Weekend Open Thread

Radley Balko | February 10, 2007, 10:41am

Fire away.

I'll suggest a topic to get you started:

Firebrand right-winger Michelle Malkin was once vaguely libertarian (indeed, back in 1999,she even penned an anti-drug war story for Reason about how the city of Seattle abused its abatement law to seize the homes of residents). I have a friend who worked with Ann Coulter early in her career who swears she used to be smart, thoughtful, and intellectually honest. Before his gig at theNY Times, Paul Krugman was a respected, only slightly left-of-center economist. Conservative populist, champion-of-the-everyman Bill O'Reilly went to Harvard.

My question: Of all the shrill wingnuts on both ends of the linear political spectrum, which ones do you think actually believe their own bullshit? That is, which loudmouths are authentic, and which are just putting on an act, having realized that the shrill stuff is what sells books and attracts readers/viewers/listeners?

Remember to show your work.

The thread need not be limited to the examples above, or the question above.

ALSO: Had to add this. Nick noted this week how President Bush Medal-of-Freedomed the ONDCP's failed ad campaigns in his new budget. Watch Tucker Carlson pummel drug warrior Rep. Mark Souder over the commercials.

Hat tip to Drug War Rant .

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Send this article to:

Comments to "Weekend Open Thread":

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 11:58am | #

I think Krugman is a believer. Every time he's on TV he looks like he's going to cry due to what evil rich people are doing.

Luo Dobbs, on the other hand, got an economics degree at Harvard and can't be as stupid as he acts.

In a compelteley unrelated story, the headline "Putin blasts US over use of force."

Yeah, the guy who kills journalists in elevators.

And Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was roughed up in an elevator, once again reminding us how fucking sick and serious anti-semites are and that we should think twice before criticizing the means Jews take to defend themselves.

edna | February 10, 2007, 12:00pm | #

not just shrill, but out and out stupid. joe pyne was the pioneer. all of the above are bullshit artists. i think the qualities that allow you to understand and successfully exploit a market niche in political/social commentary are antithetical to believing much of anything beyond what it's gonna take to get than next sweet couple mil.

it's the m-o-r wingnuts that believe what they're saying. they should worry us more.

Great American | February 10, 2007, 12:02pm | #

Sean Hannity is dumb enough to be sincere...

joe | February 10, 2007, 12:06pm | #

The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent yield the tame stylings of Paul Krugman, speaks volumes about contemporary politics.

OK, you disagree with Paul Krugman on economic issues. Ann Coulter says that liberals need to be "physically intimidated" by seeing people executed, and realize that they can be executed too, or they'll betray the country. Michelle Malkin wrote a book - not just made an off-hand remark, but researched and fleshed out, and continues to argue - in defense of the internment of the Japanese, and finds positive lessons in that episode for how we should deal with Muslim Americans. Bill O'Reilly - ah, Bill O'Reilly. What really needs to be said.

Against all this Paul Krugman did what? Say that CEO pay was too high? Insist that the administration was dishonest with us about the Iraq War?

t.j. | February 10, 2007, 12:13pm | #

tucker carlson's the only rightwing tv pundit i sorta like. he has some vaguely libertarian leanings on certain things. he's not stupid but he can be annoying sometimes and he certainly has "blind spots" that can be irritating. i don't know why liberals hate him as much as the others or jon stewert (who i like) chose to stick it to him over the hannitys and o'reillys.

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 12:17pm | #

I think Tucker Carlson is brilliant.

Liberals hate him because he's white and wears a bow tie.

joe | February 10, 2007, 12:21pm | #

I think Tucker's ok. He throws around a lot of cheap shots - did you know that Barack Obama's church is too black? - but he's not an off-the-reservation loon, and he seems more interested in arguing the truth as he sees it than in waging a partisan war.

The Hannitys of the world, they just don't seem to have any compunction about disregarding truth and decency if it will help their team.

Antarctic Penguin | February 10, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Great American, I do not think Sean Hanity is sincere. I (must admit I) listen to his show when driving home from college. I do so partly out of the P.G. Woodhouse theory that it is "good to know the tune to which the devil dances." I heard him talking to a lesbian caller once and his tone changed within a single call. While he was telling her he did not have a problem with her personally he sounded far more sincere than he usualy does. While he was telling the same person, in the same call that he does not think she should get married he sounded very uncomfortable, like it pained him to tell he this to her on the phone. I think he does not truly believe most of what he is saying about most social issues. The only four issues he sounds sincere to me on are abortion, war, guns and economics. Beyond that and he sounds like he is towing the party line for the sake of towing the party line.

Jennifer | February 10, 2007, 12:28pm | #

To give Tucker Carlson credit, he challenged that twit Souder when the latter claimed that "all" marijuana users smoke pot in conjunction with other, harder, drugs.

Michael More | February 10, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 12:40pm | #

The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent(/em>

The liberal equivalents are teaching at Harvard and Yale.

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 12:40pm | #

The previous post should read...

The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent

The liberal equivalents are teaching at Harvard and Yale.

Huck | February 10, 2007, 12:41pm | #

Yeah, no lefties like that at all Joe--Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken...

JLM | February 10, 2007, 12:52pm | #

"i don't know why liberals hate him as much as the others or jon stewert (who i like) chose to stick it to him over the hannitys and o'reillys."

Stewart stuck it to Tucker because he happened to be on his show at the time.

They hate him as much as the others because of the "you're either for us or you're against us" mentality. All things are black and white, don't you know?

shecky | February 10, 2007, 12:54pm | #

I haven't found Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes, or Al Franken quite the hate spewers as the likes of Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly. The former I think are generally sincere, the latter are so over the top whacko to an extent I have a hard time believing they're for real. Maybe a closer parallel would be to the likes of Ward Churchill (whom I also think is sincere).

Karen | February 10, 2007, 12:55pm | #

Wrenchingly off-topic, unless you want to regard this is as evidence of someone who believes their schtick, this is a link to a long list of religion jokes. So far, despite 225 entries, no one has posted anything begining "so this priest, a minister, and a rabbi go into a bar. . . . " So, H & R, your mission is to find a joke that meets my requirements and post it. Good luck, Jim.

jb | February 10, 2007, 12:56pm | #

All pale parodies.

Grand Chalupa's right: The liberal wingnuts are mostly academics, the conservative wingnuts are mostly pundits.

Also, conservative anger comes from having lost control of the agenda for decades--first the economic agenda in 1929, then the social agenda in the '60s. Liberals, having gotten their way for most of the 20th century, just can't muster the resent required to be angry wingnuts. The ones that come close do so by dipping into identity politics.

Morat20 | February 10, 2007, 12:59pm | #

When you're reduced to comparing Paul Krugman to Ann Coulter, you've fallen so deeply out of reality that there's probably no hope for you.

Seriously -- what's the worst think Krugman's ever said? What has he said that you think he doesn't believe?

Coulter -- I can think of a zillion ridiculously over the top statements she's made that either she doesn't believe, or is practically insane.

Krugman? I can see not agreeing with his economics -- even violently disagreeing with him. But Ann Coulter territory? Jesus -- come on, man.

Anonymous Coward | February 10, 2007, 1:01pm | #

They hate him as much as the others because of the "you're either for us or you're against us" mentality. All things are black and white, don't you know?

Which also explains why liberals hated the president when he said this, two weeks after the terrorist attack:

...That is why I have insisted that Congress pass strong anti-terrorism legislation immediately -- to provide for more than 1,000 new law enforcement personnel solely to fight terrorism; to create a domestic anti-terrorism center...

...I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.

I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy....

...The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong....

...If you treat law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line for your safety every day like some kind of enemy army to be suspected...you are wrong....

...How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny....

...[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.....

edna | February 10, 2007, 1:02pm | #

Maybe a closer parallel would be to the likes of Ward Churchill

not successful in the $$$ sense. he hasn't sold a bunch of books or marketed a tv show. he's only managed to take some small sips of the public teat and parlay his story into a nice way to get second-rank exposure and spend his middle age years banging naive students. i mean, really, what percentage of the population knows who ward churchill is? 1%? 2%? that would be generous. how many books has he sold? probably made enough royalties to buy a couple pizzas.

Ironchef | February 10, 2007, 1:03pm | #

Moderation does not sell books. Or get ratings. Or fit into tidy little sound-bites.

Jesse Walker | February 10, 2007, 1:06pm | #

OK, you disagree with Paul Krugman on economic issues.

It's not that. I didn't always agree with Krugman's economic views in the '90s, but his books and articles regularly challenged my thinking and, in some cases, changed my mind. Whereas nowadays I'm usually unimpressed with his op-eds even when I agree with them.

I don't think he's a bullshitter, and I don't think he's dumb. I think he's better off writing 4000-word pieces than 800-word pieces.

Stewart stuck it to Tucker because he happened to be on his show at the time.

They hate him as much as the others because of the "you're either for us or you're against us" mentality. All things are black and white, don't you know?

You've got it backwards. Stewart attacked Crossfire precisely because it reinforced that black-and-white, only-two-choices view of the world. The fact that Carlson's own politics are more nuanced is beside the point; Crossfire in its final incarnation wasn't set up to reflect those nuances. (I miss the days when Michael Kinsley and Pat Buchanan would debate some economic issue and Kinsley would be the one taking the free-market side. Back then the show had some unpredictability, largely because the hosts aspired to doing more than playing party hack.)

tomWright | February 10, 2007, 1:19pm | #

Sean Hannity means everything he says, as do Malkin, OReilly and the rest. I sometimes wonder about Coulter. She strikes me as a performer just saying crap for the sake of outrage and publicity.

On the left, Ted Rall, Aaron McGruder, Olberman, Miles O'Brien and the rest of the CNN crew, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Alec Baldwin, Harry Belefonte, Spike Lee, all of whom have spewed vitriolic hateful crap themselves, all mean what they say.

t.j. | February 10, 2007, 1:26pm | #

i never saw the tucker era "crossfire" so i'll admit some ignorance there. i really only became aware of him around the time stewert called him a dick. but since then i've seen his msnbc show in it's various incarnations and it's better then a lot of those type of shows. in it's original 11pm slot he often had this liberal lesbian "air america" host whose name escapes me, all the time and it was clear they were friendly even when they disagreed and he let plenty of other different points of view be heard and he'd LISTEN. he can be annoying but he's far from the worst. whereas bill o'reilly has been a guest on the daily show twice and jon practically kissed his ass both times especially the first time, i guess cause jon wants to believe the daily show isn't liberal. now bill o'reilly IS a dick and jon stewert had "home terf advantage" with it being his own audience watching and he was a teddy bear. ya wanna know how unpopular tucker carlson is? stephan colbert won't even PRETEND to like him on his show. lol even in his rightwing pundit character, i've seen colbert make jokes at tucker's expense that were not in the guise of liking him but clearly negative. colbert's character loves coulter, hannity, o'reilly and all the others.

Dave W. | February 10, 2007, 1:47pm | #

The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent yield the tame stylings of Paul Krugman, speaks volumes about contemporary politics.

joe nails it. I am no partisan Democrat. I am no Democrat at all, but I wiil take their commentators any day over pro-R ones.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 1:49pm | #

"so this priest, a minister, and a rabbi go into a bar . . .

So this priest, a minister, and a rabbi go into a bar and the bartender says: "Is this a joke?"

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 1:51pm | #

So, continuing with the anything goes option:

Was Vickie Lynne Hogan* Killed by NASA?

*Anna Nicole

JLM | February 10, 2007, 1:57pm | #

"Stewart attacked Crossfire precisely because it reinforced that black-and-white, only-two-choices view of the world."

Agreed, but I think that Stewart wanted to make a point about that type of nonsense (in general), and if he was on one of these other shows at that time he would have made a similar point. The fact that many who dispise Tucker now have only seen him in his current role (not the crap-slinging Crossfire role) tells me that they are just putting him in the Ann Coulter bucket because there are only two buckets in their world.

"whereas bill o'reilly has been a guest on the daily show twice and jon practically kissed his ass both times especially the first time, i guess cause jon wants to believe the daily show isn't liberal."

I think Jon Stewart is professional enough that he's not going to have somebody on his show just so that he can attack them, including O'Reilly. He will pick on somebody a bit but he always lets them talk. When he went on Crossfire he was a guest on a show where the mood was routinely combative, and that was what they expected out of him. I don't think they quite expected him to attack them personally, but that is what they deserved.

Gimme a break | February 10, 2007, 1:59pm | #

The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent

Do you mean it is difficult to find a liberal equivalent smart enough to make money at it?

joe | February 10, 2007, 2:01pm | #

"I haven't found Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Randi Rhodes, or Al Franken quite the hate spewers as the likes of Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly."

Olbermann, Moore, Rhodes and Franken can definitely get their hate on towards Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay, but you don't see them launching venom at entire segments of their fellow Americans.

joe | February 10, 2007, 2:07pm | #

The Ward Churchill comparison is probably quite apt.

And as edna and Gimme a Break point out, there simply isn't the market among lefties for that sort of rhetoric, so people like Ward don't become prominent.

Charles | February 10, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Olbermann, Moore, Rhodes and Franken can definitely get their hate on towards Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay, but you don't see them launching venom at entire segments of their fellow Americans.

Didn't Moore say something about the terrorists on 9-11 attacking the wrong people, and that they should have hit a red state where people deserved it?

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 2:20pm | #

joe | February 10, 2007, 2:21pm | #

Charles,

That was as twisting of Moore's words. He did not say that people in Red States deserved to be attacked by terrorists. He noted the irony of the attacks which so benefitted Bush, and which Bush (in Moore's opinion) was negligent in preventing, hitting people who had supported Gore.

Happy Jack | February 10, 2007, 2:23pm | #

That is, which loudmouths are authentic, and which are just putting on an act, having realized that the shrill stuff is what sells books and attracts readers/viewers/listeners?

