Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

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

Archives

The Annotated (academic) Left: a deconstruction [UPDATED, and UPDATED AGAIN: NOW WITH MORE FEMINIST AUTHENTICITY]

Professor Ric Caric, Dept of Geography, Government, and History, Morehead University:

The “challenge” Goldstein and Collins offered was for me to write five or six books. With all due respect, you guys really aren’t that important to me.

I made a two part argument last night. First, I characterized many of the comments I’ve seen on this blog as bigoted [Actually, Dr Caric begins his comment thus: “I find this site to be highly bigoted.” -ed.] Another example besides JD is Thor who drew up a nicely misogynous comment about Amanda Marcotte’s genitals [Marcotte discusses her own genitals so often that I’m fairly sure they’ve become the stuff of pop culture legend; at the very least, the raggedy stuff is public domain at this point -ed.] . If the bloggers here want to see a lot more misogyny, they should revisit the comments on the post linking my “weenie boy” post. There were several “bull dyke” comments that were bigoted in the extreme. [On a quick skim, I counted exactly one, here. Whether or not it’s “bigoted in the extreme,” I’ll leave to you to decide – ed.]

Second, I argued that Goldstein’s (and Collins’) rationalizations for circumscribing muslim immigration [I haven’t offered any, that I know of; I have, on the other hand, asked that we follow our own immigration laws; and in fact, I’m on record as supporting an increased number of legal immigrants, and a guest worker program – ed.] opposition to gay marriage, and opposition to feminism are more evil than the bigotry of people like JD and Thor. What Goldstein does is both provide intellectual cover for bigots and advance a political agenda on behalf of homophobic bigotry [I support civil unions for same sex couples and the same partnership benefits supplied by the state to married couples – ed.] and racism [this last is a special trick, given that I find “race” studies a sort of pseudo-science to begin with. Then again, I don’t teach “Feminist Political Thought” or “Comparative Racial Thinking,” so maybe I’m beyond my bailiwick – ed.].

The posts today engage in various kinds of diversionary tactics (my family, Dumbledore, my paper on Jesus), straw man arguments (gay opponents of gay marriage [how is this a straw man argument? Do such creatures not exist? And what does the professor make of statements like this, from homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who notes that the goal of homosexual advocacy with respect to the institution of marriage should be to “fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution…. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely”? -ed.]) and a particularly ridiculous effort on Goldstein’s part to claim himself as an original feminist. [see also: first wave feminism; ifeminism; post-feminism. For my part, I have called the kind of feminism practiced by Caric “establishment feminism,” given that it, like much of academic feminism, still has its roots in the second wave or radical feminist movement -ed.]

Maybe you guys don’t get it, but I tend to think that you’re engaged in a fundamentally dishonest operation. But let me spell it out. As a right-wing blog, you are allied with other people on the American right. These include the religious right, the white racists, the thoroughgoing homophobes [like who, for instance? Fred Phelps? – ed.], the woman-haters, the anti-Muslim bigots, and the immigration bigots. You’re part of the same political party as the bigots, you all think of yourselves as part of the conservative movement [I self-define as classical liberal; while I was teaching in the Humanities, no one ever would have mistaken me for “conservative”; it is only since the spectrum has shifted that such a designatation is even possible – ed.], and you advance the same political agenda as the bigots [the planks of that “bigoted” agenda being, per Dr Caric: affirmation for a color-blind Constitution; equality of opportunity over equality of outcome; federalist principles; a traditional idea of the First Amendment and free speech; an embrace of intentionalism; and an aversion to social engineering, judicial activism (on both sides of the political divide), identity politics, multiculturalism, media opportunism, and “diversity” in its present, superficial political incarnation, etc. -ed.] That’s one of the reasons why I’ve yet to see any sign of disgust at these kinds of bigotries at Protein Wisdom. You folks are very clever and you’re smart enough to know who your friends and allies are.

The Mahablog (which I don’t read) was mistaken to throw you in with “the haters.” In fact, you’re worse. You rationalize and justify most of what the haters want. To give an idea of where you folks fit historically, you are the kind of conservatives who would have defended slavery against the abolitionists, defended segregation against the NAACP and Martin Luther King [odd for someone like me who — unlike his more refined “liberal” peers — seems to believe that the 14th Amendment calls for color-blindness -ed.], defended a husband’s claim to be “lord” over his wife against the early feminists [again, odd, given that I reject the calculus of power relations with respect to sex in favor of liberal legal feminism — which precisely refutes such claims to gender superiority; whereas “feminists” like Caric, rather than embrace the kind of universalism that arises from a respect for individualism, embraces the kind of “feminism” that has given us “horizontal” logic and has consistently sought to draw valuative distinctions between “feminine” and “masculine” virtues – ed.] and defended the laws against homosexual sex that were overturned only recently [actually, I only defend the laws passed by legislatures that are sound under the Constitution; I have no problem with homosexual sex between consenting adults – ed.]. All these things were enormous evils and it was the work of radicals and liberals that got them overturned over the dead bodies of conservatives [which argument, of course, assumes that yesterday’s conservatives were the same as those now labeled “conservative” by people like Caric, and that yesterday’s radicals are today’s “progressives,” whose aversion to individual liberty is the hallmark of their illiberality. In fact, if I had to guess, I’d say those radicals of yesteryear — at least, the ones who have stuck to their principles — are more closely aligned with libertarianism or classical liberalism these days; and those were once labeled “conservative” would today be fighting “outsourcing” and “globalization,” and would resist forays into foreign lands for the purpose of bringing about liberty, even should those interests coincide with the America’s own interests – ed.].

The same thing applies today. Because of people like you (William Bennett, Christina Hoff-Summers, etc.) the crude haters like JD and Thor are a stronger force in American society than they otherwise would be. In my opinion, bigotry rationalizers like yourself make American society a much worse place than it might be. That’s a significant responsibility on your shoulders.

Nuance.

****
update: in a reply to Zelda in the comments, Caric purports to have met my challenge. He writes:

You’ve nicely summed up the substance of American conservatism in your denials here. Let me get to the heart of the matter in relation to race. Conservatives went from “Killing people for their skin color” in order to enforce segregation to using the rhetoric of “color-blindness” to justify generalized racial hostility, “job discrimination,” consumer discriminations of all kinds, police targeting of young black men, racial profiling, and other kinds of discriminatory behaviors. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King characterized whites as an “oppressor group” be ause of white support for segregation. Whites are still an oppressor group (and King would still say so despite his enormous generosity) and the rhetoric of color-blindness is used both to justify the oppression and to cut off any kind of remedies for the oppression. What makes Goldstein and this blog a particular evil is that he’s making the justification of oppression into something “cute,” “fun,” and “hip” while providing a haze of pop culture references to cover his political alliance with the hard core bigots.

The same is the case with gay marriage. Zelda writes that she doesn’t approve of “preventing anyone from getting married.” In case she hasn’t though, preventing gay people from getting married has been one of the top political priorities of the American right for several years. Why is this the case? As Karl Rove would say, campaigning against gay marriage was a way to ensure that people who hate and fear gays, homophobic people in other words, voted Republican.

In fact, marriage is one of the fundamental acts, sacraments, or relations of our society. For someone to advocate the exclusion of any group of people from marriage is to tell that group that they are not full citizens, really not full human beings. When Goldstein opposes gay marriage, he is telling gay people that they are not worthy of the fundamental and good things of our society. That’s the same that the right-wing bigots say. At the same time, Goldstein is providing a slick cultural cover for the hard-core bigots. In my opinion, that makes him worse than the bigots.

[my emphases]

Not much substance to the response, predictably — Goldstein is a bigot because he doesn’t agree with my policy prescriptions — but what caught my eye is not so much the redundancy of Caric’s reliance on the circular notion that the political policy beliefs of “right wingers” are bigoted because, well, rightwingers are by nature bigots, but rather the unoriginality and datedness of his attempts to put such a premise into the respectable garb of academic rigor.

To wit, Caric’s reply on race isn’t very original. In fact, it is merely a simplified rehashing of the arguments Stanley Fish made in “Reverse Racism, or How the Pot Learned to Call the Kettle Black.” Note that the piece was published in 1993 — nearly 15 years ago.

Further, Caric’s entire worldview seems to rely, for the force of its arguments, on essays like Fish’s “How the Right Hijacked the Magic Words” — which uses the very kind of sleight of hand Fish himself ostensibly rails against, and proceeds from the dual fallacies that 1) “conservatism” and “liberalism” (or those who espouse what he would characterize as rightwing versions of what are more properly “liberal” beliefs) remain static descriptors, which has the effect of tarring those currently labeled “conservatives” with the detritus of conservatism past, just as today’s “progressives” get to fancy themselves the same, philosophically, as those liberals who once fought for equal rights and equality of opportunity; and 2) that a disagreement over the strategy for reaching a desired end (which is never really laid out) proves that one doesn’t wish to reach that end (instead of proving only that one disagrees with a particular strategy for reaching that end, or another end that s/he finds more desirable. From there, it is a short trip from recalcitrance to obstructionism and pure evil). Which is why I’ve tried, unsuccessfully, thus far, to get Caric to describe his end game with respect to racial politics. Does he favor a quilt or a melting pot? And why one over the other?

For Fish, the cumulative “blows” of racial inequality are pushed aside by those who live to serve the status quo of white dominance. In short, those who now profess “color-blindness” really want us to forget about the years of racial discrimination in this country so that they can comfort in its long-term effects.

But what Fish (and Caric, who merely parrots the 12-year-old article) don’t take into account is that the cumulative affects of racial discrimination have long been fought with social engineering policies specifically designed (or, at least, so they claimed) to level the playing field — with a goal toward establishing Dr King’s vision of a society wherein people are judged on the content of their character and not the color of their skin. And part of the “history” of racial politics that Fish and Caric rely on must account for the last 40+ years of Great Society programs (which have alternately given us forced integration (busing) and “good” segregation (identity politics)), which, too, are part of the “cumulative” effect of this country’s attitudes and policies with respect to race.

The question now is, have the attempts by government (and the judiciary) to correct the wrongs of the past proven successful? In what ways? What parts of that program should be continued, if any? Why? And — importantly — is it possible that those policies themselves have outlived their usefulness, or are they necessary in perpetuity? Can they withstand Constitutional scrutiny without the aid of an interpretive approach that avails itself of social advocacy?

In short, was the strategy we chose to “fix” the racial divide the best one available to those of us who believe in individual rights (Fish plays on this notion, as well: when used by those on the right, “individual rights” is simply “code” for maintaining the status quo; when used by the 60s civil rights movement, it was a galvanizing cry for social change).

Ironically, when Fish wrote that piece in 1995, he was reacting to a kind of Republicanism that was still supporting foreign policy realism (today’s home of the new Dems) — and many of those who are now labeled “conservatives” would back then have self-described as liberals (myself included).

Caric believes that a culture, having learned the lessons of racial discrimination, either can’t change — or else they refuse to (Caric leans toward the whole “White Oppressor” trope — a way to show that he’s one of the “good ones” by admitting to his own self-loathing. White guilt as a kind of secular absolution).

Me, I’m not much into such reductionist psychologizing. Instead, I’m more interested in getting us to the place where we, as a society, claim we wish to be. And in doing so, I am interested in finding the best strategies for doing so.

It is my argument that the Great Society programs, while initially well-intentioned, have given rise to an entire new set of problems that keep us as a society from achieving our goal of individual equality. If, indeed, that remains our goal.

And it seems to me that those who most resist this argument are people like Caric, who have built a career around teaching things like “Comparative Racial Thought”. These are people who have a vested interest in keeping “racism” and “sexism” and “homophobia” alive, which is why they are so desirous to find it wherever and whenever they can, even if they have to strain — or even redefine the terms — to do so.

But if the idea is to truly level the playing field, it is my contention that doing away with “racial” thought — or “black” aesthetics, or “feminine” logic, etc — is the best way forward. Affirmative action that relies on something both scientifically dubious and historically charged as “race” is not a winning strategy; affirmative action based on opportunity is far more desirable, and far less racially divisive.

Fish and Caric would turn “merit” into a code word; but to do so cheapens the accomplishments of a host of immigrant cultures who throughout the history of this country have assimilated and prospered as “Americans.”

In short, Caric (and, at least in 1995, Fish) have staked out an enemy and consigned him with bad faith. They may as well as “the right” if we’ve all stopped beating our wives.

Similarly, his reply on homosexual marriage manages to suggest that those who don’t view marriage as a fundamental right (rather than a social contract decided upon by a given culture, with a long tradition shared over time by multiple cultures) are, by fiat, homophobic — despite the fact that they would readily grant all the benefits of state-sanctioned partnerships to same-sex couples.

Caric explains this only by saying that those who wish to deny such a “fundamental right” must necessarily hate gays, because by denying they devalue.

Pure sleight of hand. Because the question of whether marriage is a fundamental right is just that — a question, not some universal principle or inalienable right. Societies place restrictions on marriage all the time (from age to number of partners, etc). And, were same-sex marriage legislation to pass by popular vote, I’d have no trouble abiding it. As it stands, though, my argument against same sex marriage remains semantic — and redounds to worry over both the stated motives of some activists, and the precedent such a redefinition of marriage would set with respect to future petitioners vying for their “fundamental rights”.

Caric believes that these positions are simply masks for a hatred of Queers and Darkies. Because by doing so, he doesn’t have to get into the nitty gritty of putting his own policy preferences to the test.

My positions and arguments — linked above and there for all to see — are clearly stated; my reasons for supporting those arguments are, likewise, spelled out. For Caric’s part, he has yet to address them at all, except by way of generalizing about the motives of conservatives, and by relying on a pair of dated essays by Stanley Fish, who would proudly call himself a modern day sophist.

And before Caric takes the easy way out and labels me another knee-jerk attacker of po-mo, he should know that I have, on several occasions, defended Fish here — against attacks from conservatives.

I have also broken down some of Fish’s rhetorical subterfuge. So you see, I’m more difficult to pigeonhole than Dr Caric would imagine me to be.

****
long-oppressed sister of update: I loved this comment from ushie so much that I decided to append it here, lest it be overlooked:

Meh. The sumbitch has the nerve, repeatedly, to characterize a blog he disagrees with as “cute” and “Fluffy.” Believe me, as a feminist and a female, I know EXACTLY what he’s doing by employing such denigrating terms that are usually an accompaniment to “Oh, don’t worry your pretty little head, darling.”

Caric, you should not be teaching women’s studies. You’re a fraud.

(Hey, anyone want to lay a bet as to whether he ignores this sally, thereby further marginalizing a female voice?)

Sadly, ushie, you miss Dr Caric’s point: the fact that you read this site (read it, you understand — not just skim it in order to jump to ridiculous conclusions) means that you cannot lay claim to being a feminist. Because “real” feminists cannot possibly align themselves with the hatred and bigotry toward women, gays, and all the other Others so routinely hated here.

In fact, “real” feminists can only believe in what “real” feminists believe in. Which is what makes them “real” feminists to begin with.

It’s simple, really: to prove your feminist bona fides, you must ride along with the herd.

Not sure that captures the spirit of what the first wave feminists were after, but hey — they’re just a bunch of old dead white women anyway, right? Good riddance, I say.

296 Replies to “The Annotated (academic) Left: a deconstruction [UPDATED, and UPDATED AGAIN: NOW WITH MORE FEMINIST AUTHENTICITY]”

  1. Drumwaster says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:45 am

    I’m putting the over-under at about three days for him to stop spinning in his chair from THAT particular bitch-slap.

    Place your bets.

  2. MMShillelagh says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:50 am

    PW: “Why are we so bad?”

    RC: “Because you say things I don’t like! And I associate them with historically bad things that are totally unlike what you say, except that they both concern the same broad political issue.”

  3. Mr. Boo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:54 am

    He won’t read it. He won’t read any of it. Caric has demonstrated time and again, through his dismissive replies here, to be intellectually uncurious and grounded in his own prejudices. He will stick to the narrative.

  4. dicentra says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:54 am

    And there you have it: the raw personification of the adage that conservatives think that leftists have bad ideas, whereas leftists think that conservatives are bad people. (Bad = Bigoted only; if you’re a cop-killah, an Islamic supremacist, a Mexican drug-runner, or anything exotic and “non-mainstream,” you’re OK because you’re not one of Them.)

    So all you have to do to be a good person is to oppose conservatives.

    Um, professor Caric? You might want to leave the black-and-white thinking to those of us on the right. We’re much better at it, wouldn’t you say?

  5. Rob Crawford says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:55 am

    I stated the basic principles I (try) to live by in the earlier thread:

    I believe in the primacy of the individual over the group, balanced against the need for the continuance of a society that, while imperfect, has done a damned good job at providing liberty, fulfillment, and comfort for its members. I believe in the primacy of reason, but understand that the power of emotion must be taken into account, both in my own and the behavior of others.

    To me, the worst crime imaginable is taking from someone control over their own life — whether that’s a matter of slavery, rape, murder, or, to a much, much lesser degree, confiscating the results of their labor with excessive taxes.

