Interesting article by PJM’s Oleg Atbashian, who locates a nexus between a strain of social conservative boilerplate and the totalitarian impulses behind anti-capitalist dogma in the course of discussing the dynamism of media depravity and capitalism.
The thesis of Atbashian’s piece— “In the days when capitalism ran wild, depravity in the media stayed harnessed; today when capitalism is harnessed, depravity in the media runs wild. There’s a reason for that”— is an interesting one to consider, but for the purposes of this post, I’m just going to excerpt a bit about today’s “Progressivism” that I find particularly consistent with many of the criticisms of the modern progressive movement we’ve been discussing recently:
“Corporate,†“Greed,†and “Profiteering†are fighting words commonly used by the Left to bludgeon the usual villains: Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Firearms, and everything else that’s Big and profiting from the sales of a product that somehow harms individual consumers and the society at large. (A notable exception here is Big Government).
[…]
Once you’ve convinced your listeners that there is a corporate conspiracy against the consumers, you’ve initiated them into the biggest conspiracy theory of all time—the Marxist concept of â€Âclass struggle.†Now you’re just one small step away from exposing “the immorality at the core of the capitalist system†and presenting “Socialism as the only moral alternative.†It is a very effective way to win converts to the cause of “progress†from among the well-meaning public. As an added bonus, corporations will pay top dollar to get off your hit list—a scheme known in other circles as protection racket.
There are many ways a corporation can appease the “progressive protection racket.†Often it’s called “giving back to the community,†which sounds like returning stolen goods to the crime. As a result of this element, the more one “gives back to the community,†the heavier the aura of shame and guilt on the one side—and the bigger the sense of entitlement on the other.
This last observation is particularly useful, in that it explores how big business—in a media culture driven by progressive elites—is made complicit, ultimately, in its own villainy by surrendering to the underlying assumptions of the progressive movement, namely, that profit is somehow bad unless it is accompanied by a form of coerced “charity.” And once businesses go that route—for the sake of expediency and to avoid bad publicity (here is where having a progressive media truly endangers capitalism)—they have made themselves look guilty for doing what it is businesses are designed to do: turn a profit.
But as with the surrendering of meaning to the interpretive community—however pragmatic it may seem at the time to do so (and businesses, let’s remember, will nearly always take the road of least resistance)—the danger lies in the tacit acceptance of the premise itself. Which is why I’ve argued, for instance, that when the White House or Bill Kristol, eg., criticize Bill Bennett for not being more circumspect about how his words “about” Blacks and abortion are likely to be taken out of context by those whose agenda it is to “prove” the underlying racism at the heart of conservative ideology, they are actually doing conservatism a disservice; that is, they have decided to trade pragmatic expedience and problem-avoidance for the more difficult task of standing their ground and debating the points on their merits (in Bennett’s case, conservatives should have been insisting that he did nothing wrong, and that those who elected to interpret what he said incorrectly should learn to read and process analogies with the same expertise that they are able to suss out racism from the most benign of utterances, Britt Hume’s “spearchucker” included).
As Atbashian, a Ukranian, also points out, this type of ideological pressure works best on a well-meaning public (a point I’ve discussed in other contexts). Which is why we go out of our way to avoid being called racists, homophobes, xenophobic nativists, etc.—even allowing that our speech be increasingly “restricted” so as to avoid giving offense.
Which is to say, Progressivism, in its current form, thrives on our desire to be seen as tolerant and open-minded—even as that desire is then perversely manipulated in such a way that it turns “tolerance” into a form of censorship, and “open-mindedness” into a form of groupthink (“lots of outwardly diverse people all saying the same thing at the same time, an online Worker’s World march with all the banner slogans written in the same hand,” as Chris Clarke so nicely put it).
We capitulate because we are basically good, and we don’t wish to be labeled as haters by those who presume to judge what’s in our hearts by way of “public” claims on our meaning. And that same dynamic is at work for businesses, whose wealth generation creates a higher standard of living for the societies in which they thrive—and so they will capitulate to a “progressive” media that is in a position to pass judgment on them in order that they may avoid being cast as “greedy” or “profiteering” for the crime of providing the foundation to a healthy, wealthy society.
Which is why, though I understood Burger King’s decision to change its soft-serve ice cream graphic, for example, I thought it sent the wrong message—and was, in effect, a capitulation to an incoherent idea about language that happens to be culturally orthodox, and will remain so for as long as we treat it as an inconvenience instead of a structural flaw that actually feeds the demise of individualism and classical liberal thought.
