Home / Culture and Society / Here’s A Belated But Happy Fourth of July, America.

Here’s A Belated But Happy Fourth of July, America.

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone


On July Fourth of 2010 on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning news program, Cynthia Tucker formerly of the “Atlanta-Journal Constitution” said (and I paraphrase her here ’cause I can’t quote anyone to save my life): “Michael Steele is a Republican, affirmative-action failure.”

I tend to agree with her — most, well, make that almost affirmatively.

But the fundamental difference between her and I, and I do fundamentally differ with her as to the basic, intellectual, polemical and philosophic roots of this issue, is that I admit and recognize that unpleasant reality (Steele). In fact I am one of many conservative voices who has called for and demanded the voluntary resignation of Michael Steele as the chairman of the RNC, or put more bluntly, I am one who who quite openly has clamored for both his voluntary or involuntary, if necessary, dismissal.

(Now for those of you with a typical, liberal, governmental, statist and collectivist, and intellectually, academically and scholastically worthless and substandard, as well as stultifying, ignorance-inducing, mind-numbing, zombified, brainwashed, propagandized, uncritical, unanalytical, mindless public-school education; the latter is simply a fancy way of saying “fired” and or “canned” as in “shit-canned.”)

However the difference between us doesn’t stop there. If Michael Steele, whom I, believe it or not, like and admire greatly, is indeed an affirmative-action failure, and a colossal one at that; then what pray tell is President Obama?

If the former (Steele) is a failure then is the latter (President Obama) likewise an even greater and even more colossal failure? Indeed, perhaps the worst politically-correct, affirmative-action failure in American history!

Moreover, as is so typical of the American liberal-left, Ms. Tucker, when it comes to blindly supporting, promoting and defending President Obama, again as is so very typical of her ilk, both white and black; is essentially a Stalinist-apologist which condition is again so very emblematic and prevalent amongst today’s liberals qua liberal progressives qua liberal socialists qua socialists qua communists qua Marxists qua Neo-Marxists and other assorted “commie-lib” qua “lefty, pinko” lunatics and leftist true-believer fanatics.

Again, for those of you with a worthless, substandard, liberal, public-school education and therefore are quite ignorant, gullible and stupid; allow me to express this in very simple and easily understandable, direct terms: To call someone a Stalinist-apologist is essentially to describe that sort of true-believer fanatic who never, never admits his or her guy is mistaken or flat-out wrong or let us say, ethically challenged, that is to say, immoral and even downright evil. No, as in never, never, never! What it essentially is saying, is “my guy right or wrong” and that I will not be swayed by any facts and evidence to the contrary, no matter how incontrovertible and ironclad that evidence and those facts are. Again, as in never, never, never!

Now I surmise, expect and anticipate that most public-school ‘ed-choo-kate-d’ folk might ask what’s so bad about that? Well in addition to everything, when it is reduced and refined down to its most basic, intellectual core and philosophic, nitty-gritty roots; it is in essence, pure, unadulterated, intellectual, philosophic and ideological fascism! Am I saying that many if not most liberals, especially the further one travels down the leftist, ideological spectrum; are intellectual, philosophic and ideological fascists?

Allow me to answer thusly: “Yeah baby, yeah!” And you “can bet your sweet bippee” on that one too and take the money and run, not walk, but run to the nearest bank or casino with it! Is that affirmative enough for you?

{Please, dear readers, allow me the following important and illuminating footnote. I am quite sure that Ms. Tucker and most if not all of her friends, allies, supporters and like-minded liberal-lefty and commie-lib, pinko peers and associates will bristle, demur and protest-eth mightily and rancorously. I am absolutely certain that they will say and declaim that “we are not intellectual, philosophic and ideological fascists!” As their spastic kneecaps pop and explode spontaneously and violently in painful paroxysm.

Well my measured response and counterpoint as offered in the immortal words of one of America’s greatest philosophers and social commentators is “iff dee shoe fitt, wear itt.” I am of course quoting from and speaking of Archie Bunker, a truly great American thinker, commentator and orator: who curiously and very ironically, by the way, was the creation of a very ardent and zealous commie-lib ‘extraordinaire.’ And who by the way created Archie solely as a straw man target and caricature in order to deride and demean conservatives and conservative thought in America. I am of course speaking of none other than Norman Lear.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the αγορα λογων (ah-gore-ah low-goan) and the arena scientiarum (ah-rennah skee-en-tee-ah-rum), to the marketplace of ideas; where Plato’s αγαν διαλεκτειν  (ah-ganh dee-ah-lech-tain), which literally means rigorous discourse and by logical extension “reasoned debate” – transpires and thrives.

However unfortunately for Lear but quite fortunately for the rest of us in America, this originally vicious caricature, this purposeful smear, this demonization and vilification, this contemptible ad hominem attack of his own creation, of Archie Bunker, and through him all conservatives and conservative thought in America – simply failed and actually backfired.

Why? How so? Because Archie Bunker instead of becoming the intended villain and punching bag of the left, instead became one of America’s most endearing, enduring and sympathetic fictional characters of all times; whose message was direct and straightforward, clear, unambiguous and not overly and excessively pedantic and complex, nor overly sophisticated and nuanced. Yet was one which was full of an earthy and sensible wisdom which made conservatives and conservative thought both human and palatable and ultimately appealing to most Americans.

Now on the other hand, the “meathead” was and still is a ‘meathead,’ only now he has become in appearance more of an overstuffed, corpulent, fat “meatball” than the former (although intellectually, philosophically and ideologically he still is and will eternally remain a “meathead” – i.e., a fat know-it-all who actually knows very little and is usually wrong about everything).

While Archie was originally created as a caricature he transformed himself and metamorphosized into a beloved and wise figure, one who was trusted and deemed noble and dignified in character, especially through his many Job-like trials and tribulations in life. He became someone with whom most Americans could empathize and ultimately love and respect, even if that love and respect for him was somewhat begrudging and reluctant for some (i.e., liberals and ‘commie-libs’).

But on the other hand the ‘meathead’ who was so very emblematic of the nascent “new-left” developed into a fat scumbag who cheated on his wife, abandoned her and their chid and then pursued and devoted himself to life “in the fast lane” of hedonism, narcissism, self-aggrandizement and moral relativism. Indeed, not a pretty picture.

Lear may have made millions for himself and the leftist organizations which he thereby created and still supports and bankrolls to this very day, but through Archie Bunker he did more to advance conservativism in America than he could have possibly imagined.

Yes indeed, the irony of this is staggering and as the Great Bard of Avon once said (that’s Shakespeare for you liberal, public-shool, woefully miseducated ignoramuses and dunderheads): “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Furthermore, I maintain that many of those aforementioned, public-school, poorly educated, brain dead, mindless lemmings who voted for President Obama, did so primarily because he is black. That fact of and by itself also appears to have been the single most, greatest act of affirmative action in American history too.

And if that truly is the case, and the evidence of this both prior to and after the election tends to strongly support this observation of mine and that of many others – including many liberals and independents and even Republicans who voted for him. Well then, the simple question prior to the election was “why are you going to vote for Senator Obama?” And the simple question immediately after the election was “why did you vote for president-elect Obama?”

And in many if not the majority of those cases, one of the leading and foremost responses was that “I wanted America to elect a black president” (with the clear implication of this setting a bold and audacious precedent). Even
Armstrong Williams, a longtime and prominent black conservative, implied he had voted for President Obama for that very reason, of course, amongst many others. Well, if that attitude, consensus and conviction is not affirmative action, then what is?


But there is another way of looking at this phenomenon. One could also say that it was also a matter of racism, but only here in a reverse manner to the standard, historical and traditional racism of the now somewhat distant past for many Americans. Let me be very clear and forthright here, I am not saying that this was solely a matter of black racism as has recently unfolded in the Justice department’s handling (or purposeful mishandling) of the New Black Panther Party’s alleged civil rights and voter intimidation violations.

