn’t even hold a buck today. Capex spending certainly will suck brutal-like this year but fuck it, you buy at less than half of cash and monitor the burn rate because if they go cash flow positive in the second half of 2009 then, what the turd fuck, it’s a gimme play to cash plus asset value and forward earnings potential. Another $5K maybe, or maybe wait for some selling like we saw when the boobs hit the sector when Teradyne announced? Then there’s Chiquita, should’a added today because cheap food stocks are my thing.

    These things keep me awake. You?

  97. geoffb says:

    “with things pulled from my archives and comments threads, etc, and then arranged in a way that makes me look as bad as possible.”

    You must have some people out there in Progressive-Moderate-Conservative land really running scared.

  98. Sdferr says:

    No, not really blowhard, I’m not thinking in terms of the author so much, as the stance I’d guess would be necessary to initiate such an attack. For a long time I mulled a notion that comedians are inherently arch-conservatives, though they tend not to be up front about it. Aristophanes was though, I think, ridiculing innovation, longing for the good old days, seeking to regain the status quo ante. And Soc, for him, was an easy target, quirky, very well known about town and the pretense that Soc was just another one of the Sophists was a handy tool. Parsing the difference wasn’t what Aristophanes had in mind, jabbing at the “wise guys” was.

  99. blowhard says:

    I understand your recommendation then.

  100. Sdferr says:

    You mean by recommendation the reference to bowing and laughing I take it? I don’t think of that as a recommended course of action here so much as a recounting of what happened back then, to be honest about it. Jeff’s gotta do what he thinks best at the time, I think, weighing what comes at him against what he knows to be true and proceed accordingly. The jibes at Soc about fleas and poverty and absentmindedness and whatever could be shrugged off as unimportant truths (since they were), but the big lie, the falsehood that hurt in the end, that he was just another Sophist, that needed to be countered continuously thereafter if Soc was to have a hope in hell of acquittal at trial and he didn’t and he wasn’t. So an injustice was done.

  101. blowhard says:

    Sdferr, I’m not sure on the proper course from here. There will be no trial in this case.

    So, is it playing to the crowd then?

  102. Sdferr says:

    I don’t know if I understand your terms in “it playing to the crowd”. Is it the prospective hit piece? If so, then yes, that would be my guess or what I would take to be the point, though there may be many such “points” to the thing, stuff like personal animus, payback for something, seeking favor from some group or other, lots of possibilities that we can work out once we know who and what.

  103. blowhard says:

    Actually, my friend, I’m likely to be confused by clouds and frogs in general. And I’m liable to confuse myself.

    I’m a bit upset about the development. I hope it doesn’t come to pass.

  104. Sdferr says:

    Certainly from the gist that Jeff has gotten and in turn presented to us, “it” doesn’t sound too much like a contest of ideas, does it? That is to say, an analytical counter-argument to Jeff’s oft stated position on the way language works and when perverted, doesn’t work.

  105. blowhard says:

    Correct. It doesn’t sound like a counter argument at all. It sounds like a smear piece culled out of context from posts and comments.

  106. blowhard says:

    How does one respond to a smear piece?

  107. Sdferr says:

    Somewhere I read that people often think conclusions first (the think part is hiding an enormous cognitive cascade) and then work their way backwards to flesh them out with ad hoc “reasonings” to justify them in speech fit to be transmitted to an audience. The audience will in turn do much the same thing. It’s not exactly a trial but we can safely say that judgements (e in honor of Mary Louise) are being made.

  108. blowhard says:

    Sdferr, I’m off to sleep for tonight. Take it easy.

  109. Sdferr says:

    Adios amigo. Me too.

  110. blowhard says:

    Posted at the same time. Hopefully, nothing happens here and we’ll not have to worry about it.

    Okay, night.

  111. Carin says:

    Fuck ’em Jeff. If such a piece comes out, well, hell hath no fury lie PW readers … just saying.

  112. alppuccino says:

    Laura Ingalls is clinging to Michail Landon’s hair and floating down the Red River, and you guys are talking about this stuff?

    How torn do you think Obama is right now? Torn between staying away from the flood zone, and staying away from the funeral for the 4 cops that were killed by the rapist. I mean, which one do you stay away from more?

    Hard choices.

  113. alppuccino says:

    “Michael”. Charles Ingalls wasn’t Russian.

  114. Rusty says:

    I dont think Armadillos are marsupials.

  115. Carin says:

    Well, after claiming that the REd River flooding was caused by global warming … I think it would be wise to avoid that. Not that anyone called him on it.

  116. ThomasD says:

    Jeff, it is unfortunate that your arguments make some people uncomfortable. However the fault does not lie with you.