The same goes for Mitt Romney or John McCain’s apologizing for using the phrase “tar baby,” on the basis that it could give offense to those who either can’t be bothered to understand context, or else do understand the context, but are nevertheless willing to ignore it and take imaginary offense on behalf of those who can’t. The apology sanctions the faulty linguistic notions, and is a tacit acceptance of the kernel premise that underlies cultural Marxism—that the “people” own the means of production, meaning, in this case, that “the people” control meaning, reducing the intent of the individual to an afterthought, and one that is generally only considered when it benefits the goals of the movement.
As for this whole Brittney Gilbert dustup—well, I’ll let Scott Kaufman integrate that particular affair into my argument. For better or worse.
You need to write this all down in a book that I can/will buy.
Well, we all know that interpellation is incompatible with Marxism, don’t we?
Positively brilliant ! This is why I love this site so damn much. Sure, our host’s sense of humor, in its various permutations, makes it a daily pleasure. The folks that comment make me laugh uncontrollably, and I learn much from this incredibly “diverse” group – diverse in thought. But the biggest draw for me has always been. and will continue to be, our host’s ability to put into words, lots of big fuckin’ words, random thoughts and ideas about the use, and abuse, of language.
And, Kyoto …
Oddly, your stress on intentionalism is something I encountered when sprechin’ the theology with some Eastern Orthodox friends. They were saying that you more or less had to reconstruct or deduce the apostles’ intent and original meaning to have any sound basis for what you’re studying.
One of the guys even argued devil’s advocate for Monarchy of all things when I was talking about constitutional law. But, that really wasn’t surprising.
But I digress. I’ve had a foul taste in my mouth about the whole thing recently – I’ve seen a good deal of my Christian college friends go Marxist, more or less, and indignantly so. There’s no necessary connection between Christian teaching and Marxism unless you have a very, very sloppy scholarship or hermeneutics. Which is unsurprising since Intervarsity Christian Fellowship seems to have been gradually slipping left since the seventies.
Dunno. The lights don’t seem so bright nowadays. Wonder how much juice we’ve got left in this old boy?
Nice stuff.
The key moment for the Gramscians is when the cop agrees that his own law enforcement efforts are bankrupt, and agrees with the revolutionaries to let the outlaws be the arbiters of what good behavior is. See, e.g. Los Angeles amnesty riot.
Hmmmm.
@ Jeff Goldstein
I think I’ll borrow a page from our liberal progressive friends, plus I’m rather lazy since it’s now just after lunch, and opine about some things completely unrelated to the subject at hand.
1. Is it just me or is that damn Burger King really creepy?
2. I wonder if we’re not watching a real life version of “Saw”. Where victims are implanted with deadly devices, then ensconced in Burger King suits and forced to dance the Dance of the Damned.
IMHO it’s the only thing that explains that weird Western Burger dance.
3. I now know how jews were able to maintain a unique and separate identity over the past centuries. Matzo. It has to be matzo.
What other culture would intentionally inflict something as perverse as matzo on itself on a regular basis? Moreover create rituals that not only require matzo, but actually demand it?
Well ok we’ve got those soggy tastless “boiled dinners” in New England, but still.
It ain’t matzo man.
One quibble: under Marxism, it’s not “the people”, it’s “the masses” – like lumps of meat, not even acknowledging the humanity of the “proletariat”.
It’s one of the nastier aspects of the whole thing, and a major reason that Communism has led to so many corpses lying about…
A side note, there seems to be for some a certain gravity between Calvinist Predestination and Marxism. Guilt-based existence. But, again, when you run a sloppy understanding of the original work – telephone style through the excitable (but still venerable) St. Augustine, you’re bound to pull a few gaffes.
Also, it may be noted, Calvin was a lawyer.
Yes, The People have dignity, The People have opinions, The People have ideas, The People have wealth, The People are troublesome, The People are armed, and so forth.
The Masses… congeal. And hunger. Word choice is, sometimes, everything.
The worst part is that calling someone a racist often works if they have no reply. “Some of my best friends are black” is a good example of one defense that doesn’t work.
I used to email-debate a hard lefty a few years ago. It stopped when he said, “I’ve noticed that you have lots of homophobic tendencies.” or something like that. I actually caught myself defending myself from that attack! That pissed me off far more than the attack. But… since I just blew him off he probably got to feel that he had won.