    I’m not religious, but have no problem with those who are, so long as they do not expect me to live by the tenets of their faith. That counts as much for the “moral majority” types as for the jihadis; the difference is the moral majority types didn’t murder 3,000 of my countrymen. That tends to make me take the jihadis as a more serious, and pressing, threat.

    Can anyone square that with Caric’s description?

  6. Mr. Boo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:59 am

    Caric’s arguments are DOA. No need to try to “square” anything with Caric’s definition.

  7. Carin says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:02 pm

    Caric called us a “collective” – doesn’t he know we prefer minions? Oh, right, he doesn’t read the blog. I mean, he obviously skims, but does anyone here think he actually reads any of it?

  8. rho says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:03 pm

    I agree with Caric: this site is bigoted against my PW Pub graphic submissions.

    What’s up with that?

  9. Synova says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Considering classical-liberalism and conservatism.

    Conservatism *moves* just like liberalism or progressive ideas move or progress, it just does so at a slower pace.

    These days it truly is the conservatives who are conserving classical liberalism, notions of fundamental equality and our responsibility toward those people unlike us and who we have never met.

  10. Synova says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    Conservatives would just rather do something that *works* over the things that make them feel good.

  11. RiverCocytus says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:08 pm

    Come back, Caric! We want to humiliate you more! And unlike the left, we can do it without resorting to libel!

    tw: Science absorb?!

  12. Shawn says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    Up is down, black is white, Gretzky’s best years were in a Flames jersey.

  13. Rob Crawford says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Conservatism *moves* just like liberalism or progressive ideas move or progress, it just does so at a slower pace.

    Ayep. Would JFK qualify as a conservative or progressive in today’s politics?

  14. Fred says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    I don’t see much point in trying to engage this Caric person. He doesn’t seem interested in engaging you on these issues, only in casting aspersions on your character and then assigning you some responsibilty for American society not meeting his expectations. All in an arch and condescending fashion, completely unsupported by any readily rationale for striking such a pose.

    Although, as an example of a fairly standard Lefty “debate” style, this one is pretty stark, and therefore, instructional.

  15. Seerak says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:26 pm

    Caric is not arguing to convince you folks, he’s arguing to convince himself and his fellow-travellers that the world is indeed arranged as his invalid political theory says. “Things ARE the way I say they are, and that’s that!”

    That being said…

    Conservatism *moves* just like liberalism or progressive ideas move or progress, it just does so at a slower pace.

    Progressivism’s end-of-road is naked tyranny. Are you saying that conservatism’s most important distinction from that benighted movement lies not in having a different destination, or direction of travel — but only in its *pacing*?

    That’s funny… Ayn Rand said the exact same thing.

  16. Tman says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    Methinks Mr. Caric is getting a little nervous since Ward Indian-Guy got booted from UC Boulder.

    That firing put pathetic excuses for intellectuals like Mr. Caric on notice that if they pull stunts like Churchill did they WILL be held accountable for their entire body of work. Once the light was held to Ward’s body, his tenure evaporated like a drop of water on a hot day in Iraq.

    The thing that truly amazes me is that Caric could have chosen much easier targets. There ARE plenty of rightwing nutjobs out there who do perpetuate the problems that Caric lists in his rant.

    But jebus man, Goldstein simply ain’t one of ’em. He couldn’t have picked a less deserving target.

  17. Professor Blather says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    I considered leaving something resembling an intellectual deconstruction of my own … then I realized I only really had one thing to say:

    Ouch.

    That was probably the most utter and complete defeat I have ever seen in any rhetorical debate; that was perhaps the most painful intellectual smack-down I’ve ever had the unmitigated joy of witnessing.

    Although Caric is so clearly out of his depth here, and although his intellectual dishonesty is staggering (and his simple lack of basic social and historical knowledge appalling, considering his profession) … I just found myself feeling sorry for him.

    You just deftly deconstructed not only his arguments – but also his entire character. You literally destroyed him.

    I actually cringed inside reading that. I actually felt sorry for the poor schmoe.

    Ouch.

    I wonder if he’ll be foolish enough to keep tilting at this particular windmill? I suspect he will – because I suspect he doesn’t have the intellect to understand just how singularly he was humiliated.

    Ouch. Really. Just … ouch.

    Well done. But did you really need to use a tactical nuclear weapon, when a casual swat of a flyswatter would have been more than enough? Overkill: Google it.

  18. Patrick Chester says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:41 pm

    Fred noted:

    I don’t see much point in trying to engage this Caric person. He doesn’t seem interested in engaging you on these issues, only in casting aspersions on your character and then assigning you some responsibilty for American society not meeting his expectations.

    Did the labeling of political opponents as cancer give it away?

  19. Lurking Observer says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:45 pm

    Unfortunately, I think dicentra hit it on the head.

    All of Caric’s blathering goes to the idea that because there are those who are bigots who agree w/ some of your positions (or, more accurately, have desired ends that might, if you squint and shift your head a bit, kinda, sorta looks like yours), then you are of a piece with them. In a moment of charity, he might accept that you don’t intend that, but as his constant reiteration of “rationalizing” would indicate, he would far more likely say that you actually, actively agree with them.

    Of course, if one were to attempt to suggest that his own opinions are of a piece with, say, Communists, one wonders whether he would be proud of that affiliation, or whether he would be equally prepared to accept identification with the Berias and the Yezhovs. (Because the point, of course, is that Communists espoused doctrines of equality—given that they were butchers, by Caric’s “logic,” those who espoused similar motives must have equally bloody hands. Caric, ironically, would therefore lend substanace to J. Edgar Hoover’s concerns that Martin Luther King, Jr. might be a Communist, since there were Communists who agreed with King.)

    Again, one wonders exactly what it is that Caric is teaching his students? What kinds of critical thinking, what kinds of analytical ability could one teach, that would permit this kind of utter nonsense?

  20. cfoster says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    Because of you crude conservatives are a stronger force in society? But then, I guess, because of him crude liberals are also a stronger force? Under his theory doesn’t he also give “intellectual cover” to dim-witted, foaming, abusive, potty-mouthed imbeciles of the left? Or does he assume such people do not exist?

  21. JHoward says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:47 pm

    a tactical nuclear weapon

    Almost: Email this post to those guys who gave The Perfesser the Caricature Award or whatever it was.

  22. MMShillelagh says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    Like people have said – nothing new, but a fantastic example of what we already knew.

    And conservatives ARE liberals. We want to conserve liberty. Our political opponents want to progress past it, into communism, or more generally plain-old tyranny.

  23. JHoward says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    ..and I have NO idea where that URL came from. Weird; there it is again…

  24. slickdpdx says:
    July 25, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    Eh, at least he responded. You replied. Its all out there. At this point you can agree to disagree and let other people make up their minds on the evidence.

  25. Rob B. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Jeff’s fatal flaw has always been the same. He went to school, sat in their classes, read their authors, learned their theory, argued their points, took their tests and taught in their halls but had the gaul to not agree with their views and walk lockstep with their narrative.

    He’s like the cow lick to their perfectly groomed combover and they resent the shit out of it. That’s why they keep trying to “reason him” into their thinking.

    Me on the other hand, shit, I’m just a Southern Baptist, oil and gas man. I keep my women barefoot and pregnant because God knows the reason women’s feet are smaller than men’s is so they can stand closer to the stove. I watch Fox news. I do whatever Bill O’Reilly says becaue he’s a “no spin kind of guy.” I have lots of kids so they can all grow up to vote Republican and be poor shiftless losers who join the military, like my family has always done, all the wayback to Washington and Valley Forge. They got me all figured out and they know I won’t vote their way or march to their drummer.

    But is Jeff “one of us?” Fuck no.
    He hasn’t even punched a Greenpeace protester in the face.

    What they haven’t figured out is that we Texans like armadillos. And so long as Jeff makes that little feller dance, we’ll keep coming back. Also, he has good taste in scotch and that goes a long way.

  26. J. Brenner says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    God I’m glad I read this blog. Note how Caric begins by attempting a cool and condescending tone:

    “The “challenge” Goldstein and Collins offered was for me to write five or six books. With all due respect, you guys really aren’t that important to me.”

    Yet, within minutes he is reduced to the kind of pathetic generalizations, and spittle flying invectives that would make a McCarthyite circa 1953 sound subtle in comparison. Such as:

    “But let me spell it out. As a right-wing blog, you are allied with other people on the American right. These include the religious right, the white racists, the thoroughgoing homophobes, the woman-haters, the anti-Muslim bigots…”

    and

    “The Mahablog (which I don’t read) was mistaken to throw you in with “the haters.” In fact, you’re worse.”

    and

    “In my opinion, bigotry rationalizers like yourself make American society a much worse place than it might be. That’s a significant responsibility on your shoulders.”

    Not that you guys are important or anything.

  27. JHoward says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:08 pm

    Careful, Rob, in a world of blind men, our one-eyed non-ironist is king.

    You’ll be quoted on that foot/stove thing, mark my words. You bigot, or whatever it is that you look like you are.

  28. Great Mencken's Ghost says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm

    Gee, what kind of serious academic doesn’t want to publish his work?

  29. Sean Connery says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:16 pm

    Nicely played, Trebek!

  30. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    JFK would roll over in his grave if he could see how liberalism has been hijacked. MLK Jr’s would not recognize his own message after Prof. Caric got done with it.

  31. BJTexs says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Gee, what kind of serious academic doesn’t want to publish his work?

    The answer is self evident.

  32. ThePolishNizel says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:21 pm

    Nice…I’d imagine perfesser ummmm is not unlike a piece of spit out grizzle right about now. What a complete and thorough beat down. Of course, the heavyweight vs. lightweight confrontation is never pretty nor fair. A fantastic job as always, Jeff.

  33. Attila (Pillage Idiot) says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:24 pm

    Two words: Complete moron.

    Don’t waste your time justifying yourselves.

  34. eLarson says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:30 pm

    I suppose the ‘pride’ of Morehead St. could be a non-serious academic.

  35. Professor Blather says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    Caric’s latest stupidity outstupids even his initial efforts.

    If “color-blindedness” is now bigotry (and what kind of bizarro world must an individual live in to accept that backwards logic?), then by definition *any* efforts to actually create the color-blind society specifically envisioned by King – who Caric quotes repeatedly – would be bigoted.

    According to Caric’s logic, affirmative action must be eternal. We can never, ever even ask the one word question: WHEN? When is enough, enough?

    At what point do we drop the rhetoric and *actually* seek a color blind society?

    According to Caric, the answer is never. The only logical conclusion to his barely comprehensible “arguments” is that ten thousand years ago, we must still condescend to the once oppressed societal groups, we must still segregate by race.

    The shorter version: Caric is projecting. That’s what every word out of his mouth is about. He is a classic and conscious racist, a true bigot in the simplest sense of the word, and he is desperately over-compensating.

    He can’t even imagine the simplest solution – to just treat people as people. Which used to be the classic liberal position, but which is now at the core of conservatism. True equality. Real liberty.

    Caric can’t even fathom the idea. Because at his core, it is he that is racist. When I look at a black man, I see a man.

    When Caric looks at a black man … he sees black. Or, Black. Something different, something in need of the soft bigotry of the help of the white man.

    That’s the bottom line. He’s a racist. And to look at himself in the mirror, he has to assume you are, too.

  36. Synova says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:35 pm

    #15 “Progressivism’s end-of-road is naked tyranny. Are you saying that conservatism’s most important distinction from that benighted movement lies not in having a different destination, or direction of travel — but only in its *pacing*?”

    Pretty much.

    “That’s funny… Ayn Rand said the exact same thing.”

    Heh. ;-) The sideways pull of Objectivism or libertarianism also influences conservatism (as we can see rather clearly lately) so it’s not *just* that conservatism follows the errors of progressive politics in a time delayed fashion. There are other axises of political and economic thought involved.

  37. Professor Blather says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:36 pm

    ago = from now. Obviously.

  38. N. O'Brain says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:37 pm

    “So you see, I’m more difficult to pigeonhole as Dr Caric would imagine me to be.”

    No, Jeff, you’re more difficult to pigeonhole than Dr Caric can imagine.

  39. BJTexs says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    Ric Caric: “Come on, timmy. With your help I can answer that right wing weenie boy Goldstein and proclaim, once and for all, the ascendency of liberal progressive values and complete the total characterization of all conservatives since the dawn of time!”

    Timb: “No! No! The links. OH BY THE (NON RELIGIOUS) gOD THE LINKS ARE SO MANY!!! THEY ARE SEERING MY EYES!!!!!”

    Ric Caric: Hmmmm, I see your point. Let’s go off and make fun of Bill Kristol instead. TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY!

    Timb: ***groan***

  40. Tony says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Wow I never knew I was so horrible, or that I was aligned with such horrible people and things despite, you know, not actually being any of the things Caric says I am. Must be his advanced degree and his standing at a university that allows him to be able to simply deem me horrible and be done with it. And since he has an advanced degree plus standing at a university, and says that I’m horrible…well that must mean that I truly am horrible. I am going to have to purge myself of the me I didn’t even know was inside me. Thanks, Mr. Caric!

    Actually, I think Caric’s just an idiot with a nice job title.

    TW’s: Vain, evidently. Man that captcha creator knows everything!

  41. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    I don’t see much point in trying to engage this Caric person. He doesn’t seem interested in engaging you on these issues, only in casting aspersions on your character and then assigning you some responsibilty for American society not meeting his expectations. All in an arch and condescending fashion, completely unsupported by any readily rationale for striking such a pose.

    Although, as an example of a fairly standard Lefty “debate” style, this one is pretty stark, and therefore, instructional.

    Sometimes I do these things just to have such instructionals noted for the record, Fred.

    All —

    If you haven’t done so, check the update. Caric tries to get more specific. Too bad I used to teach the essays he draws from in a persuasion class. Had my old faculty website not been wiped out, I believe you’d even find some hypertext lessons on those very essays.

    As I noted before, I’m not impressed by practiced academic cant. Circular arguments dressed up as disinterested analyses are still circular arguments.

  42. Cowboy says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:49 pm

    So, if Jeff is responsible for KKK types, doesn’t that mean that Caric is. . .

    RESPONSIBLE FOR ROSIE!!!!???

  43. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    Now if you’ll excuse me for a bit, I am about 3 hours behind schedule. Must go feed child and workout so that I can eat lunch.

  44. Fred Garvin says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    With a name like “Ric,” is “Dr.” Caric sort of, uh, light in the loafers himself?

  45. Rob B. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 1:55 pm

    Jhoward, once you take on the mantle of “oil and gas” being called a bigot is the least of your problems. After all, we’re supposedly rigging everything and let me tell you, that’s tiring work.

    Do you have any idea how many burger joints you have to go to to knock off all those guys making cars that run on deep fryer oil? I have to have gained 15 pounds just last year.

  46. ThomasD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    I lost all interest in this discussion when Caric inflated the challenge of debate on select topics to something that would necessitate the writing of ‘five or six books.’

    Hardly.

    Or perhaps not.

    Perhaps the Professor is simply incapable of engaging in honest and spirited debate without first having created his very own magnum opus on the topic. Lord knows thousands of other academics are not so constrained. Many of them being willing and able to enter into open and public debate with just a set date and time, and no more preparation than perhaps a change into a fresh shirt and tie.

    But really, what is most disheartening is that the Professors words aren’t even intended for us, his detractors. This excuse was offered up to his supporters. An audience he holds in such small regard that he is willing to resort to such a patently weak and obvious dodge.

  47. Mr. Boo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    “Do you have any idea how many burger joints you have to go to to knock off all those guys making cars that run on deep fryer oil? I have to have gained 15 pounds just last year.”

    Are you DRINKING the oil? What?

  48. Rick says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    Caric is just slinking away behind a digital-ink cloud of obfuscation. And who can blame him, given the record of stompings the professoriat has received @ PW over the past few years.

    The word must travel fast & far in that bubble of his.

    Cordially…

  49. zoy clem says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm

    Dr. Caric should consider putting the hash pipe away.

  50. RiverCocytus says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Clearly, Caric’s White Guilt and consideration of White people being oppressors comes from inside himself, which is to say, he is a bigot himself, and that is why he feels guilty. If it were not so, there would be no reason for him to conflate whiteness across time & space and the purported ills thereof to merely serve as a massive barge to house his assortment of fears, pathologies, ill spirits, bad thoughts and other egregores.

    Caric, you think we’re all fools. Trouble is, we’ve been learning from all the crap the left throws this way. I’d bet from the least to greatest in intellect among us, there is not one you could best.

    1. White people have no rational reason to feel guilty for the crimes of their ‘race’.
    2. Gay people have the right to marry, just like anyone else, a member of the opposite sex.
    3. In your criticism of Goldstein & PW, instead of taking his points to task you simply paint them a color – bigoted, and decry his clever wit as the modus operandi of his crime. While diversionary tactics are the ‘first tactics’ i.e. the most basic, they are also the simplest and therefore the easiest to spot.

    Also, you attempt to appeal to emotions in several places – very common – as a way to sway the rational mind. A rhetorical skill not unnoticed, but it is as useless as it is discerned. Surely all of those years taught you some better rhetoric than that.