What I am saying is that many people saw the then Senator Obama in a very favorable and sympathetic light by virtue of his being black and voted for him accordingly. Now of course that was not the only reason for their sympathy towards him but it does appear to have been a major factor. In addition I am not saying that that attitude and favorable disposition towards him was in any sense of the word wrong and or racist, but rather that the preponderance of the evidence indicates that this observation to have been reasonably true.

Now I absolutely predict and anticipate that charges of racism directed against me by the liberal establishment, both white and black, will come my way and be cast upon me fast and furiously and viciously so. And that I assure you, dear readers, you can bet “the farm” and your “sweet bippee” on that one too and take the money and saunter down to the bank (or casino) at your own leisurely pace because if there is anything in life which is an absolute sure thing, it is that liberals will accuse conservatives such as myself of racism – no matter how flimsy, no matter how contrived, no matter how unfounded the connection or charge be.

Why? How can I be so certain of this? Well, first off, does a bear defecate in the woods? Of course he or she does and so likewise liberals. Because that’s the standard operating procedure and modus operandi of all liberals, both white and black. It’s called “McCarthyism” but only here it is employed now-a-days almost exclusively by liberals which I suppose makes it solely a form of “liberal McCarthyism.”

Look here dear readers, for a white person, especially again for conservative such as myself to criticize a black person, is by definition for liberals, a matter of institutional, intellectual, social and cultural racism – which fact makes all liberals not only practitioners of outright McCarthyism, but it also makes them, again, intellectual, philosophic and ideological fascists. Sorry Cynthia, but you liberals are simply and clearly what you are.

However there is another hidden aspect to this typical, de rigueur, expected charge of racism. For while this rather promiscuous charge of racism is slung about by these liberal fascists and McCarthyists on rather spurious and dubious, knee-jerk grounds, it has also become an art form and cottage industry amongst liberal and leftist, African-American race-baiters, hustlers and pimps. It is essentially based upon two rather sophistic and spurious arguments:

First is the rather casuistic and baseless charge of institutionalized racism which the former maintain is still rampant and pandemic throughout America. The problem with this accusation is that both de iure and de facto institutionalized racism just simply do not exist in America today. None, zero, zip, nada, goose eggs, zilch, rien, niniento, etc.. It is simply against the law and there is a large apparatus in government at every level to prevent, purge and or prosecute such supposed, so-called “institutionalized racism.” The battle was fought and won over forty years ago and the last traces of residual, institutionalized racism were long ago removed or have simply disappeared of their own accord – and rightfully so.

But again this argument still persists among the African-American professional class of race baiters, pimps and hustlers and amongst many politicians and amongst a rather vocal and articulate source of academic race pimps and hustlers under the rubric of “African-American studies.” The problem here is that the argument made that racism is based solely upon power and institutionalized power in particular, and therefore because blacks have no power, institutionalized or otherwise, they therefore can only be victims and cannot possibly be racist victimizers – is based upon flimsy premises and is just flat out wrong and silly.

Well, here’s why: Does the fact that most of America’s largest cities have black mayors, and black school superintendents, and black police chiefs, and black bureaucracies and contractors for the past 20, 30 and forty years; mean absolutely nothing? That they currently have no power whatsoever, and that these blacks have created and managed big-city, liberal political-machines and towns and counties and specially gerrymandered congressional districts, that these just simply do not exist?

Well then, my question is, if these cities (e.g., Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, New Orleans, Detroit, Gary (Ind.) and East St. Louis et al ad infinitum) are absolute and consistent failures, year after year, in every which way but loose; and if they consistently suffer egregiously from the six worst and most persistent social indicators of: institutionalized crime, drugs, poverty, teenage gang violence, teenage pregnancy out of wedlock and under the age of majority, and the complete and total, abject, dismal failure of our public-schools both intellectually, academically and scholastically on the one hand, and morally and ethically on the other; then are these liberal, black mayors, school superintendents, police chiefs, bureaucrats, etc., in these overwhelmingly and predominantly black cities, towns, counties and congressional districts; are they then guilty of racism?

Surely all the former have a great deal of institutionalized power and by their very own definition and that of the professional race pimps and hustlers and the academic frauds and charlatans of the black studies programs and departments; by their very own reasoning and argumentation, and again, by definition, by their very own words, terms and premises, aren’t they indeed, then guilty of racism?

The point I wish to make here is that all of their reasoning, all of their arguments and premises, and all of their rationale and logic, is simply quite flawed and silly and rings utterly hollow. However there is a second factor at play here which many of the former have raised which even I must admit has some merit. And that is the specter of cultural and social bias.

This however is by definition not institutionalized. Rather it is the sort of personal and individual choice in association and of bias in cultural tastes and of ethnic and racial stereotypes which is simply beyond the law and rightfully so. The American Constitution prevents liberals (so far, thank God) from telling us what to think or what to deem culturally worthwhile and or acceptable or with whom we must associate in our own personal lives. This is solely a matter of hearts and minds, and of the personal and individual freedom to choose; bestowed upon us by God.

And the feds and the liberals, and for that matter, anyone else too; ought, should and must simply butt out of this area. Of course they can, ought and should recommend and exhort us to better behavior, but they cannot and must not, by constitutional law and precedent, or judicial and or bureaucratic fiat; mandate and dictate to us such behavior and attitudes on such clearly unconstitutional grounds.

However it still remains a glaring fact that many blacks feel slighted by the cultural bias which they perceive is directed towards them by many non-blacks (who ironically I maintain are of the liberal-lefist persuasion): With such notions that blacks are untrustworthy, slow and stupid and are therefore ineducable, or that they are bad workers with a poor work ethic, and that they are entitled to things and therefore are given everything rather than having to earn their way through life through hard work, self-discipline and merit. Which I ironically maintain is a very serious, unintended consequence of affirmative action as well.

I am struck quite often at how many well-educated and articulate blacks I meet who feel a compunction and need to express to me that whatever they have earned in life, that they did so solely on their own merit and not through affirmative action – that they got into medical school or law school or into business management or into OCS and ROTC and a career in the military solely on their own efforts – and not through affirmative action. It’s not like the first thing I do is ask them for their personal curriculum vitae, but nevertheless many of them feel a need to do so.

(But to be brutally honest, yes, it is often in the back of my mind and yes I feel a bit guilty about it. But at the same time I also feel somewhat justified in whatever doubts I might possess, based solely on the unintended consequence of affirmative action.)

Which brings me to the notion of guilt and in particular, to “white guilt.” Many of the aforementioned, again, the professional class of race hustlers and pimps, but in this particular case, especially the African-American studies programs, academic frauds and charlatans; maintain that many white liberals are also quite guilty of this social and cultural bias. Only here, this white, liberal cultural and social bias takes the form of a rather condescending and patronizing, white liberal-elitist superiority. Albeit a benign form of patronization and condescension, but nevertheless still a cultural and social bit of effrontery for many blacks. To which, by the way, I readily concur.


But let us return to President Obama again. I also maintain that the underlying root causes, reasons and assumptions why so many people voted for him beyond the fact and reality of his race, that he of course is a black man; were a little more nuanced than that but in no way all that sophisticated or rational either. Most people saw it as an historical event and precedent, as the coming of age of America simply by the virtue of our having elected a black man as president. They essentially saw it as a way of our overcoming and making amends for the past; or the vey dark days of slavery and segregation, of both de iure and de facto segregation and for outright, institutionalized racism in America.

Many saw it as a progressive means of liberating themselves from the very dark, desperate past of our nation, of uplifting ourselves and of finally nailing shut and tightly so, the casket which entombed the corpse and ugly specter, again, of three of the very most, terrible evils of our past, of slavery, segregation and racism. Many however also saw it as a means to silence those mostly liberal and leftist critics of America both here and abroad, who still stubbornly viewed America as a fundamentally flawed, unjust and racist nation (including sadly, our very own, current president and his attorney general).

But this sentiment went further than all of the previous, for it also raised the desired hope that the election of a black president of and by itself would magically resolve, cure, atone and make amends for our dark, racist past as well. That his election would necessarily mean that we as a nation would not only have been rescued from our past, but that we would also be redeemed and given salvation for all of our past sins. That race relations would improve to a point where those race-related problems with their bitter and rancorous divisions would by fiat and consensus, somehow miraculously and magically disappear – and do so for good with an absolute finality. That somehow the slate would, again, finally and miraculously be wiped clean.

