You have to hand it to Mencken, he had the means and the guts to say what others thought but feared or lacked the voice to register in the public domain. However the question he poses has been superceded by a more pressing catastrophe--namely, millions of muslims dead set on ending US. Fuck race--sorry Jesse Jackson and David Duke, but it's religion that must be dealt with. I haven't been so unconcerned with what the "coons" think about the power structure since I was in college and harrassed by their ridiculous "pride" organizations and forced myself through sheer force of will to block the black noise out.

Al, I think those who overuse the "racist" cry are doing themselves, their race, humanity in general, and the LANGUAGE a great disservice:

The constant, irresponsible tossing around the word 'racist' degrades the meaning, lessens its impact, turns it from a incredibly powerful word into an ethereal piece of Pixie Dust that eventually has no effect whatsoever. It can't raise eyebrows, consciousness, or awareness -- let alone a group of Lost Boys or a Cosmic Pirate Ship.

And more importantly, to use the term so casually is an insult to the people and situations where truly heinous racism reared (and still rears) its ugly head.

Granted, racism occurs in varying degrees, but to CONSTANTLY apply it based on paranoid assumptions -- and not on at least some degree of explicit evidence is a waste of energy and an insult to those who know the greatest degrees of racist abuse, discrimination, and suffering.

There's a big difference between a 7-11 clerk giving you the high hat and being lynched. I get abuse from 7-11 clerks all the time. Can't blame my race (well, maybe I can: they speak Farsi?), but the point is, to use the same word to describe a store clerk and a murderer has a degrading effect on our language and our psyches. One CAN'T equate the two without losing some meaning and understanding in the process.

Lastly, I'll add this: I don't think any intelligent, self-aware person will deny that WE'RE ALL RACIST to some extent. (It could be argued that it's an inherited, biological and/or cultural imperative) I will freely admit to some degree of 'racism'. I also admit that having recognized that, I'm better able to overcome it. I strive to be fair in my dealings with others, regardless of their race, etc. It's a conscious effort. One constantly monitors one's actions in order to meet one's idealized view of human relations, equality, and fraternity.

Unfortunately, the type of person that needs to understand these concepts will probably not have the intellectual power, moral honesty, or personal integrity to absorb and learn from them. Life is much simpler when one has only one or two labels in one's repertoire.

Which is ironic, in that the one who calls everyone a racist lives in a Black & White world.

Mencken lived and died a confirmed racist, i.e., a person who believes one race is superior to others. (So did Jack London.) I will be posting an entry about unreconstructed racist Mencken when I find time. Meanwhile, I would urge people to consider what would motivate someone to post this entry. In the quoted material, Mencken raises the stereotype of the violent 'coon' who will drive white people from "below the Potomac River," and says he hopes be in Nordic Europe when that eventuality occurs. Why would Al Barger want to present that imagery to Blogcritics? (You say because it is an opportunity to race bait and David Yeagley did not respond to his invitation this time. True.
But, let's consider another possible reason.) Could it be an attempt to rationalize his bigotry by associating it with a much more intelligent man of letters? Al Barger is not bright. Not even of average intelligence, in fact. But, if bright people have held the same warped views he does, they must be, as he says above, "the truth,' eh?

Oh god, please no!

She's gonna pick on one of my favorite writers, Jack London~!

Oh well, what else is new.

When analyzing London, one must NEVER overlook what a complex, multi-sided, ambivalent, almost schizophrenic personality he had. The man was torn between MANY conflicting cultural, philosophical, ethical, and class issues. He's incredibly complicated, so shouldn't be approached with a simple mind.

Which probably rules out a decent analysis from you-know-who.

He was a wonderful writer no matter what what's-her-name sez.

Mencken, you say? I have written an entry considering the writer's views on race, and, why Al Barger is attracted to them like flies to his unwashed body. Read it here.

Why do you work so hard, Ms. Diva?, the more astute among us may ask. I did not intend to write another blog entry yesterday. I thought I was done for the week. But, it would be awful for a person researching Mencken's views at Blogcritics to see only this attempt to justify bigotry posted by Al Barger. I felt a duty to provide a fuller picture of the Sage of Baltimore and white supremacy.

[In my best lame attempt at an Anthony Hopkins voice] Diva- We're going to have to quit meeting like this. People will say we're in love.