    You won’t win an argument here by public opinion, fiat or flourish. While in a public debate disarming one of your opponent’s attacks can cause enough doubt to grant victory, here the rules are slightly different. Think of the hydra – mythical monster – and you might get a better idea. Conservatives are careful to admit and correct errors for a very good reason.

    If you don’t already know, I won’t tell you.

  51. Karl says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:31 pm

    So you see, I’m more difficult to pigeonhole as Dr Caric would imagine me to be.

    True, but who isn’t?

  52. Gray says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:33 pm

    Let me get to the heart of the matter in relation to race. Conservatives went from “Killing people for their skin color” in order to enforce segregation to using the rhetoric of “color-blindness” to justify generalized racial hostility

    ‘Cuz using rhetoric is just like killing people!

    And Segregation is just like generalized racial hostility!

    Really, I think he is most angry that Jeff brought Sexy Back in the hip freedom-loving style of stickin’ it to The (leftist baby-boomer establishment) Man

    And how many times do I have to say “I’m not homophobic. I just don’t like poo!”

    CUZ OF THE RHETORIC!

  53. cwxyzallen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:43 pm

    I sometimes wonder if I have some horrible brain dysfunction.

    There must be something very wrong with me, because Caric and others from the left keep storming in to all my favourite blogs in order to defend me from all you terrible homophobes.

    Being queer, does the fact that I don’t find this site homophobic or racist or evil make me a bad homosexual, or a bad person?

    Is there is something wrong with my homocirculatory system, because I don’t feel a need to link which sex I find hot with my political views?

    Could my queerosterone levels be off, ’cause I just don’t feel this deep sense of “sisterhood” with every gay man on the planet that Caric seems to imply that every other gay man has?

    Is it the proper reaction to the posts and comments on this site to go cower in a corner and plead with all you vile bigotted mysoginist oil and gas guzzling rubes not to hurt me?

    Am I being a total ingrate not to feel that I need the protection of Caric and his ilk?

    How can I trust my own judgement, which tells me that this is a site of great humour, sincerity, fellowship and honesty, not to mention genuine political and philosophical enterprise, when Caric is telling me that you are all actually a kind of intellectual dogshit?

    Where Oh where did I go so wrong.

    “Help me Obi-wan Caric; you’re my only hope.”

  54. Tman says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    BECAUSE OF THE RACIST-GAY-PORN-COCK-OF-LIES!!!!

  55. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:47 pm

    I think you have a crush on me. Yuck.

  56. timb says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:56 pm

    Brian, I haven’t used the patriarchy since undergraduate classes 15 years ago. Please don’t project the relationship you have with PW commenters onto me.

    If I agree with something, I say “I agree with that”, as I have said to our host many times. Much like Pablo, I comment on a few blogs (not as many as Pablo, but he holds some sort of record). Personally, I like small blogs with just a few commenters. That why I like the Professor’s and Jeff’s, although clearly Jeff’s blog has a much greater following.

  57. mojo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:57 pm

    Meh. So don’t read it.

    What? Not nuanced enough?

    SB: cogs reconquest

  58. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    Outfuckingstanding, Mr. Goldstein. Well, for a housefrau, anyway.

    tw: German remedy

    Uh oh.

  59. nobody important says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    I always feel great trepidation to comment on one of Jeff’s more intellectual posts, particularly when he’s engaging an academic because I’m not an intellectual. I’m a high school graduate (first in the family if you can believe it) with some college (mostly smoking pot ansd skipping classes) and a stint in the military (mostly smoking hash and shirking duty). However, even I with my poor power to add or detract can see that Prof. Caric is a dickhead. Not so much for the idiocy of his politics and worldview, but for his sheer arrogance and tendentiousness.

  60. SteveG says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Ah.
    Conservatives always oppose progressive agendas…. and Caric and his people are instinctively drawn to the good fight for abolition of slavery, civil rights and desegration. Whereas if I were to transport back in time, I would be a racist wifebeater.

    Today conservatives are slow to jump on the global warming bandwagon. Nevermind that it is fun to mock the guru of warming when he flies sustainable Chilean Sea Bass in from South Georgia Island on a jet for a dinner. Simply questioning the dominant paradigm gets labeled as opposition to all that is good and true.
    Daring to ask aloud how on earth discriminating on the basis of race and gender is going eliminate discrimination and poking fun at those true believers just shows how evil conservatives are.
    A local progressive wrote this to our newspaper:

    “I cannot believe Congress is so stupid as to believe the recent New York Times story saying Iran is involved in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.
    On July 11, the Senate voted 97-0 to give President Bush the casus belli to attack Iran. Mr. Bush has had covert war activities in Iran going on for some time now.
    We are the war criminals, the Hitlers of the world. We have no right to steal Iraq’s resources by invading that country and killing thousands of people. We have hundreds of mercenary armies, such as Blackwater in Iraq, which have no government oversight as to their actions.
    The Democrats are spineless. They should use the power of the purse. We are emulating Israel’s acquisitive foreign polities. No country should be occupied.
    GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul says the U.S. is in “great danger” of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin-style provocation, while also warning that a major collapse of the American economy is on the horizon and could be precipitated by the bombing of Iran and the closure of the Persian Gulf.
    Many know Sept. 11 was a Cheney-Bush operation. See http://www.loosechange911.com/. Now Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney plan to attack Iran to divert attention from their impeachment. Take action…….”

    Wow. Progressive wisdomspeak…. minus any actual wisdom. No sense of humor either.

  61. RDub says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:25 pm

    Being queer, does the fact that I don’t find this site homophobic or racist or evil make me a bad homosexual, or a bad person?

    Why can’t it be both?

  62. happyfeet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    In a world on the brink of war. You either march to one tune or dance to another.

  63. Civilis says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:29 pm

    What makes Goldstein and this blog a particular evil is that he’s making the justification of oppression into something “cute,” “fun,” and “hip” while providing a haze of pop culture references to cover his political alliance with the hard core bigots.

    I’m surprised this paragraph didn’t get more reaction. In my experience, conservatives and libertarians don’t care about cute, fun, or hip. On the other hand, what is the Cult of Che if not an effort to make oppression hip? Since the professor is allied with others on the left, by his own logic he is obviously complacent in real, modern oppression, slavery and genocide, and therefore a bigot/oppressor/evil. I mean, he’s on the same side as both the isolationist white and the black racists, the modern slavers, Fred Phelps, the female-circumcision women-haters, the anti-semitic and anti-Christian bigots, and those who want millions of people overseas to starve to death. He’s of the same political party as these people and he advances the same political agenda. He’s never said anything against any of these people here. He knows who his allies are. I say ignore the evil bastard.

  64. mojo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:35 pm

    I’m not prejudiced. I hate everybody equally.

  65. thor says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    Another example besides JD is Thor who drew up a nicely misogynous comment about Amanda Marcotte’s genitals.

    Oy, let me grab the handrails for support; a multi-paragraph screed imputes me-idiot-Thor in its opening statement.

    Dear Sir, please respect my profundity and vocabulary, which is as wide as it is deep, so much so that it’s no stretch that I attached such a plucky designation – “cunt” – to reference one Amanda Marcotte. The intended connotation, by the way, is towards the protuding pubis and fleshy labia exclusively, not so much for the more serious inner workings, moving parts, secretions and tubes, if you were confused from the uglier literal denotation.

  66. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:36 pm

    You say ignore him, Civlilis. I say festoon his license plate with neon lights and drive him around the block every night like a low rider El Camino with no muffler.

    It’s harder for people to pretend they’re immune to the noise that way.

  67. Jim in KC says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:40 pm

    Don’t forget the name on the back window in Olde English script, Jeff.

  68. Gray says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    I’m surprised this paragraph didn’t get more reaction. In my experience, conservatives and libertarians don’t care about cute, fun, or hip.

    Hey, I was on that one like a pitbull on a toddler….

    I love the fact he claimed that the hipness and cuteness was a ‘particular evil’

    The snark is mightier than the sword….

  69. happyfeet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    I like cute, fun and hip, but I don’t think knowing the names of all the Transformers really counts.

  70. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Aw, shit. I missed all the fun while I was packing stuff to move.

  71. Sean Bannion says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    Jeff, Do All. Your. Friends. Know the low rider?

    Goldstein, you’re a better man than I. I lose patience when I have to recap my junior year logic class for people who call themselves educated.

    I am more inclined to let them yammer into their increasingly smaller echo chamber dragging their fevered musings infrequently into sunlight only as a circus sideshow. “See kids? This is what happens when you get a PhD.”

    But then I remembered you had one, so there goes that argument…

    Back to the drawing board. Like I always say, there are few problems in life which cannot be cured by a healthy application of Semtex.

  72. MikeD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:13 pm

    The entire panoply of such progressive fetishes; from illusory bigotry and racism, on to imagined homophobia, that so consumes Dr. Caric simply bores me to tears after all the years that he and similar academic syncophants have insisted on beating this nearly (but lamentably not) moribund equine. Yet he arrives to climb in the ring and be pummeled unmercifully, like others before him, by our host. I agree with Professor Blather–Ouch! Ouch! And ouch again! People like Ric (sic) always bring a knife to a gun fight. The beat down is expected, there are no surprises, and while I enjoy the carnage I really do have a fundamental question that never seems to be answered. Why are these “intellects” at second (maybe third?) tier academic institutions such sanctimonious pricks? Why do they insist on showcasing their cerebral handicaps? And do you suppose they are ever embarrassed?

  73. Sean Bannion says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:17 pm

    No. Mike, they are not.

    I give you Dr. Ric [sic] Caric. QED.

  74. Bill D. Cat says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    Me , I’d be interested in how his students deal with this .

  75. ushie says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:26 pm

    Meh. The sumbitch has the nerve, repeatedly, to characterize a blog he disagrees with as “cute” and “Fluffy.” Believe me, as a feminist and a female, I know EXACTLY what he’s doing by employing such denigrating terms that are usually an accompaniment to “Oh, don’t worry your pretty little head, darling.”

    Caric, you should not be teaching women’s studies. You’re a fraud.

    (Hey, anyone want to lay a bet as to whether he ignores this sally, thereby further marginalizing a female voice?)

    T:will kerosene. Oh, surely not. The ’60s are long over.

  76. Rusty says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:29 pm

    Don’t feel sorry for the perfesser, Professor. he flayed himself. Jeff was just the instrument. Rather feel sorry for those impressionable young people who have to wade waist deep in his self loathing shit.

    tw; 1921 wrongfully

  77. PMain says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:34 pm

    Prof Caric,

    I see your Fred Phelps & raise you a Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot & the KKK. You sure showed us, again.

  78. Kirk says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    I would guess he’s hoping his students don’t catch wind of this. It would create too much snickering in class.

  79. B Moe says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    “Caric, you should not be teaching women’s studies. You’re a fraud.”

    You should go on over to his place and let him have it, ushie. I have kicked the door open and a couple of walls down, come on over and spray his ass with some absolute moral authority!1903

  80. McGehee says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    It would create too much snickering in class.

    Hey, if he hears snickering, at least he knows there are warm bodies in the classroom.

  81. McGehee says:
    July 25, 2007 at 4:47 pm

    …though, if Morehead State is like where I went to college, an insufferable dolt like Caricature probably teaches all the required courses.

  82. Bostonian says:
    July 25, 2007 at 5:12 pm

    I wouldn’t bother with the guy myself, but his reasoning is indeed circular.

    He starts with the premise (believed so fervently on most of the Left) that conservatives are bigots, homophobes, etc., etc., and then everything he sees “proves” that to him.

    He will never hear you, and he is incapable of seeing the flaw in his logic.

  83. guinsPen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 5:32 pm

    I say festoon his license plate with neon lights and drive him around the block every night like a low rider El Camino with no muffler.

    Not to forget the bouncy-bouncy.

  84. Sean Bannion says:
    July 25, 2007 at 5:40 pm

    You’re right, Bostonian.

    If tomorrow all forms of sanctimony were mystically removed from the earth, Caric and his ilk wouldn’t have an argument, or even a career.

    But Goldstein would still be worth reading.

  85. guinsPen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    Whites are still an oppressor group (and King would still say so…)

    Say Ric,

    Ask him who he likes in the NFC North this year.

    Thanks in advance.

  86. TheGeezer says:
    July 25, 2007 at 5:47 pm

    see your Fred Phelps & raise you a Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot & the KKK. You sure showed us, again.

    Caric imposes association with fascists and racists upon conservatives, but the left, as you so succinctly point out, has exacted so much more misery upon humanity than fascists andd racists ever might. The left denies what is its true legacy: millions killed and tortured by its idealists, which include Castro and Mao. They are denialists without equal. And they are, because of their inherebt and ideological dishonesty, a danger to liberty.

  87. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    Bill D. Cat

    Me , I’d be interested in how his students deal with this .

    First they kiss his ring, then they smack him upside his ignorant head.

  88. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    I see your Fred Phelps & raise you a Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot & the KKK. You sure showed us, again.

    Um…I hate to have to break this to you, but Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat and was a Gore delegate. He’s not of the right.

    I hope the Perfessor has something else.

  89. Cythen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    how *dare* he speak for my lord Rove! Seriously though… the two extremes that are being purported for both sides (right = uberxtian anything non-white hating capitalist pigs; left = tree hugging straight-hating welfare for all hippies) are making a lot of people say “eff this” and decide to ditch both. Amusing how through trying to divide America, the schism seems to be awakening a union.

    I’m female, and I haven’t taken issue with anything that I see here on this site. I recognize satire when I see it; I’ve used the words “bull dyke” before. Does that make me less of a woman? Does it somehow make me a slave to the good ol’boy network, that I don’t freak out and get the vapors every time I hear the word “cunt”?

    The brain power wasted looking for inequity and oppression saddens me; it could be put to so much better use. The petty high-minded sanctimony that is put forth simply reeks of a snot nosed six year old tattling. Declasse, if I ever saw it.

  90. eLarson says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    I hope the Perfessor has something else.
    Nah. He’s done. No doubt he thinks he’s “shown us”.

  91. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    But he’s a hater, pablo. So he’s a “secret” right winger.

    Pay no attention to those votes cast behind the curtain. Feel his essence.

    The rest is just subterfuge.

  92. jeff outs another dumb professor who wants to debate with him, yawn says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    Man, I’m so glad Goldstein gave up on that whole Online Integrity deal. Integrity is so not Jeff, you know?

  93. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    I “outed” another professor? What the fuck are you talking about?

    His blog has, as its tag, “I’m a college professor who has lived in North Carolina and Kentucky most of my adult life. In this blog, I am commenting on American politics and culture from a left perspective that is specifically Red State.” He signs his name Ric Caric. He’s been given an award by the College Republicans at Morehead, posted on YouTube.

    How does one “out” someone who posts under his real name and advertising his profession?

    Caric is a blithering idiot and an embarrassment to his Department, certainly, but that doesn’t mean he’s a coward like some other “professors” I’ve debated who hide behind pseudonyms even as they gleefully attack the reputations of real people. Usually from some annex somewhere.

    Typical comment, though. Just as criticism is now “hate speech,” acknowledging a real person’s professional status — which he proudly advertises — is now “outing” him.

    Tell me: is quoting from a paper he’s published punishable by a year in jail, or a $250,000 fine yet?

  94. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    Can you be clear about what transgression of online integrity Jeff’s made, to your delight, please?

  95. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    Who’s our online integrity anonymity, Jeff?

  96. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm

    Just more useless blather from the tolerant left.

    Is there any fucking substance, whatsoever, to be had from you people?

    Uh oh. I said “you people”. I must go chastise myself.

  97. jeff outs another dumb professor who wants to debate with him, yawn says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:31 pm

    I apologize, Jeff, I impugned your Online Integrity. What I meant to say is, you posted his information up there so your psychopathic fans who think you have something to say can harass him. Is that better?

  98. Ric Caric says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    Jeff G. really needs to find a middle ground between tedium and fluff. His exceedingly dull post makes most academic writing look exciting by contrast.

    A couple of quick thoughts. First, I’ve never read the Stanley Fish article. Sounds interesting though.

    Second, Goldstein seems to misunderstand my argument. My argument is not that Jeff G is the same as the unreconstructed bigots. In fact, I argued that Goldstein is worse than the bigots or haters because he functions to legitimize them.

    Third, maybe Goldstein views blogging as an academic exercise. But I don’t. My blog writing is very different from my academic stuff and might better be considered to be a hobby, release, or, if I want to go all noble, a form of activism.

  99. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    No, you ass. Jeff wasn’t the one who brought the guy onto our radar. He linked to Jeff. We’ve been plenty nice to Ric. We’ve let him say his piece and back up his smack. As far as harrassment goes, the Professor has been afforded every opportunity to argue his side. In my estimation, he has failed miserably. Where’s the harrassment? And what is it that this stupid incursion on your part is about? Are you here to debate the relative merits of the positions that have been laid out?

    Have at it, please.

  100. B Moe says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    You need to go on back over to RSI, the perfessor’s latest screed is criticizing Bush and Cheney for putting the interest of the United States over that of the Republican Party. Blithering idiot doesn’t come close to that level of density.

