Truth Hurts (Ann Coulter Unintentionally Persuasive Edition)

Ann Coulter, speaking at a "Ronald Reagan Black Tie and Blue Jeans BBQ," makes quite possibly the best argument ever made for repealing the First Amendment:

"They're always accusing us of repressing their speech," she said. "I say let's do it. Let's repress them."

She later added, "Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

Her statements received applause, and many attendees said they enjoyed her speech, but some added that they think she's somewhat extreme.

"She's not very subtle, but I always enjoy her talks," Republican Senate candidate Travis Horn said. "They're very hard hitting, but the truth hurts."

Whole thing here. Sara Rimensnyder explored Coulter's "perverse appeal" here.

Comments

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 12:30pm | #

And this 'truth' is?

This is the money quote from the article:

Black enjoyed Coulter's speech, and said she felt special when Coulter called UF Republicans "beautiful" at the beginning of her speech.

Its all about identity politics.

Jeff P. | October 25, 2005, 12:33pm | #

It's only fair. I've long said that Christians should experience some real prosecution, as opposed to the mild dissent that sends them into a tizzy these days.
I didn't read the response, but was she reminded that the First allows her to bash Bush as relentlessly as she has since the Miers nom?

saw-whet | October 25, 2005, 12:33pm | #

I'm waiting for someone to kick her in the balls.

Dave W. | October 25, 2005, 12:35pm | #

Best singer the Buggles ever had. Wish he could have gotten along with AON for a bit longer in the 80s.

SPD | October 25, 2005, 12:47pm | #

She needs a televised, open-mouth kiss from Madonna. Straightened Britney Spears right out.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 25, 2005, 12:51pm | #

The first amendment is way overblown. All scholars of note agree that it was only written to warm up to the second amendment, which truly rocks.

I say get rid of the first amendment. That way, the second becomes #1! Isn't that cool? And if the government comes to the door to arrest you for speaking out against the theocracy, at least you'll be pack'n.

ChrisO | October 25, 2005, 12:54pm | #

Wish he could have gotten along with AON for a bit longer in the 80s.

Wish he could have gotten along with Yes for a bit longer before that--Drama was one of the best Yes albums.

As to Ms. Coulter, I'm increasingly disturbed by her appearance (check the photo in the linked article). And I'm not being sarcastic or snarky here. She really really looks like she suffers from an eating disorder. Even just a few years ago, she looked much healthier. As to her commentary, eh, she's good at annoying certain people and making money off of it. More power to her.

SPD | October 25, 2005, 12:55pm | #

Ms. Coulter, meet Prussian Blue.

Prussian Blue, meet your new press agent.

saw-whet | October 25, 2005, 12:56pm | #

Speaking of blondes, Suze Orman is another one I'd pay to see get pummeled.

Dave W. | October 25, 2005, 1:00pm | #

I have wanted to buy Drama for many years now (I was real late to the Yes party). It is surprisingly hard to find through casual shopping.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 25, 2005, 1:01pm | #

CrisO:

Something's going on with these once-hot female celebrities turning into skeletors. It's happening more and more.

Those of you who are old enough: remember in the 70s where emaciated rock stars, including Eric Clapton and George Harrison, started wearing those mysterious "skull rings"?

I think there's a connection..

mediageek | October 25, 2005, 1:03pm | #

And this 'truth' is?

Simple:

Statists hate freedom.

ElamBend | October 25, 2005, 1:04pm | #

Tell her the first can go if the 19th goes with it.

SR | October 25, 2005, 1:05pm | #

Ann Coulter + baseball bat to face = quality entertainment

Akira MacKenzie | October 25, 2005, 1:07pm | #

All the more reason why I don't hold out much hope for America surviving much longer. Sooner or later, it's all going to come crashing down around us and Democrats and Republicans alike will be out in force looking to kill one another. The petty, irrational hatred that the Left and Right has toward one another will consume this contry, ruining all that has been built, and probably killing a lot of innocent people in the process.

People like Coulter won't be directly to blame since this collective rage has been boiling under a failing facade of "civility" for far too long. However, while the American people will be at fault for the fall of our country, it will be prods like Coulter who stir up this hornet's nest of mindless anger, and there is nothing we can do to shut her up. Freedom of speech, the very thing she and her conservative followers eschew, applies even to rabble rousers like her.

vabs | October 25, 2005, 1:08pm | #

>She needs a televised, open-mouth kiss from Madonna. Straightened Britney Spears right out.

heehee

ChrisO | October 25, 2005, 1:10pm | #

I have wanted to buy Drama for many years now (I was real late to the Yes party). It is surprisingly hard to find through casual shopping.

Any larger music retailer should carry it--it's worth getting. It was included in the recent series of Yes remastered reissues on Rhino/Warner, and now includes demos, most of which were recorded before the Buggles joined/were co-opted into Yes (they shared management, and 'just happened' to be recording at the same studio as the currently singerless/keyboardless Yes--their manager was infamous for pulling such crap).

Some of those demos are from the "Paris Sessions" recorded just before Jon Anderson and Rick Wakeman left the band--they are so incredibly bad, that you can really hear how desperately Yes needed the infusion of life that the Buggles brought to the band.

ChrisO | October 25, 2005, 1:12pm | #

I have wanted to buy Drama for many years now (I was real late to the Yes party). It is surprisingly hard to find through casual shopping.

Any larger music retailer should carry it--it's worth getting. It was included in the recent series of Yes remastered reissues on Rhino/Warner, and now includes demos, most of which were recorded before the Buggles joined/were co-opted into Yes (they shared management, and 'just happened' to be recording at the same studio as the currently singerless/keyboardless Yes--their manager was infamous for pulling such crap).

Some of those demos are from the "Paris Sessions" recorded just before Jon Anderson and Rick Wakeman left the band--they are so incredibly bad, that you can really hear how desperately Yes needed the infusion of life that the Buggles brought to the band.

jf | October 25, 2005, 1:13pm | #

Apparently nobody here can recognize sarcasm anymore. Jesus Christ, Coulter can be as offensive as anyone else, but anyone misinterpreting what she is saying here as serious needs either a) to get a reality check, or b) to take a vacation from reason. From Ann's book "How to Talk to a Liberal" (all quotes taken from this site:

"(L)et's say I don't care about my country, politics, or civil affairs. All I want to do is make porno movies. I could spend a million dollars producing speech of the Debbie Does Dallas variety. But if I want to engage in speech of the "Vote Against Chris Shays" variety, I can only spend $2000. It is easier to pander obscenity in this country than it is to engage in core First Amendment speech." -- P. 332

"My argument is that the First Amendment doesn't just apply to working journalists. The First Amendment protects speech that is robust, wide open, etc. etc., and not just speech that is robust, wide open, etc., as between competing newspapers (like the Post and the Times). The First Amendment refers to 'the people,' not to 'the newspaper editors.'" -- P. 335

Sounds like someone who wants an expansion of First Amendment rights, not the caricature portayed by Ms. Howling. Ann can make enough of a caricature of herself without needless distortion.