Well, President Obama is now our president, and so far he has proved himself to be anything but competent, nor capable of leadership which unites us a nation; nor has he shown himself to be a leader above the fray of petty, partisan politics and strong-armed special interests favoritism; and or especially to be above the sordid Machiavellian machinations of corrupt, liberal, big-city, machine-politics and of Chicago-style insider, political thuggery and intimidation. Nor has he proved himself to be a bold and decisive leader, nor an able, competent and adroit administrator or manager or executive or CEO or commander-in-chief.

But yes, he has managed to nationalize, expropriate and seize much of our economy and has rammed through legislation which will soon translate into the total expropriation, nationalization and socialization of our entire healthcare system, both private and public. But I amongst a growing chorus of many Americans, and not just hardened conservatives such as myself; do not see these
as achievements, as beneficial and productive, but rather if anything is true, now see these as serious and severe setbacks to America economically; and also as deleterious and destructive to our constitutional rule-of-law, as well as to our core, philosophic and spiritual principles too.

In a word, I see his election as a huge mistake which most Americans are clearly beginning to fathom and recognize. It’s more than just a Jimmy Carter redux with an unholy vengeance. There indeed is now a growing sense of “buyer’s remorse” en masse and on steroids too.

I, by the way, did not vote for his alternative (Senator McCain whom, I as a combat-wounded Marine veteran of the Vietnam War, admire and respect greatly for his truly stirling and courageous military service; in fact, I as a former Marine warrior would follow him into the very gates of hell, and if necessary, not return from thence and its jaws of certain death). But I just simply could not vote for him and waste my vote on another liberal-progessive-lite, me too, go along, get along Republican.

Which fact (my not voting for a presidential candidate in a presidential election) is the first time and I hope the very last time in my entire adult life that I shall not have voted for a presidential candidate of either or of any party. A fact of which I am not very proud.

As far as I was concerned then and even more so today, it was just a classic Hobson’s choice. Simply stated, the choice as I viewed it was between that of an utter, absolute, guaranteed, complete and total unmitigated disaster and catastrophe in-the-making; or that of an utter, absolute, guaranteed, complete and total, unmitigated disaster and catastrophe in-the-making – only slightly “lite” er.

(Which of course is to say, no choice at all. Or to be more precise, the lesser of two very evil “evils.” Albeit the one was clearly evil and the other not, but the net results would have clearly been evil, just in lesser dosages. But evil is evil, and disaster and catastrophe are disaster and catastrophe, no matter how slightly less the one is from the other.)

But again, to return to the main theme of this essay, I still maintain that President Obama is daily proving himself to be the single, greatest affirmative-action failure in American history. Michael Steele might be in Cynthia Tucker’s own words a “Republican afirmatie-action failure” but he is still small potatoes compared to President Obama.

So just as Norman Lear, dear Cynthia, you might very quickly learn to regret your own words, pronouncements and hidden agendas. Which to be totally honest, I kind of like, in fact, even pray for (in spite of the fact that I am extremely irreligious and iconoclastic by nature and predilection – however in this one case I can, could and would pray for such an outcome – in spite of my lack of religious beliefs, convictions and or scruples. And oh by the way, I thoroughly understand that such a prayer is in itself a violation of the commandment “thou shalt not take the Lord’s name in vain.” But what the hell, in this case, I’ll do it anyway – cause I’m truly an ornery ol’ cuss).

{One last footnote here. I wrote this on he night of the fourth and finished it on the following day of the fifth of July. I’ve sat on it all of this time for various reasons which I do not feel a need, or rather to be brutally honest, which I simply do not wish to delve into at this point in time. And yes I have slightly revised and expanded it herewith. But its basic theme concerning affirmative action, I maintain is still relevant, and perhaps even more so with this upcoming midterm elections. In that this election might be more than a referendum on a failed presidency, but also on the seeming hidden and quiescent issue of affirmative action as well.

Certainly affirmative action is a very important and integral part of the “discussion on race” which we were seemingly promised; or at the very least, which we sought and or who many feel was an implied promise – which as of yet has not been fulfilled nor addressed. It seems to be part of this administration’s mindset or fear, that race is an ineffable, untouchable “radioactive” issue which it deems must remain unaddressed and unspoken. Well, I am attempting to force the issue herewith.

So dear readers, please enjoy my essay (or thoroughly hate it), and please allow it to rile up and challenge your opinions and the so-called conventional wisdom and preconceived notions concerning it, and especially let it challenge your hearts and souls and minds. My simple motto: Let there be controversy, rigorous discourse and reasoned but reasonable debate. And let a thousand worthy arguments, minds and intellects blossom! And let not the so-called, supposed better, more sophistic and casuistic arguments carry the moment, but let that argumentation which reaches and attains ultimate wisdom and absolute truth prevai!!!

Powered by

About Irvin F. Cohen

  • Wow, I thought at first sight. Ten pages; 4,401 words. This man must really have a lot to say.

    Wrong. He actually has very little to say, but does so at great length. How does he accomplish this literary feat? Synonyms! Irvin F. Cohen is the Man Who Fell in Love with his Thesaurus. All the bulleted items that follow are direct quotations from this article.

         • worthless, substandard
         • ignorant, gullible and stupid
         • simple and easily understandable
         • surmise, expect and anticipate
         • reduced and refined
         • intellectual, philosophic and ideological
         • friends, allies, supporters
         • peers and associates
         • bristle, demur and protest
         • commentator and orator
         • ardent and zealous
         • deride and demean
         • demonization and vilification
         • endearing, enduring and sympathetic
         • direct and straightforward
         • clear, unambiguous
         • overly and excessively
         • sophisticated and nuanced
         • earthy and sensible
         • transformed himself and metamorphosized [sic]
         • noble and dignified
         • hedonism, narcissism, self-aggrandizement and moral relativism
         • supports and bankrolls
         • attitude, consensus and conviction
         • standard, historical and traditional
         • favorable and sympathetic
         • fast and furiously
         • typical, de rigueur, expected
         • spurious and dubious
         • liberal and leftist,
         • hustlers and pimps
         • sophistic and spurious
         • rampant and pandemic
         • None, zero, zip, nada, goose eggs, zilch, rien, niniento
         • absolute and consistent
         • complete and total
         • abject, dismal
         • academically and scholastically
         • morally and ethically
         • overwhelmingly and predominantly
         • frauds and charlatans
         • reasoning and argumentation
         • words, terms
         • rationale and logic
         • personal and individual
         • worthwhile and or acceptable
         • ought and should
         • recommend and exhort
         • cannot and must not
         • mandate and dictate
         • compunction and need
         • condescending and patronizing
         • underlying root causes
         • fact and reality
         • casket which entombed
         • terrible evils
         • atone and make amends
         • redeemed and given salvation
         • bitter and rancorous
         • miraculously and magically
         • do so for good with an absolute finality
         • Machiavellian machinations
         • big-city, machine-politics
         • thuggery and intimidation
         • bold and decisive
         • able, competent and adroit
         • manager or executive or CEO
         • nationalize, expropriate and seize
         • serious and severe
         • deleterious and destructive
         • constitutional rule-of-law
         • fathom and recognize
         • stirling [sic] and courageous
         • utter, absolute, guaranteed, complete and total unmitigated
         • disaster and catastrophe
         • evil is evil
         • disaster and catastrophe are disaster and catastrophe
         • words, pronouncements
         • by nature and predilection
         • can, could and would
         • beliefs, convictions and or scruples
         • hidden and quiescent
         • very important and integral
         • unaddressed and unspoken
         • rile up and challenge
         • conventional wisdom and preconceived notions
         • reasoned but reasonable
         • minds and intellects
         • so-called, supposed
         • reaches and attains
         • ultimate wisdom and absolute truth

    It’s only October, but “Here’s A Belated But Happy Fourth of July, America” clearly must be considered the frontrunner for Worst Blogcritics Article of 2010.