I'd have to say that Michael Moore's devise of "sticking up for the little guy" is disingenuous. I can recall some scenes in Roger and Me that convey disdain for the working class.

Granted, this doesn't exactly rise to the shrillness of others, but as noted above, he's found a niche and is laughing all the way to the bank.

joe | February 10, 2007, 2:24pm | #

Guy,

I triple dog dare you to find a single quote from any of the four attacking "Wal*Mart shoppers or employees."

Not the corporation, but your words, "Wal*Mart shoppers and employees."

And no, explaining your ideology about corporations to elide the difference doesn't count.

Eric Atkinson | February 10, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Joe most likely thinks he "won" this here thread, as usual...He's a legend in his own mind.

joe | February 10, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Limbaugh is acting. It's obvious that he genuinely believes in the culture war he's waging, but he clearly picks and chooses issues and arguments in coordination with the message coming out of the Republican Party.

joe | February 10, 2007, 2:28pm | #

Eric A,

Is that what you do in lieu of argumentation?

I just don't comment when I having nothing to add.

Danny O. Cline, Jr. | February 10, 2007, 2:28pm | #

On the left, Ted Rall, Aaron McGruder, Olberman, Miles O'Brien and the rest of the CNN crew, Randi Rhodes, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Al Gore, Alec Baldwin, Harry Belefonte, Spike Lee, all of whom have spewed vitriolic hateful crap themselves, all mean what they say.

Come on, you're being unfair. Miles O'Brien was the best transporter chief the enterprise ever had. A little boring maybe, but hardly a vicious nut.

zeiner the lurker | February 10, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Beyond that and he [Hanity] sounds like he is towing the party line for the sake of towing the party line.

Rush did (maybe still does, I don't listen to his show) and admitted it:
"But there have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs."

I believe that most of the right-wing pundits do this in order not to upset the Republican leadership. This is the reason I don't listen to any them, and it is why I don't believe anything that come out of their mouth's.

President Regan's 11th Commandment "Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republican" is one of the worst quotes of Pres. Regan. I think that the pundits took it way too seriously.

I always believed that Republicans (along with Libertarians) valued individuality. Today, Republicans only value loyalty.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 2:32pm | #

So, in NASCAR News, Toyota is on the cusp of their first NEXTEL Cup race (tonight, 2000 Eastern Time).

How small do the holes in their restrictor plate have to be to keep the rice out?

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Anybody want to share a secret? Something sexual, perhaps?

TH | February 10, 2007, 2:35pm | #

Joe most likely thinks he "won" this here thread, as usual...He's a legend in his own mind.

Joe "Won" before he even started.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 2:36pm | #

I will readily admit to having not heard of most of these people.

Here's a related question: is politics less, equally or more coarse today than it was in past periods of American history?

Eric Atkinson | February 10, 2007, 2:40pm | #

The ideal that the left wing Kos bunch such as Franken et al are some kind of soft spoken reasonable commitators, is as silly as any thing else that comes out of joes keyboard.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 2:40pm | #

Here's a related question: is politics less, equally or more coarse today than it was in past periods of American history?

No more, maybe a little less than when Senators used to beat other Senators with heavy wooden caines in the chamber.

Caesar | February 10, 2007, 2:42pm | #

Grotius-
Judging from the below passage in "Democracy in America" I would think its as shrill now as it has always been. The excerpt is from a partisan newspaper Tocqueville came across speaking of Andrew Jackson-

"In all this affair the language of Jackson has been that of a heartless despot, solely
occupied with the preservation of his own authority. Ambition is his crime, and it
Page 8
will be his punishment too. Intrigue is his native element, and intrigue will
confound his tricks and will deprive him of his power. He governs by means of
corruption, and his immoral practices will redound to his shame and confusion.
His conduct in the political arena has been of a shameless and lawless gamester.
He succeeded at the time, but the hour of retribution approaches, and he will be
obliged to disgorge his winnings, to throw aside his false dice, and to end his days
in some retirement where he may curse his madness at his leisure. For repentance
is a virtue of which his heart is likely to remain forever unacquainted. "

Couldn't we all see a 19th century Sean Hannity writing something like the above?

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Caesar,

Oooh, nice. I haven't thought about that portion of the work in a long time. *high five*

Larry A | February 10, 2007, 2:44pm | #

The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent yield the tame stylings of Paul Krugman, speaks volumes about contemporary politics.

There's always Ted Kozynski. ;-)

Liberal pundits get media coverage and publication without being shrill, even if they don't deserve it. Michael Belleisles published a book so full of crap scholarship he was actually fired from his university and had his award rescended, punishments almost unheard of in the academic world. But the mainstream media and left wing pundits initially worked his revilation with complete gullibility. Coulter and Malkin's books were dissed from the gitgo.

joe | February 10, 2007, 2:56pm | #

I just realized something:

Ted Rall is a cartoonist. Ditto Aaron McGruder

Michael Moore and Spike Lee are film makers.

Alec Baldwin is an actor. Harry Belefonte was a singer.

The thread is allegedly about professional politcal pundits. None of these people would be allowed anywhere near hosting gig on a political talk show. Hell, Phil freaking Donohue gets fired for being too controversial.

Graphite | February 10, 2007, 2:56pm | #

Yeah when Moore said that 9/11 would have turned out differently if it had been black people on the planes instead of those pussy whites, he was training his rapier wit on just a few well-deserving right-wing villains.

Cesar | February 10, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Graphite-

Or that time Michael Moore insinuated that the NRA was somehow connected to the Klan because they were both founded the same year?

Nevermind the NRA was founded primarily by Union Civil War vets, while the first gun control America were specifically made so freed blacks could not own guns.

Rick Barton | February 10, 2007, 3:00pm | #

I have a friend who worked with Ann Coulter early in her career who swears she used to be smart, thoughtful, and intellectually honest.

Yeah really, when did she first become such a buffoon? Was it when she said that we should convert Muslims to Christianity?

I nominate Hillary Clinton as one who doesn’t really believe her BS. In fact, She seems rather Nixonesque. She’ll claim and advocate all manner of stuff for political reasons. The war? Drug decriminalization? Corporate Bailouts? She’s well versed on both sides cuz she‘ll take both sides depending on whom she’s talking to.

joe | February 10, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Grotius,

It depends on your timeline. There were certainly periods in American history that were as nasty as today. My personal experience, on the other hand, only goes back to the mid-80s, and over the course of those two decades, the last few years stand out for their sleaziness.

Something to think about: the same people behind the Swift Boart Veterans for Truth in 2004 were organized as Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace by the Nixon White House, and for the same purpose - to discredit John Kerry. Back then, however, they didn't dare question his right to wear his medals, accuse of being a coward, or otherwise slander his military record. Even the Nixon White House didn't go that far.

wayne | February 10, 2007, 3:13pm | #

"The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent yield the tame stylings of Paul Krugman, speaks volumes about contemporary politics."

The explanation to this is simple. Right wing commentators are more popular, funnier, and more on the mark than their left wing counterparts. For a good list of kookie left wingers see TomWright's post at 1:19.

By the way, I have recenlty read a few editorials by Ann Coulter, and I have to say that she is on the mark, at least in those editorials. Based on my those editorials, I have to say that Balko's villification of her, "I have a friend who worked with Ann Coulter early in her career who swears she used to be smart, thoughtful, and intellectually honest.", is kind of dumb. I can't vouch for Coulter's honesty, but she is clearly smart and thoughtful. It seems that Mr. Balko is making the bone-headed mistake of letting his dislike of Coulter's politics cloud his judgement.

Name-Goes-Here | February 10, 2007, 3:14pm | #

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Daily_Show_slams_Bremer_for_9_0209.html
It's the web site comment at the end that's beautiful.

Ruthless | February 10, 2007, 3:15pm | #

There must be 100 politicians that don't believe their own bullshit for every pundit.
Which is more vile?
Pundits are just trying to make an honest living.
Ninety-nine out of 100 politicians are only too happy to sacrifice the long term good of their constituents in order to remain in office.

Graphite | February 10, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Yeah I think the word 'nutcase' is being thrown around too easily in this thread. IMHO for your politics to qualify you for that term they need to be waaaaaaaaay out there. Malkin saying the Japanese internment was a good idea counts. So does Ward Churchill calling WTC bond traders "Little Eichmanns." But, as much as I might disagree with particular stances of theirs, I don't recall anything that Limbaugh or Franken has said that puts them in that same company.

There's a difference between being a radical and being a nutcase (as we libertarians should be well aware!).

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 3:22pm | #

So does Ward Churchill calling WTC bond traders "Little Eichmanns."

Didn't he mention that he was speaking of some sort of some pastery, rather than calling the bond traders Nazis?

It makes even less sense that way, but I remember something like that.

biologist | February 10, 2007, 3:25pm | #

joe, Ted Rall is indeed a cartoonist, but he is also a columnist and has appeared on Hannity and Colmes. He probably counts as a pundit, whether one agrees with him or not.

Cab | February 10, 2007, 3:26pm | #

I would add Begala, Maher, and Thom Hartmann. They are dumb enough to believe their own spew.

joe | February 10, 2007, 3:27pm | #

It is very gratifying to me to see that the only people claiming Keith Olberman or Randi Rhodes are hateful and thoughtless are those who turn around and defend Ann Coulter as thoughtful.

Cesar | February 10, 2007, 3:29pm | #

Charles Johnson and his army of Fascists over at Little Green Footballs are also nutty enough (unfortunatley) to really believe we DO need to nuke Mecca, etc.

joe | February 10, 2007, 3:31pm | #

biologist,

Ward Churchill has appeared on Hannity and Colmes, too. Those shows have loonies of all sorts as guests all the time. Rall's profile is probably 1% of Coulter's.

Jonah Goldberg seems like someone who believes what he writes. His writing displays exactly the same variety of self-satisfied thoughtlessness as the idea he presents, so I have to believe that that's really him coming through.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 3:37pm | #

Like beauty, who is and who is not a "political nutcase" is in the eye of the beholder. ;)

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 3:38pm | #

Okay, I had to do a little research, but now I am convinced that Leftists are more in-tune with the common man than any Conservative.

The Great Ape | February 10, 2007, 3:43pm | #

Tucker: Well, I know a lot of casual marijuana users, so that's wrong.

Ha! good stuff. I like how Souder offer no specifics on anything.

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 3:50pm | #

I would add Begala, Maher, and Thom Hartmann. They are dumb enough to believe their own spew.

I've never heard of the other two, but Bill Maher was a hero of mine like ten years ago.

He used to be a libertarian, hated religion and had original, honest views on relationship and sex.

Hanging out in hollywood too long made him into a MoveOn liberal.

Damn shame.

juris imprudent | February 10, 2007, 3:51pm | #

Joe sez There were certainly periods in American history that were as nasty as today. My personal experience, on the other hand, only goes back to the mid-80s, and over the course of those two decades, the last few years stand out for their sleaziness.

This is an excellent point - that most people judge on a personal timeline and not on history. For the past 14 years I've been pointing out to the vitriolic critics of the Administration(s) that the Republic has endured worse and survived. Anyone with any appreciation whatsoever for 19th century American history should know this.

On the subject proper, has anyone ever seen Ted Rall and Ann Coulter at the same place at the same time? I sorta picture them as a Jekyll/Hyde duality - it would explain a lot.

taktix | February 10, 2007, 3:54pm | #

One lady, a few posts down in Karen's link above, claims that the Immaculate Reception entry in Wikipedia is the product of the lefties' in Hollywood (I guess to detract attention from the "true" Immaculate Conception, which I guess we're supposed to think about like 72 times a day).

If the average member of the punditry audience is that partisan, does it really surprise you that the aforementioned nutjobs are so polarized?

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 3:54pm | #

On the subject proper, has anyone ever seen Ted Rall and Ann Coulter at the same place at the same time? I sorta picture them as a Jekyll/Hyde duality - it would explain a lot.

I never saw Ringo Starr and Yasser Arafat in the same place at the same time either. Perhaps Ringo just got tired of traveling so much?

Cesar | February 10, 2007, 3:55pm | #

Juris-

I wish more people would also realize there have been many, many times when politics in America was as vitriolic now and even worse.

Even the founders succumbed to a very nasty period of partisan divide in the 1790s and early 1800s.

John Adams was portrayed a British-loving monarchist who wanted to destroy the Republic, Thomas Jefferson was a godless hedonist with "French" ideas.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 4:00pm | #

Cesar,

He certainly had a lot of French wine. ;)

biologist | February 10, 2007, 4:06pm | #

I believe I remember reading that Jefferson was derided as being the "Virginia Voltaire".

juris imprudent | February 10, 2007, 4:12pm | #

If the average member of the punditry audience is that partisan, does it really surprise you that the aforementioned nutjobs are so polarized?

Dare you suggest that there is a bigger market for right-wing-nuts then for moonbat lefties? No wonder leftists reject the notion of the market.

Considering how major league baseball is rewarding marginal talent, perhaps the punditry isn't such a mystery after all.

Cab | February 10, 2007, 4:13pm | #

Chalupa - Begala is Paul Begala. You remember him. There is no reason to know Hartmann. He is a nobody, even by Air America standards.

I agree that Maher has gotten worse. Oddly, I think George Carlin has gone in the same direction, but I still think he is a genius. Go figure.

Muttley | February 10, 2007, 4:15pm | #

I believe I remember reading that Jefferson was derided as being the "Virginia Voltaire".

I am sure there are insults worse than that.

What about the "Crawford Nero"?