Lord Duppy | October 25, 2005, 1:15pm | #

Has it occurred to anyone that Coulter may be a jaded, nihilistic leftist who's just having fun toying with the right?

Reductio ad absurdum, anyone?

ChrisO | October 25, 2005, 1:17pm | #

Something's going on with these once-hot female celebrities turning into skeletors. It's happening more and more.

True, but most of them are of the Hollywood actress variety. Jennifer Connolly is the one that comes to mind for me. She went from off-the-charts hotness to skeletor fairly quickly. But actors/actresses are usually nothing more than an attractive bundle of neuroses, so it's understandable. Political commentators, on the other hand, you don't expect it so much.

Those of you who are old enough: remember in the 70s where emaciated rock stars, including Eric Clapton and George Harrison, started wearing those mysterious "skull rings"? I think there's a connection..

Heroin? C'mon, a conservative commentator would never do anything illegal...

Dave W. | October 25, 2005, 1:21pm | #

That sounds fascinating. I got Time and a Word at the Rhino store in LA a couple years back. Shoulda gotten more of them. Sounds like fascinating demo's. I had no idea.

thoreau | October 25, 2005, 1:22pm | #

Lord Duppy-

You mean that maybe Coulter is doing an Alan Sokal imitation?

If she was, don't you think she would have revealed the prank and switched sides by now?

matthewcanfield | October 25, 2005, 1:25pm | #

SR
Ann Coulter + baseball bat to face = quality entertainment

Wow. Rimensnyder was right.

ChrisO | October 25, 2005, 1:28pm | #

That sounds fascinating. I got Time and a Word at the Rhino store in LA a couple years back. Shoulda gotten more of them. Sounds like fascinating demo's. I had no idea.

Fascinating, yes. Something you'd listen to often, no. I haven't gotten that reissue yet for that very reason. I've heard the demo stuff on bootlegs before, and I prefer to just listen to the finished album most of the time, rather than suffering through the process that led up to it. I wish they had put the demos on a separate disc. Interestingly, they didn't include demos of the material that the Buggles brought to the band. One of those Trevor Horn songs, "We Can Fly From Here," was not recorded for Drama but was played by Yes on that tour (and now appears on the new Yes live boxed set)--it's actually better than most of what did appear on Drama.

By the way, speaking of Time and a Word, years ago I got to know Peter Banks (the guitarist on that album) pretty well. He had some stories to tell--Yes may be full of happy-happy la-la-la crap in the lyrics, but believe me, Yes the business organization is anything but.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 1:28pm | #

All the more reason why I don't hold out much hope for America surviving much longer.

amen, mr mackenzie. i'd submit to you that america has already essentially completed the short journey from democracy to empire over the last sixty years. this administration is just the latest mortal blow.

as it becomes obvious to all that only one office dispenses all the power of the american global empire, competition for it won't be risked on trivialities like rights and elections.

Yogi | October 25, 2005, 1:28pm | #

Black said. "She's a little raw, but I think she balances the left's Michael Moore."

She's definitely gonna have to put on a few more pounds to balance out Micheal Moore on any scale.

Rhywun | October 25, 2005, 1:29pm | #

check the photo in the linked article

Eeek. Get that woman some food, stat.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 1:33pm | #

Apparently nobody here can recognize sarcasm anymore.

i might be inclined to agree about coulter herself, mr jf, who's just trying to make money on the rage of others. unfortunately, there is the matter of all the enraged people she's talking to.

Her statements received applause, and many attendees said they enjoyed her speech, but some added that they think she's somewhat extreme.

that doesn't exactly ring of critical assimilation of high satire. most of these folks don't think of swift or juvenal when they're listening to coulter. they, like most people, not being very smart, think that the truth hurts.

ChrisO | October 25, 2005, 1:36pm | #

The petty, irrational hatred that the Left and Right has toward one another will consume this contry, ruining all that has been built, and probably killing a lot of innocent people in the process.

Don't go all apocalyptic on us, Akira. Politics in the USA would be a lot healthier if more people were willing to stop being PC and mealy-mouthed and say what they really mean. If politicians would do more of this, there would be less of a need for the commentariat to act as a surrogate. Our politics have become staid and motionless.

Also, look at our history. Politics was WAY more of a bloodsport in prior eras than it is now. And commentary may not have been as in-your-face as what folks like Coulter and Carville do today, but it was often more vicious in a more subtle way.

SR | October 25, 2005, 1:37pm | #

"Wow. Rimensnyder was right."

You seem to be presuming that I'm advocating hitting Coulter with the bat.

jf | October 25, 2005, 1:39pm | #

gaius:

You are a better judge of the character of an audience than I am. I suppose African-Americans who laugh at "kill whitey" jokes at comedy shows are irredeemable racists who are going to stick a shiv in my back at the first opportunity.

Jason Ligon | October 25, 2005, 1:52pm | #

Meh. She wants to sell books. I get her motivation.

Pro Libertate | October 25, 2005, 1:55pm | #

Coulter's not worth a lot of discussion, no matter where on the aisle you sit, but I do wonder how trustworthy the source is. Not to disparage Gainesville's best paper, but the Independent Florida Alligator is a student publication with (usually) leftwards leanings. I can just see a student writer getting a little too gleeful about a gotcha comment taken out of context. Not that I'm defending Coulter, who doesn't seem to worry much about what comes out of her mouth.

Oh, and Go Gators, for the record (I owe the school that after insulting my alma mater's student paper).

Sven | October 25, 2005, 2:08pm | #

If a man shuns some of the Amendments he's being assertive but if a woman does it she's a bitch.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 2:18pm | #

African-Americans who laugh at "kill whitey" jokes at comedy shows ... are going to stick a shiv in my back at the first opportunity.

many would sincerely love to, mr jf, and don't only out of fear for their immortal soul. and can you blame them? i can't; indeed, i rather thank them for their forbearance in light of events as recent as katrina.

i think you underestimate the deep, irretrievable resentment that a vast majority of african-americans (rightfully, imo) have of an american political system and management class that has done a very great deal to isolate, humiliate and repress them as a proletariat. some simple humor, fwiw, can only be a temporary assuagement of that grievance.

Robert Cote | October 25, 2005, 2:26pm | #

It was 1729 when Jonathan Swift made his "Modest Proposal" and still people don't get it. Look at the responses; baseball bats to her face for entertainment purposes, calls to shut her up, remove her right to vote, degradation of her appearance. She's smiling in the photo because she's too rich, too thin and she's laughing at YOU.