  • Clavos

    So now, among your myriad other narcissistic fantasies, you fancy yourself a critic, Al?

  • Clavos

    You should get a job, Kurtz, you have way too much time on your hands.

  • Clavos, did you “edit” this article? I recall that you took credit for “editing” the last such preposterously bloated BC monstrosity, Adam Ash’s turgid and undisciplined 5,529-word, 12-page Who’s Going To Hell Faster: Our Christians Or Our Republicans? This present article shows all the signs of your inimitable “editorial” touch.

  • Irin F Cohen

    Dear Mr. Kurtz,

    Thank you for your commentary, I’m really glad that you really hate my essay.

    Well actually I’m neither glad nor angry, just intrigued how you came to your conclusions; especially since you don’t seem to have given any clear or well, thought out reasons save for my overuse of synonyms. Well, actually, descriptive adjectives to be more precise, but who’s quibbling here?

    Moreover I must also assume from the rather shallow and unsubstantial nature of your commentary that you are a proud product of our failed and feckless and worthless, substandard liberal public-schools. Oh, by the way, is that enough descriptive adjectives for you?

    In addition I must also assume that you must be a “commie-lib,” lefty-pinko, I mean liberal. Because rather than your arguing the merits or lack thereof, of my essay, you choose to address rather inconsequential and unimportant matters rather than directly addressing the more important and substantive issues I have raised such as affirmative action or Stalinist-apologism or the implied “discussion on race” we were supposed to have had, etc..

    So my question for you is: Do you possess the intellectual integrity and honesty to address these issues in a meaningful, reasonable and rational manner, with a modicum of in depth analysis; without resorting to ranting and raving, name calling and snide and smarmy ad hominem smear? Please advise me.

    P.S. Oh, by the way, Mr. Kurtz, I do not need a Thesaurus (although I do find it rather useful on occasion). And oh by the way, I also rely on and use several languages other than English, e.g., Latin, Classical Attic Greek, French, Spanish and a smattering of Italian.

    P.S. P.S. And yes, Mr. Kurtz, I must readily admit and confess that I am quite often, in fact more than is humanly endurable; a condescending and pretentious, bombastic and overly pedantic, overbearing and obnoxious “anal-aperture” and “scion-of-a-female-canine” and lowlife, scumbag “maternal fornicator” to boot.

    Is that also enough in the way of descriptive adjectives for you? Well if it isn’t…just shoot me. Actually I had a more idiomatic, earthy and crusty phrase in mind, but I’m on my best behavior here Kurtz, so give me a break, will yah!

  • I like this guy…

  • On a point of order, though, Norman Lear did not strictly speaking create Archie Bunker.

    All in the Family was based on a British sitcom called Til Death Us Do Part, written by the comedy writer Johnny Speight, whose central character was an irascible working-class Tory named Alf Garnett.

  • Irin F Cohen

    Dear Dr. Dreadful,

    Point well taken. Yes I was aware of Archie’s British roots, but because of, believe it or not, space restraints and editorial considerations; and that I also considered our Archie to be an American phenomenon, I took the latter’s status as a true American icon essentially as a given. My bad. That is to say I hope that is not too lame of an excuse for this little omission of mine.

    (You know, even in my branch of the service that is no longer the stuff of blindfolds and a firing quad – well, as to the best of my knowledge – not anymore. They’ve really chick-i-fied and wuss-i-fied my Marine Corps, bunch of candy-assed, damn Eagle boy scouts!)

    But nevertheless I must credit Mr. Lear, of course in a back, left-handed manner, of this creation of his of this great American icon. Clearly Lear was out to create a great, American, conservative villain and instead he created its opposite. He and his crew essentially put a human face on Archie and inserted a human heart into him too; and then breathed life and breath into this Frankenstein creation of his and further animated Archie with a powerful soul and compelling spirit. Which I think was just simply peachy, hunky-dory and divine.

    Nevertheless, irony of ironies, Lear’s hidden agenda simply backfired on him. Which I also think is just simply peachy, hunky-dory and divine too. But herein lies the nemesis of all liberals and liberal thought – it’s called the “law or principle of unintended consequences.” Which to state in rather clear and direct, but rather crude terms: is that liberals are just so intellectually and philosophically incompetent, they could, would and always do, possess the infinite capacity to fuck up a wet dream! God bless them – sort of.

    Again, thank you Dr. Dreadful for your insightful and kind commentary. Sincerely yours,

    Irvin F. Cohen

  • Spot-on article from The Wall Street Journal, published a day before Mr. Cohen’s overstuffed turkey appeared here. Of course, no one else at Blogcritics will get it, especially not “editors” such as Clavos and Dr Dreadful. But I keep trying.

  • Jordan Richardson

    It’s hilarious, Alan, that you’re pointing to an article praising concise writing. It strikes me that “getting to the bloody point” has never been your strong suit, especially given the absurd self-indulgence you’ve displayed in this very thread.

    Advice from the “spot-on article” particularly relevant to your case is here: “Think about how we describe a cityscape. We do not list and describe every building, we refer to one or two.”

    Keep trying.

  • Well, I did predict that nobody else at Blogcritics would get it. You should give me that much, Jordan.

  • zingzing

    so… you really think, even after reading the wsj article, that a 1,000+ word comment detailing all 91 supposed transgressions of concise writing–a list which no one will read, but will undoubtedly cause them to come away with a definite idea of your possibly ocd-related completeness–was the best way to get your point across?

    maybe you should provide us with a summation of your problem with mr. cohen’s article. which, i think, could be said as “too many words,” or “tl;dr” in internet-speak. four lousy letters and a punctuation mark and you could have made your point so much more clear and without the usual kurtz-poop smell lingering in the air.

    even more to the point, you could have signaled your disapproval by just refusing to read it. and aren’t you the one who wants comment threads to stay on target? because i don’t even know what this article is about, and we’re a full dozen comments in at this point. it might as well be about you… as usual…

  • zingzing, you’re wildly off base. Appearances can be deceiving. My comment #1 seems longer than it is because it’s arranged in bullet points, which occupy a lot of vertical space. Far from 1,000+ words, as you allege, it’s actually only 406 words.

    By comparison, comment #5 by Irin [sic] F Cohen consists of 367 words. (Note that he is unable even to spell his own first name right. And Jordan and the “editors” think this man is a good writer? Sad, really.)

    I’m pleased to note, however, that you “don’t even know what this article is about.” If I can keep the focus on me and off Mr. Cohen’s overstuffed turkey, I will have done BC’s readers a great service.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I don’t recall saying anything about Cohen, let alone that he was a “good writer.”

  • Are you now conceding that he is a terrible writer?

  • zingzing

    alright, so it’s not 1,000 words. (it actually double-copied into word… mea culpa, in order to use a wildly-offensive foreign phrase when a perfectly good english phrase could have been used.)

    sure does look long. but meaninglessly long. you didn’t have to go through the trouble. and quite a lot of trouble it was. copy-paste 91 times? and you sure read it well enough for the lot of us.

    “If I can keep the focus on me and off Mr. Cohen’s overstuffed turkey, I will have done BC’s readers a great service.”

    censorship comes in many forms… and get out a thesaurus so that you can come up with another insult other than “overstuffed turkey.” insults should be original and varied. you use them too often, they lose their flavor.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I don’t have an opinion on Cohen’s work because I haven’t read the article. I know, I know. “Mission Accomplished.” Or something.

    Anything to get the focus off of your obvious missteps.

  • That’s my point, zingzing. An overstuffed turkey has no flavor of its own; it’s smothered by the stuffing.

    As for “copy-paste 91 times,” don’t be silly. I copied and pasted once, then created a Word macro to isolate the redundancies. Piece of cake, really.

  • Clavos

    I don’t recall saying anything about Cohen, let alone that he was a “good writer.”

    Nor I…

    I did say some negative things about Kurtz, though.

    I do enjoy skewering him and his sesquipedalia verba, he literally begs for it.

    And, from what I’ve seen in these threads, I have plenty of company.