Cesar | February 10, 2007, 4:15pm | #

Speaking of my home state, this article gives an interesting perspective on the upcoming Jamestown anniversary.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD/MGArticle/RTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193127635

Basically, a group of people are saying that the first English colony in America was nothing more than a huge corporate money-making enterprise. They are saying this in a critical way, but is it really that bad that the first part of our country was founded purely to make money? Minus the slavery part, I for one don't really think so.

But are most people ashamed of this, and is this why Plymouth and not Jamestown is seen by many as the 'true' birthplace of America?

Rick Barton | February 10, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Grand Chalupa:

And Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was roughed up in an elevator, once again reminding us how fucking sick and serious anti-Semites are and that we should think twice before criticizing the means Jews take to defend themselves.

We should condemn anti-Semites and all racists for the their most primitive form of collectivism that denies they the reality of individuality in such a malicious way.

But the existence of anti-Semitism does not serve as a pretext of merit for the crimes of the Israeli government. Jews in general should not be blamed for those crimes.

Mark Borok | February 10, 2007, 4:22pm | #

I think most of the liberals, both the entertainers (like Franken and Rhodes) and more academic types (Krugman) are sincere, mainly because liberal talk radio and book publishing hasn't proved the cash cow that its conservative counterparts have. There's no incentive yet to abandon intellectual honesty and just spout whatever your audience wants to hear.

"Bill Maher was a hero of mine like ten years ago.

He used to be a libertarian, hated religion and had original, honest views on relationship and sex.

Hanging out in hollywood too long made him into a MoveOn liberal."

Are you sure that wasn't the fault of the Bush administration? They tend to do that to people.

VM | February 10, 2007, 4:22pm | #

"But are most people ashamed of this, and is this why Plymouth and not Jamestown is seen by many as the 'true' birthplace of America?"

nah - prob'ly don't know that Jamestown was first permanent/lasting/that didn't get all Roanoke on us 'n' all.

Mutley: just say that he's the situational equivalent to Ted McGinley. That oughta do it.

Ruthless | February 10, 2007, 4:25pm | #

A great book about when politics and punditry were bare knuckles is American Aurora by Richard N. Rosenfeld.
The Aurora was Ben Franklin's grandson's, B. J. Bache's, Philly newspaper.

Fluffy | February 10, 2007, 4:27pm | #

As far as anyone hating an entire segment of the American population goes, I think Moore's work in Roger and Me made quite clear the grossly hypocritical and hostile attitude he takes towards the upper class, and upper middle class, at least in Michigan.

Rick Barton | February 10, 2007, 4:30pm | #

I’m suspicious that Grand Chalupa uses dishonesty about his ancestry as a cover for his racism. (which disturbs me extra cuz he appears to have libertarian leanings.)

On a previous thread, he said that people who love Palestinians are “whacked” He went on to say that Palestinians are "disgusting, blood thirsty savages”. And that Arabs have a defective culture. (As if all Arabs have the same culture)

When I called him on his racism and also informed him that a sizable minority of Palestinians are Christian and that they take an active role in the fight against the policies of the Israeli government, he responded that his father was a Palestinian Christian! But when I asked; if his father wasn’t dispossessed by the Israeli government, he claimed to guess that he wasn’t, but said he wasn’t sure??? I’m skeptical.

http://reason.com/blog/show/118498.html

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 4:31pm | #

When it comes Plymouth, the eventual Massachusetts Bay Colony, etc. there is plenty to be ashamed of.

Cesar,

BTW, if you read Bradford's Of Plymouth Planation you will see that a primary concern of the colonists was making money. The colonies in New England were expected to be going concerns as much as Jamestown.

Scott Stein | February 10, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Off-topic, but it is an open thread: You all are invited to a publication party for my new novel, Mean Martin Manning, mainly because I enjoy reading your posts and think you'd like the book, and partly because you've been nice enough to put up with Alice Pitney visiting Hit and Run. Details are here. If you're in the Philly area or will be on March 9, and are planning to attend, please let me know.

taktix | February 10, 2007, 4:37pm | #

Civility is as dead as Anna Nicole Smith.

Oooh... too soon?

Rick Barton | February 10, 2007, 4:40pm | #

Mark Borok:

I think most of the liberals, both the entertainers (like Franken and Rhodes) and more academic types (Krugman) are sincere, mainly because liberal talk radio and book publishing hasn't proved the cash cow that its conservative counterparts have. There's no incentive yet to abandon intellectual honesty and just spout whatever your audience wants to hear.

What?? I don't think that you want to contend that Franken and Rhodes are intellectually honest.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 4:43pm | #

Scott Stein,

Congratulations! One day I'll write my spy novel! I swear I will! ;)

joe | February 10, 2007, 4:44pm | #

Cesar,

You can't "minus the slavery." Viriginia was founded as a corporate money-making enterprise, to use slaver labor to produce agricultural products for export, mainly tobacco. The profit motive, international trade, a rigorously enforced system of property owners' rights, the profit motive, and slavery were the driving forces of settlement and society in the American South just about from the beginning.

Plymouth was set up to make a profit, too. You remember, the Puritans were supposed to land in Virginia colony. They were to set up an operations that would become profitable for their investors, too. But the settlers themselves were motivated by a higher ideal, the City on a Hill.

I think this quote from Professor Glaud gets it half right: "When you turn to Jamestown, you have to turn to [blacks]...and sometimes America doesn't want to look at us too closely."

That's half of it. The other half is the vision of the country as the New Jerusalem, a place created by people striving to make something new and good in the world. The details may have changed between the Mayflower Compact and the Declaration of Independence, but they both capture that spirit.

Americans want to see the country as defined by the ideals it strives for instead of the often-ugly conditions of its existence. So they look to Plymouth instead of Jamestown. Which is ironic, because the New Englanders were no great shakes, towards the Indians or to each other.

shecky | February 10, 2007, 4:46pm | #

On to a new topic, being this is an open thread and all...

Andrew Sullivan points to an interesting remark Karl Rove made regarding immigration:

http://tinyurl.com/3xdnu3
http://tinyurl.com/3cjmtj

Apparently, defending Bush's somewhat liberal immigration views, Rove thus spake:

"I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."

NRO's Mark Krikorian takes some weird twists going on how this is offensive. Think Progress seems to take a bit different reason why it's offensive, but notes the gaffe nonetheless.

Will immigration split the Republican party? The Democratic Party? Both?

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 4:49pm | #

joe,

Yeah, I'll never get out of mind the Puritan massacre of the Peqouts - or rather Bradford's description of it. Not that First Americans were necessarily always gentle people themselves (as the actions of First American allies of the Puritans in the Pequot War illustrate).

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 4:54pm | #

Civility is as dead as Anna Nicole Smith.

If she really is dead . . .

joe | February 10, 2007, 4:58pm | #

Grotius,

Does the name Captain Turner ring a bell?

In Turner's Falls, Massachusetts, there's a monument with a plaque that reads, "In 1676, Captian John Turner and 30 followers suprised and destroyed over 300 Indians camped on this spot."

A lot of the King Phillip's War took place in and around where I grew up. A truly horrific period.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 5:00pm | #

Did you guys know that train oil could be the next biodiesel? Not sure if it could be called organic, maybe free range (per a story about sea critters a few months ago). Train oil is renewable and natural solution to the global warming crisis.

huck | February 10, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Uh, I'm late to one of your comments joe--about what Michael Moore said about 9/11. I hope your just misremembering and not being disingenous. Right during the attacks, THAT SAME DAY, he put up on his website, "If they did this to get back at Bush they should have gone to a red state instead of New York." That's not an exact quote, but it's a pretty good gist of what he said. It was so offensive even he realized it was disgusting and pulled it off his website. You can spin it all you want, but that's what he said and what he meant. (I could go on and on about Moore if you'd like.)

Oh, and I can't stand Ann Coulter, but neither can I stand Olbermann or Rhodes. But I'll grant you--she's probably more shrill and worse than they are.

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 5:07pm | #

I’m suspicious that Grand Chalupa uses dishonesty about his ancestry as a cover for his racism. (which disturbs me extra cuz he appears to have libertarian leanings.)

Aww...looks like I've got a secret admirer.

And we managed to keep it so civil on the other thread. Disappointed more than upset.

juris imprudent | February 10, 2007, 5:10pm | #

The profit motive, international trade, a rigorously enforced system of property owners' rights, the profit motive, and slavery were the driving forces of settlement and society in the American South just about from the beginning.

After I compliment Joe on a point well made we quickly return to our divergent views.

Slavery was not a driving force in the South until Whitney [that damn yankee] invented the cotton gin. It existed all right, but it was not the cog that drove that the Southern economy. In fact, the slave trade had been tailing off prior to the cotton boom, and was terminated as soon as Congress was allowed to do so by the Constitution (in 1808). The legal infrastructure for slavery was imported from the British West Indies (prior to U.S. independence). Slavery, like the Enlightenment, was something we inherited from our good old mother country. The Civil War was as much a continuation of the conflict started there (i.e. Roundheads v. Cavaliers) as anything else.

Josh | February 10, 2007, 5:10pm | #

I'm less interested in whether Krugman believes his own lunacy than whether joe does.

clone12 | February 10, 2007, 5:12pm | #

We should condemn anti-Semites and all racists for the their most primitive form of collectivism that denies they the reality of individuality in such a malicious way.

But the existence of anti-Semitism does not serve as a pretext of merit for the crimes of the Israeli government. Jews in general should not be blamed for those crimes.

Agreed.

The fact that this is even a point of debate shows that libertarians have its own contingent of loons. (not to take away proper recognition of loons amongst other political stripes, as it were)

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 5:12pm | #

joe,

Yeah, King Philip's War was a bit later. Jill Lepore's In The Name Of War is a great read on the subject.

Does the monument mention the fact that Turner and his forces were subject to a counter-attack at which Turner died?

Anyway, you can find lots and lots of monuments to the conflicts between First Americans and the English colonists throughout New England. Most people likely don't even notice them.

Jonathan Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 5:13pm | #

I think that although the extreme pundits of the left aren't as guilty of spewing hate on the people of Ameirca that the right is, the liberals extreme pundits are guilty for spouting out hours of pretention and condensention onto the American people. You'll never see Olberman saying that all Republicans should be nutered, but at the same time you'll never see Coulter get up on TV and deliver an 8 minuet long ostentatious speech decrying the liberals over some petty slip-up hoping that deep, deep, down that years from now people would view her as a Howard Beale-type of revolutionary. I despise using liberterian cliches, but to me both sides are equally evil, just for diffrent reasons.
To take it a step further, of all the bad O'Rielly has done, I can't imagine anything that was worse than half of the patronizing and insincere shit Moore did in B4C.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 5:16pm | #

Anna Nicole News:

The frozen sperm story was revealed to be a hoax.

Nobody has disproven the theory that NASA may have been involved in her alleged death.

No illegal drugs were found in her room, adding to the coverup theories.

George Bush and Karl Rove have not been ruled out, but it is only a matter of time before some Leftie rules them in.

No Kennedys were found in the immediate area, but they were not found around Marylin Monroe either.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 5:18pm | #

joe,

In the South one thing you'll notice is that older historic buildings often have a plaque or historical marker which states the year in which the building was completed and sometimes even those involved in financing the building. Not once have I seen a building from the ante-bellum period which mentions that it was built by slaves (in other words, such plaques may exist, but I've never seen one). Yet, at least some of these buildings must have been built by slaves, or at least had slave labor involved in some aspect of their construction.

Jim Walsh | February 10, 2007, 5:20pm | #

Spaeking as a former (small time) radio talk show host, I can assure you that everyone bullshits to an extent. I know of at least one nationally-known host whose fire-breathing conservative persona is a total fabrication (i.e. he is neither conservative nor a fire-breather in person). I'm sure there are more where he came from. It's all about getting a rise out of people.

Jonathan Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 5:21pm | #

Since this is an open thread, Guy made me think of this; how do liberterians feel about conspiracy theories? Watching Penn and Teller, South Park, and my own person beliefs made me believe that anti-cospiracyism was something cemented into the liberterian/righ-wing line of thinking.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 5:23pm | #

Jonathan Hohensee,

The "big L" libertarians will never reveal this to an outsider.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 5:25pm | #

Jonathan Hohensee,

Conspiracies probably happen from time to time but they are very hard (impossible?) to keep out of the public eye. I'd say that I take a skeptical positions re: conspiracies but I am open to the possibility of such.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 5:31pm | #

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 5:35pm | #

So, who will win the French Presidential election?

Sarkozy?

Royal?

Someone else?

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 5:38pm | #

So, who will win the [f]rench Presidential election?

You speak of them as if they were human.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 5:40pm | #

Well, Guy, they are.

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 5:43pm | #

So has anybody here ever....

earned a PHD in a natural science
earned a PHD in a social science
spent time in jail
been homeless
had sex with a teacher

Some James | February 10, 2007, 5:43pm | #

Disregarding the urge to make fun of the French (SO 2003, Guy), I think the outcome of that election is up in the air and pretty interesting. Neither Royal nor Sarkozy really has the strong support of the higher-ups in their parties, and whether they do in their rank and file remains to be seen. And neither are traditional right/left for France either. I'm leaning toward thinking it'll be Sarkozy, since the PS may have trouble getting through the first round again (though there should be more leftist unity so that Le Pen doesn't make it again).

Jonathan Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 5:43pm | #

you're all sheeple

Jonathan Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 5:44pm | #

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 5:46pm | #

Some James,

Currently the polls are leaning in favor of Sarkozy, but the second round will most likely be quite tight (assuming that it is a Sarkozy v. Royal match-up in that round).

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 5:48pm | #

Actually, on a serious note (yes, this is my first truly serious note in this thread, or at least the closest thing that approaches one) I wanted to find out a little more about this heterosexual fundamentalist jack-booted conspiracy that I am supposed to be involved in preventing homosexuals from entering hospitals and inheriting property or authoring wills.