So, being an icehole, I had to find a way to respond without being too rude (a punch in the nose is the best response to such an attack, but it will get you talked about), while also putting the good, tolerant, hate-filled little lefty very obviously in his place.
Now I say, “Is that the best you got?” or “Is that all you got?” and add in a, “I’ve obviously won as you are attacking me instead of my point. It’s nice to see you admit you’re wrong.” There is no real defense against that line. “I did not admit defeat.” “Oh? Then how about you respond to my point instead of calling me names? Or better yet, explain exactly why what I said is (racist/homophobic/hateful)”.
They count on the fact that nobody wants to look like a hater so I count on the fact that they like to feel superior by making them look inferior.
Vees, I just accepted the fact that I was a hater and moved on…
Needless to say, polite company has become quite, uh– trying—is the word.
(/end kidding)
Maybe I’m just more innately belligerent or have had more experience with people finding me distasteful, but I’ve recently just stopped taking people’s sh*t. If they want to talk about me, fine, they can do it. I don’t hate ‘em, but I’m not here to please ‘em. They can go please themselves, if you get my drift.
Really? How’s the NJ Turnpike Authority doing?
I agree about the lovely technique of calling someone names to end the argument.
Informing them that they’ve just conceded the argument by stooping to ad hominem should be standard practice. Like invoking Godwin’s Law.
Outstanding post.
A couple of added thoughts: first, google the name TJ Rodgers, president & CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. He’s one of the few CEOs who publicly abides by Milton Friedman’s maxim that companies exist to make profits for the shareholders. Rodgers is also quite outspoken, telling various corporate critics to, in polite but unmistakably clear language, to go pound sand up their butts.
Second, regarding the “giving back to the community” bullpoop; in one of my old non-profit jobs, we prepared mostly African-American kids from bad areas for entry-level employment opportunities, then placed them in jobs. We used to hear from foundation donors that the kids we helped have a responsibility to “give back.”
We said bullshit – we had several cases where kids were mugged as they came home from work, either because they now had some pocket money or just because they were now “acting white” by having gainful employment. So we subtly indicated to our young charges that the smartest thing they could do would be to move the hell away from their “communities.” You see, we generally liked these kids, wanted them to do well, and didn’t feel the need to use them to make a sociopolitical point.
So who, exactly, owns the meaning of the word “niggardly”?
The “Totally OT And I Don’t Care” Comment
The Mother Lode of Comedy!:
Link
Cambodia?… You mean Kampuchea?
Whatever.
Maybe Mr. Comstock should start a “Morals Commission”, huh? Look into all those nasty, brutish pilots and sailors and such. Just be sure not to look along Post St., where “speed jeans”
are something else entirely.
The Niggards, of course.
That whole concept of “giving back” has always bothered me. When one is successful, they have no obligation to do so. If the Domestic Insurance Behemoth I work for has a good year, the corporation has no obligation to “give back” to anybody other than the shareholders, though they are generous with the employees as well. If Major John’s Swiss Insurance Behemoth has a bad year, are all of the communities where their offices are based going to be giving back to them, to help them through a rough patch?
I once heard a commentator talking about how Tiger Woods does not give back enough to the community. Which community should he be giving back to. Cambodians? Blacks? Whites?
His obligation is to himself, his family, and his sponsors.
And, our host is exactly right when he points out that the PC rhetorical devices are premised on the good nature of the other party.
Jeff outlined this in response to LF in a prior thread, and shows precisely how the PC rhetorical devices are designed to stifle actual discussion.
Hate to stereotype here, but Niggards are notoriously stingy.
I do believe using the economy liberally is sufficient giving back, but I’m old and set in my ways.
A “progressive” friend of mine is absolutely incensed at the (mostly imagined, highly stereotypical) rich white male community. As in, seriously pissed. So he advocates collectivism.
So I point out that that’s just legislated envy and lawful theft and worse, that such always naturally results in some level of ruin.
He just gets madder.
So what is it with that, anyway?
The game Derrida is playng, folks, is not to get you to opt for the dark over the light. That’s dangerous because it empowers the individual with the ability to discern. He’s trying to keep you from being able to see the difference between the two.
An opinion in the latest “ESPN: The Magazine” dogged LeBron James for not being politically active/outspoken. It quoted Jim Brown as saying (paraphrased) “I hope LeBron isn’t like Michael Jordan, who was only interested in using his fame for endorsements.”
What I love about this statement is that it assumes if Michael Jordan took a stand on an issue, it would conform with Jim Brown’s opinion. For all we know, Michael Jordan’s main political stance is an anti-abortion one. If he became a visible spokesman for such a cause, would that pass muster with Jim Brown?