  101. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:37 pm

    Oh. Looks like they’re coming over from Edroso’s place. Like many lefty bloggers, he never ventures far from his own site, nor asks for any kind of engagement. He just snipes from the safety of his own echo chamber.

    In fact, I included an earlier exchange I had with him in the body of this post. I think it had something to do with his making fun of the idea that the media can give “rhetorical cover” to anyone or anything.

    Or if not him, someone did (I can’t remember who, to be honest).

    Still, whoever it was, I feel certain they aren’t mocking it now that Dr Caric has broken it out.

    At any rate, I guess this means I can look forward to little snits from Tbogg, TRex, and a bunch of lesser T-ballers.

    I’d better steel myself for being called a paste-eating hausfrau who has no business engaging someone actually inside the university.

    Because it is only there where intellectual conversations can take place — and they must, of necessity, be one sided, to boot.

    Speaking of yawn.

  102. OHNOES says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    “I apologize, Jeff, I impugned your Online Integrity. What I meant to say is, you posted his information up there so your psychopathic fans who think you have something to say can harass him. Is that better?”

    Again, something that didn’t actually happen, but you know, I’ll let it slide. Reality is something you clearly have a problem with, and it just wouldn’t be sporting to pick on you like that.

  103. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    Jeff G. really needs to find a middle ground between tedium and fluff. His exceedingly dull post makes most academic writing look exciting by contrast.

    You really need to find something. Anything at all. All you’ve done thus far is vomit bile and flash your ass.

    Not good enough.

    tw: considered dust

    Hey, don’t insult dust like that.

  104. Robin Roberts says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    No one is interested in harrassing Caric, only in engaging his ideas … oh, and making fun of his ideas.

    We’ve no interest in anything more than that. That’s amusement enough. No community of internet commentators would be more interested in condemning attempts to go beyond that than we would.

  105. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    A form of inactivism, is more like it, Ric, as long as you parrot the crap that the academy dishes out in order to justify its incursions into the realm of the symbolic, making them all the unacknowledged legislators of the world, if only the fucking world would listen to their betters.

    The more you talk, the more you get caught up in the tarbaby (gasp) of intellectual contradiction.

  106. OHNOES says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    “In fact, I argued that Goldstein is worse than the bigots or haters because he functions to legitimize them.”

    …

    Okay, I hate to reuse posts… buuuuut…

    Again, something that didn’t actually happen, but you know, I’ll let it slide. Reality is something you clearly have a problem with, and it just wouldn’t be sporting to pick on you like that.

  107. heet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:41 pm

    I believe I have cracked the code, deciphered the glyphs, figured ya’ll out. Here’s the PW.com Road to Outrage and Profit :

    1. Become outraged at a minor blogger or college professor.
    2a. Provoke mark into responding to the faux outrage.
    Alternatively
    2b. Find an online post from mark that accuses PW.com of of idiocy.
    3. Do copious internet research into the mark’s background and private life for later use.
    4. Attack mark through :
    a. Pseuodintellectual cover arguments cheekily offered by JG.
    b. Moronic, inane, personal, and potty-mouthed pileon by regulars.
    5. Wait for mark’s inevitable reply : “Wow, you guys are pathological. Thank Jesus nobody cares what you think.”
    6. Declare victory.

    Amazing how many words can be spent on this kind of masturbation.

  108. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:43 pm

    You forgot the preliminary part about making said blogger show up and attack, heet. But then, you probably forgot to wear pants too.

  109. Bill D. Cat says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    Batwomyn meet Robyn

  110. Rick says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    “In fact, I argued that Goldstein is worse than the bigots or haters because he functions to legitimize them.”

    Argued? No, “in fact,’ asserted. Not effectively, at that.

    Cordially…

  111. Dewclaw says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    Who left out the twatwaffle bait?

    #97 has been lured in by the smell of Amanda’s unique odiferous vagina, mixed with the sanctimonious oozings of another self-inflated academic.

    If you guys (and gals) are going to keep leaving it out and attracting the heet-like douche nozzles of the intratubenets, I’m going to revoke your twatwaffle extract privileges.

  112. OHNOES says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    heet, being a pseudo-intellectual himself, knows what pseudo-intellectual cover arguments are when he sees them.

  113. B Moe says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    The only person who outraged me was timmy, accusing me of white supremacy, goddam right that pissed me off. Other than that bemused and amazed would describe my primary emotions.

  114. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    I apologize, Jeff, I impugned your Online Integrity. What I meant to say is, you posted his information up there so your psychopathic fans who think you have something to say can harass him. Is that better?

    Uh, he’s been commenting here regularly. My “psychopathic fans” already know who he is. He’s linked to my site a half-dozen times over the past week or two.

    Have we reached the point now where “responding to” is the same as “harassing”?

    Caric —

    Ah, the “it’s all so tedious, I can barely get through it” gambit. I didn’t miss your point, either. I know that you’re saying I’m worse than a bigot or a hater for giving them cover. Which makes about as much sense as me arguing that you’re worse than Pol Pot of Stalin for giving people like them cover.

    Hobby or not, if you’re going to enter the fray, you’d better bring more than a CV. Because as I’ve said on countless occasions now, condescension doesn’t phase me; jargon doesn’t throw me; and excuses for why you’ve failed to back up any of your assertions show not that you’re engaged in a part-time bit of “activism,” but rather that you’re a bullshit artist who, when he’s called on his shoddy thinking, retreats to ironic bemusement under the mistaken impression that the pose has a kind of force field quality to it.

    Not so. Either back up your assertions or don’t. But don’t pretend that you could, were you so inclined, but that for reasons you don’t feel the need to share with us, you just aren’t going to.

    I think you’re an intellectual coward and an academic fraud. I’ve pointed out why. Ball’s in your court again.

  115. lee says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    “Amazing how many words can be spent on this kind of masturbation.”

    More amazing how you stand there with your mouth open.

  116. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Which your post proves, heet, who brings nothing to the table. For starters, point to the pseudointellectualism, then compare it to “Women Had Nothing To Do With Jesus’ Crucifixion.”

  117. Dewclaw says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    “b. Moronic, inane, personal, and potty-mouthed pileon by HEET.”

    Fixed that one for ya, Heet.

    Twatwaffle.

  118. OHNOES says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    …

    …

    I hate you Jeff G. You say what I say, but in a way so artistic that it renders mine obsolete… It is so… you… you make me feel like… like… a CONSERVATIVE WEENIE MAN!

    *Runs off sobbing*

  119. heet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    More amazing how you stand there with your mouth open.

    Well done! Maybe I had you guys all wrong.

  120. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Cuz I’ll tell you something. Everytime I take part in the Passion, and holler “Crucify him! Crucify him!” I acknowledge my part in his crucifixion, even though, as far as I’m aware, I was not personally there to ask that Barabus be released instead of the Christ. It doesn’t justify me, but it is a start down that road.

  121. Rob Crawford says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    Have we reached the point now where “responding to” is the same as “harassing”?

    Well, a few months ago quoting was “attacking”, so I guess this was the next logical step.

  122. Will Rogers, Mark II says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    d I never meta narrative I didn’t like.

    Until Ric’s.

  123. OHNOES says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    Heet’s game plan:

    1. Outline PWers ‘plan,’ more a product of fiction and intellectual dishonesty than anything PWers actually do.
    2. Follow through with a snide ad hom attack.
    3. Now that a post has been made almost entirely of lies, and is thus unengageable on its (lack of) merits, wait for PWers to respond derisively.
    4. Declare victory.

  124. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    heet just wants us to talk about him for a change.

    I second Dan’s offer, heet. Show the pseudo-intellectualism of my take on, say, how we should approach the thorny issue of race in this country.

    Or show my the pseudo-intellectualism of my hypothesis that how we’re taught to think about interpretation has a tangible and long-lasting effect on policy — which, when that theory of interpretation happens to privilege the intent of the decoder rather than the intent of the utterer with respect to who can claim “meaning,” leads to the potential for an epistemology based solely on a will to believe what you choose to believe, and on how many people you can get to join you and agitate on your behalf.

    We can go from there.

    Or, come up with another cartoonish “how-to” and post it here for us. But please, more aggressive and impassioned profanity. I hardly recognized you that last time.

  125. Carin says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:01 pm

    Second, Goldstein seems to misunderstand my argument. My argument is not that Jeff G is the same as the unreconstructed bigots. In fact, I argued that Goldstein is worse than the bigots or haters because he functions to legitimize them.

    Who misunderstood Caric’s argument? I think Caric misunderstands what we (all) understand. We all got it. All except heet, perhaps.

    See, he skims.

  126. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    God, but I love this place. Thank you, Jeff.

  127. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    I “function to legitimize.” I’m but a tool used by the powerful to gussy up the HATREDS. In fact, I’m like another famous Goldstein that way.

    WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH YOURLABIA!

  128. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:06 pm

    It’s because he’s Jewish, right, Ric? He is!

  129. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    In fact, I argued that Goldstein is worse than the bigots or haters because he functions to legitimize them.

    “Arguing” implies the use of evidence, logic, and persuasion. Ex cathedra claims and schoolyard insults don’t enter into it. Not even if you have tenure.

    Sorry.

  130. Dewclaw says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUX6wV1lBQ

  131. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    Oh, there was nothing bigoted or hateful about what the Duke 88 did to those lacrosse players, no. By the way, did you happen to write anything about that, Ric?

  132. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    God, but I love this place. Thank you, Jeff.

    I coulda been big, too, had I not made the “respectable conservative” blacklist. Or pissed off Malkin.

  133. Bill D. Cat says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:13 pm

    WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH YOURLABIA ”
    Throw one of your minions a bone …… let me handle the surrender negotiations ….

  134. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:17 pm

    Hmmmm. Here’s Ric on the topic:

    “Knight Lost! Right-wingers everywhere must be mourning today’s defeat of Bobby Knight Texas Tech University by the blue-staters at Boston College. Bobby Knight is a perfect right-winger, in other words a bullying, arrogant prick and supreme hypocrite even if he is a great coach. By the way, I went to a Knight camp at West Point as a high school sophomore in Upstate New York. Like everybody else in Upstate, I was a Knight-worshipper when I arrived at West Point for two weeks of camping. But it was easy to see what a jerk he was even then.

    Duke Lost! As a North Carolina alum, I’ve sworn a blood oath against the Duke Blue Devils and I am now hard into a bottle of scotch to celebrate their loss to Virginia Commonwealth. Not really! I’m allergic to most booze. But I can’t stand Duke. It’s bad enough that Coach K is a Knight protege, but he looks like Adolf Hitler with that little curl in his mouth. And then there’s those super-smug Duke students who any decent person would want to see in jail even if the lacrosse team wasn’t a bunch of rapists. To top it all off, my ex-wife is also a Duke history professor. So, I’m double-happy when they lose.”

    I don’t care for Duke, don’t care for Bobby Knight, and even though I understand he’s attempting humor, the smugness belongs to those who think that innocent people ought to be in jail, where Nifong belongs.

    And, of course, pricks like Professor Ric! I kid!

  135. Rob Crawford says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH YOURLABIA!

    I volunteer to do scouting duties. At least as long as I get to choose where I do the scouting. Nobody’s tricking me into the Rosie Zone like they did last time.

    Ya know, what impresses me about Caric is that he’s a complete intellectual coward. He slanders someone, then when his target responds, his only response is “I won’t waste the time on you”. Of course, he already spent time on the original attack; what he should be doing now is giving the evidence and refuting the response. Yet he doesn’t.

    I suspect it’s either a matter of him being incapable of it, him knowing his position is untenable, or that he’s such a massive bigot he doesn’t see a need to prove his position.

  136. heet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Jeff,

    Does it really matter if I point out your pseudointellectual posts? Either I’ll misread you because I don’t have the background or you’ll dismiss my argument as dumb. Either way, I don’t think you are interested in real discussion. If you did, you wouldn’t cultivate such a malignant comment section. Your regulars are very efficient at shutting down any discordant posters.

  137. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:22 pm

    Jeff, you are what you is. And that’s all it is.

  138. jkrank says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    How come it’s always our fault? :(

    America would have been a much better place if it weren’t for Goldstein’s Blackshirts and the Guest-Minions.

  139. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    Does it really matter if I point out your pseudointellectual posts?

    Yes. Cite them and rebut them, heet. Then you might be taken seriously. As you are, not a chance.

  140. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    heet,

    You can’t claim the authority and then disclaim it. Why don’t you email Jeff about what you think is pseudointellectual about his arguments, then let him respond? Ask for clarification if you feel you need it. Take your time, construct your counter-argument, and so forth. That is how learning proceeds.

  141. jkrank says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:24 pm

    er, that was in response to heet.

  142. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    “WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH YOUR LABIA!”

    Hmm… I guess I’m guilty of fraternizing* with the enemy.

    * Okay, fraternizing isn’t le mot juste, but sororizing seems weird. More evidence supporting the thesis that the English language is inherently gender biased, I suppose.

  143. Shawn says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:25 pm

    Amazing how many words can be spent on this kind of masturbation.

    Indeed. I think you finished up at about 2a.

    TW: Objects ensued. Creepy.

  144. heet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:26 pm

    Dan,

    Watch me.
    I have better things to do. Thanks for the offer!
    Oh, and – fuck fuck fuck fuckity shit fuck.

  145. Robin Roberts says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    I sure wish I was as evil as Jeff.

    tw: expressed Hepburn – ok, I wish I was as evil as Katherine Hepburn

  146. B Moe says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    “I don’t think you are interested in real discussion. If you did, you wouldn’t cultivate such a malignant comment section. Your regulars are very efficient at shutting down any discordant posters.”

    Seriously, JG. I have been thinking the discussions would be much better if we all just agreed with everything all the time.

  147. Rob Crawford says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    Wow, heet. That was, um, deep.

    So that makes two from the left who apparently have no interest in supporting the attacks they’ve made on Jeff. Damn — that would be shocking if it weren’t so predictable.

  148. Dan Collins says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    heet–
    You’ve been hanging around at Pandagon again, haven’t you?

  149. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    “I’m going to revoke your twatwaffle extract privileges.”

    Peak twatwaffle!

  150. Synova says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:31 pm

    The idea “I argued that Goldstein is worse than the bigots or haters because he functions to legitimize them,” is an interesting one.

    It seems to be a claim that political and economic ideas are irrelevant next to all social considerations. It doesn’t matter what political ideas exist about freedom, or differences of opinion about economics… nevermind that these things have real, immediate, and profound impact on the lives of real people… what matters is being associated with and legitimizing by that association, sexist racist bigots.

    This is why black people *must* ignore economic reality and submit to progressive politics. It’s why women *must* ignore the brains that God gave them that think that maybe Ayn Rand was right and submit to progressive politics. It’s why homosexuals who recognize that individual liberty and capitalism provide the best service for their own lives *must* eschew any taint of conservatism whatsoever or be branded self-haters and *must* adhere to progressive, liberal political theory.

    It’s dysfunctional.

    And it’s quite legitimate to point out that if association with some imagined racists and bigots legitimizes them that liberal and progressive politics associates with the “left” and thus legitimizes some pretty dang evil people. It’s entirely legitimate to lay socialist and communist tyrants at liberalism’s door.

    Except that it’s not.

    Ric is wrong that some supposed association is more important than poltical ideas about liberty and economic theory. He’s wrong that people, minorities or women or gays, must ignore their own personal understanding of issues in order to avoid getting cooties from bigots. No one should have to confine themselves only to approved associations that are assigned according to race or gender.

  151. JHoward says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:36 pm

    Ah, the inevitable disclaimer issues from Thought Catcher:

    Third, maybe Goldstein views blogging as an academic exercise. But I don’t. My blog writing is very different from my academic stuff and might better be considered to be a hobby, release, or, if I want to go all noble, a form of activism.

    Actually, now that you mention it, doubletalk kinda does become those without a single damn thing to actually say.

    What an intellectual malcontent. Even the language — nay, the setting — defines not only narrative legitimacy, but personal integrity.

    I suppose it had to come to this. And I’ll bet it’s quietly wielded with an almost imperceptible flourish of satisfied pride.

  152. Synova says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    #146 Though when it comes to Caric he opens his mouth and pisses everyone off and everyone lays it on in response to that. It’s human nature, not anything Jeff G. does.

    I do it too. If someone is being classist I suddenly develop back-woods grammar. If someone is being anti-semetic I suddenly develop Jewish relatives. If someone calls me a racist bigot I’m only too happy to oblige. Oh, I don’t *lie* but if someone is being a jerk it’s human nature to rub their noses in it.

    I’ve no doubt at all that Ric finds what he expects to find 100% of the time.

  153. Rick Ballard says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    “I coulda been big, too, had I not made the “respectable conservative” blacklist. Or pissed off Malkin.”

    Geez, nobody even told me that the whistle blew. Game over, huh? Cream’s not gonna rise never no mo’? Second rate rePenthousers are gonna determine the state of play forever?

    I jes don think so.