John | October 25, 2005, 2:32pm | #

Al Franken said on David Letterman last night that Karl Rove and Dick Chaney should be executed. Everyone seemed to think that was funny. I guess that represents what the Democrats really think since Coulter's statement apparently represents all Republicans. Is there a reason why anyone should care what Franken or Coulter either one have to say? Its a joke people. Get over it.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 2:43pm | #

It was 1729 when Jonathan Swift made his "Modest Proposal" and still people don't get it.

as with swift, however, mr cote, the problem is surely not in the satire -- one woman's words, after all -- as in what it mocks.

swift's proposal mocked a very real, exploitative and inflammatory racism of many englishmen toward the irish, a persistent condition among the english that constantly plagued ireland for centuries until emancipation. many millions of irish ultimately were murdered by the neglect, engineered famine and armed suppression of the british government which swift so plainly thought inhuman.

coulter speaks to an audience that is similarly monstrous in its judgments and intentions -- and she frankly is not possessed of the sense of moral indignation that swift lived with, but is instead merely motivated by money to rabblerouse around ideas she may even sympathize with.

comparing her to swift is a terrible injustice to swift.

John | October 25, 2005, 2:46pm | #

Yes Gaius all Republicans are monstrous. The next I get an audience with the vast right wing zionist conspiracy, I am going to make sure they know that you are onto us. Be very afraid. Be very afraid.

jf | October 25, 2005, 2:47pm | #

many would sincerely love to, mr jf, and don't only out of fear for their immortal soul. and can you blame them?

Gee, gaius, it sure is a good thing that those dark-skinned savages are so god-fearing, or else they'd be killing whites left and right.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 2:50pm | #

Al Franken said on David Letterman last night that Karl Rove and Dick Chaney should be executed.

everything i said above re: coulter is ultimately true re: franken. this is not a partisan issue. it's an issue of passionate incivility undermining our society.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 2:52pm | #

Gee, gaius, it sure is a good thing that those dark-skinned savages are so god-fearing, or else they'd be killing whites left and right.

are you recharacterizing my views to fit what you want them to be because you're afraid of losing an argument on its merits, mr jf, or because you're not bright enough to understand what i'm saying? :)

thoreau | October 25, 2005, 2:55pm | #

The worst thing that can be said about Coulter is that she makes Franken sound fit for public discourse.

The worst thing that can be said about Franken is that he makes Coulter sound fit for public discourse.

Jeff P. | October 25, 2005, 2:58pm | #

The problem here is that neither Coulter or Franken have a clue what they are talking about. They are not partaking in political discourse, they are tribes of monkeys screaming at each other. They do not even muster enough irony to qualify as a guilty-pleasure trainwreck.
Harlan Ellison once said you're not entitled to an opinion, you're entitled to an INFORMED opinion. Coulter doesn't even come close. Rich people bashing each other ad hominim to sell books is not debate. It is no less pop culture zeitgeist than boy bands and shitty movies and whatever else is considered "it" these days.
We really need to ignore these people.

Shem | October 25, 2005, 3:01pm | #

John-Al Franken doesn't get invited to be a speaker at the Democratic National Convention every four years. Coulter does. That's the difference.

jf | October 25, 2005, 3:05pm | #

gaius:

C'mon. Stating that many blacks would love to kill whites, and it's only for fear that they might go to hell that they won't is demeaning at best, and the most despicable form of racism at worst. You can claim I'm recharacterizing your views all day, but it doesn't change what you said. Unless there was a level of sarcasm which I missed?

SPD | October 25, 2005, 3:09pm | #

Jeff P.,

Amen. Thank you. Although I'd still like to see that open-mouthed Madonna kiss on TV. That would be a "Save Until I Delete" TiVo moment.

linguist | October 25, 2005, 3:12pm | #

John-Al Franken doesn't get invited to be a speaker at the Democratic National Convention every four years. Coulter does.

She DOES???? Why???

SPD | October 25, 2005, 3:15pm | #

She DOES???? Why???

Who better to convince people to vote Democrat?

ChrisO | October 25, 2005, 3:19pm | #

She DOES???? Why???

She looks a lot better on TV, eating disorder and all.

All Franken manages to do these days is make Joe Piscopo rise on the ranking of humorous SNL alumni.

Shem | October 25, 2005, 3:25pm | #

Goddammit. Why am I not surprised linguist was the one who nailed me on that? OK, it should be phrased in a way that implies that Coulter is invited to speak at the Republican national convention, not the Democratic one.

Better?

fyodor | October 25, 2005, 3:26pm | #

John,

Franken didn't say they should be executed. He said they would be. Subtle difference, I know, but the absurdity of the latter is what made it clearly a joke, and a little bit funny even.

Though overall Franken's performance was rather mediocre. He was particularly pathetic at the end when Letterman joked that he didn't care where the book was sold cause he already had his, and all Franken could muster was a muttered, "yeah."

John | October 25, 2005, 3:39pm | #

Shem,

I don't remember her ever speaking there, but fine. If you hold the Republicans responsible for her, then I am sure you have no problem with all Democrats being considered to agree with Michael Moore. I recall him having a place of honor with that other miserable bastard Jimmy Carter at Democratic Convention.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 3:40pm | #

"Where were you when Ann Coulter said we should ditch the First Amendment? 9/11. 9/11. 9/11." (sung with an Alan Jackson accent)

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 3:42pm | #

Stating that many blacks would love to kill whites, and it's only for fear that they might go to hell that they won't is demeaning at best,

ah, so, you're not bright enough.

listen, rather than attempt to paint others with the darkest phobias and projections you can imagine, how about trying to view my comments with a modicum of respect for the commenter? do you really think i'm an abject racist based on this comment? really? because i must say that would indicate vastly more about you than me, mr jf.

now, do you want me to revisit what i said?

many would sincerely love to, mr jf,

this is true of all of us, regardless of race. this people have been enslaved, raped, murdered, and engineered genocidally for centuries at the hands of a white power elite -- that is their history, and the awareness of it is everywhere in african-american art, music and literature. how could they not feel the impulse for revenge? to feel so is human.

and don't only out of fear for their immortal soul.

this is not a dogmatic question to be reflexively rejected by militant atheists. one's soul can be understood to mean one's connection to one's history, society and civility. read w.e.b. dubois to understand. refusing violence against an aggressor is the preservation of the moral self over the horrible impusles of raw emotions like revenge in spite of the contemptibility of the aggressor.

and can you blame them? i can't; indeed, i rather thank them for their forbearance in light of events as recent as katrina.

i think you underestimate the deep, irretrievable resentment that a vast majority of african-americans (rightfully, imo) have of an american political system and management class that has done a very great deal to isolate, humiliate and repress them as a proletariat.

again, read virtually the entire product of african-american literature. it's impossible to miss on an intelligent reading, even if it is as difficult to understand for a modern bourgeois american, conditioned to believe himself a noble thing in spite of his awful history of economic exploitation -- which he disavows as though such self-forgiveness was redemptive -- as the contempt of the third world for american imperialism is for an american patriot.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 4:05pm | #

gaius marius,

one's soul can be understood to mean one's connection to one's history, society and civility.