Okay, so let's talk about the quote and Nostradamus's ... er ... I mean Mencken's prediction. He was obviously wrong, as you point out.

I should say next that I haven't read any of Mencken's work, but I have read about him and his work. So I'll try to respond as best I can given those limitations.

Should nobody read a writer's work because some of what he wrote is anti-woman, anti-Jew, anti-black, anti-whatever? I think we should be able to acknowledge that the writer had biases and discuss how those biases influenced the writing -- to the extent that it's possible, because you can't get inside someone else's head.

In this case, I don't know if Mencken's prejudices override his literary stature. Again, I haven't read him myself. But by all accounts, he was a prolific writer and editor in the early part of this century, at a time when *many* people shared at least some his prejudices.

What is his contribution to American letters? How do his racial, gender, religous, class, and other biases impact that contribution? Do they negate it, diminish it, or just provide more insight into the person and the time at which he was writing.

Here's a question that I can't answer: How was Mencken's writing received at the time? Was he considered a reflection of the society he lived in, or was he considered a leader of social ideas, or was he a pariah? Or was he some combination of these?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't see how worrying about a bloody revolt by blacks in pre-Civil Rights America is racist. Oppressed minorities have a long history of violent revolt. Slaves in America, on numerous occasions, took up arms in an attempt to slaughter their masters. These uprisings were always smothered eventually, and the leaders lynched. But many died (on both sides) in the process.

(Of course, the result was rather different in Haiti...)

American Indians attempted to engage in "genocide" against the "White Man" a few times, as well. They were not successful, obviously, and suffered greatly for it.

But the point is that worrying about such a violent eruption was not without a valid reason to back it up. And if such a thing had occured, I would rather be in Switzerland too...

I believe any knowledgeable person knows there were no successful slave revolts in the U.S. The spectre of the violent, ravaging black has always been used to justify repression without any real threat from a comparatively powerless minority. The kind of remarks one can read in Comment 8 are present in just about any record of a lynching to justify the violence.

bhw, I did address some of what you asked about in my entry, linked above. Mencken lived until 1956, but his views remained those of 1860 or so. He was a prime proponent of the myth of the genteel South. Furthermore, his Germanic allegiances and belief in white supremacy led him to sympathize with Germany during and after WWII.

"I believe any knowledgeable person knows there were no successful slave revolts in the U.S."

Well, then color me "knowledgeable"! I never claimed these revolts were "successful." Only that they occured. And in the process, numerous whites and blacks died.

The spectre of the violent, ravaging black has always been used to justify repression without any real threat from a comparatively powerless minority.

Well, it surely was a "threat." See Haiti. And the numerous slave revolts in the US...

This does not justify repression OR slavery, but it certainly justifies the fear that such a rebelion might one day be successful...

"The kind of remarks one can read in Comment 8 are present in just about any record of a lynching to justify the violence."

Uh huh. So, I support lynching, because I know about the various slave revolts of the 1800s?

Gimme a break. Knowledge of un-PC facts does not = support for lynching.

Try again. This time, do better.

So, according to someone who seems to know absolutely nothing about anything:

I never claimed these revolts were "successful." Only that they occured. And in the process, numerous whites and blacks died.

Look even at just this quote: From the text, Mencken clearly implies that blacks would have been JUSTIFIED in a violent uprising. They were going to "exact a square answer" and "docile service as minstrel, torch and goat" was going to be ended.

He also despaired of how they would ever even begin to get over all this oppression to even start trying to take a proper place, thus the quotes on Diva's "inferior man" page about the 50 generations.

Unlike Diva's seeming implications, Mencken was not southern or particularly pro-southern. He lived his whole life in Baltimore. He was critical of pretty nearly every race and class. Diva seems to think he was some proponent of slavery and plantations. Then again, she thinks pretty much EVERY white person has a KKK hood in the closet. He simply was not a proponent of oppression of ANYONE- though that would fit better into Diva's pre-ordained worldview.

I don't get any feeling from her descriptions of the actual gleeful iconoclast that I've been reading these many years. Then again, I unfortunately get little sense that Diva has much understanding of any concept of JOY- which was a typical Mencken outlook.