I have missed all of the meetings, but have seen enough examples in real life refuting everything above to question if there is any real issue here at all.

Nextly, I am at a loss as to why I am supposed to be "ashamed" of what a bunch of dead guys did hundreds of years ago to people who are also dead (even if they were no killed by the bad dead guys) and why it is only white dead guys who are supposed to be bad.

Why am I being lumped in with the dead white guys by whiter Leftists anyway? At least my real last name has a long vowel at the end and I can get tan, like that should make any difference at all anyway.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 5:50pm | #

Grand Chalupa,

I have had sex with several teachers, but none of them were ever my teachers at any time.

Robert | February 10, 2007, 5:56pm | #

I don't know how he is in real life as Michael LeBron these days, but as radio personality "Lionel" his repositioning from libertarian to "left" (I always put that term in quotes when metaphoric, not quoting him) has been scary. I think he had to have been insincere one way or the other rather than actually changing his mind. So I'm guessing that as Michael LeBron he's still libertarian, but that he deliberately marketed himself to the "left" as such in the hope that Air America or their affiliates would pick him up or retain him. Or possibly he thought the only way he could win allies against GWBush and "fundies" was by joining the bigger battalions on that side. A radio version of Tim Weigel?

Bob Grant protege Jay Diamond's repositioning to the "left" I took to have been pretty much a wiping away of a veneer of ostensible "conservatism". Listening to him carefully, I noticed that he never really took positions on the "right" in any absolute sense, just that he chose to attack the extremes of the "left", which I believe was product positioning.

The late David Brudnoy's virulent anti-Bill-Clintonism I take to have been some self-brainwashing, like many libertarians experienced.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Robert | February 10, 2007, 6:01pm | #

And I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry and I've spent a few hours in lockups.

Howard A. Stern's politics I believe to be super-pragmatic (though not necessarily as practical) and highly opportunistic, but sincere and not done systematically. Still thought through much better than the avg. person's.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 6:02pm | #

Since this is an open thread and I don't have anywhere else to brag about this I would like to say that all yesterday I dedicated to making a tiny town in my bedroom out of index cards. It has houses, a walmart, a post office, and a little index-card Jonathan Hohensee sitting on a thrown wearing a little index card crown. Its the coolest thing ever.

Robert | February 10, 2007, 6:03pm | #

I'm opposed to same sex marriage too, for reasons I've laid out online over & over but just wanted to register here now that you mention it.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 6:04pm | #

weidly enough, when I put up the walmart the other stores I put up collasped a couple of minuets later.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 6:07pm | #

So you oppose gay marriage? Why?

Not getting where that nonsense came from.

The proper way to phrase my stance is that I oppose government sanctioned marriage and that 'status' being used for anything official.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 6:13pm | #

The proper way to phrase my stance is that I oppose government sanctioned marriage and that 'status' being used for anything official.
Oh, that's how I feel too, altough honestly I don't care about the issue enough that I'll throw a hissy if they legalised gay marriage. I support civil unions over legaising gay marriage, but at the same time I support legaising gay marriage over no gay marriage. (At least from what I understand the issue to be; marriage=state insituion, civil unions=private contract)

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 6:14pm | #

Guy,

No one here (to the best of my knowledge) stated that you personally should be ashamed.

No one here (to the best of my knowledge) claimed that only white folks have committed misdeeds in the past.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 6:14pm | #

Grand Chalupa,

Also, I have spent a total of about 2 days, one night in jail. The first time (almost all day, no nights) was not long after I piped off about never having seen the inside of a jail other than on a tour.

The second time, an overnight stay in a very large private room, reenforced my attitude that the police are not necessarily working in any interest than their own.

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 6:22pm | #

Oh, that's how I feel too, altough honestly I don't care about the issue enough that I'll throw a hissy if they legalised gay marriage.

I won't either. That said, adding more marriage is the opposite of my view, so that is a direction that I resist.

I support civil unions over legaising gay marriage, but at the same time I support legaising gay marriage over no gay marriage. (At least from what I understand the issue to be; marriage=state insituion, civil unions=private contract)

Now you are confusing me, but it doesn't matter. Not enough people are going to agree with me on this to make a difference anyway. The only glimmer of hope I have seen is that we are approaching (or have made it to?) a majority of the people in the US living the same way I do and companies extending benefits to anybody you name (sex immaterial) as an add-on to insurance to compete better for labor.

JLM | February 10, 2007, 6:52pm | #

Did anybody here do anything today on a Saturday afternoon but sit at the computer? Anyway, I'll lighten up the conversation with the recipe for the ribs that I have slow cooking on the grill, as we speak. This IS an open thread.

Coat the ribs with olive oil and cover with your favorite dry rub. Let them sit in the fridge for a while (preferably overnight). Get your charcoal grill (gas for you city people) stabilized at a low temp- I usually start hotter and shoot for 225 or less. Slow cook for about an hour on each side. For the 3rd hour, put the ribs in an aluminum turkey pan with about 1/2" of apple juice and cover with foil. The apple juice steams the meat, and the acids break it down. When you are done they are falling to pieces. Serve as is, or with your favorite BBQ sauce. Serve with beer, or wine for you city people. Burp.

Pig Mannix | February 10, 2007, 6:57pm | #

@joe

The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent yield the tame stylings of Paul Krugman, speaks volumes about contemporary politics.

All right then - how about the ever-popular Mike Malloy?

When I was working the night shift, I used to set my clock radio to his show. He'd piss me off enough to get out of bed to throw the goddamned radio against the wall....

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 6:58pm | #

JLM,

I put down some trim work for the new laminate floor, I read a couple books and I checked the mail.

Karen | February 10, 2007, 7:07pm | #

I went to my husband's uncle's 80th birthday party. I would have had more fun sitting at the computer with breaks to do laundry.

JLM, love the rib recipe. We have an oil-drum smoker, with a separate firebox, so the heat is always indirect, meaning I'm hesitant to put the ribs IN the apple juice. I've used pans of liquid in their before, usually near the firebox end. I wonder if that would work with this recipe?

Guy Montag | February 10, 2007, 7:09pm | #

JLM,

I went out for my weekly Rachel Corrie pancake breakfast, while there I got the update on the race schedule for this and next week, checked the mail, reviewed some database stuff for work (that I need to a lot more of tomorrow), researched that John Kerry swiss cheesesteak story, thought up some more stuff for the Anna Nicole NASA conspiracy, goofed around here for a while laughing at joe, and now I am on my way back out to watch the race.

Pretty unproductive for a Saturday.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 7:11pm | #

If you haven't, do watch that Tucker Carlson video.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | February 10, 2007, 7:14pm | #

Jonah Goldberg seems like someone who believes what he writes. His writing displays exactly the same variety of self-satisfied thoughtlessness as the idea he presents,

Post and kettles Joe. Pots and kettles.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 7:19pm | #

Can't we all just get along? ;)

JLM | February 10, 2007, 7:21pm | #

Karen,

The ribs aren't actually submersed in the apple juice, but they are touching it a little. You could put a grate or something in there so they don't touch it at all. I'm sure that your way would work too. This 'aint' rocket science- as long as you have patience you're likely to be happy with the results.

I've got one of those Char-grill ones with cast iron grates, and it is sort of like a small oil drum grill (not as big as a pig cooker and no separate firebox). It has a damper on it and a hood thermometer so it's easy to control.

Oh, I also went to the range for a while and cleaned guns. Went to Lowe's...changed a few lightbulbs.....read this thread....that's about it.

Cesar | February 10, 2007, 7:25pm | #

JLM--

Nothing beats PBR Bratwursts! ;)

I woke up late because I partied last night like usually on Friday, wrote a paper for a class, farted around on the computer, now having a beer.

Theres nothing much to do here, this campus is dead on Saturdays. Those students with a car go home, those like me who don't have one, don't.

edna | February 10, 2007, 7:27pm | #

earned a PHD in a natural science
earned a PHD in a social science
spent time in jail
been homeless
had sex with a teacher

*yup
*no such thing- soc, psych, history aren't science, they're stamp collecting
*yup
*nope
*i was a teacher and had sex, does that count?

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 7:36pm | #

Since this is an open thread I'd like to wish everyone a Happy Darwin Day! - http://www.darwinday.org/

Mike Laursen | February 10, 2007, 7:58pm | #

I've got a pretty strong hunch Michael Savage doesn't believe his own bullshit. He used to hang out with Allen Ginsberg and Lawrence Ferlinghetti.

JLM | February 10, 2007, 8:01pm | #

"So has anybody here ever...."

earned a PHD in a natural science- I'm too stoopeed.

earned a PHD in a social science- See #1

spent time in jail- NO

been homeless- Does sleeping in some stranger's yard in the rain count (Tequila was involved)?

had sex with a teacher- She used to be a teacher (not mine, dammit).

Ron Hardin | February 10, 2007, 8:10pm | #

having realized that the shrill stuff is what sells books and attracts readers/viewers/listeners? Like selling Reason.

Coulter is a skilled writer with a sense of humor, making this or that point with it every week. She's entertained by where the words go, as are her readers. Like Mencken's.

Sir Disgrace | February 10, 2007, 8:33pm | #

earned a PHD in a natural science
On my way to an MS...maybe I'll lose my mind and stay for the PHD.
earned a PHD in a social science
HA!
spent time in jail
I'm shocked that I didn't that time when a buddy and I decided to wrestle on the sidewalk at 3:00 AM. Those cops were not pleased.
been homeless
Not yet.
had sex with a teacher
Done and done.

Karen | February 10, 2007, 8:35pm | #

JLM, ever try pineapple juice as a marinade for pork? It's better on roasts than ribs, I think, but it's pretty awesome!!

JLM | February 10, 2007, 8:51pm | #

I haven't tried pineapple, but is sounds pretty good. I think it is against the law here in North Cakalaki to use anything but thin, vinegar-based sauce on barbeque pork (which is good stuff, BTW). Hopefully there is a general statute that exempts ribs, but if not I may be committing a felony as we speak.....

yak | February 10, 2007, 8:57pm | #

Grotius,
In the early days of the U.S. things were much nastier than they are now. The things the Adams' camp said about Jefferson and Jefferson's camp said about Adams was much more personal and insulting than the things that are said today.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 9:02pm | #

yak,

Yes, I am well aware of that. I was more interested in peoples' impressions than anything.

GILMORE | February 10, 2007, 9:25pm | #

*no such thing- soc, psych, history aren't science

and science of course is just a branch of philosophy. :)

JG

GILMORE | February 10, 2007, 9:28pm | #

Ron Hardin on Coulter She's entertained by where the words go, as are her readers. Like Mencken's.

Yeah.

Or Hitler's.

Coulter is a screaming idiot. Please cite one comment she's made that compares to the wit of Menken. Failure to do so results in assumption you share her sphere of subtle though.

Jim Walsh | February 10, 2007, 9:28pm | #

Coulter is a skilled writer with a sense of humor, making this or that point with it every week. She's entertained by where the words go, as are her readers. Like Mencken's.

That's rich: comparing a hack like Coulter with Mencken is like, oh I don't know, comparing Anna Nicole with Marilyn Monroe...

Graphite | February 10, 2007, 9:34pm | #

I set up my new HDTV and a nice, steeply discounted home-theater-in-a-box. There goes about a thousand bucks I would have given to charity if I wasn't such a heartless social Darwinist.

Rick Barton | February 10, 2007, 9:40pm | #

Grand Chalupa,

Still civil, of course.

JLM | February 10, 2007, 9:43pm | #

I've now read posts in this thread defending both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. I'm going to chock this up to hallucinations resulting from the synergistic effects of mixing Bud Select and rib rub. Damn pink elephants.

Just say no folks, just say no.......

Rick Barton | February 10, 2007, 9:49pm | #

Jim Walsh,

Ron Hardin was likening Coulter's readers to Mencken's. But your point is still well taken.

Karen | February 10, 2007, 10:01pm | #

JLM, I like the vinegar-based sauces myself. There's a place here in Austin that serves a honey-mustard-vinegar sauce that's completely amazing. I eat the stuff on crackers when we go there.

Oh, and my most sincere apologies for actually posting a sentence using the word "awesome" and ending in multiple exclamation points. I'm banning myself until tomorrow afternoon in penance. G'night, folks.

joe | February 10, 2007, 10:06pm | #

Grotius,

"Does the monument mention the fact that Turner and his forces were subject to a counter-attack at which Turner died?"

No, but on the upside, someone was kind enough to stencil "Free Leonard Peltier" in spray paint over the plaque. So there's that.

Pig Mannix,

I've never heard of Mike Malloy. I've never listened to him, and none of my liberal or lefty friends have ever mentioned him to me.

The Left operates on the internet, the print media, and whatever crumbs of television they can wrench out of the corporate networds. Oh, and local cable access. The only talk radio any liberals I know listen to is sports talk.

Grand Chalupa,

I was a Drug War POW for a couple of hours. Years later, when a police commander was detailed to drive me around the city where I worked to inspect a site for a potential redevelopment project that was to involved a police substation, I got to lead off the afternoon by saying, "I've never been in the front of one of these before."

joe | February 10, 2007, 10:10pm | #

"That's rich: comparing a hack like Coulter with Mencken is like, oh I don't know, comparing Anna Nicole with Marilyn Monroe...":

No, it's like comparing Paris Hilton to Marilyn Monroe. Anna Nicole Smith was an actual beauty.

Single Issue Voter | February 10, 2007, 10:40pm | #

So Gilmore has compared Ann Coulter to Hitler.
Godwin's Law holds true once again.

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 10:42pm | #

Remember the first post of the thread where I said Putin was calling the kettle black?

Well, between morning and night its become the front page story due to McCain firing back.