I figured you would quote Plato and Aristotle on these matters. :)

JDM | October 25, 2005, 4:13pm | #

"conditioned to believe himself a noble thing in spite of his awful history of economic exploitation"

So, gaius, you've crossed the line into collective consciousness and insanity here at last.

duncan | October 25, 2005, 4:17pm | #

I'd like to state, for the record, that I don't want to shiv anybody. :)

mediageek | October 25, 2005, 4:37pm | #

Gaius' post summed up:

Whitey's keepin' the black man down.

JD | October 25, 2005, 4:41pm | #

I wish I knew whether the problem is that Democrats and Republicans are about to start killing each other or that they aren't. My ISP is home to a lot of liberal Democrat types, who have frequently been heard to say things like "All Republicans make me sick" and to make "jokes" about killing Republicans. It is an article of faith with these people that Bush stole the election and should be impeached.

Or at least that's how they talk. Who knows what they actually think? If they actually believe this, what's the message they're sending? That they think it would be OK to massacre their fellow Americans - or that if the election actually were stolen, all they'd do is sit on their hands and gripe? On the other hand, suppose they don't believe it. Is it a good idea to go around talking like you do? Does it further useful political discourse to act like you really believe in starting a holy war? I'm all for sarcasm and satire, but I think you have a problem when it becomes the basis for the majority of your communication.

mike | October 25, 2005, 4:44pm | #

Ann Coulter is jsut another bomb thrower that wants to sell a lot of books. She reminds me the type that would be on The Jerry Springer Show. I just ignore Ann Coulter now, most of the things she says doesn't have much subtance anyway.

Stevo Darkly | October 25, 2005, 4:54pm | #

again, read virtually the entire product of african-american literature.

Wow! With this reading recommendation, gaius just out-Gunneled Gunnels!

[My asserted point is] impossible to miss on an intelligent reading,

With both barrels! :)

jf | October 25, 2005, 4:56pm | #

gaius:

Try saying what you mean next time. Also, try reading what others say, as nowhere did I call, or even imply, that you were a racist. I did most definitely state that your comment could be interpreted as racist. You, however, think I'm stupid, which hurts, man. It really does.

Stevo Darkly | October 25, 2005, 4:57pm | #

I'd like to state, for the record, that I don't want to shiv anybody. :)

Geez, what a butt-kissing Uncle Tom! Stop consuming yourself with self-hate and stick somebody already. You'll feel more "authentically black" immediately. :)

(Sorry, I used to read too much race stuff during the 1980s.)

Stevo Darkly | October 25, 2005, 5:00pm | #

Note to self: Jot down "I suggest you read the entire product of African-American literature before you embarass yourself further" for future use. :)

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:03pm | #

gaius, you've crossed the line into collective consciousness and insanity here at last.

it's simply a duplicitous fraud, mr jdm, to believe that one bears no responsibilities for the acts of one's ancestors when one reaps the rewards of their activities (incluing the nefarious ones) so easily. i know that antisociety and antihistory is the religion du jour -- but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

want to credibly claim independence from the actions of your ancestors? sell everything you own and burn the money. see a hypnotist and wipe your mind clean of every memory of your parents and grandparents and schooling. erase your name and records from the bureaucracy of the state. start anew as a blank slate, left in the care of a she-wolf outside of civilization. then i'll respect your opinions on being "self-made" and "independent".

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:04pm | #

I'd like to state, for the record, that I don't want to shiv anybody. :)

much appreciated, mr duncan. :)

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:06pm | #

nowhere did I call, or even imply, that you were a racist

really, mr jf?

Stating that many blacks would love to kill whites, and it's only for fear that they might go to hell that they won't is demeaning at best, and the most despicable form of racism at worst. You can claim I'm recharacterizing your views all day, but it doesn't change what you said.

that doesn't imply anything? really? lol!

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:07pm | #

and neither does this, i suppose?

Gee, gaius, it sure is a good thing that those dark-skinned savages are so god-fearing, or else they'd be killing whites left and right.

you shouldn't make claims that can be so easily dissembled by things you yourself said a few hours ago on the same page, mr jf.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:09pm | #

With both barrels! :)

i aim to please, mr darkly. :)

John | October 25, 2005, 5:09pm | #

JD,

People get so upset about Coulter, but read Democratic Underground or Atrios or Kos sometime. There are a lot of really angry, alienated. violent sounding Democrats out there. Fortuneately, the are mostly self-loathing, over educated, privileged, nuerotic white people on those sites, so they are not really much of a threat to anyone but themselves. That said, it can't be good for political discourse.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:16pm | #

There are a lot of really angry, alienated. violent sounding Democrats out there

amen, mr john -- but why do you excuse republicans, who suffer exactly the same manner of neurotic failure?

or is this a reprise of your constant harping against every government bureaucracy under the sun as worthless, inefficient and obstructive -- except the largest and most wasteful one of all, the american armed forces, which you adulate as though it were your infallible god?

JDM | October 25, 2005, 5:17pm | #

"want to credibly claim independence from the actions of your ancestors?"

Dependence on our history is not the same as moral responsibility for its sins, and it is duplicitous fraud to claim otherwise. Do you want to claim that each of us has a responsibility to help his fellow man? I'm all ears. Want to claim that the actions of my ancestors make it impossible for me to be a moral person? I'll call it nonsense.

What are you asking for here? Bleeding heart redistributionism for the third world? Are you pretending there's no arguments about how to best raise the lot of mankind? Or that the answer is easy and obvious? You know better.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 5:20pm | #

"Where were you when gaius marius finally went apeshit?" (sung with the accent of Alan Jackson) :->

paradoctor | October 25, 2005, 5:28pm | #

Bottom line: Coulter is no friend of freedom. Nor, therefore, of you or I. Coulter is a statist and a hypocrite through and through. Well, we knew that already, but now Coulter has officially announced it.

jf | October 25, 2005, 5:37pm | #

gaius:

This is very simply logic here. Please follow along.

1) You said, regarding my statement about African-Americans not wanting to kill whites simply because they laughed at "kill whitey" jokes, "many would sincerely love to, mr jf, and don't only out of fear for their immortal soul. and can you blame them? i can't; indeed, i rather thank them for their forbearance in light of events as recent as katrina."

2) I said "Gee, gaius, it sure is a good thing that those dark-skinned savages are so god-fearing, or else they'd be killing whites left and right." This was a sarcastic restatement of your original words. If you can find "Gee, gaius, you sure do hate blacks, don't you" in that sentence please help me find it.

3) I later said, "Stating that many blacks would love to kill whites, and it's only for fear that they might go to hell that they won't is demeaning at best, and the most despicable form of racism at worst. You can claim I'm recharacterizing your views all day, but it doesn't change what you said." This was in regards to the content of your statement, not the person making said statement (you). Once again, if you can find "Gee, gaius, you sure do hate blacks, don't you" in that sentence please help me find it as well.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:37pm | #

Dependence on our history is not the same as moral responsibility for its sins

in other words, mr jdm, you feel entitled to have your cake and eat it too. :)

What are you asking for here? Bleeding heart redistributionism for the third world?

no. just a simple admittance that the benefits of bourgeoisie capitalism that the american affluent middle class (including myself) were born into have been built in part on -- would indeed not be possible without -- some of the most egregious sins imaginable, on a scale exceeding even the holocaust. slavery was certainly one. the genocide of the native americans another.

admitting the sins is the first step toward forgiveness and remediation. and it must be admitted -- the effects of slavery will continue to haunt us for generations if we don't at least get that far.