    To borrow from Melville,

    … for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself. If you flatter yourself that you are all over comfortable, and have been so a long time, then you cannot be said to be comfortable any more.

    It would seem you have become a white whale to someone else’s Ahab. What is more the pity is that a self identified ‘conservative’ would devote such time and effort against you while their ‘true’ enemies dominate our body politic.

    Once again these discussions prove ever more revealing and decisive.

  117. easyliving1 says:

    Comment by blowhard on 3/28 @ 1:12 am #

    How does one respond to a smear piece?

    Comment by blowhard on 3/28 @ 1:17 am #

    Sdferr, I’m off to sleep for tonight. Take it easy.

    Well thanks blowhard, I will “take it” and run with it. I really appreciate the acknowledgement.

    Here’s how you respond to a smear from Tom Wolfe (ht at some blog I’ve never heard of before but found via google:

    They weren’t attacking him on intellectual grounds but on religious grounds. They were treating him as a heretic, a transgressor. They were assaulting his character. We learned how to deal with that one in our sophomore year at St. Christopher’s. If someone impugns your character, you can’t waste time trying to defend it. You’ll just end up sitting there wringing your hands and bleating something lame like, “I am, too,a good person.”

    Iannone: So you should do what instead?

    Wolfe: Attack the attacker. Attack his—in this case, their—character. All he had to say was, “I cannot…believe…what I am now witnessing…members of the Harvard faculty taking a grossly anti-intellectual stance, violating their implicit vow to cherish the free exchange of ideas, going mad because a hypothesis that has been openly discussed for almost half a century offends some ideological passion of the moment, acting like the most benighted of Puritans from three centuries ago ransacking all that is decent and rational in search of witches, causing this great university to become the laughingstock of the academic world here and abroad, sacrificing your very integrity in the name of some smelly little orthodoxy, as Orwell called beliefs like the ones you profess. I’m more than disappointed in you. I’m ashamed of you. Is that really how you see your mission here? If so, you should resign…now!…forthwith!…and take to the streets under your own names, not Harvard’s, and forbear being so small-minded and egotistical as to try to drag Harvard down to your level. Ladies, gentlemen…kindly do not display your ignorance…on these hallowed premises…while holding aloft the flags, the standards, of this university. Be honest with yourselves, even if you can’t be honest with Harvard. Look…think…and see…what you have become.” That would have taken care of the whole thing.

  118. Lyndsey says:

    Anyone who’s taken the time to read you for any length of time pretty much knows the “real” Jeff G. People who can’t take the time to investigate the reasons a person would do something dishonest like that are really not very bright and lack a basic curiosity about the truth. Do they warrant any attention? Probably not. It could be painful, but they will have proved true every thread about context and intention…

    No matter what, I’d suggest ignoring them. Barring being able to do that, creating some sarcastic, possibly farcical, response and then continuing business as usual would be galling to that person. Those of us out in the ‘sphere will more than likely respond. We’ve got your back, Jeff.

  119. ExDemocrat says:

    Da*n! This is what happens when you get home from work exhausted. You miss the almost, could it be true, possible, reincarnation of, the dillo!! *All fingers and toes are crossed and will stay that way till cramps settle in*

  120. Dana says:

    Well, you’re back semi-regularly, just as Parrerico is taking a few days off. I suggested that you could guest-post for him, but that doesn’t seem to have gone anywhere.

  121. Dana says:

    Ex Democrat wrote:

    Da*n!

    Oh, c’mon, you can type “darn” here.

  122. ExDemocrat says:

    Since I wasn’t thinking about socks, I was trying to prevent a flood. But of course, in order to prevent the flood, I could only build a partial da*n. Which actually may not stop the flood. :)

  123. Jeff G. says:

    RS McCain:

    What has become known as “the 11th Commandment” — Thou shalt speak no ill of a fellow Republican — is usually, and wrongly, attributed to Ronald Reagan, and it is also widely misunderstood.

    The 11th Commandment was actually coined by California state Republican Party chairman Gaylord Parkinson during the 1966 GOP gubernatorial primary. Parkinson had seen how, during the fight for the 1964 Republican presidential nomination, the milquetoast moderate opponents of Barry Goldwater had done the Democrats’ dirty work for them, by labeling Goldwater a radical warmongering demagogue. Thus, once Goldwater won the nomination, all LBJ’s henchmen had to do was to repeat the accusation: “Barry Goldwater is a paranoid wacko extremist — as even his fellow Republicans agree!”

    And yeah, I’m not running for elective office, but do keep in mind that, by way of deploying such tactics. this is precisely what someone is HOPING will happen to me by way of a certain posting currently under consideration, and possibly even construction.