I sort of hope he becomes president just so nuclear war can break out over insults to our honor. If McCain has the balls to go after Putin for being a general thug and hypocrite I may forgive him for campaign finance reform.

And I spent too many damn nights in jail when I went through my dark age between the ages of 14 and 16. The only one I spent in my adult life was driving drunk a couple weeks before my 21st birthday last August. They cop didn't write me up for a DUI cause I would've got in serious trouble since I was underaged and I later felt bad for mouthing off at him.

I hope to have a PhD in math in a couple years. And I asked the teacher question cause I got a crush on my Calculus teacher.

Here's some more questions....

Anybody here...

Ever get hit on by a guy
Been in jail for a real crime (murder, rape, etc)
Stolen anything of real value
Been to a prostitute
Tried heroine or crack
Older (21) than me?

I got others on my mind but they may be a buzzkill.

JohnJacksonIII | February 10, 2007, 10:48pm | #

damn comment Eater!

Single Issue Voter | February 10, 2007, 10:50pm | #

Open thread and all that........

The Single Issue

There is a story over on slashdot claiming Amazon is not handling 'free speech" correctly for not caving into animal rights wackos, the HSUS, who are attempting to ban cockfighting magazines.In addition to their telephone "denial of service" attack , the HSUS is trying to lobby the State to ban these magazines through legal means. They are threatening Amazon with the power of the State as well.

Many of our elected officials-mostly Democrats- have %100 ratings from this organization.

The HSUS is to the largest domestic terorists in the USA as Sinn Fein is to the Irish Republican Army.

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 10:52pm | #

Welcome, I guess. We have a big ten.

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 10:52pm | #

tent

Single Issue Voter | February 10, 2007, 10:56pm | #

Chalupa,

Hasn't everyone been hit on by a guy?

Heroin would be "good stuff" if it was legal and of known purity and dosage.All of the problems associated with it are a result of it being none of those things.It would still be addictive with regular use for most people-but then so is tobacco.

JohnJacksonIII | February 10, 2007, 11:02pm | #

AA, BS only- took me about 15 years.

No Jail

Close but never homeless

Only a pre-school teacher.

Next set:

I have been upset when a guy did NOT hit on me.

No real crime

I actually respect property too much to steal.

no Hookers

no crack/heroin ( I've never used anything considered a "drug" or smoked anything. Might drink 2-3 times a year)

Uh, I'm on my late 20s

Anna Nicole:
And Anna Nicole Smith was Hot for a very small wndow of time in the early 90s. The straightest man to ever call her beautiful ( in the last 10 years) is probably Bobby Trendy. She did have a very good peak, but she was never Monroe. Monroe married and slept with famous baseball players, actoes, playwrights, and presidents. Smith married guys she met at fried chicken restaarants and strip clubs and was involved with guys like the Howard Stern equivalent of Keith Urban The Painter. Monroe is in famous movies that people buy and watch 50 years later. Smith peaked in Naked Gun 33 1/3 and hasn't done anything since except for "reality shows" and tabloids.

Anna Nicole Smith was also Obese for the last 10+ years. Not just a little plump but seriously fat and disgusting. When she did lose weight, she actually looked worse. She went from buxom blonde to fat hog to "skinny and ugly but happens to be bleached with big fake tits".

I don't consider it a stretch to compare Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole as they are both famous for being famous and not really havng any talent or doing anything. One is skinny and nasty and the other was fat and nasty. Anna Nicole wins for being the most jerk-worthy at one point in time, but that's about it.

edna | February 10, 2007, 11:12pm | #

Ron Hardin was likening Coulter's readers to Mencken's.

i doubt coulter's readers could get past a paragraph or two of mencken. hl assumed that his readers were intelligent, cultured, and understood the basics of European language.

grand chalupa, i've got underwear older than you.

edna | February 10, 2007, 11:13pm | #

that last one hurt my left pinky.

why do we call it a pinky, anyway? what if i'm brown?

Single Issue Voter | February 10, 2007, 11:15pm | #

Edna,

As writers, I like Coulter AND Mencken.

I m not a big fan of Hitler though.

Single Issue Voter | February 10, 2007, 11:17pm | #

Why all the hate for the Blondes?

JohnJacksonIII | February 10, 2007, 11:20pm | #

a big ten or a big tent? Are guys more likely to hit on you if you have a big ten?

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 11:21pm | #

I used to be hit on all the time when I went to FAU and my girlfriend was a bit of a hag-fag. The masculine fiecly hetrosexual side of me acted as if it made me uncomfertable, despite the fact it was a real self-esteem booster.
I'm 21 and my birthday is October 27.

This is an easy recipie sold in some bakeries up in Ohio for top dollar because it seems a lot more complicated to make then it actually is;
Get 1 cup of peanut butter, 2 tablespoons melted butter, 1 teaspoon vanilla, 3 cups powdered sugar, 1 small bag semi-sweet chocolate chips and a bunch of toothpicks.
Combine the peanut butter, butter, vanilla and sugar and stir. Then make little balls out of the mixture, and put toothpicks in the balls and put them in the freezer.
While the balls are freezing, get a pan and fill it with water and put a oven-safe bowl that's large enough to cover the top of the pan on top of the pan. Fill the pan with the chocolate. When your balls are frozen (heh), turn on the heat to medium, and stir the chocolate until it melts and then dip the balls into the cholcolate (heh). Put in freezer, and then take the stuff the next day to the College Republican tent on campus in hopes that you'll get on the list to go to CPAC this year, even though odds are that they'll pick that balding 18-year old kid

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 10, 2007, 11:23pm | #

Blodnes are boring, there are way too much of them, and they remind me too much of my mother.

Graphite | February 10, 2007, 11:23pm | #

Jeez Chalupa you're 21 and you're going to have a math PhD in a couple of years? When did you start undergrad?

Graphite | February 10, 2007, 11:24pm | #

BTW I'm 23 and sold my soul to the private sector. Thinking about going back for a math PhD though.

Grotius | February 10, 2007, 11:26pm | #

joe,

Interesting.

JohnJacksonIII | February 10, 2007, 11:28pm | #

I like blondes. It's just that being blonde, in itself, does not make someone "beautiful." In fact many brunettes look much worse with the bleached look.

Again, nothing against big boobed blondes. I've had my share. I just dn't subscribe to the "take a skinny girl with no looks or body, add boobs, bleach hair= hottest chick on Earth." That variety is a "dime a dozen" to me- just like Hef's girlfriends ( well I do think 1 of those chicks is attractive).

Grand Chalupa | February 10, 2007, 11:38pm | #

Jeez Chalupa you're 21 and you're going to have a math PhD in a couple of years? When did you start undergrad?

I used the term "couple" liberally. I'm still an undergrad.

Actually had the skills to start math courses after my freshman year of high school. Decided to be an idiot for a couple years.

The public school system is such a fucking joke. They slow it down for the stupidest, most hopeless cases that exist.

Not blaming that, but just saying. You want to kill someone's drive for knowledge just go at a really slow pace, going over the same things year after year, have them spend more time doing nothing than actually learning and surround them with sex and drugs as potential distractions.

Fun fact: Ahmad Chalabi has a phd in math from the University of Chicago.

And I thought Anna Nicole was the best looking woman on the planet when she was skinny. I don't believe for a single second that Howard K. Stern loser banged her.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 12:44am | #

Jonah Goldberg seems like someone who believes what he writes. His writing displays exactly the same variety of self-satisfied thoughtlessness as the idea he presents,

Jonah Goldberg happens to be one of the best writers that I have ever read. Your dislike if him is nohing more than a difference of opinion and from what you keep spewing, any difference of opinion with you makes others insane. Your elevating it further than that is bizarre and resulted in my getting all loopy from lauging harder.

Anybody here...

Ever get hit on by a guy

Yea and it is really annoying. Homosexual guys, get a clue, heterosexual guys are HETEROSEXUAL and we are not interested in the version of 'trying something new' that you are pushing. Just because we do not drag you annoying people behind a vehicle has nothing to do with our accepting your annoying manner. Some of us are polite and a measure beyond polite may be that we would like to keep our jobs and nothing more.

Been in jail for a real crime (murder, rape, etc)

No

Stolen anything of real value

No

Been to a prostitute

Well, several but not as a paying customer. None of them were the teachers mentioned in another post (that I know of). Some of the teachers were more "fun" than the "off duity" prostitutes.

Tried heroine or crack

Not even close, I must be lame or sane.

Older (21) than me?

45

And I thought Anna Nicole was the best looking woman on the planet when she was skinny. I don't believe for a single second that Howard K. Stern loser banged her.

GP, eyes of the beholder. I have never seen a 'hot' picture of Anna Nicole, but perhaps you should be looking into that NASA conspiracy?

Cain | February 11, 2007, 12:55am | #

I wonder why anyone bothers reading this blog, especially Joe. The original post would give any discerning, informed reader pause -- "whaaaat?" And how has Krugman veered off from his "only slightly left-of-center" path? What has he said to get him lumped in with the Coulters and Malkins of the world?

Brad Hutchings | February 11, 2007, 1:00am | #

Greg Gutfeld is a true believer. First and foremost, he is prolific. From his blog at Huffington Post, to his own site DailyGut.com, to his new Fox News Channel late night TV show, "Red Eye", the guy covers it all.

Second, he is creative. Take hotgirlnews.com or Al Zarqawi's mom's blog. He knows how to connect with people, whether they are sex starved males or sex starved male radical Islamists.

Third, he is down to earth. A nightly segment on Red Eye features a phone conversation with his Mom, asking her what she thought of the news of the day. He sits through her criticisms of the FNC franchise (aka O'Reilly) with an "I'm gonna get canned for this, but she's my Mom" look on his face.

Finally, he doesn't talk at his audience. When you read his blog or watch Red Eye, you feel like you have a seat at his table. When it's over, it feels like you've got a blister on your ass. All the others talk at us.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 1:12am | #

Edna,

Exactly which 2000 year old version of Latin are you talking about?

I happen to enjoy Ann Coulter just fine, am quite fluent in speaking English, but my spelling and other particulars leave some to be desired without computer assistance.

However, I am quite adept at keeping straight (not meant as a jab at our Arts and Sciences folk) a Defense Budget whilst keeping the GS15 free from a Congressional inquiry with cause.

Sorry if this post does not meet your muster, it was written without software assistance.

GC,

They slow it down for the stupidest, most hopeless cases that exist.

Actually, they slow it down to the stupidest level so the stupidest can "keep up" with the stupid-down level where it is set.

If I had not been out watching the race and drinking I would write something quite annoying and longer than the things I have already posted.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 11, 2007, 1:21am | #

Yea and it is really annoying. Homosexual guys, get a clue, heterosexual guys are HETEROSEXUAL
Oh please, like you never hit on a girl who was unavalible/in no way not intrested in you.

Josh | February 11, 2007, 1:26am | #

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 11, 2007, 1:28am | #

The public school system is such a fucking joke. They slow it down for the stupidest, most hopeless cases that exist.
I'm pretty sure that college, at least in my own personal experience, that college is worse than highschool. Its my first semester at a state college this past couple of weeks and half of the classes are teachers telling me things I already know (and I'm not that smart) or teachers who are completely burned out and give the least amount of effort to teaching. The first day of my American Cinema class the teacher acctually got up there and told us "I don't really feel like teaching this class"

All this learning is getting in the way of my education.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 11, 2007, 1:44am | #

Thanks to my mom, I always thought that french toast was supposed to taste like rubber. Luckily Good Eats showed me the way to make french toast that actually tastes good;
Get 6 slices of bread, leave them out overnight so they become stale (the sliced-store bought stuff might take longer). First turn, on the oven to 375º. Mix a cup of half and half (or milk) add 2 table spoons of honey, 1/4 teaspoon of salt and three eggs. (beaten) Soak the bread for 30 seconds each side, then fry on skillet. When the pieces are done on the skillet, put in oven for 5 minuets.

Single Issue Voter | February 11, 2007, 1:54am | #

Guy,

I thought you were a minor intarweb celebrity for that one date with a prostitute

Agree with you on Coulter/disagree on Smith

GILMORE | February 11, 2007, 1:59am | #

So Gilmore has compared Ann Coulter to Hitler.
Godwin's Law holds true once again.

To wit: has there ever been a more apropos example :) ?

*!@&#*@# godwin, she's a nutjob, and you're not defending her in any substansive way by calling my comparison 'extreme'. She's as fascist as they've ever come.

JG

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 2:01am | #

Oh please, like you never hit on a girl who was unavalible/in no way not intrested in you.

Wow, you actually think that saying hello to a woman is exactly the same as some guy bugging the shit out of another guy until he is about to be clobbered with a beer bottle?

Sounds like you need to be back down there on that Washington Supreme Court thread.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 2:26am | #

I thought you were a minor intarweb celebrity for that one date with a prostitute

Not sure if I am following, but I do not count my date with Eve Fairbanks as a date with a prostitute as owened up to in an earlier post in this thread. More like a platonic courtesan.

Agree with you on Coulter/disagree on Smith

Okay

dhex | February 11, 2007, 2:39am | #

[quote]Yea and it is really annoying. Homosexual guys, get a clue, heterosexual guys are HETEROSEXUAL and we are not interested in the version of 'trying something new' that you are pushing. Just because we do not drag you annoying people behind a vehicle has nothing to do with our accepting your annoying manner. Some of us are polite and a measure beyond polite may be that we would like to keep our jobs and nothing more.[/quote]

warning, extremely NSFW:

www.theonion.com/content/node/34118

this thread is destroying my brain.

Jim Treacher | February 11, 2007, 2:49am | #

Olbermann strikes me as a true believer, but I'd be interested to know what he was like before he bonked his head on the top of that subway door.