He was no respecter of race or class. He in different ways mocked and criticized chamber of commerce types, most religions, Appalachians, every foreign country, and definitely his own Germans.

Hint in understanding Mencken: He was into Nietzche. Indeed, he literally wrote the book on Nietzche.

Calling him "anti-woman" would be just not really even in good touch with reality. I suggest a quick download (250K) of the Gutenberg text of his brief book "In Defense of Women."

I recommend that you don't take all these ridiculous claims of Mencken's "isms" at face value, but spend even a few minutes actually reading him. The text linked above would be a good starting place. He was all about busting up all kinds of isms, not reinforcing them.

BHW and others unfamiliar with Mencken would be advised to consider THIS INTRODUCTION to Mencken, or indulge in some of his famously pithy quotes HERE.

The scholarship on Mencken is clear. He was a racist and and an anti-Semite. Terry Teachout's book, referenced in my entry on Mencken, is considered the most complete treatment of Mencken and he is extremely clear about that.

So, what is to made of the fact that Al Barger does not know this? Two things, at least:

*Barger is a lazy man, which I've known for as long I've been aware of him. He has not read Mencken or scholarlarship on Mencken. Instead, he is relying on lists of pithy quotes from Mencken that are posted all over the Internet. They are not adequate substitutes for scholarship.

*Barger is misinterpreting what little he has read. Mencken believed blacks to be genetically inferior and incapable of significant change. He made no secret of that. The observation is made just about whenever he mentions blacks in his writings. His one 'contribution' to civil rights was that he said he opposed lynching most of the time. In his opinion, blacks were a docile, retarded race incapable of committing serious crimes, and therefore should not be subject to extreme violence.

I do not consider Mencken an important writer. His journalism was of the moment and has fallen into deserved neglect. However, I would be remiss to let Barger's ignorance pass as information.

The other failing of this sorry excuse for a blog entry is that the conclusion has no basis. Barger tells us things are just fine. . . because he said so. The statistical data on African-Americans tells us otherwise. (It also seems odd the slave master, so to speak, is the one saying everything is just peachy. Shouldn't those in a position to know be the ones to make that judgment?) Richard Powers, a very smart man, has said that the most significant 'dialogue' on race in America is the race riots that occur at least every decade. Though the ultimate victims of those riots are blacks, not whites, even the claim such episodes don't occur Barger makes is not true.

MacDiva: "The kind of remarks one can read in Comment 8 are present in just about any record of a lynching to justify the violence."

Visit Blogcritics; where a simple comment can get you equated with a with a murderer who lynches people.

When is this kind of shit going to stop?

When are fellow BCers going to get tired of it?

When is enough enough?

I might be stupid for sticking my 2 cents in here, but I'm gonna anyway.

I honestly think, for example, if Shark were to sit down by a black person, which I'm sure he does, he would carry on a civil, courteous, enjoyable conversation with that person. I feel the same about MacDiva with a white person.From observing the exchanges here, it seems like it has come to be more of a personal thing.

Sheri, you are correct in that assesment.

Thanks MsTek.

And Al, you seem to speak your mind freely, about all the topics, whether it's agreeable or not. But I read a post by you yesterday, something about monkeys, where it almost seemed you were going out of your way to be... ambigiously antagonistic.(?) I'm not sure which is worse though. That, or a continous racist hunt.What is the real purpose of this? To open my eyes to what I allready know exists, between members of all races, not just black? To make me feel guilty by association? I'm part indian, but I'm also white.

It wouldn't be the first time Barger pulled a stunt having to do with 'monkeys,' Sheri.

I wrote an alternative post to this entry because what Barger is saying is completely inaccurate. A big problem with the blogosphere is that people like him, who do absolutely no research, put up opinions and try to pass them off as facts. Since I have read Mencken and the scholarship on him, I decided to post the established truth about the writer, who was a supporter of white supremacy. That is not just my personal opinion. It is the view of historians and other scholars who have studied every word Mencken ever wrote. Again, my entry is here.

And, no, it will not surpise me if Barger throws another massive tantrum. He tends to do that when his delusion that he is a smart guy is challenged.

Sheri: I honestly think, for example, if Shark were to sit down by a black person, which I'm sure he does, he would carry on a civil, courteous, enjoyable conversation with that person.