Err, that’s “an opinion piece in ESPN”…
JHoward – I would suggest that being successful, in and of itself, is a measure of giving back, so long as the success was obtained in an honorable manner. It gives everyone something to shoot for. A target. A goal. A successful company invests more money, purchases more products, employes more people, and delivers a better product. A successful person generally pays more in taxes, and is better capable of handling their most importantly responsibility, looking after the welfare of his/her family.
“Soak the rich” rent-seeking is a function of progressives’ envy. Progressives’ envy, like their moral vanity, is inexhaustible. “Global warming” religionists should be harnessing their inherent envy and vanity to solve imagined greenhouse gas crises.
Percy – That is precisely the type of thing I was referencing. What obligation does LeBron have to anybody other than his parents, his employer, Nike, Cub Cadet, Sprite, and the 38 other sponsors? None.
Why is there some type of obligation for him to take positions, and why is there any expectation that his views would any way match up with what the media or folks like Jim Brown want them to be? Other than the color of their skin, there is little to no similarity between the experiences of Jim Brown and LeBron, who was a national figure before ever getting his high school diploma, and is roundly liked and respected by all. They come from different eras, different socio-economic perspectives, and just a different world. Personally, I think Jim Brown is now quite jealous of what the modern athelete earns, and thinks that imposes some type of additional obligation on the athelete, but that is merely a guess on my part.
It might be interesting to know his political views, but his opinions would have no better chance of making me become a modern liberal than his commercials have of making me start buying Sprite.
Yet, paradoxically, when they aren’t coerced, the self-created wealthy are ever so much more generous to the poor and needy than your rich reactionary leftist.
Remember the kerfluffle over AlGore’s charitable giving, e.g.?
N.O’Brain – I believe that twatwaffle was over algore’s LACK of charitable giving.
There’s a reason my son is named after Satchel Paige and not Jim Brown.
This is nit-picking, but Marxism doesn’t have an invisible hand, but rather an invisible fist. Oh, and it’s not invisible.
yours/
peter.
Egg-zactly.
True. I was just riffing off of something in the article itself.
Beyond doubt.
But I’ve always found it a bit more than curious how the “progressives’” disdain for “the rich” is so…peculiarly one-sided. Why do, say, George Soros, Al Gore, that lovely tort attorney from somewhere in the South whose name escapes me at the moment, the Clintons, all the fabulous Hollywood crowd, et al, seem to get a pass–nay, are adulated–from these same “progressives”?
What could it be?
It isn’t just the Nattering Nabob of Nashville:
On the other hand, Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks argues in Who Really Cares (Basic Books, 2006) that when it comes to charitable giving and volunteering, numerous quantitative measures debunk the myth of “bleeding heart liberals” and “heartless conservatives.” Conservatives donate 30 percent more money than liberals (even when controlled for income), give more blood and log more volunteer hours. In general, religious people are more than three times more generous than secularists to all charities, 14 percent more munificent to nonreligious charities and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person.
The Left does its charity work via government compulsion.
kelly – It is because the leftist icons have “earned” their money in a manner that is socially acceptable to them, ie. tort law, inheritance, government service, etc … In all of the cases, the money was the property of somebody else, prior to landing in their lap.
Don’t forget “covered in blood”.
“That whole concept of “giving back†has always bothered me. When one is successful, they have no obligation to do so.”
It is arguable that some witless Christianists might be compelled by their understanding of so called “Holy Writ” to make a personal choice to return a portion of their material “blessings” to the poor but I’ve never taken particular notice that their act would have any “spiritual value” if the compulsion were external and collective in nature.
That’s the great thing about Marxism – the personal inner tension of deciding the “right thing” is totally removed (along with any property).
This example of the human spirit always impresses me. He stood at the line of defeat and overcame. Today, it seems, too many go out of their way to avoid such challenges. And when faced with them, retreat in to blaming others for their failure, or fear, to stand up to the challenge.
So, the socialist progressive model does little to impress me. Why should we feel guilty over our accomplishments that others avoid?
Without a doubt, again, JD.
But speaking of evil corporations, it’s astounding to me how ignorant the progs are of the political leanings of the various sectors of capitalism.
High Tech/Silicon Valley/Venture Capitalists? Overwhelmingly Democrat. Media? Wall Street? Entertainment? Law? Real Estate? Hell, look at the political donations of your garden variety, evil “Big Oil” company. They ain’t solely in the pocket of the GOP, that’s for sure.