  154. Rob C. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    If the universe is truly against me as a bigoted racist hater, then how the hell did Professor Caric turn out (according to the YouTube clip linked) to look EXACTLY LIKE I SUSPECTED HE’D LOOK??? I QUESTION THE PARALLELISM!!!!

  155. Pablo says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Synova,

    This is why black people *must* ignore economic reality and submit to progressive politics. It’s why women *must* ignore the brains that God gave them that think that maybe Ayn Rand was right and submit to progressive politics. It’s why homosexuals who recognize that individual liberty and capitalism provide the best service for their own lives *must* eschew any taint of conservatism whatsoever or be branded self-haters and *must* adhere to progressive, liberal political theory.

    And it’s why cavemen can’t buy insurance from Geico.

  156. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    My asking for discussions is just a ploy – a beg for the attention of Dr Ric, according to heet.

    And yet, those requests, when they are honored, are met with real debate (eg., the discussions we had on feminism, once I pointedly excluded Marcotte).

    heet writes:

    Does it really matter if I point out your pseudointellectual posts?

    Yes.

    Either I’ll misread you because I don’t have the background or you’ll dismiss my argument as dumb.

    Are you saying I have a problem backing up my arguments? That I dismiss opponents without responding substantively? Give me a couple of examples, if you don’t mind — but I should think that this post alone would give you pause from making such assertions.

    Either way, I don’t think you are interested in real discussion.

    I can’t control what you think. I can only say that I am, which is why I’m always asking for someone to engage me in one.

    If you did, you wouldn’t cultivate such a malignant comment section.

    Doctor, heal thyself.

    Tell me, what leftwing sites do you read? Or better, what sites, period? I’m genuinely curious, because I don’t believe this to be a “malignant comment section.”

    In fact, between the respectful military personnel, the academics, and the generally well-informed, even Ric Caric has admitted to the cleverness here.

    Naturally, he will never grant that he’s dealing with a bunch of intelligent folk — because that would mean he’d have to argue that a lot of intelligent folk are more drawn to my alternating “fluff” and extremely tedious academic prose than to his insightful and highly informed treatises on weenie men and the like. And that ain’t gonna happen.

    Short answer: if you’re going to claim I’m making pseudo-intellectual arguments, point them out. But making the claim and then saying that it’s no use giving examples, because you don’t have the “background” to make the claims in the first place, is a bit of a dodge, wouldn’t you say?

    Either you can recognize a “pseudo-intellectual” argument or you can’t.

  157. Rob C. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    heet couldn’t recognize his asshole if he fell backwards on a croquet post.

  158. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    I’m heading out for a walk. I’ll respond to any piling on when I return

    Meantime, hold down the fort, malignant hordes!

  159. heet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:03 pm

    I’ll note Rob C.’s comment regarding malignancy.

    I don’t read any left wing sites. They are boring. As for the ones I DO visit – why do you care?

    I also don’t have the time nor inclination to “go at it” with you regarding your arguments. Now hurry up and call me a pussy and declare victory.

  160. OHNOES says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:05 pm

    heet, just because we react to your unsubstantiated namecalling and crass, RIDICULOUS ignorance of this site negatively doesn’t make the comment section malignant. Like Jeff said, ANY leftist site has a comment section twice as malignant as this one, or they simply ban dissenters. You’re still here.

    Second, just because you cannot get away with assertions you know you can’t back up here, doesn’t oblige us to refer to you only in the most flowery terms. If you don’t want to be called ignorant, pseudo-intellectual, or bigoted, then stop offering up ridiculous assertions. They don’t fly here. They’ve never flown here. And that is not because we are ignorant Reich-wingers. Back up your statements, or you’ll have only shown yourself to be completely uninterested in debate.

  161. happyfeet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    monkeybabies!!!

    r cute and fluffy

  162. grouch says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:07 pm

    Shorter heet:
    I can’t argue any of these points, and that makes me feel bad.
    You guys are all poopy heads!

  163. tee bee says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:08 pm

    “It’s simple, really: to prove your feminist bona fides, you must ride along with the CORRECT herd.”

    I’ve been following the bouncing ball on this game, and I think I’ve caught it! Do I win a cookie?

  164. OHNOES says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    “I also don’t have the time nor inclination to “go at it” with you regarding your arguments.”

    How unfortunate. That didn’t stop you from making asinine statements to begin with.

    Just like Caric. Just like most leftists. Assertions and feeling rule over facts.

    Go home. Your allegiance to the narrative clearly trumps your desire to debate.

    And that is why we win.

    But I won’t call you pussy. You’d like it too much.

  165. Celtic Dragon says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:13 pm

    The Perfesser is a lot like the large bugs that I sometimes run into as I drive, a resounding “SMACK” as they hit the windshield, then a smear of varicolored bug entrails that does nothing but obscure the view. Lots of noise, very little substance, and what substance there is does nothing but muddy things up. Yawn. If a dumb trucker like myself can see right through his pathetic attempts at an arguement, what chance does he really have?

  166. ccs says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:15 pm

    Sorry I just couldn’t help myself. Apparently Ric Caric is not a professor at Moorhead; he is a French civil servant.

  167. B Moe says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    “I don’t read any left wing sites. They are boring. As for the ones I DO visit – why do you care?”

    Apparently they have good pictures.

  168. cynn says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    Quite honestly, I give Jeff et.al. a pass on their breezy feminist smoothies. But I do have a concern: if we abandon the rigid entitlement mentality, what specific strategy or struture replaces it? Or, to suggest the obvious: nothing replaces it; you talk of opportunity, but all (albetit flimsy) protections are tossed aside and it’s back to a furious and impatient drawing board. What then, Mr. Strategy?

  169. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:34 pm

    I don’t read any left wing sites. They are boring. As for the ones I DO visit – why do you care?

    I meant other political sites. And as I noted, I care because I’m interested in figuring out what comes to count as “malignant” to people who routinely enter here tossing out ad hominems, then affecting shock and disappointment when they are met by same.

    But I understand your time is limited. Maybe you could just make a list?

  170. Major John says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:40 pm

    tee bee – actually we go for pie around here, in malignant commentsland, rather than cookies. Apple or peach for you?

    Wow, when I was with the 25th ID, I was part of the “Tropic Lightning” – but I like being part of the “malignant horde” better! Man, I wish I had me a children’s skull to wear…or a dog to run over.

  171. Major John says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:45 pm

    cynn,

    EEOC, Title VII, State Constitutions and statutes, ERISA, US Constitution Amendment XIV, Voting RIghts Act, etc., etc. ad nauseum. Plus, do you think that people are taught or absorb bigotry the way the did in the 1950s anymore? Tell me a company or a university or a governmental body that isn;t tripping all over itself to proclaim its undying devotion to, and support of “diversity”.

  172. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    if we abandon the rigid entitlement mentality, what specific strategy or struture replaces it? Or, to suggest the obvious: nothing replaces it; you talk of opportunity, but all (albetit flimsy) protections are tossed aside and it’s back to a furious and impatient drawing board. What then, Mr. Strategy?

    You haven’t suggested the obvious, cynn. You’ve suggested the absurd.

    The idea is that laws are already in place for dealing with gender and racial discrimination. Stoking animus by having the government of a country whose founding principles concentrate on individual rights deciding which individuals are to be given special dispensations — on the basis of their plumbing or their “racial” origins — just seems to me to be running a bit far afield of the founding principles.

    The strategy for race, as I’ve noted a hundred times, is to continue the work of demystifying the concept. The science we knew to be faulty after, say, 1936. But we’ve kept the program of “race” alive for various social reasons over the years — beginning with bigoted ones aimed at discriminating against blacks, and continuing on to those that now privilege certain protected “races” and identity groups over others, even as the decision on how we choose which “races” are in need of special dispensation seems random. Asians, for instance, aren’t granted minority status for purposes of race-based affirmative action — and yet the Chinese were used as indentured servants to build railroads. And the Japanese were in camps at about the same time that middle class blacks were beginning to thrive up north — and Jews were being shoved into ovens overseas.

    My contention is — much like John Roberts’ — has been, for over a decaded now, that the way to end an overdetermination on race is, first, to get the government out of the business of (to borrow a certain professor’s formulation) “legitimizing” it.

    It’s a hard habit to break, sure — particularly for those who might feel guilty about their successes. But as far as I’m concerned, it is the best strategy toward achieving a truly color-blind society, as well as one committed to the equality of the sexes (in terms of opportunity).

    Again, nothing I’m proposing would do away with anti-discrimination laws. Conversely, what I’m calling for is an equal application of anti-discrimination laws — and for the Supreme Court to stop pretending that they are a set of philosopher kings who can decide how to shape social policy by lending credence to anti-liberal ideas like “diversity” as it is currently practiced.

    It’s simple, really. Read the Constitution. Go from there.

    I apologize if I don’t end with a snide little comment that attempts to diminish you. But frankly, I’m too tired.

    Don’t think that I didn’t appreciate your own, though, cynn.

    But so long as we’re talking about my breezy feminist smoothies, perhaps you’d take them more seriously (and yes, I find this ironic) if they came from one of your “sisters.”

    I recommend you pose your questions to ushie, for instance. Or Darleen. Or Carin. Or Maggie. Or Zelda. Or Pellegri. Or May Bee. Or tee bee. Or Gail. Or Synova. Or dicentra. Or any of the other women who frequent this site whose names I’m leaving out.

  173. Synova says:
    July 25, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    “if we abandon the rigid entitlement mentality, what specific strategy or structure replaces it? Or, to suggest the obvious: nothing replaces it;”

    I hardly think that we’re short of other options, are we?

    I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from with this, if it’s a rhetorical question or a serious one or what, but I’ll consider it as it stands (despite the use of “rigid entitlement mentality” which suggests some humor.)

    One of the problems with demonizing the opposition is that it results in the assumption that there are no other ideas and no other options. I’m always a bit bemused (among other things) with the charge that the side I’m usually on wants things to go back to the bad old days. Why would I want that? Does it even make sense? But if things have been framed in such a way that my side (for sake of simplifying the argument) is evil rather than in disagreement, that’s what is left. Back to the bad old days.

    In truth there are other ideas, other options, other ways of thinking about the problem.

  174. cynn says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    I acknowlege the import of lettin’ the gals play ball. I’ll continue to advocate for reproductive choice. However, men have no right to weigh in on the matter because they are superflouous and perversely invested. Diversity is bullshit.

  175. Bostonian says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    The guy cannot part with his assumptions and so cannot hear. Never will.

  176. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    As someone who is adopted — and as someone who is entitled to weigh in on social policy — I’ll continue to weigh in on reproductive choice, should I so desire.

    I don’t buy the chickenwomb argument — though I acknowledge, of course, that biologically, at least, women have more at stake.

    Unfortunately, we’ve politicized reproductive choice — and its aftermath — to the point where men should have some sort of say in how policy is drafted.

  177. Robin Roberts says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:07 pm

    so you have nothing to say about your ignorance of the existing anti-discrimination statute?

    Cute.

  178. Dewclaw says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:08 pm

    [i]”However, men have no right to weigh in on the matter because they are superflouous and perversely invested.”[/i]

    Ummm… how do people reproduce in your world, Cynn?

    Last time I checked, men were involved in 50% of it.

  179. Big Bang Hunter says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    – I particularly enjoyed the Voldemort reference the other night.

    *** WARNING: SPOILER ****

    – In Book #8, We learn that Caric the lesser is assigned to the Slytherin house, under its newly elected “Tranformation politics” perfesser, Dolores “the cunt” Umbridge, cops a feel from Hermione, and gets bitch slapped by Ron.

    – Later we find out he’s actually the 8th Horcrux, which is really muggle code for “small minded asshole who’s entire social skill set consists of calling everyone crappy names”.

    – Rowling informs us, via a second epilog, that Caric and Malfoy marry in a gay ceremony attended by the entire mystic collective of Dementors (dead Cindy Sheehan followers), and Death eaters (Dead Maoists), and that they retire to a West coast commune, where they have three little communists they name Racistim, Bigotann, and Homophobi. Not much is said about Carics future, but it is knowm that after a short carreer in a third tier college, where he fails to convert a single evil NeoCon, Caric moves to France, spending his remaing pitiful years teaching students in the art of burning cars as a symbolic jesture of the third wave femenism cause.

  180. Robin Roberts says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:10 pm

    ( my last addressed to cynn )

  181. happyfeet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    Race. Artificial construct. Socially constructed. Bad government policies. I got that part. But it seems to me that marketing and media do more to perpetuate this construct in the popular consciousness than the government does. Whether it’s BET targeting a niche based on race, Dreamgirls, or every bit of the billions in marketing research that can all be crosstabbed by race, every ad campaign that’s designed to move the dial on Hispanic Women 25-54 or African-American Tweens… To be told you are an interest group with social policy concerns is one thing, to be told you are an Important Audience Segment is … different.

  182. Celtic Dragon says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    #174… Umm, WTF?
    Exactly how are men superfluous and perversly invested? Without the donation of half the chromosomes there is NO reproducion at all.

    Unless you have discoveredf the secret of parthenogenisis or something…

  183. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:16 pm

    if we abandon the rigid entitlement mentality, what specific strategy or structure replaces it? Or, to suggest the obvious: nothing replaces it

    Cynn? Do you have children?

    Are you their homework contractor or homework consultant?

    However, men have no right to weigh in on the matter

    Are you serious?? What is that, the chickenwomb argument?

  184. SweepTheLeg says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:22 pm

    Holy Hell! I can’t believe that I ate the whole thing! I read every word, followed every link, read every word in those posts and most of the comments. No shit, it took me about 4 hours. After having done that, I would imagine the good professor will spend the next several weeks trying to get that rather unsightly mushroom shaped rhetorical tattoo off his forehead before the College Republicans see it. However, he should not neglect to wipe that bit of rhetorical man-chowder still dripping off his chin either.

    Well done Jeff, for a HATER!

  185. lee says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    Celtic Dragon,
    I think what she meant is, mens investment is superfluous if he wants the baby he sired but she wants to abort, and perverse if he doesn’t want to pay child support for 18 years for a mistake.

    Other than that, men don’t have any right to even comment on the whole issue, so lets keep this between us, OK?

  186. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:24 pm

    BTW, anyone… a little help here?

    Life intruded on my ‘puter time over the past week and I’m gathering that I missed a discussion of gender feminism where Christophobic, misandronist Mandy was involved.

    Anyone with some handy links?

  187. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:27 pm

    cynn

    Let’s cut to the chase about “reproductive rights”

    It boils down to this… does a fetus have moral worth?

    TW: bribed feelings…ok, that thing is CREEPY

  188. Big Bang Hunter says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:27 pm

    – Jess follow the hate trail backwords in the recent posts Darleen …. the inept hyperbole of the mentally challenged perfesser Ric drips from every sentence.

  189. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    SweepTheLeg – It is properly referred to as a mushroom bruise, being the inevitable result of a cock-slap ;-)

  190. tee bee says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    Major John – would it be first, second or third-wave of me to ask for cherry pie? Since I’m more the “women in comfortable shoes” kind of feminist, I’ll settle for chocolate.

    Jeff – I don’t care what you say, I’m not making smoothies for cynn. I was told that the sisters are doin’ it for themselves.

  191. Synova says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Too funny Darleen.

    “Are you serious?? What is that, the chickenwomb argument?”

    (BTW, I’m 100% for reproductive choice, aren’t you? The sort of pre-conception choice that men have. That some women genuinely don’t
    have that choice is a very serious issue, despite the preponderance of women who do have that choice but don’t bother because it’s *hard*.)

  192. Merovign says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:49 pm

    Poor, poor Mr. Caric, torn to ribbons like so much meat confetti, then gathers itself up, returns home and declares victory.

    The only time the term “academic rigor” will be applied thoughtfully to Caric’s responses here, it is likely to be followed by the term “mortis.”

    Face it, Ric, you live in a fantasy world. And the only person who can get you back to the real world is you. We can talk all we want, but as long as you’re typing with your elbows to keep your fingers in your ears, it’s like talking to a… telephone pole.

    You would think that the obviously false memories he has constructed of past exchanges would cause someone to pause and reflect. Well, someone other than Ric.

    So, Ric, when you claimed a thread subjected you to repeated “bull-dyke” attacks, and everyone else looks and sees one typically hyperbolic joke about your job, do you pause and reflect?

  193. thor says:
    July 25, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    If you did, you wouldn’t cultivate such a malignant comment section.

    I believe I’ve been directly referenced again. Warty, viral, malignant, like a pus-filled tumor growing faster than Lindsey Lohan’s rap sheet! Yes, I will sport a boner in the presence of debutantes, I’ll even itch my wicked balls of shame … whenever! And you can find me salting Jeff G’s comment section, my sanctuary.

    Bobby Knight is God, btw.

  194. SweepTheLeg says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:01 pm

    Comment by JD on 7/25 @ 9:33 pm

    I was going for a subtle cockslap reference as the good professor will use it as proof that we are HATERS. However, I do like Tattoo better, a bruise heals.

  195. Jeff G. says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:06 pm

    Did he really go back and declare victory? Hilarious.

    I’m STILL waiting for him to make an argument.