Sheri, you'd be right:

Since 1991, I've had an ongoing relationship with a prominent African-American theatre ensemble; I wrote 4 musicals which were performed to great reviews and sold-out performances, one of which has toured the country since 1996. It's not only performed exclusively by blacks, but is a historical play about a famous African-American WOMAN.

But that doesn't stop McD from calling me a racist.

Why would it? If it were true, and I don't believe it is because Shark does not write that well, it would mean he hid his views from some folks and fooled them. That's all.

From Judge Sheri (tongue in cheek):

You two have become a sounding board for each other.Even though you probably wouldn't admit it, there's an element of enjoyment in it for you.

MacDiva: Being a black woman (I'm taking your word that you are in fact an African American female) you have most likely experienced racisim.It is understandable why you are passionate about it.White supremacists take jabs at you every chance they get.You have to deal with ambiguous white snobbery,just elusive enough that you can't call them on it.

Al: Being a white man (again taking your word you are a white male) you have most likely experienced attempts to make you guilty by association, and therefore obligated to stay silent when having observed obvious abuses of black militant types, even if it affected you personaly.

NEITHER OF YOU OWE THE OTHER AN APOLOGY

Instead, for the next 6 mths., neither of you are allowed to read any material from a radical extremist viewpoint.Instead, each of you will spend 6 mths in the life of a poor, single mother with children, of the opposite race as yourself. You will keep a diary as seen thru the eyes of that mother.After the 6 mths.,using the same energy and obvious intelligence you display here on Blogcritics, you will write a book on how and what can be done to bring justice and equality to all.

banging gavel, court is adjourned

Contrary to what Diva's saying, I'm not claiming that "everything is just peachy." I'm saying that we're doing a lot better than anyone would have had reason to think just a few generations ago.

There is not perfect racial harmony and justice- nor will there ever be in this imperfect world. Nor will there be a complete solution to violence and oppression. There will always be some poverty. "The poor you shall always have with you."

Also, I'm meaning this post partly as a conciliatory message to white folks who get frustrated with all the -in the words of Da Mayor from Do the Right Thing- "black foolishness." As unjustified, unreasonable and grating as much of this bitching is in 2004, I try to keep the perspective of what kind of harshness was culturally embedded all through the black and white communities a relatively short time ago.

Naturally, MD comes along right on schedule to illustrate exactly the kind of "black foolishness" I have in mind. Everyone who takes the least hint of disagreement is a "slave master" and so forth.

Now, everyone gets their own opinion, but they don't get to have their own facts- except, of course, for Diva. Anyone who has followed the action at Blogcritics for five minutes will know that Diva simply makes up her own facts constantly, at the drop of a hat. Feel free to read my writing, and compare it to the claims that she makes about me, for example.

Further, note how much the harsh things she says about me would be descriptive of HER rather than me. The "tantrum" charge in comment 18 would be a classic example.

Perhaps I lack perspective, but it seems to me that she must have a low opinion of black folks (including herself) to constantly see disrespect even in my simple birthday dedication to Tracy Chapman.

Sheri, I reject your faux even handedness. Our behavior is NOT equivalent, so it does not call for an equivalent sentence, as it were. Not being prone to nor liking the feeling of grievance, I'll not go on at length.

Suffice it to say that she does in fact owe me numerous apologies if only for frequent direct and deliberate misstatements of fact- let alone her careful misrepresentations. Besides unfounded but arguably subjective adjectives such as "racist," she has as much as made up evil racist statements absolutely wholecloth, put quote marks around them, and attached my name to them. [See comment 5 for example.] You'll find nothing even vaguely equivalent from my side.

I object strenuously to being compared to Mac Diva, as I have been repeatedly at Blogcritics. Lumping us together as equivalent does not constitute Solomonic wisdom. It looks more like cheap moral equivalence, or just being too lazy to see the overwhelming differences. To me, such comparisons constitute scurrilous attacks on my character.

Trying to keep some perspective, however, I might be not entirely unreasonably accused of occasional unnecessary roughness on the playing field. I try to keep it clean. I try to be understanding, as in my point in this column about the ghosts of Christmas past. However, I WILL throw an elbow now and again when I think someone else has behaved in an egregious manner.