Want to claim that the actions of my ancestors make it impossible for me to be a moral person? I'll call it nonsense.

i agree, mr jdm -- it is possible. but taking responsibility for that which you and i benefit from is a necessary condition of attaining that morality.

John | October 25, 2005, 5:37pm | #

Paradoctor,

Most people are friends of freedom as long as someone else is in control. Once someone puts them in charge of something, freedom becomes a very bad thing.

Gaius,

Go read the comment threads on Little Green Footballs or Instapundit, or Hugh Hewitt or any Republican site, they are nothing like the ones on DU or Atrios. Nowhere near full of the hate and vitrol. You are projecting your own feelings on others when you claim Republicans, sans Colter are like that. Read Freud sometime!!

David | October 25, 2005, 5:41pm | #

it's simply a duplicitous fraud, mr jdm, to believe that one bears no responsibilities for the acts of one's ancestors when one reaps the rewards of their activities (incluing the nefarious ones) so easily.

Sins of the fathers, gaius? How many generations should bear the blame for actions the they weren't party to, and couldn't prevent(as they hadn't existed at that time).

And who should bear the blame? For example, the earliest of my ancestors didn't hit this shore until 1903, poor fisherman and farmers from Naples and Poland respectively, who worked in factories in Waterbury, CT through the 1970's. Are they , and in turn, am I responsible for abuses caused by Southerners of english descent?

Now your larger point, I'm sure, is that individualism, particularly if it asks "why should I do or not do X because Y said so?", has eroded our once shining society. The same society that perpetuated these abuses in the first place.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:41pm | #

thank you for your clarification, mr jf, though i think you're obviously lying if you claim not to have attempted to impugn my views with racism. but i'm happy to forgive -- without resorting to such statements as

Try saying what you mean next time.

mediageek | October 25, 2005, 5:42pm | #

Gaius, you seem to assume that everyone's ancestors were either slaveholders or out west slaughtering Native Americans.

What about those whose ancestors didn't take part?

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 5:43pm | #

gaius marius,

Are you suggesting that capitalism came to be because of New World slave regimes run by Europeans? If so, well, that particular line of Marxist thinking has been discredited for a long time. I mean yeah, I like to read Eric Williams and CLR James (and Walter Rodney for that matter), but I don't buy their theories about capitalism and the slave trade, European interactions with Africa, etc.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:43pm | #

Go read the comment threads on Little Green Footballs or Instapundit, or Hugh Hewitt or any Republican site, they are nothing like the ones on DU or Atrios. Nowhere near full of the hate and vitrol

i actually teared up from laughing at this statement.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 5:44pm | #

David,

My family was intimately associated with the slave trade and were part of the Southern slavocracy to boot. :) I'm just riddled with collective sin.

John | October 25, 2005, 5:45pm | #

I actually teared up from laughing at this statement.

Again, you think that just because you are angry and bitter, every one else is too. You project on them. Go to the sites right now and post any comments you think are hateful? If its so easy, put them up? Or have you ever even read those sites. My guess is you just assume things to be the case and have no idea what anyone who disagrees with you actually thinks. Again, read Freud.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 5:46pm | #

David,

Then again, half of my family did fight and die for the Union, so, they mave gone some way to erasing our collective sin. :)

John | October 25, 2005, 5:47pm | #

Hakluyt,

My ancestors raped and pillaged the Roman Empire and helped bring on the dark ages. How do you overcome that kind of historical guilt?

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:48pm | #

Are you suggesting that capitalism came to be because of New World slave regimes run by Europeans?

of course not, gg -- merely that the current state of american wealth and power was predicated on 1) clearing the economic potential of some 37 states by genocidally slaughtering their existing population, and 2) building an essential agricultural export economy on the backs of enslaved men, women and children.

we live on the economic rewards reaped of those early actions; i think it morally behooves us to accept responsibility for them.

mediageek | October 25, 2005, 5:49pm | #

And since I had a several x great grandmother who was Cherokee, but is otherwise white, does that make me simultaneously oppressor and oppressed?

Eric the .5b | October 25, 2005, 5:51pm | #

Gaius, I'll point out that your argument is in practical terms indistinguishable from the justifications various people have for oppressing and slaughtering those of "enemy" ethnic groups.

If separating living people from historical wrongs by the dead to the dead is the crazy new religion, get me my E-meter. Otherwise, I suppose I have to encroach on my own territory, raid my own settlements, give out smallpox-laden blankets to myself, etc....

John | October 25, 2005, 5:51pm | #

Mediageek,

The Cherokees owned slaves and ruthless conqured a lot of the southeast during pre-colonial times. Good luck figuring out that kind of guilt.

thoreau | October 25, 2005, 5:51pm | #

we live on the economic rewards reaped of those early actions; i think it morally behooves us to accept responsibility for them.

Fair enough. Now, what does accepting that responsibility entail? (Besides a sincere apology of course.)

John | October 25, 2005, 5:52pm | #

Gaius,

Still waiting for all of those hateful posts you claim to exist. Feel free to put them up as soon as your find them.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:54pm | #

How many generations should bear the blame for actions the they weren't party to, and couldn't prevent(as they hadn't existed at that time). And who should bear the blame?

not interested in blame, mr david. simply saying that, as beneficiaries of those sins, we bear a responsibility to them.

What about those whose ancestors didn't take part?

mine certainly didn't, mr mediageek. we were farming in the lorraine. but it would be ridiculous to say that, as whites moving to wisconsin in the 1850s, my family didn't benefit from both the native american genocide that cleared the land and the american agricultural economy that had been built on slave labor. as such, have i not benefitted from those sins myself?

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 5:55pm | #

gaius marius,

Why? They weren't viewed as immoral at the time (indeed, the immorality of slavery as a concept held by even a few people only came into being in the late 17th century - and as a mass movement in one country in the late 18th century).

Do you really feel like tangling with me on this subject? It may something like bravado, but I have literally read thousands of primary and secondary sources on slavery (from all ages).

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 5:58pm | #

Still waiting for all of those hateful posts you claim to exist.

there's an intellectual minimum, however miniscule, that merits any work in responding, mr john. that you don't see the rampant hatred frequently endemic in Little Green Footballs or Instapundit, or Hugh Hewitt or any Republican site -- i repeat ANY REPUBLICAN SITE! -- demonstrates the pathological depth of your political partisanship.

you'll make an excellent marchman in cheney's revolutionary mob.

lona | October 25, 2005, 5:58pm | #

"...ruthless conqured..."