  196. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Prof Cancer replies in his comments to me:

    I’ve never denied that Jeff is good at the fluff stuff. His academic-style writings are another question. I’m not an English professor. So, I’m not that fully qualified to evaluate his lit crit style efforts. But Jeff’s work with academic concepts doesn’t look that good to me. He’s very stilted and so painfully self-important that it’s hard to read.

    This stuff is so OLD. Jeff writes formally with words carefully chosen to convey HIS specific intentions in an attempt to communicate as clearly as possible and its “stilted, self-important” “he uses BIG WORDS” … but when Jeff writes informally…humor, satire, etc … “it’s FLUFF”.

    The problem lies, not in Jeff’s writings, but between the [closed] ears of Professor Cancer

  197. happyfeet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    If I were a professor and I had a blog, I would use it to burnish my standing among my peers, and to engage others outside of the academy with my ideas and stuff. Sort of a putting your best foot forward type of thing. I think also I would try to keep in mind that I was kind of operating as a brand extension of my school.

  198. happyfeet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Also I would remember what Alyssa Milano says… “It’s nice to be important but it’s more important to be nice.”

  199. Why? says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Can I just ask one question? Why? As someone who has had to survive a number of his classes I recognize that he is a lunatic, but I do not understand why he is relevant or worth the effort. And I know you are not reading his writings for fun. The few times I have looked at his blog it has struck me as his lectures in print form. It is all mind-numbing, irrelevant opinion.

  200. Robin Roberts says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    If I were Caric, I think I’d avoid using the phrase “painfully self-important” at all costs.

  201. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    happyfeet – I think you left off the last part of that quote. I think it went something like it is also really important to have incredibly perky breasts, and to date as many LA Dodger pitchers as possible.

  202. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    Why?

    Why on earth would you take one of his classes, and could you tell us what they were like?

  203. JHoward says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    It’s quite amazing that a rather simple trail of logic will defeat the doubletalk that comes from the “liberals” of the world. The past few days have shown that convincingly. cynn, you do indeed propose the absurd, of course, but that’s the very tip of the iceberg.

    About gender, what I’d hesitate to bring up as a primary topic, partly because we’ve fallen that far, I would bring up as a secondary topic; almost a thought experiment. It works like this:

    While the “Left” has handy levers for working just about any integral thought, action, and these days, imputed motive into an ugly, marginal position — and that, as cynn and The Perfesser demonstrate, without the benefit of reason. But for relationships between the sexes, the higher and more spiritual ancient or historical views have entire worlds of magnificent meaning when they’re allowed to place men and women on entirely different planes. Consider just poetry. Literature. Music. Consider Christian love. Consider the family.

    No, by love, family, and relationships, not the shit the progressives instinctively see as patriarchal oppression, but beautiful, insightful, multi-hued loves, compassions, and explorations between the sexes precisely because they are different. Then, lovely metaphors contained in traditional relationships for the extended relationship between the human and his or her spiritual Father. Surely this is an area that would take great minds lifetimes to explore in all it’s entirely evident, vivid, intentional, expected, celebrated, and mystical acceptance of how gender changes everything.

    Many lifetimes have been devoted in esoteric Christian and other such musings. The Agape, the concept of forgiveness, acceptance, restoration, and eros are but a few core, organic realities of the realm of celebrating spiritual diversity and freedom, commitment and fidelity, faithfulness and obedience, care and nurturing, and overwhelming love based entirely on the fundamental differences between man and woman, between man and God.

    Much as “God” could be the ultimate metaphor (at the least) for a spiritual existence in a physical realm, the revered difference between man and woman can embody extraordinarily rich meaning unavailable anywhere else. Naturally, into this rich tradition plods the dimensionless new Left, like a steamroller in an art gallery.

    The point? That when the socio-politically absurd can’t even envision the center of all extremes of expression and meaning about the sexes, and then when it demands to squelch all other modes of thought on the subject by way of the most ugly repression imaginable — while gutting parenting and relationships, and calling itself progressive and enlightened — it’s impossible to engage the argument. It’s supreme pig-wrestling. On a scale of ten, this rubbish fancies itself macroscopic, inclusive, progressive, revolutionary, insightful, corrective, and wide-ranging while it nails 0.50.

    Ages of poetry. Thousands of years of spiritual exploration. Innumerable relationships. An infinite number of permutations of woman/man interaction in an equally impossible number of flavors. And all the progressive feminist can do is to basically condemn it, substitute emptiness, and intolerantly demand to close the debate.

    “Liberalism” probably has no greater failing, cynn, than the way it simply sucks the life out of being human, starting at the highest levels any have ever explored and working its way down to just above absolute zero. Woman as man, man as appliance, trust ruined, pure animalistic competition…and I apologize to animals. This is “enlightened”. What a horrible notion to promote. For starters.

    But when it cannot even recognize that every comment written on this site about liberal feminism, as far as I know, has been done in such a way as to make the progressive “feminist” merely consider the sheer staggering contradiction at the heart of the misapplied theory that’s made such a shithole of much of society, including by way of legislated behavior, and never has a far-reaching alternative — something intellectual and spiritual light years away — been proposed, well, that lack of perspective, respect, scope, and simple awe is literally too massive to find words for.

    The Left is stamping the life out of the heart and soul of humanity. That all this site has ever really done is to question that phenomenon — having never demanded that an alternative of any kind contrast with it, that alternative able to point to, say, a God of love and the celebration of the differences between the sexes — is a very significant issue. That that Left can’t even envision what such an alternative could be, except to literally downward-invent it in film, books, and the bloody narrative as its pet cartoon, is simply mind-bending.

  204. happyfeet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:33 pm

    JD. No. Nonononono. Did you know Alyssa was the model for The Little Mermaid? That she has had several hit albums in Japan? That she has a Gold-certified exercise video? (Teen Steam, I think it was.) A phenomenon is what she is. Your mockery, it is misplaced I think.

  205. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:36 pm

    Why?…

    Most Leftists know they are totally incapable of debating the issues with non-Leftists. (exhibit #1..the purtative Dem Presidential candidates complete and abject fear of FoxNews. exhibit #2 Dems trying to bring back the “fairness” doctrine) So its interesting when a Leftist actually engages in an attempt to debate us Great Evil Doers, and the more he does, the more exposed he is for a fraud.

    Non-Leftists, generally, are better debaters because we have little fear of engaging those who disagree with us.

  206. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    argh… “putative”

  207. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:41 pm

    happyfeet – I always did think Ariel was kind of hot ;-) I do not mock Alyssa. She is an extraordinary actress, and so pleasing to the eyes.

  208. happyfeet says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    She also knows Tony Danza personally.

  209. JHoward says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    Darleen, I propose that that dichotomy is evidence that left and right do not exist as counterbalances. Folks take their places on a one-way continuum that starts in Nihilism and blows up as high and as far as one can reach — Christianity’s free choice and infinite God, for example.

    Politics simply follows suit.

    The Left is inherently Nihilistic. Covering those tracks so as to obtain the illusion of credibility that a set of parasitic political theories needs to survive is where the lack of accountability comes in. If it cannot lie, it dies.

  210. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:49 pm

    happyfeet – Is there any greater proof of the existence of a higher power than that ? I think not.

    JHoward – Don’t be afraid to say what you think. lol. That was incredibly interesting reading, a viewpoint that is often attempted to be expressed, but not often successfully expressed. Well done.

  211. thor says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    The thing about Ric-Caric-types is they stand at your side and attempt to wipe the wet-end of their cock on your ear lobe while chanting “why you have to go and hate on gays and bitches, man, why, why, why?”.

    Sure, you could reach over and detach a Ric-Caric-type’s cock from its ball sack in one quick motion, but then who’d ya be? The evil guy with gay Ric Caric’s wet cock in your hand. And who needs that tag? Not to mention who’d want to foul their mitts with his limp, fleshy shrimp.

    I hate. I am human. All humans hate. Doesn’t mean I/you/anyone should act violently towards everything/anything one hates, but hating is part of what makes humans great emotive beings. Three cheers for making ’em bristle!

    It’s time I attend to my hot-ass girlfriend. She’s got a wow-body too. Ga’night JD. Hater.

  212. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    The thing about Ric-Caric-types is they stand at your side and attempt to wipe the wet-end of their cock on your ear lobe while chanting “why you have to go and hate on gays and bitches, man, why, why, why?”.

    Does this happen to you often?

  213. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 10:58 pm

    It’s time I attend to my hot-ass girlfriend

    Yeah, I know what that’s like. Every time I fuck my girlfriend, I post a bunch of blog comments to let every one know.

    Hey guys, I’m gonna go fuck my girlfriend! Just wanted to let you know.

  214. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    Thor

    “the crude haters like JD and Thor are a stronger force in American society than they otherwise would be.”

    How cool is it that we are a strong force?

    In my golf league tonight, the starter asked me how I was doing. I told him I am a strong force. My opponent asked me if I scored a birdie or par on #3, and I told him I am a strong force (he wrote down a birdie), and after the round, our waiter asked how I played, and I told him I am a strong force. I think I am going to make a habit of this, since the dear old meaty furry Professor elevated us to such a lofty height.

  215. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:04 pm

    And posting as “Anonymous” is so strong, shows such a steely resolve for your beliefs. It is likely todd mayo or sparks from the Prof’s site, 2 of the 3 people who regularly comment there, with timmah being the 3rd.

    Watch out. Prof. Ric has unleashed him minions on us !

  216. thor says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    Comment by Anonymous on 7/25 @ 10:58 pm #

    It’s time I attend to my hot-ass girlfriend

    Yeah, I know what that’s like. Every time I fuck my girlfriend, I post a bunch of blog comments to let every one know.

    Hey guys, I’m gonna go fuck my girlfriend! Just wanted to let you know.

    Ah well, she’s feigning deep sleep and whacking away any attempt to remove her t-shirt and panties. No, means no! The price you pay to stay up late posting on Protein Wisdom can be steep.

    Just wanted to let you know.

  217. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    Hey guys. I’m still fucking my girlfriend. Fucking her real good too! Just wanted to let you know.

  218. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:19 pm

    “It’s time I attend to my hot-ass girlfriend”

    Hey, dipshit. How do you get from attend to, to fuck?

  219. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:19 pm

    And posting as “Anonymous” is so strong, shows such a steely resolve for your beliefs. It is likely todd mayo or sparks from the Prof’s site, 2 of the 3 people who regularly comment there, with timmah being the 3rd.

    Yes, and JD is such a distinct name.

    Additionally, I’m none of the people you mention. Your collective delusions just fascinate me, that’s all.

  220. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    Hey, dipshit. How do you get from attend to, to fuck?

    Hey dipshit, I made an inference. It comes along with the package that is logic thought.

  221. thor says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:22 pm

    Comment by JD on 7/25 @ 11:01 pm #
    Thor
    “the crude haters like JD and Thor are a stronger force in American society than they otherwise would be.”
    How cool is it that we are a strong force?

    Yeah, Prof. Ric more specifically hates us versus all others. I believe he resents our ever-growing influence on American society. After I created gangsta rap I yearned for a knew challenge. All I did was buy a farm and grow angry bulldogs. Even I was surprised at how quickly that took off and entered the mainstream of urban American society. So, what’s next? You, JD, want to team up and destroy Asia or Europe from within? I have this idea about programmable fighting robots that rap about rape.

  222. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    And we are the sexists ?!

  223. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    Yikes… my last comment had no links yet it disappears into the cyber-netherregions…

    ::::sigh:::

    JH

    The Left is inherently Nihilistic

    The Left is dedicated to the erradication of the individual and the first thing to do is to deny The Divine. We all struggle with our animal side, and that struggle to engage in the holy (charity, fidelity, loyalty) is a very private and individual struggle. It also defines us by our values. So the Left would deny the inherent difference between men and women, would blur the distinction between child and adult. It demands that the individual be supplanted by the group/tribe/collective gathered around a singular defining characteristic dedicated to a particular “victimhood.”

    All behavior that moves individuals into groups is encouraged … Why get married? The Government will take care of you.

    and the real wicked cynicism is that the elites of the Left know it’s all a sham. THEY figure to position themselves as the Authority, with the power even Imams would envy.

  224. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    #219 Anon

    It’s not only obvious that both sarcasm and parody are lost on you, but that again, you provide evidence of the hate and intolerance that makes its home on the contemporary Left.

    Bravo, brave ANONYMOUS, bravo.

  225. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    The Left is dedicated to the erradication of the individual and the first thing to do is to deny The Divine.

    Darleen, I just want to tie you up in a bow and stick you in my hope chest, you’re so precious.

    Jesus, collective delusion at it’s finest.

  226. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    Well, since my parents chose to give me such a indistinct name, maybe you should bring it up with them.

    Since your parents chose to name you Anonymous, I really do feel for you. I am sure that life has been difficult, and explains your overt aggressive boorish-ness.

    Can you explain the package of logic thought to me?

    It says much about you that you jumped from attend to, to fuck. Go look up attend to, and point out where that is a sexual reference.

    Thor – Let’s start out with Europe, to warm up. Then, Iceland and Greenland.

  227. thor says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    Comment by Anonymous on 7/25 @ 11:21 pm #

    Hey, dipshit. How do you get from attend to, to fuck?

    Quickly when lucky, but that’s a question your Mommie could provide a more detalied answer to, and she was a damn quick from-to for an old gal, btw.

  228. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    I just want to tie you up in a bow and stick you in my hope chest, you’re so precious.

    Naw, no sexism there, eh, Anon?

    Sorry, is talking about morality, ethics and values a little too unsettling for you?

    I’m not surprised.

  229. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    It says much about you that you jumped from attend to, to fuck. Go look up attend to, and point out where that is a sexual reference.

    Yes, I’m sure he was just preparing her insulin shot. Or maybe breaking out the hair curlers.

    Did you know that the word “naive” isn’t in the dictionary? It’s true!

  230. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:32 pm

    “Darleen, I just want to tie you up in a bow and stick you in my hope chest, you’re so precious.”

    Prof. Caric would refer to this as a sexist and misogynistic statement, as you place yourself on a higher plane than Darleen, and speak to her in a condescending manner. Additionally, you choose the word precious to imply that she is easily broken, in an attempt to feminize her, and make her postion less worthy of yours, a member of the ruling patriarchy. Just sayin’

  231. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    Sorry, is talking about morality, ethics and values a little too unsettling for you?

    There’s that preciousness again! Ohhhhh, it’s just so darling.

  232. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    Damn, Anonymous. You sure are a quick one. You picked up on the satire and parody in no time flat. Well done.

  233. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:35 pm

    Additionally, you choose the word precious to imply that she is easily broken, in an attempt to feminize her, and make her postion less worthy of yours, a member of the ruling patriarchy. Just sayin’

    Preciousness knows no gender. All you nutcases are precious in my eyes.

  234. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

    This must be heet’s fraternal twin from Eastern Kentucky.

  235. thor says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:44 pm

    Comment by Anonymous on 7/25 @ 11:35 pm #
    Additionally, you choose the word precious to imply that she is easily broken, in an attempt to feminize her, and make her postion less worthy of yours, a member of the ruling patriarchy. Just sayin’
    Preciousness knows no gender. All you nutcases are precious in my eyes.

    My mindless banter about bangin’ a babe seems to have struck a chord with a weenie boy’s inner-party-grrl. Who’d a thunk it.

  236. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:44 pm

    Anon

    Tell me how the Left’s dedication to collectivism empowers individuals. Tell me how the Left’s dedication to Bowdlerizing American culture of all religious heritage and traditions, heritage and traditions that have fueled self-reliance, charity, justice (ie abolition, civil rights) empowers individuals? Tell me how the Left’s denigration of marriage with a concurrent demand for policies to further weaken that public institution empowers the individual? Tell me how the Left’s dedication to identity politics…where non-Leftist blacks, women, gays have their “authenticity” dismissed … empowers individuals?

    Even the athiest Ayn Rand elevated Man above the animals … an appeal to The Divine side of humans … individuals as having more intrinsic value than a rock.

    Where in the Left’s ideology is there room for individual value?

  237. Lurking Observer says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    You know, it’d be a lot more interesting if the trolls were of higher quality around here.

    Jus’ sayin’

    TW: Such stoic frauds.

  238. lee says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:46 pm

    I was thinking it was that Gullum fellow from Lord of the Rings.

    “My Precious…”

    Well, it’s that creepy anyway.

    I never jumped from “attend to” to “fuck”…

  239. wishbone says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    High comedy–Prof. Caric calls Jeff’s work “fluff.” Anyone read any examples of the pablum that passes for “scholarship” in academic journals?

    At the risk of the inevitable guilt by association charge that will come, George Wallace had a pet term to describe the Ric Caric’s of the world–“point headed liberal.” And even that point needs sharpening.

    P.S.: JD has hit upon something, Jeff–you need a new line of t-shirts and mugs emblazoned with “Official Member of the PW Malignant Stong Force.” The Japanese will love it.