The probable last bastion of GOP is in the private sector, namely small businesses. Y’know, the owners of dry cleaners, plumbing supplies, trucking firms. The filthy proles!
My point being, all the sickening populism and demagoguery of “Big [insert industry here]” that the Dems denounce is a cynical joke, nothing more.
And the lefties lap it up like thirsty kitties.
All the more shame on the big corporations for rolling over to PC pieties and loudmouth shakedown artists.
kelly – Insurance and manufacturing are, for the most part, Republican.
Noted.
Manufacturing has been on the wane, though, and insurance, especially P&C, is not the sole province of Republicans. [cf. Progressive Auto Insurance and GEICO]
I find a certain level of modest hilarity when progs talk about evil conservatives born with “silver spoons in their mouths” while embracing the nouveau/celebrity rich who pimp their social package without question.
Just curious, Rick: as a social conservative and “fundamentalist” evangelical Christian am I witless because I choose to give a certain percentage of my income to my church, which not only supports international missions but also local homeless shelters, drug rehab, prisoner counseling, home building, temp shelters for unwed teenage mothers and children of addicted parents? None of the above counts the 9 Deacons who not only minister to church members in need but also to the community at large. My little country church drops about $50,000 in the local community, not counting the hundreds of hours of volunteers who serve year round.
Whether or not I or anyone else does it out of an understanding of “obligation” or “tithing” that choice is ours, made in our hearts, not by some screeching activist who sees his time as money. If this constitutes witless, then I don’t wanna be smart! (whoo – ooo)
BJ,
Speaking of intentialism, I took the “witless” modifier in Rick’s comment as facetious or, at least, tongue-in-cheek.
Nevertheless, God bless you and your church for your giving of time and money. There’s a lot of that that goes on every day without fanfare and acknowledgement–the essence of charity.
Howard- Some of our left leaning friends sincerly believe that if someone is rich they are depriving someone else of something. They honestly believe that there is a finite amount of wealth and that rich people are stealing more than their share.
Yea, kelly, you may be right. It appears I went off half cooked. Sorry Rick, if I misinterpreted your meaning, which means I came off as a self important idealogue with religious puffery.
Sadly, it’s not the first time.
But it’s good to be reminded that the Christianist Godbags drop some cash on the underprivilaged!
Besides, I’m in a much better mood having just reread the PITR “blank in a time of blank” thread, which still makes me howl like a psychotic dingo!
I have to wonder—when he accuses people of being bigots (which he naturally does; he’s progressive), do you point out his bigotry?
Tony Blair took his turn with this today as well.
Re “Giving back”:
I give. I do not give back.
The problem is we do not have enough CEOs like TJ Rodgers.
For example Rodgers’ reply to a politically correct None.
Nah, they just form pitchfork wielding mobs outside our offices and yell at us to call the Gnomes of Zurich and have them pull some filthy lucre out of the vaults and pay off our property taxes…or we just release our cybernetic killing machines on them. Whichever.
Hershblogger – That letter from Rogers should be mandatory reading for everyone. I would love to work for somebody with that mindset.
Major John – In times of crisis, we will unleash teeming hordes of claims adjusters, armed with laptops and the word “No”, all while being protected by magical red umbrellas.
Cyberbetic killing machines would be pretty cool too !
I liked this post a lot.
Well reasoned, solid!
A linguist all my adult life (English, [high-school French], Korean, Thai and Lao) leads me to concur your assertion: when ONE ELITE GROUP aims to USURP PUBIC MEANING, that group manipulates a lever of tyranny over the cities of mens’ hearts and minds!
Baha’u’llah clearly calls humans to a rational examination of reality, admonishing us to look with the eyes of justice:
“O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others; and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.”
I don’t think I could take much Baha’u’llah before my eyes of justice started looking for my iPod of surcease.
well okay, but how do you feel about “PUBIC MEANING”? sounds kinda fun.
It’s called having them by the short hairs.
I simply must not start my day with PW and coffee. It’s too dangerous for keyboards.
Slightly OT, but….
This post by MichaelW and the rhetorical beat-down Lance gives Mona and Greenwald(s) in the comments deserves a wider audience, at least in my opinion. And it fits quite nicely with our hosts many discussions of intentionalism and honest debate.
I know the head of Progressive is a big Democrat supporter but I’ve never heard anything about GEICO before. What is their connection to the Democrats?