Hear that? I thought you were an anarchist, dude. Way to decieve us Ruthless.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 5:59pm | #

John,

The Iroquis ruthlessly attacked their neighbors and conquered many of them before any white person ever had the ability to do so - they did so with the instruments that they purposefully gathered via trade with Europeans so as to attack and enslave their neighbors. The Great Slave Lake in Canada is named after the 19th century efforts of certain aboriginal groups doing essentially the same thing as the Iroquis did in the 18th century. All of this points out how gaius marius' binary victimization theories are full of holes.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 6:01pm | #

thoreau,

We could get rid of the BIA first and privitize the reserverations. :)

John | October 25, 2005, 6:01pm | #

Hakluyt,

Didn't St. Patrick become a saint not only for converting Ireland, but also for being one of the first Christians to object to slavery?

John | October 25, 2005, 6:03pm | #

repeat ANY REPUBLICAN SITE! -- demonstrates the pathological depth of your political partisanship.


But you are not bias, unfair, or projecting or anyting? Right Gaius? Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a hate mongerer, even though you can't point to anything they have said. They just are that way because you say so. And more importantly, they are that way because of the group they belong too. Oh that's fair and reasonable. Sorry to ever question you.

gaius marius | October 25, 2005, 6:05pm | #

They weren't viewed as immoral at the time

indeed, gg, torture doesn't seem to be viewed as immoral now. is it?

Do you really feel like tangling with me on this subject?

never :) and conveniently i have to go home to gaius minimus. but i would posit -- philosophically -- that there is more to the morality that underpinned a western civilization in cohesion than what passed for its practice at any particular point in its deterioration (including, of course, the counterreformational popes). :) it's hard to reconcile mark 12:28-34 with slavery.

Eric the .5b | October 25, 2005, 6:07pm | #

as such, have i not benefitted from those sins myself?

If the basis for moral responsibility is having benefitted from the results of a historical action, who alive today can say they haven't benefitted to some degree, all things considered, from the atrocities in American history? Is the descendant of African slaves morally culpable if he has a better life in modern America than he would have in Africa? What about a guy who just arrived from the West Indies to get a job in some well-paying industry?

fyodor | October 25, 2005, 6:07pm | #

John,

You're just gonna give yourself a heart attack or something if you keep arguing with gaius.

Partisanship is not a partisan disease.

Hey, I like that!

JDM | October 25, 2005, 6:09pm | #

"in other words, mr jdm, you feel entitled to have your cake and eat it too. :)"

Such a good Catholic. Self-flagellation has no place in morality. What I want is to find the best way forward.

Unbelievable but true side note: As I was typing this, a black girl came to my door selling magazines, and trying to promote the sales as a hand up for under-priveleged people. It instills work ethic in her and all of that kind of thing, you see, which she wasn't taught during her upbringing in New Orleans. It was a real heartfelt pitch about how many of my neighbors were willing to help her out, etc. She even thanked me for not siccing my dogs on her. I told her I didn't need any magazines.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 6:10pm | #

John,

St. Patrick was a slave for several years in his life; he is also said to have banished snakes from Ireland. :)

During the middle ages the Catholic Church's position was that holding slaves wasn't sinful, though the Church objected to Christians being the slaves of Jews or "Moors/Saracens." The Catholic Church was slow to condemn slavery in comparison to vanguard Christian groups like the Quakers and some members of the Methodist church.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 6:13pm | #

gaius marius,

The New Testament essentially assumes that Christians will continue to own slaves. It doesn't anticipate a period when slavery is immoral as an institution. That's why apologists for slavery from the 17th century onward were able to use the Bible so deftly against critics of slavery.

bago | October 25, 2005, 6:22pm | #

A lot of people don't realize what's really going on. They view life as a bunch of unconnected incidences and things. They don't realize that there's this like lattice of coincidence that lays on top of everything. I'll Give you an example, show you what I mean. Suppose you thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly somebody will say like plate or shrimp or plate of shrimp out of the blue no explanation. No point in looking for one either. It's all part of a cosmic unconsciousness.

bubba | October 25, 2005, 6:27pm | #

Skimming these comments I see a number of people mud wrestling with a very happy pig.

Coulter is amusing, but should not be taken seriously. She is incapable of convincing someone who does not already agree with her. Franken is the same, except for the amusing part.

No, the Lefties will never openly confront the Right, no matter how shrill their rhetoric. They don't own guns. Instead they will file an endless barrage of law suits.

Oink.

John | October 25, 2005, 6:31pm | #

Hakluyt,

I know St. Patrick was a slave and several of his most famous tracts condem slavery.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 6:45pm | #

John,

If St. Patrick did write anything on the matter, his influence was negligible and the Catholic Church did not take an anti-slavery position until late in the game. Note that the Catholic Church, through the arguments of de las Casas, argued in favor of African slavery in New World as a means to save the aboriginal population of the New World.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 6:54pm | #

John,

In the West the main movers and shakers against slavery were either Christian radicals like the Quakers or Enlightenment figures like Montesquieu. Prior to their arrival slavery was not viewed by the West (using that term in its loosest form) morally as a problematic institution.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 6:56pm | #

John,

I suppose I should also mentioned the English "working class" of the 18th and 19th century. Some of the largest protects in English were over slavery; also, note that many of these "working class" efforts were bitterly and viciously attacked by the government of Pitt the younger.

Lowdog | October 25, 2005, 6:59pm | #

I'm sorry, all you black folks, even though I'm not sure any of my ancestors ever owned any slaves.

I'm sorry, all you native american folks, which I'm sure at least a few ancestors on my dad's side did, indeed, bust a cap in, and may have even had sex with/raped/been raped by one or two.

Now, with that out of the way, I'd like to say that even if I am benefitting from all these horrible things that happened in the past, the best thing I can see to do, for everyone involved, is to put it behind us and try to better ourselves. That goes for white people, black people, brown people, yellow people, red people, etc. All this bullshit Christian guilt about how bad our ancestors are is completely counter-productive. I'm not saying we should forget the sins of our fathers, but to dwell on them is neurotic.

(For the record, on my dad's side we come from wales, but many years ago, so I'm sure we were around to kill some indians. Not so sure we had any money, though, or ever lived in the south. Being from Kansas, we may have been sympathetic to the slave trade, or we may have been against it. Tough call there, since Kansas was pretty schizo about the whole issue. On my mom's side, I'm only 2nd generation Czech, so we didn't have anything to do with any of that.)

loverepoman | October 25, 2005, 7:00pm | #

Bago--Nice Repo Man reference. I say "plate of shrimp" to my husband about 3 times a week and we both know what that means! ;-)

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 7:02pm | #

Lowdog,

A European ancestor of yours might have been involved in the various European slave trades of the middle ages, the classical period, etc. Though not generally known, slavery was a growth industry in much of nothern and eastern Europe throught much of the middle ages - though Vikings" or "Northmen" were some of the primary contributors to this trade, they weren't the only folks involved.