  240. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:47 pm

    All you nutcases

    and projection reveals itself

  241. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:50 pm

    Darleen, sweetie, don’t go getting your hopes up. Anonymous is just here to call names. A nameless, faceless version of heet.

    thor – you haven’t made me laugh this hard since that thread where it was shown that Michael Vick is a vile person, and an average quarterback, on his best days.

  242. Lurking Observer says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    Darleen:

    Every individual within the Left’s ideology has room to die. This is the policy and philosophy of the perfesser’s allies of Mao and Stalin, Kim Jong-il and Robert Mugabe. It was practiced in the USSR and the PRC, in the killing fields of Cambodia and the “aquariums” of Pyongyang.

    And remembering the perfesser’s claim that these are “allies,” one might even suggest that the German killing machine is another example. Not b/c the Nazis were “socialist” (I don’t want to get into that debate), but b/c the Nazis were, in fact, allied with the USSR (pace the 1939 Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact, and their combined dismemberment of Poland, but even well before then).

    One wonders what the perfesser would make of such things, especially seeing as he is a Professor of Government?

  243. Bravo Romeo Delta says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:52 pm

    Aw geeze… You guys get to be the Strong Force….

    I’m just stuck being the Weak Nuclear Force….

    That’s like sayin’ that I’m the Pakistani nuclear deterrent.

  244. Anonymous says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:56 pm

    Darleen,

    I have no intention of debating you. You’re quite obviously crazy, and have only the faintest of grip on what you attempt to discourse on. Or lecture, or expound, or hold court or whatever it is you think you’re doing when you post crazy shit like that. It’s not worth my time, and you’re not going to learn anything (except for maybe when and when not to capitalize proper nouns. I think I might be able to teach you that, with time.) Instead, I’m going to go get a jam jar from the kitchen, open the lid, and attempt to trap as much preciousness as I can fit inside. Then, I’ll close the lid tight, and call it a night.

  245. thor says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:57 pm

    Comment by JD on 7/25 @ 11:50 pm #
    thor – you haven’t made me laugh this hard since that thread where it was shown that Michael Vick is a vile person, and an average quarterback, on his best days.

    That you now describ Michael Vick as an average QB on his best day is a testament that I’m a stronger influence than I should be.

  246. Darleen says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:58 pm

    JD

    Most Leftists can’t really do anything else. They are the proverbial lawyer that can’t do anything but pound the table.

    Damn, even my cat has the integrity of embarrassment at the futility of trying to cover up a mess on a tile floor.

    On that note, night all!

    And my good thoughts for the poor students stuck quietly in Prof. Cancer’s class, faking reality back at him so they can just get a grade and move on.

  247. JD says:
    July 25, 2007 at 11:59 pm

    PW Malignant Stong Force!

    Wishbone will be the 1st honorary member, followed by BRD.

  248. JD says:
    July 26, 2007 at 12:03 am

    Thor – You are correct, on his best day, Vick is an average running back. He will never reach a level above lousy when being considered a QB.

    Anon – Quick. I think I hear your Mom coming downstairs.

  249. thor says:
    July 26, 2007 at 12:03 am

    Comment by Anonymous on 7/25 @ 11:56 pm #
    I’m going to go get a jam jar from the kitchen, open the lid, and attempt to trap as much preciousness as I can fit inside. Then, I’ll close the lid tight, and call it a night.

    Darleen probably ain’t your best source, and I’m no expert but I believe sperm samples go bad pretty quick unless you freeze ’em.

  250. JD says:
    July 26, 2007 at 12:04 am

    I also think that the jam seems to be counter-intuitive when selecting a lubricant.

  251. Merovign says:
    July 26, 2007 at 12:05 am

    Jeff, I was just predicting (with Delphic precision) the bad professor’s reaction in realtime. Kind of like that whole “watch that apple, it’s going to fall straight down again!” thing. I have no interest in following winkie around to see what he does next.

    Secondly, I would like to apologize for summoning the anonymous buffoon. I had to go and mention telephone poles, and lo and behold, one appeared to hold forth and wave its pride and joy about, obviously proud but uncomprehending the true horror of its profane yet bland oppositional defiance disorder.

    Again, I’m sorry. Let me know if it needs to be put down, or when it is no longer perversely entertaining.

  252. Anonymous says:
    July 26, 2007 at 12:08 am

    Darleen probably ain’t your best source, and I’m no expert but I believe sperm samples go bad pretty quick unless you freeze ‘em.

    You seem like an expert. You’ve got a cock in your ear all the time, and all that…

  253. A. Pendragon says:
    July 26, 2007 at 12:38 am

    Anonymous, does your father express frequent disappointment with you?

  254. maggie katzen says:
    July 26, 2007 at 12:43 am

    ha! I finally caught up! thanks for remembering me Jeff. ;D

    I swear it’s always the days that I w*rk, watch RTO nearly get arrested at the airport and fly to Florida that all the fun stuff happens.

  255. OHNOES says:
    July 26, 2007 at 2:01 am

    Of the nearly a half dozen leftists here, Cynn is the only one even slightly interested in good faith debate.

    Bravo.

  256. Pablo says:
    July 26, 2007 at 4:01 am

    Anonymous, does your father express frequent disappointment with you?

    I’m guessing they wouldn’t even recognize each other.

  257. Pablo says:
    July 26, 2007 at 5:10 am

    Well, we have a response. But not really. You know where your failing is, Jeff? Too many words.

    One of the things I seem to be cursed with this summer is long-winded blog discussion partners. There were times when I thought Dan Gerstein, bless him, wanted to drown me in words. Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom is even worse than that. I deleted his marginal comments on my own post and focused on the main body of Goldstein’s comments.

    By which he’s referring to what he cut and pasted into his own post. So, you see those dozens of links appended to the perfessor’s comments, rebutting them nearly word by word and demolishing his assertions like so many explosive charges in a finely orcestrated controlled demolition? Marginal.

    Let’s just skip right past that, and complain about all the words. So, since that’s the only complaint the perfessor can see fit to manage, (See that quote above? That’s all he has to say) let’s examine it. Jeff’s words in this post total 1551. Caric’s comment, which Jeff just imploded contains 1171 words. And what does the learned professor conclude is the correct response?

    STOP DROWNING ME IN YOUR 380 ADDITIONAL WORDS, BIGOT!!!

    tw: complete frugal

  258. Diana says:
    July 26, 2007 at 5:22 am

    “blog discussion partners”

    Now … there’s a winner.

    tw: collusion but not cognatic

  259. Spies, Brigands, and Pirates says:
    July 26, 2007 at 5:42 am

    Bravo Romeo Delta: I’m just stuck being the Weak Nuclear Force….

    Ooo! Ooo! Can I be electromagnetism? Not as strong as the strong force, or even the “weak” force, but with a much longer range. Plus: Magneto is a fascinating villain/anti-hero, and Electro has a really bitchin’ costume.

    Anonymous: Darleen, I have no intention of debating you.

    Translation: I’m incapable of debating you.

  260. Big Bang Hunter says:
    July 26, 2007 at 5:45 am

    – I’m guessing his father would never use gender specific terms with jackass-anon, lest he be considered a heretic to the cult-idol collective. Nor would he even tend to notice his sons idiotarian, anti-social behavior, which would of course be indicative of heteronormative self-indulgence, coupled with that smarmy “family value” thing that makes any upstanding Progressive break out in hives.

    – More to the point, I think we evil Conservatives, posing as Classic Liberals, have hurt little anons feelings by pointing out he and Caric are just a pair of run-of-the-mill Marxist pussies.

    – Just a guess.

  261. eLarson says:
    July 26, 2007 at 5:47 am

    Caric must be one of those lazy, tenured types.

    All the same, he best hope Morehead State doesn’t run into the kind of budget problems all public universities get from time to time. The kind where the decision comes to cutting the lacrosse team or the *-Studies Department.

    In this exchange, the *-Studies Department hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory.

  262. Rob Crawford says:
    July 26, 2007 at 6:16 am

    Gotta love complaints about “too many words” from a professor. Kee-rist.

  263. N. O'Brain says:
    July 26, 2007 at 6:18 am

    Hey, Jeff, can I be a Minion?

    I always wanted to be a Minion.

    I also always wanted to be a Pip when I was growing up, but that dream never materialized.

    Please, Jeff? Huuhhh????

  264. Diana says:
    July 26, 2007 at 6:23 am

    N. O’Brain … we went with myrmidon. It’s classier.

  265. Ouroboros says:
    July 26, 2007 at 6:40 am

    …Wow.. Talk about miracles..

    One day Ric’s an unknown blogger with no traffic beyond a couple of his most ass kissing students hoping to suck their way up to a better grade.. The next day he’s got one of The Blogosphere’s most popular political commentary sites devoted to dignifying his ramblings, hyperbole and ad hominem attacks as actual political discourse..

    Stop before you give Prof. Ric a big head.. You just know he’s feeling like the new Andrew Sullivan blogging the next Daily Kos…

    Time to throw this little fish back to the pond of zero traffic and find a new southpaw to debate.. Someone a bit sharper this time, more erudite, wittier and more spirited… I can forgive Ric his poorly thought out positions but , man, the guy is just boring.. Next time you need to find someone a bit more evenly matched.. I’m just sayin’.

    (Ohh.. and dont even think of making it Anon.. the whole “precious” thing is just too creepy for words..)

  266. N. O'Brain says:
    July 26, 2007 at 6:54 am

    “What’s taters, precious!?”

    “Boil ’em, mash ’em, stick ’em in a stew”

  267. thor says:
    July 26, 2007 at 7:11 am

    Comment by Anonymous on 7/26 @ 12:08 am #

    You seem like an expert. You’ve got a cock in your ear all the time, and all that…

    Anyone doubt the legitimacy of my metaphors now? He’s a Ric-Caric-ian, is he not? Check my earlobe! I can only hope Prof. Ric’s students are witness to this typical Caric-ian and his (its) attempted viscous pipings at my earlobes. You Moreheads taking notes? It’s how it always starts, sure as it always ends with the rhetorical “how-come-you-hatin’?” “How come you question the relevance of Sedgwick’s tautologies?” “Why you snickering at the ‘bull-dykedness’ of Cixous!”

    Bully cock-slappers of the Academy! Wiping at my lobes!

    I am, truly, the tortured victim. All I ever wanted to do was listen to gangsta rap and raise angry bulldogs, but no, not in America, not now, not while trapped in a gender studies Prof’s panopticon! The gall of the bitter Caric-ians.

  268. Shawn says:
    July 26, 2007 at 7:32 am

    Sheesh. As soon as I go to bed, the commentariat gets all philosophical…

    The Left is stamping the life out of the heart and soul of humanity. That all this site has ever really done is to question that phenomenon — having never demanded that an alternative of any kind contrast with it, that alternative able to point to, say, a God of love and the celebration of the differences between the sexes — is a very significant issue.

    I’d argue that the extremes on both the Left and the Right are equally capable of taking the human out of human beings. That said, the Left does have this tendency towards habitual deconstruction. I don’t know what ultimate end it serves, whether it’s questing for something or simply being deconstructive for the sake of deconstruction, but I think the comparison to Nihlism is apt.

  269. BJTexs says:
    July 26, 2007 at 7:34 am

    How pointed is the Pygmalion effect when literally hundreds of comments express disgust with Caric’s ongoing attitude of “you are not worthy of substantive debate because you’re all crazy bigots” and then heet and the infantile anonymous walk the very same path, with Anon stating categorically that Darleen is “crazy.” All destined to insure that no debate is forthcoming and reinforce the enlightened doctrine that conservatives as a hive are unworthy of engagement because they are crazy, cancerous and bigots. All of them, whether they are hive associated, or, most egregiously, because they “intellectualize” bigotry, providing rhetorical cover like a 50 Caliber machine gun for men with hoods and nooses, are to be treated like a pustule tumor, excised and tossed.

    Somewhere mona is shivering with delight.

    At the bottom of this poo pile of faux academic insight and recess name calling is Anon’s “crazy” remark. He/she will obviously overlook the talisman that was mental illness in totalitarian communist states, especially the USSR Worker’s Paradise. Thousand of individuals were declared mentally incompetent and sentenced to “treatment” at tropical gulags where hellish labor under brutal conditions with bare sustenance provided the template vision for modern psychological treatment rather than those capitalist imperialist drug company medications or professional therapy. Their diagnoses; A questioning of The Narrative™ as expressed by the collective, be it political or societal.

    Inspired by this enlightened history of politically incorrect mental illness anon probably longs for the utopian future where “crazy” conservatives like Darleen could be forcibly hospitalized in an Oregon organic compound, forced to read “Silent Spring”, Gloria Steinem and H. Rap Brown while using medicinal ganja to achieve the shining insight that would allow her see the pristine truth of progressive canon. Soon the various phobias will be justified as real medical conditions, narrowly defined as any criticism or concerns expressed about jihadists (Islamophobia,) gay marriage (homophobia,) modern feminism (femophobia) and affirmative action (minorityophobia.)

    The world will be such a better place! Liberals won’t have to hate conservatives anymore. They’re “sick,” you see and someone will whisper urgently to anon that he shouldn’t use the word “crazy.” By then the Drug Companies will be nationalized and, while there won’t be many new breakthrough drugs, the psychotropic ones that already exist will be put to good use as Darleen, JD, thor and Jeff will be treated and, eventually, released with the proper supervision.

    The above is patently ridiculous but no more absurd than someone dropping into a debate of policy and strategy and defining an entire group of individuals as phobic and crazy!

    The good news is that the Liberal gulags will be carbon neutral and none of the female attendants will be wearing underwear

  270. Rob Crawford says:
    July 26, 2007 at 7:47 am

    The good news is that the Liberal gulags will be carbon neutral and none of the female attendants will be wearing underwear

    Yes, but one look at those attendants and you’ll wish they were wearing burkas.

    TW: “1917, fetlock” — that would be their date of birth and a description of their knees…

  271. Pablo says:
    July 26, 2007 at 7:49 am

    BJ, let’s also remain mindful of what bigotry really is.

    1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

    The projection and the utter lack of self awareness that supports is are stunning. The bigotry is typical.

  272. BJTexs says:
    July 26, 2007 at 7:51 am

    Now, now, Rob.

    Don’t you be objectifyin’ the enlightened attendants.

    Unless they don’t shave. shiver

    Anxiously awaiting the “misogynist” cries.

  273. Swen Swenson says:
    July 26, 2007 at 7:53 am

    Gadfrey! I go away for a couple days and now I’ll be lucky to catch up with all this.

    For what it’s worth, this “colorblind racism” business seems quite popular with members of Studies departments. Here’s a bit from KC Johnson’s profile of Group of 88’er Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a big promoter of the concept:

    Beyond criminal justice issues, what are some of the negative characteristics of this “racialized system” that Bonilla-Silva has detected? Meritocracy, for one. Whites, the Group of 88 member claims, “justify racial inequality” by supporting merit as an avenue for advancement or admission to school; such color-blind racism only helps whites “justify contemporary white supremacy.”

    Damn our Meritocracy! Strike a blow for academic mediocrity Now!

    TW: nullius incapable. It’s psychic, I swear.

  274. BJTexs says:
    July 26, 2007 at 7:55 am

    Pablo:

    Don’t you realise that there’s “sane” bigotry and “crazy” bigotry? Also, intellectualizing “crazy” bigotry makes one even loonier. Because “sane” bigotry is “sane”, it’s not bigotry QED. Got it?

    It never ceases to amaze me how leftist policy enlightenment provided truthiness cover for political, racial and religious bigotry. Oh, wait! Christophobia! Conservophobia! Federalismophobia!

    I like this game! Let’s play some more!

  275. McGehee says:
    July 26, 2007 at 8:03 am

    Comment by Ric Caric on 7/25 @ 6:36 pm

    For somebody who doesn’t read PW on a daily basis, he sure does seem to comment here a lot. But maybe he’ll get through today without stopping by…

  276. Professor Blather says:
    July 26, 2007 at 8:04 am

    I honestly can’t believe Caric would begin the discussion with such complete intellectual dishonesty (and complete ineptitude) … and then run from a relatively straightforward response to his dishonesty.

    Those of us with functioning brains recognize that his positions are indefensible; that he fails to have the courage to even try makes the unmistakable even more obvious.

    But his COWARDICE still boggles the mind. How can he stand to look at himself, when he doesn’t even have the courage to attempt to defend his intellectual positions?

    How? I really don’t get it. Either skulk away in embarrassment, Caric … or take the time to honestly respond.

    But this middle-ground of feigning disinterest in the conversation you started … well, it reflects rather poorly on you. You’ve been humiliated beyond measure, literally hoisted on your own pedantic petard.

    What cowardice.

  277. RiverCocytus says:
    July 26, 2007 at 8:33 am

    There’s an annoying meme that goes through modern liberal culture – influenced by a lot of our movies and stories perhaps – that the ‘underdog’, black horse if you will, is always stronger than he appears and prevails in the end. While there are cases where this is true (and when it is, the ‘underdog’ is often not really a underdog at all, but a clever strategist) most of the time it isn’t.

    Caric has simply been crushed — he has not substantively rebuffed Goldstein or anyone else’s refutation of his positions and arguments, and has used our tendency to couple our rebuttals with insults as a last-ditch defense, like little heep.