For example, the "monkey" reference Sheri refers to would be my column "Chuck D Is a Signifying Monkey." Obviously I know that any use of the word monkey within 50 yards of a black man hits hot buttons, but Chuck D asked for it with the demagoguery on which PE's entire career is built. Plus, this was not an accusation of sub-humanity, but a reference to a well known specific character from African folklore. One commenter may have had a reasonable critique, however, when he suggested that I should have said "the" rather than "a" Signifying Monkey.

The clear point of my column in any case was the "signifying" part. The "monkey" part was a bonus dig at someone who personally and specifically deserved it, not an insult to everyone else of African descent or dissent.

Anyone [black, white, Christian, atheist, whatever] who wants to be treated as an EQUAL has to expect to get roughed up a bit on the playground. Think of it in terms of the playground jousting on South Park.

Chuck D likes to throw them elbows on the playground, so he can expect the equal treatment of having some thrown back. MF Elvis on bogus charges of racism? Depicting political assassinations of Arizona politicians who didn't support the MLK holiday? Brother, you asked for a dig, didn't ya?

As to Mencken's supposed "racism," I invite you to actually read some Mencken and judge for yourself rather than taking it from Diva or me. I have links above, or you can dig up a volume of his self-described "Prejudices."

Going back to my original purpose stated in the second paragraph of the original essay, other than Diva [Bad Form!], everyone else on this thread so far has done pretty good at making an attempt at reasonable discussion.

Sheri,

I just dive for the nearest bunker and wait for the shelling to end....

Chris, the basic idea for this post and thread is exactly to attempt to have a calm and useful civil discussion, and avoid "shelling" at all.

For my part, I'm trying to avoid inflammatory language, and to make an extra effort to give reasonable credit to possible objections to my thinking.

Yawn. Al Barger always dismisses research and mainstream opinion as "making up facts' because he is too lazy to do the reading and too slow to grasp what little information he can't avoid. If anyone has a genuine interest in H. L. Mencken I would direct him to the authorities I cited in my entry, especially Terry Teachout's biography and analysis of Mencken. It is considered the best of contemporary resources on the writer.

There are blogs that are excellent sources of information. I've a fan of those blogs. I started off reading people like Josh Marshall and Nathan Newman, whose research is book quality. Perhaps, that 'spoiled' me. I definitely know discourse supported by research when I see it. When stupidity such as this entry tries to masquerade as information, that is an embarrassment to the site it is on.

Okay, so I read part of "Defense of Women." What I took away is that the guy looked at women through the lens of stereotypes. That and the fact that he was an utter snob.

I can't say that I find this very endearing [about the suffragettes]:

Parenthetically, I may add that all of the ladies to take to this
political immolation seem to me to be frightfully plain. I know those of England, Germany and Scandinavia only by their portraits in the illustrated papers, but those of the United States I
have studied at close range at various large political gatherings, including the two national conventions first following the extension of the suffrage. I am surely no fastidious fellow--in fact, I prefer a
certain melancholy decay in women to the loud, circus-wagon brilliance of youth--but I give you my word that there were not five women at either national convention who could have embraced me in camera without first giving me chloral. Some of the chief
stateswomen on show, in fact, were so downright hideous that I felt faint every time I had to look at them.

The reform-monging suffragists seem to be equally devoid of the more caressing gifts. They may be filled with altruistic passion, but they certainly have bad complexions, and not many of them know how to dress their hair. Nine-tenths of them advocate reforms
aimed at the alleged lubricity of the male-the single standard, medical certificates for bridegrooms, birth-control, and so on. The motive here, I believe, is mere rage and jealousy. The woman who is not pursued sets up the doctrine that pursuit is offensive
to her sex, and wants to make it a felony. No genuinely attractive
woman has any such desire. She likes masculine admiration, however violently expressed, and is quite able to take care of herself.

Now, there's an enlightened fellow! What scares me most, I think, is that it's so familiar. You can still hear this crap from some men [and even some women] about today's vocal feminists: they're just bitter because they can't get man.

Of course, this line made me laugh:

Nine men out of ten would be quite happy, I believe, if there were no women in the world, once they had grown
accustomed to the quiet.

Seriously, I'm still chuckling at that line. It's funny.