Jim Treacher | February 11, 2007, 2:51am | #

"Homosexual guys, get a clue, heterosexual guys are HETEROSEXUAL and we are not interested in the version of 'trying something new' that you are pushing."

Speak for yourself!

Dave W. | February 11, 2007, 3:19am | #

Your have to be careful not to implicate ALL Jews in anything. ALL Jew weren't poisoning wells in Medieval Europe. ALL Jews don't controll the press. ALL Jews didn't have a hand in 9/11. Just SOME Jews. Nothing anti-Senitic about that, right?

To the extent these things are true, no. the truth, whatever it may be and sometimes we don't know, is not anti-Semitic.

What happened at the King David Hotel is not anti-Semitic.

The USS Liberty incident is not ant-Semitic.

The Pollard spy case is not anti-Semitic.

These things are merely stuff that happened in history.

Sometimes Jewish people are blamed for evil things they did not do. Other times Jewish people are blamed for evil things they did do. And, most likely, sometimes Jewish people escape blame for evil things they did do. Just like people of any other religion, really.

wayne | February 11, 2007, 3:30am | #

"I've never heard of Mike Malloy. I've never listened to him, and none of my liberal or lefty friends have ever mentioned him to me.

The Left operates on the internet, the print media, and whatever crumbs of television they can wrench out of the corporate networds. Oh, and local cable access. The only talk radio any liberals I know listen to is sports talk."

See, that is the point. Nobody listens to leftists on talk radio because they are shrill and boring and stupid; there is no market for that. Limbaugh makes that point often when he skewers the lefties. So, of course the names of right-wing commentators roll off the tongue; they are the only ones on the air who anybody listens to. Limbaugh predicted that Air America would be a flop; he was right.

dhex | February 11, 2007, 3:56am | #

"...because they are shrill and boring and stupid; there is no market for that."

now wayne, i want you to think real hard - REAL FUCKING HARD - about what you just wrote up there.

wayne | February 11, 2007, 6:37am | #

ok, maybe there is a market for "shrill and stupid", but I stand by, "boring". I don't watch much TV, or listen to the radio much either because of time constraints, but I really can't think of any successful left-wing radio talking heads. There are lots of right wingers though. Which gets to my original point: left wing nuts don't come to mind because there aren't any left wing talking heads with mass market appeal.

For left wing stuff, you pretty much have to go to the print media. I regularly read some left wing columnists, and some of them are good writers too, but even in the print arena their ideas are not very competitive. George Will and Krauthamer regularly kick the lefties to the curb in terms of braininess and clarity.

wayne | February 11, 2007, 6:50am | #

Here is the recent Ann Coulter column that I referred to earlier. You might not like her politics, but you are either stupid or lying to believe what is implied by Balko's staterment: "I have a friend who worked with Ann Coulter early in her career who swears she used to be smart, thoughtful, and intellectually honest."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/01/31/free_the_fitzgerald_one!

Max | February 11, 2007, 7:56am | #

"George Will and Krauthamer regularly kick the lefties to the curb in terms of braininess and clarity."

Krauthammer? Barf.

Will is good, but no better than Michael Kinsley.

wayne | February 11, 2007, 8:53am | #

I will grant that Kinsley is good, maybe the best of the lefties. I like Richard Cohen too.

tros666 | February 11, 2007, 8:57am | #

Okay, people.

Here it is, by way of the DIRECT SUBSCRUBIR L1n3...

The most un-cool party in the the history of the universe. Held at 327 Summer Street, Boston, MASS.

Deck Demons played the most self righteous Hip Hop music I have ever heard. This was technically a private residence, however word spread that there would be a party so many people showed up. Eventually the cops came through, but they didn't really understand what was going on. They shut the party down because I guess someone made a law that says you can't smoke in doors.

So I don't know about you, but I am sitting here typing words into the DIRECT SUBSCRIBER LINE in the computer lab at Northeastern University. I have two options:

1. Speak with prof Ronald Sandler of Environmental Ethics fame re: Intro to Philosophy class at Northeastern University...

2. Speak with Matthias Felleisen of Computer Programming Languages fame (see PLT Scheme) regarding the political organization of Boston's finest 133+ H4X0RZ?

Random Guy | February 11, 2007, 8:57am | #

I triple dog dare you to find a single quote from any of the four attacking "Wal*Mart shoppers or employees."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48562,00.html

Does Michael feel sorry for the office workers he harasses while filming his movies?

"I do feel bad for them on one level. On another level, they're the good Germans."

tros | February 11, 2007, 9:03am | #

Does Michael feel sorry for the office workers he harasses while filming his movies?

The only words I know about for this are from the ghost of Bill Hicks. Bill Hicks says that he was raised southern baptist and that the only true cure for religious fundamentalism is five grams of mushrooms by yourself in an open field into you understand that you love everything.

GOSPEL TRUTH

edna | February 11, 2007, 9:03am | #

Exactly which 2000 year old version of Latin are you talking about?

didn't mention latin, but now that you mention it,i notice that hlm does scatter the odd phrase or two about. he does insist that his readers understand basic german and french, as well as possessing a reasonable english vocabulary (a proto-buckley, in a sense). his readers are also assumed to be steeped in the classics- i wonder if the bulk of coulter's fans know henry james from rick james.

Nobody listens to leftists on talk radio because they are shrill and boring and stupid; there is no market for that.

nobody listens to rightists in propaganda films because they are shrill and boring and stupid; there is no market for that. in the same way that the right owns talk radio, the left owns the movies. i submit that movies have a wider audience and much greater revenue stream than talk radio.

tros | February 11, 2007, 9:06am | #

Yes I understand I am watching the South Park Movie right now...

Dave W. | February 11, 2007, 9:16am | #

Does Michael feel sorry for the office workers he harasses while filming his movies?

"I do feel bad for them on one level. On another level, they're the good Germans."

Attack or not, it sounds like an accurate assessment.

Dave W. | February 11, 2007, 9:30am | #

And for the record, here is the full Moore quote (it does not seem to be about Wal*Mart workers):

Did you ever feel sorry for the PR people you pestered during the filming of The Big One?

Look—they're workers too. The CEO won't come down and talk to me, so they've got to deal with me. So, I do feel bad for them on one level. On another level, they're the good Germans. And I gotta tell you something: Most of them are former journalists who saw they could make three times the money in PR. And every day, they sit in those cozy little offices and get softball questions from the mainstream press. For one lousy day out of their lives, some overweight guy in a ball cap comes into the lobby and asks a simple question: How do you defend the position that the company just made a record profit and laid off ten thousand people? They know it's indefensible; they're not stupid.

edna | February 11, 2007, 9:47am | #

Yes I understand I am watching the South Park Movie right now...

wouldn't it be nice if they showed that in schools instead of that stupid al gore propaganda film?

Jim Treacher | February 11, 2007, 9:53am | #

"Krauthammer? Barf."

And thusly is the entire Krauthammer oeuvre definitively refuted.

Jim Treacher | February 11, 2007, 9:55am | #

The good Germans never had a penthouse apartment on Central Park West, you miserable dupes.

Burr | February 11, 2007, 10:25am | #

"Yea and it is really annoying. Homosexual guys, get a clue, heterosexual guys are HETEROSEXUAL"
"Oh please, like you never hit on a girl who was unavalible/in no way not intrested in you."

Or hit on a lesbian for that matter..

Anyway nice to see Guy show his TRUE colors. No wonder he's so worried about such a miniscule percentage of the population hatching a conspiracy to take his monies under the perverse guise of human rights. I mean seriously, even if we were just interested in gravy training, how much damage could we do to his pocketbook compared to what his fellow heteros are doing right now? I have to pay for all of that shit with my taxes and don't get to see one cent of it back, and on top of that I have to risk getting kicked to the curb by next of kin or the government taxing me even more for inheriting what's rightfully mine according to my partner's will.

I guess some people become 'libertarian' just to rationalize treating minorities with some kind of grudge. We all just choose to be victims for the freebies. Yesiree.

Dave W. | February 11, 2007, 10:36am | #

The good Germans never had a penthouse apartment on Central Park West, you miserable dupes.

When Moore was "harrassing"* the pr people that he referred to as good Germans, he had a certain question the company. The question was not whether the CEO lived in a penthouse. If it were, then Moore would be a hypocrite.

FOOTNOTE:

* Seems to me that a pr flak's job is to be "harrassed." That is what they pay those people for, and, by all accounts, the pay isn't bad.

green mamba | February 11, 2007, 10:38am | #

in the same way that the right owns talk radio, the left owns the movies.

I just discovered (via www.isteve.com) a film festival which presents itself as an alternative to Hollywood and the film world's left-wing bias: http://www.afrfilmfestival.com/

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 10:46am | #

Burr, you are one strange bird.

Single Issue Voter | February 11, 2007, 11:16am | #

open thread comment......

Left Wing book banners are attempting to use the
State to ban cockfighting publications.The HSUS is engaged in a campaign of harassment and threatened legal action against Amazon for carrying this material.
http://news.com.com/2061-10796_3-6158256.html

The HSUS endorse/rates members of Congress
and many -mostly Democrats have a %100 rating.

Think about that "liberaltarian fusionists".

The HSUS has ties to terrorist organizations

kaligula | February 11, 2007, 11:17am | #

If the new "crack weed" would have the same effect on Ann Coulter and Malkin as the "Cheech and Chong weed" had on Mr. Lizard and Hamburger Man, then, for the love of god, someone please light up a doobie in the ventillator shafts at their next book signing.

That is all.

*** | February 11, 2007, 11:41am | #

What is this "crackweed" of which you speak?

Is this that old saw about how much stronger today's marijuana is than back in the good ol' baby boomer days?

Those drug warriors must be disingenuious or they never smoked any Thai stick. Most of the kids "kind bud" is no better than the top drawer stuff of the late 70s/early 80s-in fact it is generally not as good. I have no doubt there is really good smoke out there but, alas , it is not readily available in my market.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 12:15pm | #

Amazing how the Leftists can't stand others not agreeing with them to the point of prescribing street medications as if disagreeing is a mental illness.

Perhaps that should be extreamists as rthe only ones showing up here are of the Leftish variety.

Grand Chalupa | February 11, 2007, 12:17pm | #

Attack or not, it sounds like an accurate assessment.

In a couple hundred years they'll be looking back at 20th and 21st century liberalism as a collective mental illness of the educated class. Scholars will study this.

That is, if Muslims don't take over by then and scholarly work is still allowed.

If that's the case then we'll have to wait a thousand years to study how liberalism created a society of people who hated everything that makes civillization possible and how it led to a new dark age.

Ruthless | February 11, 2007, 12:25pm | #

Another topic:
Bush is working up his case against Iran just as he did against Iraq. His latest is proving weapons in Iraq were made in Iran.
Here's my question: In Vietnam, I was on the receiving end of some weapons that were clearly marked as being made in Red China and the USSR. Why did nobody then rush to build a case for invading them?

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Why did nobody then rush to build a case for invading them?

Were/are you willfully ignorant of Sen. Barry Goldwater or is it the other variety?

Unless you are using over qualification with "invading". In that case, you are talking about countries too big to invade.

My favorite name of a US facility is the Barry Goldwater Bombing Range.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 11, 2007, 12:37pm | #

The only words I know about for this are from the ghost of Bill Hicks. Bill Hicks says that he was raised southern baptist and that the only true cure for religious fundamentalism is five grams of mushrooms by yourself in an open field into you understand that you love everything.

My favorite all-time Bill Hicks routine was when he would call everyone in his audience an idiot when they didn't follow his extremly radical point of view, and then would turn around and blame everyone else when he wasn't getting any laughs and remained largly unknown by the rest of America. It was Andy Kaufman-esque, if you think about it.

wayne | February 11, 2007, 1:08pm | #

"In Vietnam, I was on the receiving end of some weapons that were clearly marked as being made in Red China and the USSR. Why did nobody then rush to build a case for invading them?"

This is an easy question to answer: cost/benefit analysis 101. Do you start WWIII, complete with an exchange of nuclear weapons to strike an enemy that is very capable? With Iran, the risk is not even remotely similar.

If a gimpy guy slaps you, you slap him back, but if the muscle bound beach stud kicks sand in your face, maybe you think about your next course of action.

wayne | February 11, 2007, 1:10pm | #

So, if the weapons used against US troops in Iraq are made in Iran, and Iranian agents are training the insurgents, and Iran is harboring Al Qaida terrorists, etc., what should the US do?

Robert | February 11, 2007, 1:11pm | #

"Nobody listens to leftists on talk radio because they are shrill and boring and stupid;"

Malachy McCourt certainly is neither of those. Nor is Ron Kuby. Neither was Alex Bennett, but he became so over time.

Allen Colmes isn't, but I don't think he's leftist either; he's really a moderate who happens to be paired with people who make him appear to be leftist. If Barry Gray were still alive and in the biz, he'd probably be considered "leftist" on a similar basis, though he too was middle of the road; but then, he was also boring.

Funny to me how talk radio has become so strongly identified as a thing of the "right", when it wasn't always so, so it obviously isn't intrinsically so. I just wonder how much of the trend was path dependent and how much it'd shake out the same way repeatedly if you could do it over & over.

wayne | February 11, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Robert,

Who, who, and who? I rest my case.

I have heard of Colmes, at least. In the marriage of Hannity and Combs, I actually prefer Colmes because I think Hannity is about as smart as George Bush.

"Funny to me how talk radio has become so strongly identified as a thing of the "right", when it wasn't always so..."

This is a lesson in how fed up most of America is with political correctness, and the destruction agenda of the left. It will undoubtedly come full circle when the right self destructs as well.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 1:45pm | #

So, if the weapons used against US troops in Iraq are made in Iran, and Iranian agents are training the insurgents, and Iran is harboring Al Qaida terrorists, etc., what should the US do?

Beat some civilization into them.