    He’s also hoping that if he pretends to be in the right, above us (much like the tone of this current post) he will still come out unsoiled. The irony is of course, only the truth is true, and the truth covers more than mere social paradigms favorable to the modern Liberal mind.

    Few want to address the issue that, for instance, without a form of ethics based on actual truth, there become situations when it seems perfectly ethical to do what is evil. An instance of this is racial discrimination – allowing incompetent or unqualified students in because of race. You do something that according to your deformed idea of ethics is right, but in fact you have likely denied a position to a qualified student. People of Asian descent are the grand ‘non minority minority’ because they’re successful. Revealing that, of course, the ‘ethics’ of the situation is trying to ‘help the little guy’ which often results in oppressing other little guys. The truth of the matter is that if a law school has to take in a certain number of unqualified (we’re assuming in favor of the institution that it can determine what a qualified candidate is) candidates they will suffer in the number of good, successful lawyers they turn out. In fact, it is easy to see that with the difficulty of law school they may fail to graduate at all.

    This would mean there is a policy which seeks to undermine the quality – or the measure of quality – of our education institutions. The importance of quality education cannot be overstated. This is the excuse for racial discriminating – but the problem is, just like not everyone can be a lawyer, no matter how ‘quality’ the eduction not everyone will benefit from it. I’m a bad example for this – there are few things I cannot learn. I do not assume everyone else is like this.

    And so, based on race, we have the concept that we’re somehow helping these people – by creating a ‘new boy’ network based on race, similar in tone to the ‘old boy’ network based on families. For a guy like me, white and male, neither network actually benefits me. I don’t belong to the ‘elite’ among the ‘whites’, nor am I a person of color. In fact, most people in this country are neither. Leave it to a bunch of classist prick wasps to dump all the guilt for their centuries long regressive bullshit on the rest of us, all the while making themselves both the champions of a new form of equality and the beneficiaries of it.

    Come on, Caric. Tell me I’m wrong. AM I?

  278. Jeff G. says:
    July 26, 2007 at 8:38 am

    Yawn. Caric claims he’d need to write 5-6 books to outline some coherent policy positions and rationales for the topics introduced — then complains that I drowned him in words outlining mine.

    Too much work, you see. Having to read things when you already know that your opponent — being a “conservative” — is worse than the bigots he gives cover to. With the positions that you don’t have to read. Because you already know them. Because they come from a conservative. And are thus bigoted.

    Man, this professoring is easy when you take the anti-intellectualist route.

    I sure do hope the Caric’s students find these posts. Next time he assigns them a paper, they should hand in a pithy, blog-length couple of paragraphs — and should he complain, they can remind him about his discomfort with all those floating, lapping words.

    We did it for you, professor. Because we care.

    Should make for an interesting bout of contorted justifications.

  279. JHoward says:
    July 26, 2007 at 8:40 am

    Thanks, JD. I was attempting to point out that in the race to the bottom, the difference between the usual leftist suspect’s thinking and what Darleen called the fearless accountability of its opposition should include a fundamental observation.

    These self-styled “progressives” are activists for a miniscule if not negative contribution to human history while vastly more enlightened and broader minded folks tolerate them without so much as proselytizing an alternative! Call it bemused amazement as these various tantrums unfold; standing by while good, historical, proven ideas are hauled off by the train car to be cremated. It’s a remarkable phenomenon and yet it’s ingrained in these malignant academic circles. Even more amazing. Look at the bile pouring out of anonymous, heet, others!

    Why?! What in the name that is good and honorable can be the point? Why defend the obviously indefensible, because you’ve caricatured very existence into unrecognizability? There’s a religious hostility there against not being accepted while refusing to explain with any degree of credibility why you should be as the parasitic work-product you drag behind you stinks literally to high heaven.

    And yet there’s this animus not against an opposing “conservative” activism or an encroaching philosophy or a threatening obsolescence — at least at pw — because none has been presented, save enforced.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Through this, progressivism is even a growth industry, proudly claiming with some verity that now half of what’s left of the great experiment in self-reliant honor, it’s ultimate compromise imminent, has been consumed by an outright fraud conveyed by inheritance spanning a number of generations now, a fraud so cancerous that professors promote it on tax-paid dime while simply and conveniently refusing to examine it in any way. Because of venue, audience, humidity, flavor, whatever.

    And yet entire vistas of superior, alternative human expression exist everywhere one looks and have for all of history.

    What a cesspool the Left has made for itself. Proudly, arrogantly, intolerantly, and willfully, and nearly all of it, from what I can see, defying a universe of better options.

    I’m beginning to see what motivates Caric’s various nicknames. They all describe this extraordinarily virulent condition of mind and soul. If it’s true that this then attracts him a new audience, then that speaks to the remarkable power of the completely unexamined, elite, exclusive, politically-correct, elitist dogma. Utterly irresponsible yet hell-bent on domination not because it should but because it can.

    And none of it possessing so much as a view of just one of man’s higher planes of awareness and activity. This is academia. Lovely.

  280. Swen Swenson says:
    July 26, 2007 at 8:53 am

    MikeD (#72):

    … I really do have a fundamental question that never seems to be answered. Why are these “intellects” at second (maybe third?) tier academic institutions such sanctimonious pricks? Why do they insist on showcasing their cerebral handicaps? And do you suppose they are ever embarrassed?

    From the belief that the pursuit of excellence is a bad thing and advancement due to merit is something to eschew, it follows that demonstrating one’s own mediocrity is simply walking the walk. They’re not embarrassed, they’re proud of their lack of intellectual wherewithal, it makes them kool kidz. Not at all like those academic drudges who actually read and think about the issues.

  281. nawoodsnawoods says:
    July 26, 2007 at 9:00 am

    I am having a formatting problem with this long thread, and the longer it goes the worse it gets. The left side of the page cuts off. In fact, as I type this I can only see the ng in having on the first line. Does anyone know how to correct this in my browse?

  282. BJTexs says:
    July 26, 2007 at 9:23 am

    If it’s true that this then attracts him a new audience, then that speaks to the remarkable power of the completely unexamined, elite, exclusive, politically-correct, elitist dogma. Utterly irresponsible yet hell-bent on domination not because it should but because it can.

    And none of it possessing so much as a view of just one of man’s higher planes of awareness and activity. This is academia. Lovely.

    Well put and spot on.

    I’ve commented before about the tent-revivalist flavor of leftist political speech. Certain truths are held to be self evident and steeped in truthiness like a kettle of Earl Grey. The aroma of entitlements, race and gender based forced diversity and anti-militarism is intoxicating and a “given” thereby rendering additional debate useless, just as a an evangelist might shout “heresy” at an athiest invading the tent. I find the irony of the revivalist metaphor laughingly apt and monsterously ironical.

    But your point is well taken: so much of leftist thought operates in a vacuum of recycled ideals and failed ideas. There are idealists out there but even they are swept up in that perpetual grasping for authority. If only we were in charge; butterflies, peace, color blindness, income smoothing, etc.

    All of which is worthy of debate but if the opponent objectifies you as an apostate then debate is impossible. Which doesn’t stop them from declaring the “victory” of ideals; that weren’t debated.

    *groan* Where’s the Advil?

  283. jkrank says:
    July 26, 2007 at 9:32 am

    Why?! What in the name that is good and honorable can be the point? Why defend the obviously indefensible, because you’ve caricatured very existence into unrecognizability? There’s a religious hostility there against not being accepted while refusing to explain with any degree of credibility why you should be as the parasitic work-product you drag behind you stinks literally to high heaven.

    I think you’ve hit upon why their opponents (the “Right”) must be evil in Leftist ideology. If their opponents are not evil (bigoted, hateful, racist, etc.) then they are forced into explanations.
    Look at how they duck and weave (and then repeat “EVIL!”)! It’s necessary, ideologically.

  284. Rob Crawford says:
    July 26, 2007 at 10:12 am

    If their opponents are not evil (bigoted, hateful, racist, etc.) then they are forced into explanations.

    Alternatively, if those who disagree with them are not evil, it opens the possibility that they’re wrong.

  285. JD says:
    July 26, 2007 at 10:16 am

    jkrank – BIGOT
    BJTexs – RACIST
    Swen – MERIT-IST
    Jeff G – WORD-IST
    Pablo & BMoe – INSULT-ISTS
    Dan Collins – Funny Irish dude

  286. BJTexs says:
    July 26, 2007 at 10:46 am

    Hey, I wanted funny Irish dude!

    slinks away

  287. McGehee says:
    July 26, 2007 at 10:52 am

    I’ll take sardonic Scottish git…

  288. clarice says:
    July 26, 2007 at 11:27 am

    You make them crazy ,Jeff, because (1) you are obviously much smarter than they are and see thru their b.s. and (b) you are so hip and they need to think of their opponents as snaggle toothed dummies, not very sophisticated smarties.

  289. A Time to Heal [JHoward] says:
    July 26, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    […] truths; this sounds like marching orders.  Various progressive academics — at least 88+1 of them — could not be reached for comment. Posted by JHoward @ 12:07 pm | Trackback Share […]

  290. JD says:
    July 27, 2007 at 1:36 am

    Folks – Professor Caric has decided to respond, kind of. I will cut and paste his response here, but if you want to go see for yourself, it can be found at

    http://red-state.blogspot.com/2007/07/reply-to-that-really-cool-guy-jeff.html

    Reply to That Really Cool Guy Jeff Goldstein, Part I
    INTRODUCTION. I was hurt–hurt–by Jeff Goldstein’s reply to me last night. He seems to think that I believe him an unreconstructed racial bigot like the guys who murdered and mutilated Emmett Till or the white townspeople pictured celebrating the latest lynchings. Or maybe he believes that I think he follows Ann Coulter’s indulgence in racial stereotypes and anti-black cheerleading.

    But that’s not true at all. How can I think that after I’ve seen all the testimonials to Goldstein’s wit and really cool guyness? Tonight’s hymn of praise was from John Cole of Balloon-juice.com: “. . . the best blog in the world is now back after a lengthy hiatus.” And didn’t somebody refer to Goldstein as the “funniest guy on the internet” last night? Humble as well.

    Who am I to disagree? Goldstein’s Protein Wisdom is funny, ironic, intellectual, and upscale all at the same time–kind of like the internet version of Fox’s big hit “Gutfeld and Friends.” I sum all that up with the term “The Fluff Right” which I of course mean as a term of endearment. Goldstein is such a Really Cool Guy he couldn’t be a racist.

    And besides Protein Wisdom practically held a parade for me a couple of days ago. Even last night, my name and affiliation were featured at the top of Goldstein’s reply post. You just can’t buy publicity like that.

    Of course, I guess one could think me ungrateful for referring to Jeff’s “color-blind” ideology as being worse than crude racism. But let me see if I can make my case again at much greater length and detail.

    Really, the whole issue revolves around oppression. So, I want to discuss oppression at some length both during the civil rights era and today. My argument will be that “color-blind” rhetoric functions as a rationalization for contemporary racial oppression and the refusal to develop remedies for racial oppression. But, first, I want to discuss segregation at some length.

    SEGREGATION AND OPPRESSION. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” MLK wrote in the context of his discussion of civil disobedience that “[w]e know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” For King, white people are “the oppressor” and blacks are the “oppressed” who are demanding freedom. He follows up with an detailed account of the ways whites oppressed blacks–the lynching and drowning of black people, police beatings, the “airtight cage of poverty” blacks lived in, the refusal of services at hotels, restaurants, the segregated drinking fountains and bathrooms, and the personal humilitations of never being addressed with a title of respect like “Mr.” or “Mrs.” Needless to say, such a recitation is far from doing justice to the poetry of King’s writing and the way that he brought the violence and moral sickness of segregation home to his readers in one of the great sentences of American writing.

    King also emphasized the enormous psychological and spiritual damage inflicted by segregation, lamenting the “ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in [his daughter’s] little mental sky,” and the “inner fears and outer resentments” and “degenerating sense of nobodiness plaguing adults.” If segregation was a moral sickness of white people (King referred to whites as living in “the dark depths of prejudice and racism”), it worked to distort the personalities and maim the souls of blacks as well.

    Jeff Goldstein seems to believe that my reference to racial oppression is a matter of “white guilt.” I’m surprised that a cool guy like Jeff wouldn’t think that sensitivity to oppression would be a matter of empathy, of reading materials like “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and thinking about what he would think or feel if he had been subject to the physical and psychological violence of American racial segregation. Or why he wouldn’t be disgusted, repulsed, or nauseated by what whites were doing. Or why he wouldn’t deny that he was white and start thinking of himself strictly as an individual. “Guilt” would seem to be a refuge for the over-wrought here.

    Of course, it might not be “funny, ironic, intellectual, and upscale” to be emphatic to those who are suffering oppression. If that’s the case, I might not have any of those qualities because I can say in good conscience that I would have been so pissed off about segregation if I was a black guy that I probably would have done something to get myself killed. But who knows, maybe Jeff would have been happy with segregation if he had been a black guy and I’m sure he could find some black people who were pleased with their lives under segregation if he looked. King even refers to “Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation.”

    The Issue with Color-Blindness. There are two questions that come up in relation to the current racial situation. Can the current situation be characterized as racial oppression and what role does color-blind rhetoric play in relation to contemporary race relations?

    To the extent that there is racial oppression in contemporary American life, it is not the same as the racial oppression that prevailed under segregation. Thinking in King’s terms, lynching and other racial murders of blacks are relatively rare compared to the fifties; fewer blacks live in an airtight cage of poverty; services are not often outrightly refused at restaurants, hotels, and car dealerships; and blacks occupy prominent positions in politics, business, and entertainment that they would have been excluded from before. I’ve heard many African-Americans say that “nothing has changed” and I have also heard some of my white students in Kentucky say that whites are as racist as they think they can get away with. Given the horrific conditions for African-Americans were in the 1950’s, I would have to say the situation has improved for African-Americans in the United States.

    However, the burden of racial oppression on African-Americans has been lightened and shifted rather than eliminated. African-Americans are still subject to arbitrary and capricious actions by police, judges, and the lawyers assigned to defend poor blacks. These include police shootings and beatings, “stop and frisk” campaigns targeted on young black men, racial profiling in traffic stops and arrests resulting from traffic stops, and differential sentencing. Even professional black males have to put up with a fair amount of police harassment as they drive to and from work, in their suburban neighborhoods and the like. Needless to say, blacks are also subject to relentless stereotyping in the news media and entertainment outlets. They often receive slow and negligent service at restaurants and hotels, find themselves followed by security in retail outlets, and have to pay higher interest rates on various kinds of loans. Blacks also have a difficult time getting their professional credentials recognized by white clienteles.

    To be black is to be subject to arbitrary and capricious white authority, forced to pay a higher price for housing and other amenities to white owned institutions, and vulnerable to both big and small humiliations perpetrated by white people. It adds up to oppression and there are a large number of African-American writers who portray blacks as an oppressed or persecuted group.

    How does the rhetoric of color-blindness relate to the contemporary situation of blacks? Have to link up and finish the rest tomorrow.

    I started to go through it, but it essentially consists of him giving us a pedantic history lesson that is not in dispute, followed by his claims that white are oppressing blacks today, with his laundry list of reasons why – police, traffic stops, hotels, restaurants, interest rates, etc .. – with no evidence, proof, or documentation beyond his assertion and claim.

    In short, no meat.

  291. maggie katzen says:
    July 27, 2007 at 1:44 am

    oh gee, I feel oppressed by the perfessor’s refusal to back any of his crap up with some stats. he just “knows stuff”. that’s handy.

  292. klrfz1 says:
    July 27, 2007 at 3:40 am

    Ric Caric makes a comfortable living from his racist/sexist/gay rights grievance mongering. It also gives him that easy feeling of superiority that escaped him in high school. Why would he ever change?

    Jeff, this post was truly a thing of beauty. Most links per sentence, ever. Thanks cool guy.

  293. The first two rules of holes says:
    July 27, 2007 at 11:44 am

    […] award-winning Professor Ric Caric — who days ago deigned to drop by and discourse on how it is that I’m some kind of super-racist (given my sly proclivity for legitimizing the views of unreconstructed racists, if only by nature […]

  294. Yackums says:
    August 1, 2007 at 12:50 am

    “(Ohh.. and dont even think of making it Anon.. the whole “precious” thing is just too creepy for words..)”

    He keep using that word. I do not think it means what he think it means.

  295. Provocateurism, 6 says:
    August 11, 2008 at 10:23 am

    […] to liberals, race neutrality is itself racist [see, for instance, my “debate” with Dr Caric here – ed]. It harkens back to the “social Darwinism” of the past, we are told, because it […]

  296. Ladies Flip Flops Hearts Black Case Pack 12 says:
    May 13, 2010 at 8:29 am

    Ladies Flip Flops Hearts Black Case Pack 12…

    Zellige acts were all 18K gold and 18K platinum diamond- studded material, combined with relief and enamel inlay, Herve Leger , rings are inlaid with red and black chalcedony agate, with a strong contrast to demonstrate the art of eye- catching style….

Comments are closed.