But it seems Mencken only felt defensive of *some* women. Here's a hint: it wasn't those modern gals he liked best. Sure, he takes pot shots at men and says that women are intelligent, but he still goes to great effort to explain why women aren't suited to being, say, lawyers, while they are more naturally suited to being, say, nurses. You know, women's work.

And what's with all these women not taking pride and joy in their housework?! Why isn't that good enough for them? Why do they need men to provide them with canned peas and other modern conveniences? Stop faking frailty and scrub those floors with pride, bitch! Sheesh.

So what I read were the thoughts of a man who breathed gross generalizations and stereotypes into every sentence on the page.

Then again, there weren't too many men in the 1920s who liked the idea of women gaining independence, even if they couldn't deny their right to vote. And the sorts of stereotypes he writes about were commonplace at that time.

I doubt I'll be reading too much more Mencken any time soon, mostly because I don't have the time and it's hard to make myself plow through that overly formal style of his.

Hmm BHW- you have an interesting take there. Now, you may find him offensive. That's a purely subjective judgment- but one in which you would not be alone, nor necessarily unjustified.

On the other hand, you found his style "overly formal?" That seems like an odd take to me. He wrote in good grammar and didn't drop the F bomb every other word, but I would generally think of his style quite the opposite. I'd be more likely to describe him as, say, "freewheeling" rather than "overly formal."

Also, you suggest his comments about women seem to be motivated by "rage and jealousy." You've DEFINITELY got him all wrong there. I can't think of a single moment in all of his voluminous writings that I would describe with either of those words.

Mencken took great joy in writing. The image I take of him is best represented in this famous quote about a contemporary fellow journalist:

"One reporter, peering through Mencken's window late at night after one rally, recalled watching him at work alone in his hotel room, pounding out copy on a typewriter propped on a desk. He would type a few sentences, read them, slap his thigh, toss his head back, and roar with laughter. Then he would type some more lines, guffaw, and so on until the end of the article."

Now THAT'S the Mencken I know and love.

You can perfectly well be offended by Mencken. Many people were in the day. He was denounced from a great many pulpits in his day- and was right proud of it.

Looking at the Defense of Women book, you can take some digs at women out of it, but my perception put it about one part criticism of women to ten parts criticism of men. And some parts that weren't really a criticism of either. Not that women can't take their rhetorical lumps like the guys.

Not that I would feel the need to defend every word the guy wrote. Nor would he want anyone to be a blind apologist for him. He'd HATE that kind of subservience.

Going back momentarily to race relations, Mencken was a significant aid to the Harlem renaissance going on during his prime time. He went out of his way as a magazine editor to publish numerous black writers.

As bad as he hate do-gooders of all stripes, he would have rejected any credit for being charitable. More valuably- and no doubt honestly- he would have claimed to have hired his writers strictly on the merits.

Al, the paragraph that says "mere rage and jealousy" are Mencken's words, not mine. It should have been in italics. He's talking about the suffragettes and their activism: they're the ones acting on "mere rage and jealousy" at not having men chase after them because they're so ugly, according to Mencken.

Yes, I do find his writing style formal by today's standard, and it has nothing to do with the f-bomb or lack thereof. The first sentence I quoted is an example: Parenthetically, I may add that all of the ladies to take to this
political immolation seem to me to be frightfully plain.

Here's how someone would write that today: "Did you ever notice that feminists are ugly?"

That style is probably typical of the time, though.

I don't find him all that offensive in this particular book, either. I do think he's writing about fairly common stereotypes of women, although he seems to believe he has some new twist to offer on those stereotypes. I don't find him to be doing women any big favors in this book, though.

In his opinions of women, he seems to be a product of his time. It's not that offensive to me because I already know that's just how it was.

D'oh! My bad on the 'rage and jealousy' thing. Mea culpa.

The Defense of Women is not particularly considered his top work- though I found it pretty amusing- but it was convenient at hand for free download.

You may want to dig some of his coverage of the Scopes monkey trial. He was the model for the cynical reporter played by Gene Kelly in Inherit the Wind. He cheerfully hooked the teacher up with his fancy lawyer, then rushed to Tennessee to cover the trial. It was fun being HL, no doubt.