  • That’s so typical of you, Clavos. You came back to this thread to once again “skewer” Kurtz, but evaded my direct question in comment #4. Business as usual.

  • zingzing

    alright, well, i read the article. i disagree with the politics. (and the simplicity of the argument… really? obama was elected because of affirmative action? he does try to say something like “well, that’s not the only reason…” but then spends the rest of the article not telling us any other reason, then going to on to say that obama is an inept, yet cunning crook… you really can’t be both.)

    the language, since that’s the point of this comment thread at this point, is a bit flowery. it does get lost within itself a few times. the repetition and the implied condescension do get to be a bit much. but the guy does have a way with words and a strong voice, if nothing else. it comes across as conversational, albeit the kind of conversation that might end with you punching someone in the face.

    irin/irvin isn’t a bad writer. maybe an irritating one. but that may have to do with either his politics or my apparent sore lack of education.

  • Clavos

    Kurtz, I can think of any number of activities I consider more important, certainly more entertaining, than responding to your impertinent questions; watching paint dry and getting a root canal done come readily to mind.

    But, no, Kurtz, I did not edit this article.

  • El Bicho

    I am impressed you slogged through it. Considering his poor assessment of both Alan’s political leanings and the Archie Bunker character combined with his adherence to the Michael Savages school of cliched political writing on the first page and in his comments, I took a pass on it.

  • Irvin,

    You’re welcome. I’ve actually never seen the American version of the show (I’m British, and have only lived in the States since 2001), so I can’t make an informed judgement as to your characterisation of Lear’s intentions, although I suspect you’re doing an injustice to the man’s creative powers. I write fiction, and know from experience that one’s characters are quite capable of rebelling, behaving in unexpected ways and generally refusing to conform to their creator’s original conception of them. (The little bastards.)

    Alf Garnett (played by Warren Mitchell), though bigoted and obnoxious, was never intended solely as a means of ridiculing the right wing. He was also Speight’s mouthpiece for a fair bit of biting social commentary: the fact that he was a working man, and not some upper-class twit, was no accident. The excesses of the left also came in for mockery. Central to the show, and key to its humour, were Alf’s battles of words and wits with his socialist son-in-law Mike, who lived with him. Alf got the better of these exchanges almost as often as Mike did.

    Mitchell continued to appear in character as Alf long after the show ended – even, on occasion, as a guest on chat shows. A fair number of people believed he was a real person. Talk about a character taking on a life of his own!

  • zingzing

    and yes, alan, “overstuffed turkey” was a good one. one. you can come up with another, can’t you? maybe something about an over-sexed unwed mother who can’t figure out who the father is? wait, which crime is worse here? repetition or long-windedness?

  • Slogged is the operative word, alright, El Bicho. But what do you mean Cohen’s “poor assessment” of my political leanings? I thought I’d fully established my credentials here as a “commie-lib, lefty-pinko liberal.” What more do I have to do?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Archie was never meant as a “villain.” He was a product of an era, more or less, and contains decent humanity that comes up time and time again throughout the series.

    A particular episode of note is the one where he is invited to join the KKK. While he is “uncomfortable” around other ethnicities, he is repulsed by the group. Again, basic humanity. Had Lear really wanted to create a villain, Archie would have joined without question.

    Same with his friendship with Lionel. Creating such a bond, largely based on Lionel’s humouring of Archie’s stereotypes, wouldn’t have been in the cards had Lear solely wanted to create a villain.

    The Bunker character shows life beyond politics, something that many frequenters of these threads could learn a lot from.

  • Clavos

    The Bunker character shows life beyond politics, something that many frequenters of these threads could learn a lot from.

    Pretty good comment till you turned all preachy on us, Jordan.

    You any kin to Kurtz?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m a frequenter of these threads, Clavos.

  • zingzing

    doc, lear was kind of the master of 70s sitcoms that seemed to be saying less (and more) than they often were. i have to confess that i’ve not watched too many of his shows (he had several going at a time), but i’ve read a fair bit about him lately, and he had a way of making hits out of stuff that should have never been hits (like taking a uk sitcom and turning it into a us hit,) and milking that popularity to fit a number of different audiences in spin-offs. lear was a genius of some kind.

    that said, british television has always been better in my opinion. we never had anything to match the schizo shit such as the telegoons, monty python or the young ones (or not the evening news, thank you very much), and even if we’ve caught up a bit today, even our best stuff (the wire) is easily rivaled by stuff like red riding. southpark is our best comedy going right now, in my opinion, with futurama a close second. i don’t own a tv, so i’m not really up to date on goings on in the uk… hint, hint.

  • Alan, it was just two days ago on a thread where you claimed to be “one of the far-right loonies who visit this site”. I didn’t think that was accurate either.

    Archie was shown to be a decent fellow because the series attacked his ideas not his person as opposed to the style of political discourse today.

  • I’ll take The Venture Brothers and Archer on the animated front

  • i’m not really up to date on goings on in the uk… hint, hint.

    Hint, hint? As you may have noticed, zingster, I don’t live there any more so I’m not exactly up to date either. I do have BBC America on cable so I get some stuff, but I don’t have a lot of time in my life right now for TV watching.

    I can tell you that one of the best and funniest UK shows right now is The Inbetweeners, about a group of 17-year-olds trying, without much success, to (a) be cool, (b) buy alcohol and (c) get laid, not necessarily in that order.

    There should be a few bits on YouTube. It’s incredibly vulgar, especially if you can find an unbleeped version. You’ll love it.

  • To get back to me for a moment. If I’m neither a commie-lib lefty-pinko liberal nor a far-right loony, what’s left? I must be a middle-of-the-road moderate! This is the first inkling I’ve had of that.

  • Clavos

    Damn, Doc, you made me spray iced tea all over my monitor!

  • zingzing

    oooh, yeah archer is funny stuff. venture brothers actually moves its plot forward between episodes… most of the time, i can’t really get into shows like that, which (at least somewhat) depend upon you having watched all the other episodes. the wire and red riding were kind of special exceptions for me. i watched those from beginning to end on dvd. (and red riding is only 5 hours long or so.)

    but i’ll check out venture brothers, if i can find a good load of it online. that’s on cartoon network, yeah? don’t they provide pretty good streams of older episodes? we shall see…

  • zingzing

    “Hint, hint? As you may have noticed, zingster, I don’t live there any more so I’m not exactly up to date either.”

    yeah well. you’d prolly know more about it than i would still. i don’t ask much. just the occasional. you know. yeah? grunt. snuffsnuff. you know the game.

  • zingzing

    alright, he just punched a fish to death… inbetweeners might be a keeper.

  • OK, zing, you got it. Just go to YouTube and type “Inbetweeners”. Report back to me if that doesn’t work and I’ll try and find you a back way in.

    It looks, though, as if “Mr Lightning” Clavos might have beaten you to the punch. One minute from citation to reaction. Impressive.

  • I do believe you misconstrue, Dr Dreadful. If my guess is right, Clavos was reacting not to your citation but to your accurately personalized recommendation to zingzing: “It’s incredibly vulgar, especially if you can find an unbleeped version. You’ll love it.”

  • zingzing

    and just what is wrong with vulgar?

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Dear Guys,

    Will any one of you – I mean anyone – actually read the goddamn essay and then comment on the goddamn thing from a vantage point of actually having read the goddamn essay and thereby actually knowing what the goddamn thing is about and whereof and from whence one actually speaks.

    My God, reading your commentary about each other’s dubious commentary, it’s legitimacy and bona fides or lack of it, is like beating a dead horse of phony, intellectual posturing with boundless ignorance and petty quibbling over nothing – till a point where that dead horse is beaten beyond any recognition whatsoever and or into salami.

    I don’t know what is more intellectually serious, legitimate and inspiring and uplifting: viewing an old time “Volkswagon bug” as thirty or more outrageous clowns exit it; or, viewing a room filled with 40 million monkeys with 40 million typewriters, with the singular, insane expectation that at least one of these monkeys will write Shakespeare, as they cast, sling and pelt each other with their own feces, which by the way, for you guys, means with their own shit. You see monkeys are not anal retentive creatures as we humans are.