Graphite | February 11, 2007, 2:56pm | #

How do you defend the position that the company just made a record profit and laid off ten thousand people? They know it's indefensible; they're not stupid.

What a dipshitted statement. The company depends upon profits, not employees, for its existence. It exists to make profits for its shareholders, not sacrifice them to the supposedly more moral objective of running a job service. And if those jobs hadn't been moved out of Flint when they were the entire company would probably already be bankrupt, leaving those 10,000 and tens of thousands more out of work.

At any rate I think "they're the good Germans" is probably a pretty good summary of Moore's opinion of the American white collar and professional classes in general (except, of course, for the noble souls who fill the ranks of politics and filmmaking).

wayne | February 11, 2007, 2:59pm | #

"Beat some civilization into them."

Finally, a civilized man on H&R. I shall sleep well tonight.

biologist | February 11, 2007, 3:00pm | #

yeah, everyone knows employees don't have anything to do with companies making their profits, and they just suck up money for their salaries that could be used to give the CEO a bigger salary

Graphite | February 11, 2007, 3:02pm | #

Graphite | February 11, 2007, 3:05pm | #

Perhaps this would be more clear: companies depend upon their employees only to the extent that those employees contribute more to profits than any other potential use of the capital used to employ them.

dhex | February 11, 2007, 3:12pm | #

"Finally, a civilized man on H&R. I shall sleep well tonight."

nothing like the sleep of the just, eh?

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 3:18pm | #

Gulliani vs. Obama

That could be the first replay of Nixon vs. Humphrey in this century!

Dave W. | February 11, 2007, 4:00pm | #

Perhaps this would be more clear: companies depend upon their employees only to the extent that those employees contribute more to profits than any other potential use of the capital used to employ them.

Then maybe the pr flaks that Moore asked the question to, should have just answered it that way and stopped complaining and "peskiness" and "harrassment."

I am no Michael Moore fan. I have not seen his most recent movie nor do I intend to. Have not bought any of his books, nor do I intend to.

I was merely defending the guy from an unfair charge upthd that he attacked Wal*Mart workers. What do you think the typical Wal*Mart worker would think of Moore's question and your answer, Graphite, especially if they only saw the words of the exchange and didn't know that one of the people involved was the vilified director/author Moore?

steveintheknow | February 11, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Sorry I'm late. So whats been going on?

Grand Chalupa | February 11, 2007, 4:20pm | #

yeah, everyone knows employees don't have anything to do with companies making their profits, and they just suck up money for their salaries that could be used to give the CEO a bigger salary

A century and a half ago we fought a war because we thought it was wrong to force human beings to work for you.

Today, those on the political left believe that you should have the right force people to pay you for a service regardless if they want you around or not.

Why is this a respectable opinion?

biologist | February 11, 2007, 4:34pm | #

The company depends upon profits, not employees, for its existence.

you said it, so my follow-up comment is hardly a strawman. However, if what you really meant was: "companies depend upon their employees only to the extent that those employees contribute more to profits than any other potential use of the capital used to employ them.", in your later post, I have no argument with that.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 11, 2007, 4:37pm | #

What happened to "Sicko"? That movie has been only a "year away" ever since Fahrenheit 9/11 came out.

Dave W. | February 11, 2007, 4:57pm | #

A century and a half ago we fought a war because we thought it was wrong to force human beings to work for you.

No, that war was fought because we thought it was wrong to allow states to secede from the United States.

Don't they teach history any more?

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 5:10pm | #

No, that war was fought because we thought it was wrong to allow states (sic) to secede from the United States.

Quite correct, especially when you look at that long list of exemptions from the big 'slave freeing speech' that keeps getting invoked while the Constitutional Amendment that actually freed slaves is ignored.

Let's not even bother with reperations having already been paid, in 1862, by the Congress under the administration of Honest Abe.

Graphite | February 11, 2007, 5:33pm | #

biologist, if I say, "I depend on calories, not meat, for my survival" it doesn't mean I think the consumption of meat would not be helpful in obtaining calories.

OMG Graphite thinks employees are nothing but meat!

biologist | February 11, 2007, 5:43pm | #

well, employees are meat with lipid and carbohydrates also :)

your statement about calories and meat is as inaccurate as the obvious meaning of your first statement regarding the necessity of employees, though. I think you can see how one could easily take your statment at face value and get the meaning I did without it being a strawman.

jf | February 11, 2007, 5:52pm | #

Anyone for dismantling current corporate law? How about this:

Corporations become entities with shared liability; that is, each shareholder is liable for misdoings of the company he owns as a percentage of his ownership. In return for this change to corporate law, governments are not allowed to sue corporations, but all other forms of lawsuits (torts, class action) still apply.

Grotius | February 11, 2007, 5:56pm | #

Jim Treacher,

This is what Krauthammer had to say about Brokeback Mountain:

"And last but not least, Brokeback Mountain will have been seen in the theaters by 18 people, but the right 18, and will win the Academy Award."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601200005

I'm sure that he didn't mean that exactly 18 people would watch the movie, I'm sure he probably meant that it would not do well at the box office yet still win the Academy Award (for best picture?).

This is what wikipedia has to say about its box office numbers:

"Brokeback Mountain's theatrical run lasted for 133 days and grossed $83,043,761 in North America and $95,000,000 abroad, adding up to a worldwide gross of more than $178 million.[15] It is the top-grossing release of Focus Features,[16] ranks fifth among the highest-grossing westerns,[17] and eighth among the highest-grossing romantic dramas (1980-Present).[18]"

I assume that these figures do not include DVD rentals and sales.

Keep in mind that the film cost (again according to Wikipedia) ~$19 million to make and advertise.

It did not win the Academy Award for best picture (Ang Lee did win the award for Best Director and a lot of other awards were associated with the film).

Graphite | February 11, 2007, 5:57pm | #

your statement about calories and meat is inaccurate

Are you sure you're a biologist?

I think you can see how one could easily take your statment at face value and get the meaning I did without it being a strawman.

You seriously think the obvious meaning of my first post was that companies would make more profits if they just fired all their employees? Do you usually interpret others' debating points so charitably? If taking someone's statement at face value on the most shallow level possible results in a logical absurdity like that one, maybe you should just examine what they're saying more closely.

BTW, I agree with Dave W. that the PR people should have just told Moore, "We're in business to make money, not redistribute the shareholders' wealth, so fuck off." But providing strong, moral defenses of the profit motive is not one of the American business community's strengths these days.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 5:59pm | #

Corporations become entities with shared liability; that is, each shareholder is liable for misdoings of the company he owns as a percentage of his ownership. In return for this change to corporate law, governments are not allowed to sue corporations, but all other forms of lawsuits (torts, class action) still apply.

Sounds like someone had a few to many hits of Dr. Chomsky.

Why on earth one would want to replace the definition of a corporation with something so close to existing partnerships is quite odd.

Graphite | February 11, 2007, 5:59pm | #

jf, if corporations aren't going to be treated as independent entities anymore would you also support repealing the corporate income tax?

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 6:07pm | #

Corporations become entities with shared liability; that is, each shareholder is liable for misdoings of the company he owns as a percentage of his ownership. In return for this change to corporate law, governments are not allowed to sue corporations, but all other forms of lawsuits (torts, class action) still apply.

However, I have a solution. Create a new category of corporation with these rules and see if anybody uses it for their structure.

biologist | February 11, 2007, 6:18pm | #

yes, I'm sure I'm a biologist. The statement is inaccurate in the sense that it is incomplete, as was your statement about profits and employees.

I try to take people's statements at face value, so I assume they say what they mean, not what I think they mean, although they may not have completely thought out the implications and consequences of their arguments or phrasing. Semantics are important, but perhaps I'm being a bit too serious and literal minded for a blog discussion. If so, I apologize. I already said that if what you meant was really "companies depend upon their employees only to the extent that those employees contribute more to profits than any other potential use of the capital used to employ them", then we're not disagreeing.

Jim Treacher | February 11, 2007, 6:49pm | #

Jim Treacher,

This is what Krauthammer had to say about Brokeback Mountain:

Fascinating!

Grand Chalupa | February 11, 2007, 7:06pm | #

No, that war was fought because we thought it was wrong to allow states to secede from the United States.

And I'm sure Christian conservatives are passionate about getting the right judges appointed because of their strong views on judicial philosophy, not due to abortion.

In other words, if we had a civil war over the makeup of the supreme court in this country it would be accurate to say either it was about abortion or about judicial philosophy.

The South didn't secede just to show they had the right to.

And the point about reverse slavery remains.

Garry | February 11, 2007, 7:31pm | #

If you want to understand conspiracy theory and the likely role of israel in planning the 9/11 attacks, you can't do better than start with Nesta Webster, the great historian of the French revolution

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 7:36pm | #

Brian Doherty made an excellent showing on Booknotes this weekend. Try to catch it on a rerun if you missed it and before the Rayndoids attack him and all records of the show for calling Ayn Rand a Libertarian.

This was one of my favorite interviews in that show ever. Almost as good as the final Brian Lamb hosted episode when he interviewed Tom Wolfe.

Only advice to Mr. Doherty: Visit a barber a few days before going on TV and find a new shirt tailor. All of your words were great and you tell great stories too!

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 7:43pm | #

Garry,

That is just what they want you to think.

Grand Chalupa | February 11, 2007, 7:44pm | #

If you want to understand conspiracy theory and the likely role of israel in planning the 9/11 attacks, you can't do better than start with Nesta Webster, the great historian of the French revolution

Lol, the first two adjectives to discribe him on Wikipedia are "controversial" and "discredited".

And the guy died in 1960. Those Jews sure take their time in planning, eh?

Grand Chalupa | February 11, 2007, 7:45pm | #

And the guy

Or lady, whatever.

Garry | February 11, 2007, 7:51pm | #

I meant that reading Webster will give you the tools to understand what's going on now.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 7:53pm | #

And the guy (or lady) died in 1960. Those Jews sure take their time in planning, eh?

Perhaps they can travel in time?

Gary | February 11, 2007, 8:00pm | #

She [Nesta Webster] was cited respectfully by Winston Churchill, "This movement among the Jews ... as Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, [played] a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.""

Grand Chalupa | February 11, 2007, 8:08pm | #

Ok, you've got my attention....

What motivated the Israelis to commit 9/11?

Who flew those planes into the Twin Towers?

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 8:13pm | #

But seriously, what if Jews could travel in time? How would the world be any different than it is today if they couldn't?

This is a much more import issue than some silly 'conspiracy'.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 8:18pm | #

Who flew those planes into the Twin Towers?

Islamists who's minds are controlled by the Jewish conspirators in leage with Freemasons and the Illuminati.

Garry | February 11, 2007, 8:22pm | #

Guy,

You're getting warm.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 8:31pm | #

Sorry, I forgot the Trilaterial Commission.

David Nieporent | February 11, 2007, 9:05pm | #

That was as twisting of Moore's words. He did not say that people in Red States deserved to be attacked by terrorists. He noted the irony of the attacks which so benefitted Bush, and which Bush (in Moore's opinion) was negligent in preventing, hitting people who had supported Gore.

Nice try, Joe, but entirely false. In fact, he wrote it the day of the incident, long before Bush "so benefited" from the attacks at all, and there was no mention of "negligence." He didn't explicitly say that people in Red States did, but he explicitly said that people in Blue States didn't because they hadn't voted for Bush. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 9:25pm | #

Dave,

How about Bill Ayres of the SDS/Weather Underground standing in front of the Pentagon, on or around 10 Sept. 2001, saying he blew it up once and wished it were blown up again. "Guilty as hell, free as a bird."

He is now a professor at some Leftist university in ILL.

Grotius | February 11, 2007, 10:24pm | #

Charlie Rose's interview of Sarkozy (about an hour long): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5800622943785014797&q=france+duration%3Along&hl=en

joe | February 11, 2007, 10:29pm | #

So, the answer is, none of the Moore-haters can find him saying an unkind word about Wal Mart employees, so Random Dog tried to pass off a statement Moore made about the PR flacks from corporate.

Guy Montag | February 11, 2007, 10:44pm | #

Seems that joe has discovered that Wal*Mart PR folks are unpaid volunteers from a soup kitchen and do not in the employ of Wal*Mart.

No, wait, they are corporate slaves who are forced to work there like everybody else in America.

In other news, the wife of Sen. Obama reveals the lingering fear of assasanation at a gas station that everybody who lives in a gun-free city (and works in another gun-free city) has in the back of their mind.

What? | February 11, 2007, 11:26pm | #

Aside from playing right into the hands of the powerful elite by having polarized devisive discourse on which propaganda dispensor is better, most of the posts here have one resounding flaw: the corporate media protects the elite by not only supply the hard party-line pundits of the far right, but also provides weak-minded liberal commentators to effect an apperently ( so-called ) balanced offering. Of course the liberal,radical, and populist viewpoint is weakly represented in an effort to further discredit and disenfranchise any sort of populist tendencies by the viewer. By the way: the TV is a device of the machine, and the machine is ALWAYS self-serving...have you watched your PROGRAMMING today?

Jim Walsh | February 11, 2007, 11:53pm | #

My favorite all-time Bill Hicks routine was when he would call everyone in his audience an idiot when they didn't follow his extremly radical point of view, and then would turn around and blame everyone else when he wasn't getting any laughs and remained largly unknown by the rest of America. It was Andy Kaufman-esque, if you think about it.

There's a difference: once in a while, Kaufman was actually funny...

Random Guy | February 12, 2007, 12:04am | #

So, the answer is, none of the Moore-haters can find him saying an unkind word about Wal Mart employees, so Random Dog tried to pass off a statement Moore made about the PR flacks from corporate.

Was that supposed to be some lame attempt at humor?

Or a Bushism?