Lowdog | October 25, 2005, 7:20pm | #

Hakluyt - d'oh, but of course, you may be right. I didn't even think of it, since all the focus seemed to be on what went on over here. But you're totally right.

Not that I need to tell you that. ;)

In addition, if you want to go back far enough, one of my ancestors could have had slaves in a Roman province or somesuch. I cannot trace my family back very far, so it's nearly impossible to say.

Hakluyt | October 25, 2005, 7:26pm | #

Lowdog,

I guarantee you that at least one of your ancestors was a complete bastard. :)

Lowdog | October 25, 2005, 7:28pm | #

Of that, Hakluyt, I think we can all be assured of!

Stevo Darkly | October 25, 2005, 7:45pm | #

I'm German on my dad's side. The ancient Romans, founders of European civilization, had Germanic slaves.

I'm mixed Slavic on my mom's side. The Slavs were so commonly enslaved by other Europeans that the word "slave" is derived from "Slav."

So, European civilization was built on the backs of my enslaved forebears. If any of you people are of European descent, or benefit from the use of any European-derived technology or product -- and yes, that includes the English language, then you owe me.

Who knows where I'd be today if you hadn't held me back.

PS: If I'm morally responsible not just for my own actions, but for the evil actions of others that might benefit me in any way, then it seems to me I have both the right and the duty to morally police you, lest my own morals be tainted if you do anything I don't approve of that ultimately benefits me, even if unsolicited.

So put that out, put down that drink, stop looking at that filth, and put that back in your pants. I want to make sure you can't do me any morally tainted favors.

Shem | October 25, 2005, 7:47pm | #

Do you really feel like tangling with me on this subject? It may something like bravado, but I have literally read thousands of primary and secondary sources on slavery (from all ages).

Uh-oh. Sounds like Gary's taking umbrage at Gaius' stealing his bit. Better get the pistols out.;)

John-I hold the Democrats responsible for Michael Moore just as I hold the Republicans responsible for Coulter. Neither side should be using these tactics. I freely admit that this was not always so, however. In the past I have singled out Republicans for their use of Coulter, as they seemed to be very willing to use her in their conventions and elsewhere, while the Democrats made attempts to distance themselves publicly from such tactics. Over the course of the past year and a half, this has changed, which I do find very concerning.

Also, in fairness to Gaius, some of those Republican sites are just as bad as the Democratic ones. Free Republic springs to mind. They're often not as shrill as DU and the others, but they're just as hostile to the values of the Bill of Rights as the Democrats are. Much of this, I believe, is owing to the fact that a lot of them don't have comments enabled. The shrill ones are rarely the ones in charge; it's the peanut gallery where things get irritating.

Shem | October 25, 2005, 7:49pm | #

Wow. Stevo telling somebody else to keep it in his pants. This guilt is some powerful stuff. Never thought I'd see the day.

Paul | October 25, 2005, 7:55pm | #

Al Franken said on David Letterman last night that Karl Rove and Dick Chaney should be executed.

Ah, so the dems are back on board with capital punishment. Good to know.

Paul

Stevo Darkly | October 25, 2005, 8:00pm | #

Shem, in reality I live a life of uncommon purity and nearly monastic chasteness.

Paul | October 25, 2005, 8:06pm | #

it's simply a duplicitous fraud, mr jdm, to believe that one bears no responsibilities for the acts of one's ancestors when one reaps the rewards of their activities (incluing the nefarious ones) so easily. i know that antisociety and antihistory is the religion du jour -- but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Responsibility is a throw-away word, here. I bear NO responsibility for slavery. None. I have no ancestors in this nation prior the very late 19th century- I come from peasants, and am one of the only people I know that has no royalty in my family. (9 out of 10 people are related to Charlamagne-- or at least that's what everyone I've ever met tells me).

But I also understand that that's not your main point. And fair enough. But a butterfly flaps its wings... so what? I can guarantee you that someone, somewhere has reaped the benefits of the oppression of my ancestors, somewhere in history. So what... some 19 year old kid in Germany bears 'responsibility' for that? Negative. All this does is smack of "Look at me, I'm not racist, I think white people should take responsibility... blah blah blah". That has been like, SO done before.

A penny earned 300 years ago has little or no bearing on 'responsibility' four generations down the road- unless that fourth generation is actively oppressing the same people.

And even if one gives nod to the INCREDIBLY tortured thread of responsibility- what's the recourse? Something tells me it will involve government, and uhmmm, taxes?

Paul

jf | October 25, 2005, 8:42pm | #

gaius:

I guess you're home now, and enjoying the family. Lucky you, my son lives in Virginia, and I'm stuck in Ohio, and I miss him like crazy.

"thank you for your clarification, mr jf, though i think you're obviously lying if you claim not to have attempted to impugn my views with racism. but i'm happy to forgive -- without resorting to such statements as

Try saying what you mean next time."

"Try saying what you mean next time" was a commentary on your original sentiment, and was not meant as an insult or "nuclear bomb debating tactic". I do not for a second believe that you are a racist; I do however completely believe that your comment that (paraphrasing) "many blacks do want to kill white people, if not for fear for their immortal souls" is a racist statement.

I'm sorry that you confused my accusation that your statement was racist with a condemnation of you as a person as a racist; that was not my intention, and considering your skill as a debater on Hit and Run, I did not think you would misintepret me in that way.

jf | October 25, 2005, 8:50pm | #

gaius:

For what it's worth, you are totally correct that the commentors on LGF and some other right-wing sites are just as, if not more, hateful as those on DailyKos, DU, and other left-wing sites. I disagree that Instapundit is hateful, however, and question how anyone could even come to that conclusion.

John | October 25, 2005, 11:48pm | #

JF,

I don't know what LGF is and don't read it. However, I would still would like to see examples from whatever site you want that is as crazy and abusive as the stuff that is routinely on DU, Kos and Atrios.

Steven Crane | October 26, 2005, 12:39am | #

Gaius,

Go read the comment threads on Little Green Footballs or Instapundit, or Hugh Hewitt or any Republican site, they are nothing like the ones on DU or Atrios. Nowhere near full of the hate and vitrol. You are projecting your own feelings on others when you claim Republicans, sans Colter are like that. Read Freud sometime!!

Comment by: John at October 25, 2005 05:37 PM

I don't know what LGF is and don't read it. However, I would still would like to see examples from whatever site you want that is as crazy and abusive as the stuff that is routinely on DU, Kos and Atrios.