    In fact viewing your petty squabbling – well my only comment is I haven’t seen this much intellectual masturbation since I left Academia!

    Honestly, please do me a favor, read the goddamn “overstuffed turkey” which should take no more than 10 to 15 minutes to accomplish – then comment on it. Otherwise, shut the fuck up!

  • Jordan Richardson

    Irvin, many new Blogcritics writers make the mistake of thinking that they own the comments threads on this website and that they can control the comments as a result of this assumed ownership.

    As much as you might like us to “shut the fuck up,” it’s not going to happen. If anything, your sour admonishment is only going to encourage more poo-flinging.

  • Well, now that’s a cheap shot, Irvin (#42). The intrepid zingzing read your article and duly reported back on it (comment #21). What more do you want?

  • I do like your “cast, sling and pelt” redundancy, though. Have to add it to my list.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Alan…erm, Irwin, why does your webpage not feature any actual articles? There are iWork files that can be downloaded, but beyond your rather funny “All about me” there’s no much to read there.

    Plus it redirects to Web.Me anyways and the domain featured in your Blogcritics bio was registered long after the apparent “welcome” date you have on the site.

    If there’s any wondering on your behalf as to why you’ve been “toiling in anonymity” for so long, it probably has to do with your labyrinthine “blog.”

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Dear Jordan,

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    I do have a confession to make, I am neither a geek nor nerd nor computer jock nor nebbish; but I am also not a complete computer illiterate either.

    However I have had this site for one year less a week and still haven’t figured out how to use it or make it accessible to the general public which means to say, making it accessible to Microsoft which is the platform of over 90 percent of computers in use today. Slight problem, nest-ce pas?

    The fact is I haven’t figured it out yet and am still working on it, but I’m also a procrastinator. In addition I suppose I could pay someone several hundred dollars to set it up and show me how to use the goddamn thing, but I do not see any reason why I should pay a penny for something which Apple should in user friendly terms, reveal to me in clear, simple and direct language so that even a non-computer geek or nerd such as myself can readily understand it.

    I know I have to change ‘pages documents’ to PDF and the outer-space aliens (and midget Viet Cong saboteurs within my computer) at Apple have told me that it’s not them, it’s you. That it is visitors to my site who have to download and open up my links by either downloading Firefox or Safari for Windows XP and beyond.

    So, if you want to peruse (or steal) my stuff, you got to download one or both of the above. Actually Safari is pretty easy, just go to Apple, go to downloads, and choose Safari free download. When you get to that page you will see a download box, however directly beneath that box is a blue line which reads something to the effect Safari for Microsoft. Choose that motherfucker, and that will take you to a second page and that’s pay dirt – absolute piece of cake from there.

    There, does that help you or are you beyond that? At any rate, thanks for going to my (user unfriendly site). [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Alan:
    To get back to me for a moment…

    Must we?

  • Clavos

    A fair question, Doc…

  • Baronius

    I couldn’t make it through the first page. Well, I probably could, but I can’t imagine why I’d want to.

  • Baronius

    Alan’s comment #1 was an excellent parody of the author’s soul-crushing wordiness. I just don’t think it was supposed to be a parody.

  • Baronius (#53), I looked up the word parody. It seems imitation is an essential element thereof. Such being the case, you are correct that my comment #1 was not meant as parody. It consists almost entirely of direct quotations from Mr. Cohen’s article. Nowhere do I attempt to imitate his style.

    So when you opine that my comment “was an excellent parody of the author’s soul-crushing wordiness,” what you’re really saying is that one need not imitate Mr. Cohen to make fun of his literary ineptitude. All one has to do is reproduce it on the page, calling attention to the particular technique (in this case, massive redundancy) that makes his writing so inferior.

  • Putting aside the matter of Alan’s feigned or actual internet personality, I must agree with his assessment of this so-called essay. The only thing that induced me to reading it and perservering through it were his comments. In the future, I’ll just take his word for it, especially as regards “overstuffed turkeys,” and spare myself the pain of reading authors whose main object seems to be trying to impress themselves.

    Sorry, Cohen, for all your seeming erudition and knowledge of the classics, your writing stinks.

  • Baronius

    Alan, it was an imitation in that it displayed the same lack of proportion. I know that on the internet, unlike on parchment, extra words carry no extra cost, but neither the article nor the comment reflected an appreciation of the value of others’ time.

  • Whoa, you’re saying your time is valuable and that I wasted it? I’m sorry. Maybe you shouldn’t squander your valuable time this way on the Internet in the first place, Baronius. There are no guarantees that it won’t be wasted. In fact, at Blogcritics, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that the reader’s time will be wasted.

  • Baronius

    Don’t worry about it, Alan. I didn’t actually read your thesaurus. Who would?

  • I’ll write it again for the learning impaired. It’s not my thesaurus, Baronius. Those are all direct quotations from the article by Irvin F. Cohen upon which we are all presumably commenting.

  • [Edited]

    “authors whose main object seems to be trying to impress themselves.”

    You may question the standards they have by what they are willing to publish but don’t all authors essentially write for themselves? I don’t let anything go until I am happy with it. Honestly can’t imagine you do either, Roger, but I was wrong at least one time before.

  • Of course, LB. We all aim at perfection. What I should say, perhaps, is that the standard ought to lie outside of ourselves, it ought to be bigger than us. It’s on that score, I submit, that Cohen fails. Either he’s got no ear or he had appropriated a yardstick, an ideal, to his own purposes. And that’s a pretender,I daresay.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Oh he’s a pretender alright…

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Dear Blogcritic fellow manqués writers and full time dilettantes [Edited];


    [Edited] you certainly do not fathom a thing in regard to my essay, save that you don’t like me and my writing style and oh yes, by the way, that mostly unimportant matter – my essay too.

    But you haven’t cited one passage nor one idea, not one fucking thing, save for your pet peeves and your petty differences amongst yourselves. As for your criticism in general, there’s a lot of self-puffery there, but beyond that, there’s no there, there.

    Indeed it truly amazes me to what great lengths you all go to, to take my essay thoroughly out of context and or prattle on about the true deeper, deeper signification of Archie or some vapid British, television sitcom, while not one of you speaks about the merits or lack thereof of the essay. Again, not one of you cites one line, one sentence, one paragraph, nor one idea nor thesis nor theme nor point of contention of any significance or to any length or in any in-depth analysis. Not one fucking thing!

    But to re-iterate and re-emphasize the point, the conversation seems to be fully amongst yourselves, centered upon and involved in each other’s own petty personae and narcissistic pet peeves and self-promotion – and not one iota at all with the damn essay itself. Indeed the essay is just a prop, a means and opportunity for all of you to love yourselves to death in your rather petty and inimitably superfluous way.

    And as for you, dear esteemed and most exalted comrade Kurtz, I am also thoroughly amazed at what great lengths and to what great an effort you went to, to list and detail every set and combination of two or more descriptive adjectives I employed. What is the count, something like two hundred of them? But who’s counting? Petty? Thy name is comrade Kurtz!

    But even more incredible to me, is that not one of these listings of yours, that’s right, not one of them was taken in its proper context. Again, not one! [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    In fact as I pointed out in the essay that sort of intellectual behavior is clearly de rigueur liberal-leftist and is thoroughly intellectually, philosophically and ideologically fascistic.

    Kurtz, I love the name, it summons up in me images of Conrad’s Mr. Kurtz as he lies dying in a febrile, malarial induced state in his bed in the Congo, in the deepest heart of Africa. My question for you is, is the metaphor accurate and appropriate? [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] So the question remains Kurtz, are you Kurtz?

    Now, as for you Dr. Dreadful, I hope I haven’t offended anyone, well actually I do. But not you.


    P.S. My very simple and straightforward motto herein: If you agree with me, if you like me, and more importantly, what I write and have to say, and respect all of the former; then we are bosom buddies, friends and pals and I will fight for you and defend you till the death. However if not, then we are enemies also to the death and you are also a scumbag, dirtball, zleazoid what don’t deserve to live nor breath, commie-lib, etc.. Sorry but, il fait partie de mon caractère. In this regard there is a lot of Catullus, Archilochus, Panurge and Pantagruel in me, as well as a smattering of Falstaff and a whole bunch of Miles Gloriosus too.