For example, try THIS COLUMN from his coverage, in which he snuck up one night on a revival meeting in the Tennessee woods, talking about it as if it were an anthropological expedition in the jungle.

bhw, he was a satirist first and foremost. You have to bear in mind that it was his job to be a snob, part of his persona, and much of what he said was over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek, and/or merely meant to be provocative.

He was a Professional Literary Curmudgeon!

--Which, as you can guess, is why some people [around here] like his writing.

Oh, and Mencken embodied my own personal mantra;

"I don't discriminate; I loathe everybody."

Shark,

Tis' a fine line between love and loathe....

bhw, he was a satirist first and foremost.

That was my problem, I guess. I don't know enough about him and haven't read enough of his writing to know what tone he was really using.

Well Al, all I know is...if this were happening in my workplace...an angry black woman with a racist axe to grind, going after the white boy who is sick and tired of hearing the shit and determined to fight fire with fire......(this does appear to be what's happening here)....everyone, black and white, would be ducking under their desks . It's embarassing really.I'm not sure what that says about how far we have come with racisim.

Sheri, I have to agree with Al.

What McD says and does around here has NO EQUIVALENT ANYWHERE else on these boards.

(I have a MUCH more direct knowledge of what she's capable of 'off the boards' that even Al does, btw.)

You won't see these kinds of public, outrageous, irresponsible, unsubstantiated, and slanderous accusations coming from Barger.

He tries to stay on point, tries to argue the facts or the philosophy, and I've never seen him say ANYTHING explicitly racist. Not once.

In fact, if one actually reads the guy's stuff with an open mind, he's really just a Libertarian Teddy Bear with a sense of humor.

(BTW: It's against Libertarian bylaws to have a sense of humor, so the boy is RARE!)

McD, on the other hand, is the most humorless person I've ever met.

And Al and I couldn't be farther apart on political issues, but the relentless, immoral, and unethical attacks by whats-her-name have brought us together to fight a common evil.

(heh)

Then start confronting her directly, gloves off, instead of masking it in intelligent garb.Maybe that's what she wants. If Al has real issues here, and is not able to ignore her, then he needs to be direct. Tell it like it is.If she dissappears, it doesn't mean she's not reading and hearing you.

But wait until I leave the building :0)

No, don't.

So if compromise doesn't work, and blunt, honest, and brutal spilling of one's guts doesn't work....then what?

Maybe everyone could just stick to the arguments people make, rather than arguing about the people themselves?

Nah.

Sheri,

Join me in the bunker here before you lose a hand or an arm or something....Trust me, you are strolling within the deadly space....

Rational Phillip: "No, don't."

(sound of Shark zipping his lips)

Rational Sheri: "...if compromise doesn't work, and blunt, honest, and brutal spilling of one's guts doesn't work....then what?"

Nothing works.

(We're praying for a personal epiphany, a dose of empathy, a newfound sense of humor, and some effective *hormone therapy.)

*c'mon, yall, it's a joke!

*headed to the bunker* woohooo! I'd much rather savor the tasty and nutritious qualities of cheese doodles and flirt instead of work. ;0)

*headed to the bunker* woohooo! I'd much rather savor the tasty and nutritious qualities of cheese doodles and flirt instead of work.

lol....I don't believe I have EVER been so charmingly insulted.......

Leaving H.L's personal politics by the
wayside,I think that some of his finest
writing is found in his correspondence
with the California writer John Fante of
"Ask The Dust" fame.

Shark, re: comment 34- Perhaps you need to review the new House Rules about name calling. "Teddy bear" my ass. I'm cuddly like a frickin' grizzly. I'll rip your head off and poopie down your neck like a big bear in the woods.

Mom, Shark's looking at me. Make him stop.

Daddy says we got to be NICE.Specialy to bears who poop on people. I gots 10 dollers in my piggy bank, and I'm goin to buy the nawtee bear a butt plug.:0)

AL: "I'll rip your head off and poopie down your neck like a big bear in the woods."

Don't be fooled: that's just his way of saying "l love you, man!"

Don't Involve Valid Arguments

ROTFLMAO....I get it....

You are a clever man, Barger....



"Many Also Concurr"

McD, on the other hand, is the most humorless person I've ever met.

No sh*t. It's almost artistic. I have never seen anyone so consumed with the
desire to discuss races, racism, and biases 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Mencken wasn't a genius, but he was funny.