  124. happyfeet says:

    I don’t know what to say. That’s so petty, this idea about posting stuff about you what will be hurtful. That would be not a good thing. That would be a petty thing. It would not be a post that would reflect well on the person who posted it. It would reflect very very poorly. I don’t know what to say.

  125. Sdferr says:

    Now that I’ve read it, I gotta say, way to cowboy up RSMcCain! Good going.

  126. Slartibartfast says:

    I’m not touching you, ever again.

    Really. Done now.

  127. Jeff G. says:

    Ask him if he found his old blog, the one where he pointed out all the problems with my radical intentionalist stance — or rather, tried to.

    Oh, that’s right. Dr Andrew Haggerty took it down and accused my commenters of threatening his child with violence when I was beating him like a rented mule trapped in a community college’s annex trailer.

    Birds of a feather and all that…

    On the plus side, I have all my responses labeled and easily accessible under the intentionalism category of greatest hits. Seems that argument followed a similar trajectory as the current one.

    Well, I guess we know where the “progressives” come down on all this.

    Snicker.

  128. Slartibartfast says:

    Thers is a Pomeranian that’s somehow convinced itself that it’s a Rottweiler. Fierce, but still only twelve pounds, soaking wet.

    See, here’s the thing: I think that if he wanted to actually debate this topic honestly with you, you’d be willing to do that. Even after everything that’s happened. If there was any sign that actual debate might be in the offing.

    But no: for him, it’s so tiresome to have this discussion with someone who doesn’t know their material (which is a given, and not demonstrated); why even try? We’re not even going to concern ourselves with That Person anymore, except for when we just can’t stay away anymore.

    That’s the wierd thing. You’re purportedly completely dismissable, so why is there still discussion about you?

  129. Jeff G. says:

    If people in his comments agree — even only out of pity — it salves his scars.

    Yes, I’d argue it. As I noted I would at Edge of the West.

    No one came over and took me up on it. Easier just to pretend my position is so very radical.

    Imagine!

  130. Jeff G. says:

    There. I invited him to pick up our debate.

    He can even use a certain set of hypotheticals to make his argument, if he wants.

  131. B Moe says:

    I’m not touching you, ever again.

    Really. Done now.

    You mean I have been a sycophant to a mean old poopy head the past few years? Goddamit! Nobody ever tells me anything!

    And I would say Thers is more like a parrot who thinks he is a rottweiler.

  132. Slartibartfast says:

    Parrots are badass.

  133. B Moe says:

    Parakeet?

  134. Slartibartfast says:

    I shouldn’t be picking on Thersites too much, me being fairly ignorant of the material and all. But it is just a wee bit pathetic to be pointing and laughing on the one hand, and refusing to engage in discussion on the other. Isn’t it?

    But it’s hard to fit yourself all the way up Duncan Black’s ass if you just sit and chat with people, so invective to the exclusion of everything else is the way of it.

    The problem with slinging monkeypoo is that it’s all just a bunch of crap. If you’re going to claim intellectual high ground, it’s hard to do so credibly by just crapping in your hand and letting fly.

  135. He’s playing the cockatoo to Derrida’s Baretta.

  136. Jeff G. says:

    Incidentally, had someone read the link in 134, it might have saved him the trouble of asking questions I’d already answered.

    Which is why I kept directing someone to those posts.

  137. mojo says:

    Don’t toy with me. you bastard. I know where the hobos are buried.

  138. Slartibartfast says:

    I hadn’t read that post in a while, Jeff. Frankly, I have no idea what deconstructionalismismism or whatever is, nor am I really concerned about such things, even though they might be important.

    People mean what they mean. Is there actually a debate that you can have people mean other than what they in fact meant?

    Anyway, the thing that struck me at the time, and continues to hit me as odd, is that there are quite a few people who would rather pelt your arguments with monkeypoo than engage them, even if only long enough to reduce them to some rhetorical equivalent of radioactive glass.

    That seems to be the implication: we can do this, but we’d much rather have a mint julep, and laugh.

  139. mojo says:

    “What say ye, lads? Will ye give as much blood as is needed to quench the steel?”

    Oops. Sorry.

    Wrong side. Good line, though.

  140. Sdferr says:

    I just looked at the video linked over at Insty of the Queue to get Levin to sign personal copies of his book Liberty and Tyranny at Tyson’s Corner. Check it out. I can’t recall ever seeing anything like it.

  141. Barack J. LePetobamaine says:

    Sweet.

    Has anybody got a dime?

    Somebody’s gotta go back and get a shitload of dimes.

  142. cranky-d says:

    I just read the post linked in 134 again. It was basically the same argument that occurred recently here, except the person in the comments arguing someone’s position was civil the whole time.

Comments are closed.