Dag, yo. John, is it really possible that you don't recognise LGF as the initials of Little Green Footballs?

gaius marius | October 26, 2005, 10:15am | #

If the basis for moral responsibility is having benefitted from the results of a historical action, who alive today can say they haven't benefitted to some degree, all things considered, from the atrocities in American history?

and not just american history, but all of history, mr .5b?

at the risk of extending this fairly civil discussion into divisive territory, i think you're approaching the root of the wisdom behind the concept of original sin.

gaius marius | October 26, 2005, 10:25am | #

Lucky you, my son lives in Virginia, and I'm stuck in Ohio, and I miss him like crazy.

i'm sorry to hear it, mr jf. good luck to you.

do however completely believe that your comment that (paraphrasing) "many blacks do want to kill white people, if not for fear for their immortal souls" is a racist statement.

mr jf, is it a racist statement to say that many american whites would not be opposed to killing african-americans? i would say that is a fairly obvious observation. i merely acknowledge that the reciprocal is also true.

and -- and this is a very important point -- that has nothing to do with anyone's genetics.

within the ad hoc american society, we all live with the fact that millions of members of another culture were captured, caged, beaten into submission and forced to the will of our own culture. that is a cultural conflict, not a racial one -- indeed, i don't think "race" has nearly enough deterministic meaning along such lines to be important.

i am saying that the members of that aggrieved and dislocated culture hold a deep, powerful resentment toward our culture for the profound amorality of our economic behavior -- even as the two cultures exchange some characteristics. that sense of cultural grief is more than powerful enough, if it is allowed to break free from the self-imposed constraints of civility, to indulge itself in mortal revenge. it would be for anyone so aggrieved, imo, and has often been in the past.

gaius marius | October 26, 2005, 10:29am | #

She even thanked me for not siccing my dogs on her.

perhaps, mr jf, we can use mr jdm's experience to illustrate what the disaffected members of the african-american proletariat have come to expect of the euro-american middle class.

gaius marius | October 26, 2005, 10:35am | #

If St. Patrick did write anything on the matter, his influence was negligible and the Catholic Church did not take an anti-slavery position until late in the game.

some evidence for others, gg, who believe that the catholic church cannot change. :)

fwiw, you're obviously aware that a religion as a set o ideas and the imperfect institution which would ostensibly forward those ideas in the world are not the same. i think one has to be a bit silly (as you do) to think that the catholic church has been anything near a perfect expression of holiness on the earth -- such thinking is a consequence of an institution which forgot about god and fell in love with itself and its secular aspirations.

but that is not the same as saying that the ideas of christ somehow advocate enslaving one's fellow man. would you agree?

David | October 26, 2005, 10:37am | #

gaius,

Do you really believe that so many people are fixated on genocide in this country? What's holding them all back?

Is it possible that the overwhelming majority of people, while possibly uncomfortable with other races, are more concerned with actually living their lives than ending someone else's?

gaius marius | October 26, 2005, 10:39am | #

All this bullshit Christian guilt about how bad our ancestors are is completely counter-productive. I'm not saying we should forget the sins of our fathers, but to dwell on them is neurotic.

to dwell on them, mr lowdog, is i think a powerful antidote to personal hubris. fwiw, i think that a person who assiduously attempts to forget them is in fact trying to escape from something.

jf | October 26, 2005, 10:42am | #

mr jf, is it a racist statement to say that many american whites would not be opposed to killing african-americans?

No, it would merely be an unsupported opinion, with absolutely no basis in the real world. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get some popcorn and watch the race riot that should be starting any minute outside my window.

gaius marius | October 26, 2005, 10:45am | #

If I'm morally responsible not just for my own actions, but for the evil actions of others that might benefit me in any way, then it seems to me I have both the right and the duty to morally police you, lest my own morals be tainted if you do anything I don't approve of that ultimately benefits me, even if unsolicited.

in other words, mr darkly, an acknowledgement of responsibility accompanying reward is a basic rational for social cohesion?

mk | October 26, 2005, 10:46am | #

Hak,
Would it be fair to say that, when you take in a larger scope of history, pretty much all of us have ancestors that were slaves at some point or other? This would be especially true if you expand the definition of slavery to include indentured servitude which was practically like being a slave without passing on the slavery to one's children, no?

jf | October 26, 2005, 10:47am | #

perhaps, mr jf, we can use mr jdm's experience to illustrate what the disaffected members of the african-american proletariat have come to expect of the euro-american middle class.

Here's another true story. Every time I go to the gas station, I've got middle-aged African-American men asking me if I have any spare change. From this, we can obviously extrapolate that all black men need a quarter to call a taxi.

And another thing: it would not be an exagerration to say that many Maltese men would like to see non-swarthy people killed.

gaius marius | October 26, 2005, 11:02am | #

I'm going to get some popcorn and watch the race riot that should be starting any minute outside my window.

unfortunately, you'll probably only be there a few years, mr jf.

you don't think that many american whites think that blacks should be rounded up and shot? really? because i know some, i'm sad and angry to say, and they have a lot of likeminded hillbilly friends.

JDM | October 26, 2005, 11:09am | #

"perhaps, mr jf, we can use mr jdm's experience to illustrate what the disaffected members of the african-american proletariat have come to expect of the euro-american middle class."

Perhaps we can instead use them to spot a discpicable marketing tactic. I'd like to find the person behind that magazine scam and punch them in the face.

Come on, gaius, you can fit this into your narrative too:

it is a symptom of the age of decline in which we find ourselves that the very real plight of american africans is now used as a cheap ploy to sell magazines in search of mere lucre. i will point out the irony that these magazines, btw, are simply more propaganda meant to perpetuate consumerism among the plebes.

Mk | October 26, 2005, 11:12am | #

What do you mean by "many" Gaius? I have met a fair amount of people like that myself, but they seem like a pretty inconsequential bunch.

The kind of racism that ought to worry people in this day and age is of a much more subtle, subconscious even, variety imho.

JDM | October 26, 2005, 11:20am | #

Errr, "it" and "despicable" in that first sentence.

gaius marius | October 26, 2005, 11:35am | #

genocide

is a powerful word, mr david. i think the pathetic point of view i'm positing the existence of falls short of that -- but certainly believes, for example, that two-thirds of black men really do belong in the criminal justice system -- and that many of those would be better off dead.

perhaps it's my familiarity with rural america, being from there and still positioned in chicago, but i'm quite sensitive to the opinions of this unwashed mass in flyover country.

Stevo Darkly | October 26, 2005, 4:01pm | #

"If I'm morally responsible not just for my own actions, but for the evil actions of others that might benefit me in any way, then it seems to me I have both the right and the duty to morally police you, lest my own morals be tainted if you do anything I don't approve of that ultimately benefits me, even if unsolicited."

"in other words, mr darkly, an acknowledgement of responsibility accompanying reward is a basic rational for social cohesion?"

More like a warning, gaius, that if I accept your view of "responsibility," then I have a philosophical justification for the most totalitarian, intrusive government imaginable.
-----
Also, as an aside, I looked at the quotes from LGF and, aside from a couple of the anti-Islamic comments, they don't appear to hold a candle to some of the stuff I remember seeing on places like DU or even Washington Monthly's "Political Animal" blog. But this is, of course, a very subjective judgment, and I admit that I don't have time this week to round up counter-cites. There is also probably an aspect of where one's sympathies tend to lie, whose ox is being gored, and the tendency to remember the most outrageous and offensive comments more than the calm and reasoned ones.