  • Jordan Richardson

    You win at the internet.

  • Baronius

    Irv, I couldn’t make it through your comment about your article I couldn’t make it through. But I get the feeling that you’re disappointed in our comments.

    As to our pettiness and grudges, well, welcome to the internet. Every message board has such triviality. As for no one commenting about your article, I’m not joking, it was prohibitively long.

  • Irvin F Cohen, now that (comment #63) is a great piece of writing! If only your essay were half as lively and accessible, I’d have nominated it not for Worst Blogcritics Article of 2010, but for Best Blogcritics Article of 2010.

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Dear Baronius,

    “about your article…it was prohibitively long.”

    Listen to what you said man. (I surmise I have the gender right? You are a ‘he’ and not a ‘he-she-it-thang’ correct? Well to show you what an open and tolerant mind I have, I really don’t give a rat’s ass what you are, unless of course you’re a good-looking, trés sensuelle et sexy mademoiselle and then of course I’d want to fuck you.)

    Now as to prohibitively long. My God are you that intellectually shallow? It’s only ten typed, short pages! Is your total intellectual attention span and concentration less than ten minutes in duration? Are you that sub-literate that your reading more than 500 words at one sitting is a monumental task you cannot handle, is more than you can possibly, humanly endure and overcome? Or is it that you’re a typical new age lemming that you have to rely on what others say about it, instead of finding out for yourself?

    Lame, mon ami or what ever you are, lame, as in trés faible!

  • It’s not the length of “the article,” Cohen, ten pages or fifty. It’s the banality of it all, your trite observations, the absence of original thought.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    It’s no wonder you keep on resorting to what you call “descriptive adjectives”- adjectives are “descriptors” in case you didn’t know – in the course of your pathetic submission (although the editor is the one to blame, not you), You’ve got to compensate somehow for your empty head,

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Well dear Roger Nowosielski,

    Why don’t you tell me exactly what passage or sentence in particular was banal instead of your constantly rehashing and harping on those indefinite and unsupported, and rather banal and vague generalizations of yours. Or supporting any of this constant carping of yours, with any instances of what you consider to be “trite observations” and my “absence of original thought.” Can you provide any examples to support your unspecified and unsupported claims, just even one? Let alone the nebulous and mysteriously unknown “many” you allude to?

    You know saying something is so, and doing so without any proof or support, doesn’t necessarily make it so. What that reveals is a closed and rather intolerant mind. It also reveals the mind and soul of a true believer fanatic and zealot who is thoroughly impervious and hostile to anything which questions or challenges his true believer orthodoxy, fanaticism and zealotry. And taken ad extremum, it is an indication of what I call intellectual, philosophic and ideological (and worse) fascism.

    So what is it Mr. Roger “the rigorous discourse and reasoned debate, dodger?” Which is it? Debate or empty, unsupported declamation? Again, which is it?

  • So, apart from all that, Irvin, how do you like Blogcritics so far?

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Me agin,

    I have a quote for you from the Greek but my computer doesn’t handle that script, so I’ll transliterate it for you into acceptable English and give you its pronunciation too:

    ‘oi kynes os ton katabauzousai ouk yingnoskein
    (Hoy key-ness hos tone kata-bau-zou-sigh ouk ging-no-scane.)

    Now its word for word translation:

    “Dogs bark at that which they do not know.”

    Ring a bell Mr. Nowosielski?

  • Irvin F Cohen

    As for you Kurtz, I ain’t got no time to jive.

    How do I detest and loathe Blogcitics so far? Well other than it’s a fucking zoo full of animals much, much less than primates, let alone men with souls and sapience and cognition, I’ll give it a D minus (for a justified mercy killing of it and you, which you richly and truly deserve). But since I believe in the sanctity of human life – and of course you do not – I’ll let you fucking assholes live. See how kind and how magnanimous I am!

  • “You know saying something is so, and doing so without any proof or support, doesn’t necessarily make it so. What that reveals is a closed and rather intolerant mind. It also reveals the mind and soul of a true believer fanatic and zealot who is thoroughly impervious and hostile to anything which questions or challenges his true believer orthodoxy, fanaticism and zealotry. And taken ad extremum, it is an indication of what I call intellectual, philosophic and ideological (and worse) fascism. ”

    Congrats on winning this week’s “pot calling the kettle black” award.

  • The Comments Editor must be joking if Roger’s post is the only one that needed editing in this thread.

  • Dillon Mawler

    Here’s why I didn’t read it.

    The first graff quotes a woman.

    The second graff says the author agrees with the woman.

    The third graff says that the difference between the author and the woman is that the author “admits and recognizes” the thing that HE JUST TOLD US THE WOMAN SAID.

    So I figured the rest of the thing would also be stupid and make no sense. Seems like from the comments I was right.

    (end requested substantive critique)

  • Irvin F Cohen

    My God another brainiac with nothing to say but that he didn’t read the goddamn essay because what the other brainless lemmings said about it. Gee, I’m gad you think for yourself ‘ol Dillon. And by the way, what the fuck is a “graff”?

    Do you mean Cynthia Tucker? And that I quoted her. Well my question to you is, so fucking what? [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    I can’t agree with the dumbass lady, even if it is begrudgingly and reluctantly? Again, so fucking what? [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    And the third, aren’t you repeating yourself?

    What the fuck is so noxious about all that? [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    And oh by the way, that may have been a critique, but in no way was it “substantive” and exhaustive, in fact, that earns you a fully, fetid, flatulent, flaccid, fucking “F” for fucking failure.

  • Dillon Mawler

    What you wrote didn’t make any sense, sir, as I made clear.

    Graff is editing shorthand for paragraph. It’s also a phonetic representation of the last syllable of the word, and hence not really such a brain-teaser, but, sorry.

  • Dillon Mawler

    You imagined I wrote “exhaustive.” Mine was just a short post, and I didn’t read your article past the first illogical thing in it.

  • STM

    Clav: “watching paint dry and getting a root canal done”.

    You forgot being lost in Baghdad at night.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Or eating a tire with a knife and fork and very little seasoning.

  • STM

    Doc: “I can tell you that one of the best and funniest UK shows right now is The Inbetweeners”.

    Lol. How good’s the Frisbee skit??

  • STM

    If America is a pair of dirty undies, Jordan is from the nation immediately above it that looks like a messy, wrinkled T-shirt. Alaska is a trucker’s cap.

    Doc’s country looks like a witch taking a dump, and Ireland is a naughty kid getting a kick up the blurter.

    Unless, of course, you are lucky enough like me to own a copy of Macarthur’s corrective map of the world, which shows Australia and New Zealand – occupying their rightful positions – at the top.

    Using that map, everything’s reversed and America and Canada look like a shouting redneck with a bad mullet.

    Alaska, appropriately, is the shocking bit of the mullet that hangs down the back of the neck.

    Given the goings on here, it’s also probably quite representative of the true and current state of North American consciousness.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Put some pants on, America.

  • STM

    Or get a decent haircut.

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Dear Dillon,

    I didn’t imagine – I added the word “exhaustive” on my own. That is to say I applied my autistic license and freedom to write whatever I fucking pleased. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] But I did quote you, I did put your rather lame word “substantive” in quotes – so get it right, again [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

    Now I also assume that “graff” is pure “geek – ese” which therefore makes you an intellectual geek in the most pejorative sense of the word.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    I got some Greek for you from Archilochus (in fact, one of my favorite poems of his)

    “en d’epistamai mega,
    ton kakos m’erdonta dennois antameibesthai kakois.

    hen dep-pis-stam-eye megah
    tone kah-kose mer-dont-tah den-nois anta-may-bes-thigh kah-koyce

    He who does me ill and speaks badly of me, I heap upon him very many evil and vile reproaches!


  • Irvin F Cohen

    So not one of you fucking geniuses caught it. Let me explain, the tried and tested true cliche is not “my own personal enlightenment.” Well then, what is it Einstein? All of you great American, or expatriate Limey, novelists? Do you know?