Guy Montag | February 12, 2007, 12:14am | #

Random Guy,

He is just trying to side-step the Jews traveling through time issue and quite badly at that.

wayne | February 12, 2007, 6:27am | #

Grotius,

"This is what Krauthammer had to say about Brokeback Mountain:"

You seem unnaturally interested in cowboys out in the big lonely, playing hide the salami.

steveintheknow | February 12, 2007, 7:52am | #

21 more and we're at 300.

joe | February 12, 2007, 9:17am | #

I have no idea why I typed "Random Dog." I don't know if I confused your handle with someone else, or what.

My apologies.

John F. | February 12, 2007, 9:31am | #

George Carlin - there's a guy that strikes me says what he really believes.

thak | February 12, 2007, 10:40am | #

I think Coulter actually does believe what she says. The first time I saw her on a talk show years ago she sounded sane and rational. But she found that the more she ratcheted up her remarks the more liberals got hysterical. She was pleasantly surprised to find herself tickled by the negative reaction; but to keep getting her rocks off she had to get more and more outrageous to feed her addiction. And of course she told herself that what she said was true in order to sustain some measure of self-respect. It's how self delusion works.

Edward | February 12, 2007, 11:40am | #

I've alsways wondered hw self delution works. I'm going to try it.

dhex | February 12, 2007, 12:09pm | #

"You seem unnaturally interested in cowboys out in the big lonely, playing hide the salami."

you seem naturally interested in sodomy.

have you seen their pamphlets? the gay agenda, i mean - great colors, nice font choices, great paper stock, a nice 80# text with a semigloss coating, etc. very compelling design work.

alternately, why the fuck do so many conservatives still think "LOLZ YUR GAY" is some kind of insult? there are too many of them to drag out the old saw about closets cases, unless it's a matter of marrying conservative women who don't put out, and the stereotype of the omnisexual 24-hour gay male lifestyle is probably terribly compelling in its freedom from the chains of unhappy, asexual marriages.

wayne | February 12, 2007, 2:47pm | #

dhex,

Whoa, dude. Has your boyfriend has been massaging your prostate in a mean way? What did I say, that got you so upset? What makes you think I am "conservative"? What makes you think I have any idea what, "LOLZ YUR GAY" means?

I will let you in on a secret. Coservative women are dirty little whores. Burkenstock wearing liberal women who don't shave their legs are... well, Rosie O'Donnell comes to mind. It's all part of the forbidden fruit (no pun intended, so unpucker your hemorhoids) fantasy.

By the way, am I right in assuming you're gay? Not that there is anything wrong with that, mind you. As Jack Nickolson would say, "you can pack as much fudge as you like, it's no skin off my back".

VM | February 12, 2007, 3:22pm | #

"unless it's a matter of marrying conservative women who don't put out, and the stereotype of the omnisexual 24-hour gay male lifestyle is probably terribly compelling in its freedom from the chains of unhappy, asexual marriages."

See what you've done? This has become such a batty discussion that Dhex has started reading the tv guide for Lifetime Network again.

Drop the TV guide, Dhex, and take two giant steps sideways. Now put your hands in your pockets. There. Isn't that better :)

Mr. Crane will be stopping by shortly.

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 12, 2007, 4:30pm | #

There's a difference: once in a while, Kaufman was actually funny...
In his defense, while Hicks is an easy target (at least for me, I noticed that not many other people beat up on him), he did have some great routines. Also, the guy gets my respect for always staying true to himself, even if it meant that his true self was a caustic, cruel, personality, that alieneted others and left him a lonely bitter man. (which made him even more caustic and cruel.) Its easy to be yourself when it opens doors for you, its another thing to be yourself when it doens't get you laid and inspires people to want to throw beer bottles at you

Jonathan C. Hohensee | February 12, 2007, 5:07pm | #

" alternately, why the fuck do so many conservatives still think "LOLZ YUR GAY" is some kind of insult? there are too many of them to drag out the old saw about closets cases"
If homophobia means that someone is a closet case, I hope that logic doesn't work laterally, because I'm scared shitless of horses.

David Nieporent | February 12, 2007, 5:44pm | #

The fact that so many right wing nutcases roll off the tongue - Coulter, Malkin, Dobbs, Limbaugh, O'Reilly - while your efforts to find a liberal equivalent yield the tame stylings of Paul Krugman, speaks volumes about contemporary politics.

The fact that you think Paul Krugman is "tame" speaks volumes about YOUR politics. Krugman is less prolific than some of the right wingers listed -- plus there are a bunch of RWers listed -- so one can probably think of more examples of egregious speech from the RWers than from Krugman, but that doesn't make him tamer.

And since when is Dobbs a "right wing"er? He's a populist, which is at least as much left-wing nuttery as right-wing nuttery. The idea that free trade destroys jobs is, at the national level, almost exclusively a left-wing platform plank.

Not that I ever had much respect for Malkin, but when she called William F. Buckley an idiot, I pretty much wrote her off as a complete loser.

As for Coulter, blech.

thak | February 12, 2007, 7:29pm | #

I don't agree with Malkin's stance on immigration - I'm pro-open immigration - but I think she was right that Buckley's analogy was ludicrous: comparing the deportation of illegal immigrants to ripping Africans from their homes to be brought to the Americas during slave times.

dhex | February 12, 2007, 7:41pm | #

VM - i apologize. but at the same time, one has to wonder about the obsession.

"Whoa, dude. Has your boyfriend has been massaging your prostate in a mean way? What did I say, that got you so upset? What makes you think I am "conservative"? What makes you think I have any idea what, "LOLZ YUR GAY" means?"

dude, whatevs. just don't forget to erase your cookies, history and cache before your wife comes home.

but it's a serious question - why talk like cheesy spam for a gay porn site? it's so clinical - so tragically unhip - that it begins to feel purient, like d. h. lawrence or mid 90s sex rap jams. but i recently saw this same pattern from a number of conservative-identified commentators (socially at least, and politically in general), this "effeminaphobia" in regards to an imagined array of offenses - and an impressive array of slang - involving passive anal sex. insults are almost never arranged to portray the target as the "active" sexual partner.

they're obsessive about it in a way that's a little bit creepy. and i don't think it's all a matter of genuine personality suppression a la ted haggard - though maybe it's a bit of some kind of taboo mechanism causing a fixation of curiosity covered by disgust.

you're right that repression is fun - well, eroding the remains, at least - but conscious will is mindblowing.

in regards to your last question - i think i might be a little gay for your wit.

VM | February 12, 2007, 10:40pm | #

Dhex: no needs for apologies - I missed the mark with some humor in your corner. Think of History of the World Part One, and I was the clumsy piss boy, and you were addressing a point by Count de Money. (de mo-nay).

And I do think you do have a strong point with some in social conservative circles and their obsession (Starr Report, for example; and his whole bleedin family)

Oh well. /kicks pebble.

wayne | February 13, 2007, 4:04am | #

Dhex,

You have me confused with somebody who cares about homosexuality. I don't disapprove of homosexuality, nor do I approve. I am agnostic on the subject. Do whatever you like, it's your ass hole.

I will admit that I like to joke around, but not in a mean way really, at least not intentionally so don't take it that way.

dhex | February 13, 2007, 10:23am | #

"You have me confused with somebody who cares about homosexuality.... it's your ass hole."

dude, you're so anally obsessed you make the craigslist MSM casual connections section look like a buncha amateurs.

you're actually grossing me out a little.

but seriously, how is one agnostic on human sexual behavior? you're not sure it exists?

VM: no, i was worried i actually did sound like lifetime there for a minute. but yeah, wtf conservatives?

perhaps some of it is juvenile mentation - a la howard stern - or maybe they secretly know what the effete coastal elites have known for years: illict sex and illegal drugs is more fun than jesus and band camp combined.

wayne | February 13, 2007, 11:43am | #

Dhex,

I did not say I was agnostic on human sexual behaviour, I said that I am agnostic on homosexual behaviour. Believe it or not, most human sexual behaviour is hetero-sexual in nature. I am trying my best to be nice to you, dhex. I am not standing in judgement of you at all. I really don't care that you are a homosexual, it is your business, not mine. If you, or anybody, broach a topic here (grotius did) then it is fair game for me, or anybody to respond.

Ya gotta admit, "... hide the salami' was funny. If you can't laugh at human sexuality, then you are a sad person indeed. Why are you wound so tight about being gay?

dhex | February 13, 2007, 3:29pm | #

and we have come back full circle to lolz ur gay.

"If you can't laugh at human sexuality, then you are a sad person indeed."

i laugh at people who think ann coulter is hot all of the time.

and furries of course.

see, i never liked howard stern, but i think mike patton is fucking hilarious. i like my humor spastic and absurdist; potty humor is only funny when it is coupled with brutality. (citizen q comes to mind)

and even then, i'd rather have spazz. i am lucky we live in the age of farce, where people like ted haggard exist; shit, not only do they exist, but he tells people up front that he bought a huge chunk o' meth but didn't do anything but throw it away; only later he admits to the entire sad story.

it's sad, in that he profited from selling a combination of hate and stupidity to a large group of people, but it's also funny in that he literally lived the stereotype so many "for the children" moralists claim to want to prevent. does repression contribute to "bad" - that is to say, "immoral" - behavior? i don't know, but it certainly contributes to poor decision making.

if a radio transmitter fell on howard stern, i would probably laugh until i cried. he's the epitome of "not trying." the whole "hide the salami" thing is of that level, and on a purely aesthetic level we should all work together to annihilate it from the face of our culture - non-coercively of course - or at least marginalize it through ridicule.

"I said that I am agnostic on homosexual behaviour."

you may not know what this word means. i do not think you are either skeptical about the existence of homosexuality. the term you probably want to use is "apathetic."

"I am trying my best to be nice to you, dhex."

you don't have to be nice to me; i called you out on the carpet because i believe in social pressure.

well, that's part of the story; the root of it is that at my wedding three years ago i realized my aunt - who has been with her partner for about the same time as my wife and i, ten years - would never be able to engage in this bourgeois spectacle in the same legally sanctioned manner, and it broke my heart.

that's ultimately what's so puzzling about ted haggard and the past and future conservatives who come out of their various kinky closets; is the adoration of crowds of - admittedly, by my elitist standards - utter fucking idiots really worth it? does it pay that well to deny your heart? especially in haggard's case, as he was full on meth-and-hooker binging.

in a perfect world people would genuinely be apathetic on the issue of consensual sexual behavior of various configurations; that is to say believing such decisions to be beyond the ability of people to make in any large-scale manner, and leaving it to each individual to decide in their own hearts. we do not live in a perfect world, and for reasons of community, purience and all points in between people will always be sticking their noses in someone else's bedroom business.

"If you, or anybody, broach a topic here (grotius did) then it is fair game for me, or anybody to respond."

this is ultimately true, though the context of his comments had nothing to do with your lolz ur gay response, but rather the popularity of the film in the face of conservative commentators who claimed - of course - that it wasn't actually a popular or lucrative film, but rather a liberal media conspiracy to give our children teh gayz.

and yes, i know their actual terminology is more like "eroding the american family" but a) it's basically FEAR TEH GAYZ and b) if their conception of the american family is so weak as to not be able to tolerate different configurations, then it deserves to be eroded.

the market shall provide.

wayne | February 14, 2007, 4:25am | #

“i laugh at people who think ann coulter is hot all of the time.”

I think Ann Coulter might be a lot of fun in bed, so I guess that means I think she is kind of hot. Sexual preferences being the individual thing that they are though, I really prefer women with a little more meat on their bones, so from a purely physical point of view Ann is not my ideal. Having said all of that though has nothing to do with the original point of this thread, which was that Ann Coulter is dumb, thoughtless, and intellectually dishonest. I think there is prima fascia evidence to the contrary on all three points. Balko and you and many others on this thread are making the worst sort of transparently foolish assertions (dumb, thoughtless, dishonest) about Coulter based on your dislike for her politics. I do not much like Joe’s (the short, Irish, urban planning H&R poster) politics, but I will grant that he is intelligent and thoughtful. How Joe came to embrace his liberal beliefs in the face of their destructive socialist consequences is hard to figure, I will admit but you will not find me calling him stupid. By the way, feel free to laugh at me for thinking Coulter might be fun in bed.

"I said that I am agnostic on homosexual behaviour.

you may not know what this word means. i do not think you are either skeptical about the existence of homosexuality. the term you probably want to use is "apathetic."”

Actually Dhex, I think it is you that does not know one of the meanings of agnostic: “a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something”. However, I will grant that apathetic is nearly right also. I have no opinion and I do not care, just as I do not care if you are hetero sexual. However, if you go swishing down the street with a feather boa wrapped around your neck and wearing chaps with your ass hanging out, you can expect me to laugh. I find flamboyant gay guys funny; deal with it.

“well, that's part of the story; the root of it is that at my wedding three years ago…
i realized my aunt - who has been with her partner for about the same time as my wife and i, ten years - would never be able to engage in this bourgeois spectacle in the same legally sanctioned manner, and it broke my heart.”

It is not reasonable nor fair to expect that I, or any other poster can possibly know that your aunt is in a tragic lesbian relationship that won’t allow her the pleasure of a big wedding that the state sanctions, or that you have pent-up anger at yet another fallen TV preacher. By that logic, I could conclude that it’s OK to come home and beat my wife and expect her to “understand” because I had a bad day at work.

“we do not live in a perfect world, and for reasons of community, purience and all points in between people will always be sticking their noses in someone else's bedroom business.”

Yes, right, deal with it. I make that statement in a kind way.

Finally, I observe that after this post we are only three posts away from the enticing 300 mark. Dave W, you are a loon.

Site Search

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Hit & Run Archives

RSS Feed

Weekend Open Thread

Comments to "Weekend Open Thread":