Warren Buffett
Thank you Kelly.
nawoods —
Beating up on Mona is easy. She’s an idiot. But I try to avoid linking to sites that studiously ignore mine as if I’m some sort of embarrassment to them.
So your link will have to suffice.
I just put the link there so folks would see it, as it was enjoyable reading. And I guess that even after reading blogs for upwards of six years I still do not understand the dynamic completely, and in many ways miss the “good old days”. Your seemingly bad reputation among people who in my estimation should know better, and who should welcome discussion with you is something that truly baffles me. Perhaps they have fallen victim to the poisoning dynamic you describe in this post.
Honestly Jeff I don’t know how you keep this up sometimes. I am very greatful that you do though, I love reading this site and enjoy your work.
He really upbraided Mona over there, by which she responded, Oh yeah ?! Glenn is publishing another book, and some libertarians like him!
I have to admit, though, this was precious:
SN! does it better! Comparing Greenwalds unfavorably to the tribe of semi-housebroken monkeys at SN!, though, is not where I’d have gone, were I Mona.
Which, deep sigh of relief…
nawoods: thanks for the link.
“… But I try to avoid linking to sites that studiously ignore mine as if I’m some sort of embarrassment to them.”
Sorry, Jeff. It was an oversight, not intentional. Now corrected. While I won’t speak for the rest of ASHC, I certainly don’t find you an embarrassment nor am I afraid to be associated with Protein Wisdom.
Indeed, I had asked Lance to forward the post nawoods linked above to you just because I thought you would find it funny; especially the part about how Mona rather unwittingly (but I repeat myself) hotlinked the term “documented liar” to her hero.
I’m also in the process of riffing off of this particular post, which is very good and expresses a lot of things I’ve been thinking about lately.
Anyway, sorry again for the oversight.
Mona must have really long fingers to type posts from so far up inside Greenwald’s ass.
And a snorkel, let’s hope.
In seriousness, though, I point to Greenwald as proof that the media is “Progressive”; his lies, distortions, personal attacks, and shoddy scholarship are so transparently obvious that the only reason he’s kept on is because those who hire him don’t care, nor do those who read him.
Instead, he’s useful as a popularizer of the kinds of lies that Progs need to be seen as “truths” in order to gull the American people and justify their own agenda to clamp down on everyone and everything not like them.
Mona, bless her shriveled little brain, has even does us the service of proclaiming as much.
That kind of thing will always come back to bite you in the ass in the long run.
As for Greenwald being cited by Reason—true enough. But so what? Is Reason the only publication claiming to be “libertarian” that sometimes shows itself to be less than so?
Note, though, that for Mona, all other libertarians who don’t bow at the foot of Greenwald are inauthentic—from the neolibertarians at QandO to Glenn Reynolds to, likely, Steve Green and Bill Quick.
It’s the progressive attempt to take over the label of libertarian. But Greenwald and Mona care as much about diversity of opinion and individual freedom as Fidel Castro. They are propagandists.
That Mona uses Greenwald’s popularity as proof of his rectitude is laughable, given that, by rights, she should have to make the same argument about Ann Coulter.
And of course, that majority that voted for Bush in 2004…?
The worst is when you win a skin at a charity golf tournament and when you walk up to get your cash, they pressure you to give the winnings back to the charity. I mean did they stiff a 6 from 180? I’m gonna get paid bitches!
Sorry for misreading your intent, Michael. I’m a bit quick to feel slighted lately.
It’s a character flaw. My apologies.
………or, I just cleaned out my kids toys that they’ve outgrown, and gave them to the goodwill store. I’m driving through the town that is cheek-by-jowel to ours, and some scruffy dude is holding a flee market with our L’il Tykes stove and sink as the centerpiece. That is some capitalistic irony right there. Now if I can just get a picture of that same dude going in and collecting welfare, the circle of life will have been completely documented.
No worries.
A flaw? Or a feature? I think it meshes quite nicely with the whole mock-po-mo-transcendentalist schtick you got going on here.
That is your schtick, right?
VW: blood98
Random snark: “documented liar”
As opposed to the poor, downtrodden undocumented liars. RACIST! Why are you such a HATER?
A concept confirmed by Mona’s stated disinterest in discourse with “conservatives.”
But, then again, we’re all insane, psychotic monsters who only deserve to be utterly defeated, packed in Estee Lauder compacts and skipped across the remnants of a toxic waste catch basin.
I weep for the awful, awful burden of absolute, holy truth that Mona is forced to carry and
spewproclaim.