    Well riddle me this, if you don’t know what I”m talking about then how can you possibly be qualified to legitimately criticize and or bad mouth both me and my essay without ever having read it? Come on [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor], what simple, overused, quite trite and banal cliche did I not use and which simply bypassed you smarter than hell smarty-pants? Can you solve this easy, easy question? I know the riddle is just too far beyond your mental and intellectual capacity and comprehension, but what is the rather, trite and banal cliche I failed to use? Which failure of yours to answer properly and accurately, hoc propter hoc, prima facie, ergo, proves and makes you into the mental midgets who you truly are who are also therefore woefully unqualified and intellectually inadequate to the task of commenting negatively on my essay. Nah-nah-ne-nah-nah. And Razzzzaaaaa too boot!


  • Clavos, Dr Dreadful, Jordan Richardson, zingzing, El Bicho, Baronius, Roger Nowosielski, STM:

    This thread, to which you have each contributed, has been instructive to me. Jordan begins comment #46: “Alan…erm, Irwin [sic].” At first I didn’t get it. But now I do. (OK, so I’m old and slow on the uptake.) Jordan wrote it because, in so colorfully chewing the scenery throughout this thread, Irvin F. Cohen reminded him of me.

    I guess it’s true. I must’ve come across the same way (albeit at least I spared you the Greek) when I was a new Blogcritics contributor–and long thereafter for that matter, perhaps up to the present day.

    But you know, it is incredibly exasperating to work hard on an article and then to have an octet or more of commenters leave dozens of posts that have nothing whatever to do with one’s article, other than to attack the author. And then, even worse, to wander off into remote tangents such as discussing British TV comedy, at length and with obvious relish, as if the hapless and forgotten author did not exist.

    I for one hope that Irvin F. Cohen is, like me, in this for the long haul, that he will continue contributing articles to Blogcritics and defending his territory like a ravenous rottweiler. I have no intention of reading either his articles or his territorial defenses, but nevertheless hope to see them occasionally on Blogcritics. Hell, if nothing else, he makes me by comparison look almost sane!

  • Alan, you can choose to be exasperated by the comments threads of your articles going off on tangents, or you can embrace the inescapable fact that this is the nature of human discourse.

    And it’s not as if the TV discussion wasn’t somewhat germane, as Irvin does discuss Archie Bunker in his article.

  • Clav: since this thread has taken a very picturesque turn, I was wondering how it feels to encounter a Blogcritic so misanthropic that he makes you look like Desmond Tutu? 🙂

  • You’re right, Doc. It is the nature of human discourse. And I’m much more comfortable with that now. I was merely remembering what it felt like when I was a relative newbie at BC. By no means am I suggesting we ought to cut Irvin F. Cohen any slack; he doesn’t deserve it.

    However, Clavos as Desmond Tutu is a stretch.

  • Baronius

    Irvin – Consider this article from the reader’s point of view. The internet is loaded with articles written by strangers. You need to give us a reason to read this one. Neither the title nor the first page give any firm indication of what the topic of the article is. Seeing the number of pages along the bottom makes the reader question the investment of more time. (That’s not an insult to you – the reader doesn’t know you well enough to direct an insult to you. Anyway, a lot of the blame has to fall on the editor.)

    Where you completely lost me was this sentence: To call someone a Stalinist-apologist is essentially to describe that sort of true-believer fanatic who never, never admits his or her guy is mistaken or flat-out wrong or let us say, ethically challenged, that is to say, immoral and even downright evil. That’s simply a definition of an apologist. The “Stalinist” part really doesn’t play into it. This cemented for me the idea that you were more interested in mundane name-calling than argumentation.

    Anyway, if/when you write another article, consider your salesmanship.

  • Baronius (#96), as a regular Blogcritics writer, I wish you’d expand on your parenthetical remark, “A lot of the blame has to fall on the editor.”

    I’ve been a consistent critic of BC’s editorial staff, whose nonprofessional status is taken as license for them to make unprofessional attacks in the commentary threads.

    In this case, however, I’m not sure what blame should fall on the editor–who must’ve been Dave Nalle, since Clavos disclosed (comment #22) that it was not he.

    What do you think Dave could/should have done with this 10-page, 4,401-word mess? I mean, apart from rejecting it outright, which I believe seldom happens at BC. After all, writers submit this stuff gratis, which is why Blogcritics has always been content rich.

  • I’m really surprised that Nalle let that one go. And that’s after he’s been preaching to me about conciseness. It ought to have been rejected outright, with a proviso that in order for it to see the light of day, it would have to be cut to by at least two thirds. That’s space enough to raise the kind of mundane points that Cohen is making, while forgetting all the while that Geraldino Ferraro raised those very questions almost two years ago.

    What a waste of bloody time.

  • How exactly would you know what Irvin finds exasperating, Alan? And how interesting that you leave out the first comment he received that pointed out “He actually has very little to say, but does so at great length.” That has to be even more exasperating for a writer, no?

    “I for one hope that Irvin F. Cohen is, like me”

    No need to hope. I am surprised though more people haven’t seen through it by now. It was amusing at first, although your comments have revealed your lame intentions for the exercise.

    That you still don’t understand and accept what is allowed to take place in the comments, including by editors, is a failing on your end [unsupported allegation deleted by Comments Editor] and you may not the best person to judge others.

  • It’s indeed a kind of death wish for Alan to say, I wish the author was like me. I chose to ignore it for Alan’s personality, real or feigned, nor his performance, isn’t the issue, especially since he’s not an editor. The quality of writing is. And in this singular respect there is no comparison.

  • Irvin F Cohen

    And so the inmates at the zoo continue to prattle and blather endlessly and mindlessly in a cacophonous symphony of blah-blah and even more fatuous blah-blah-blah.

    And one of you [Edited] thinks that I’m a misanthropic motherfucker? Geez, after hearing this constant drumbeat of worthless, fatuous and inane prattle, why, how could anyone be misanthropic and so pessimistic of the human race.

    [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

    But I must ask, don’t you [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor] ever give it a rest? And believe it or not, that’s a serious question, or at least you will explain to me its utter profundity and deep, deep, deep intellectual heavy-osity which only serves as a reflection of your just stellar genius and brilliance.

    Barf, puke, give me a break.

    [Edited] Again, you guys really take yourselves this seriously, that’s just simply fucking amazing.


  • STM

    This is a searing indictment of society’s malaise … the doubtful inner consciousness of the writer disappearing up its own backside, swamped by a wall of rowdy discourse and a discourse, if you can call it that, of his own making.

    The unreal becomes the surreal, brief moments of doubtful belief suspended in the space-time continuum.

    A new paradigm in bollocks.

    But mostly, a man suffering for his “art”.

  • STM

    The critique continues …

    The suffering in this case, however, might best be described as the exact opposite of that experienced by Christ at Calvary.

    Where Christ’s suffering was aimed at ending the suffering of others, here one man’s suffering becomes the suffering of many, even those unwittingly complicit.

    Yet this “art” might not be without some artistic merit.

    One almost gets the feeling here that the writer has recently heard the phrase “overstuffed turkey” – or at least retrieved it from the back of his mind and obessessed over it – and has decided to punt up a 10-page opus on nothing but hot air in order to use the phrase in a comment. The evidence: He has enjoyed this so much, he has done it more than once, when once would have been enough.

    And this might also be the limit of the “art” on offer here.

    It is, nevertheless, clever … although one could argue too that it falls into the “too clever” category.

    It’s possibly the kind of clever based on flawed thinking that brands the suicide bomber, for instance, as a one-trick pony; it is an apt metaphor for the piece. instead of using the skills learned in subterfuge and bomb making to commit further acts of terror, the bomber instead takes himself out of both the gene pool – the only real positive in such a scenario – and the inevitable dwindling cast of terrorists and in one fell swoop.

    The effect of the single bomb is spectacular and sometimes catastrophic yet the dual nature of its fatality IS it’s fatal flaw.

    On another level, it almost as if the child within the adult is unravelling through the unconsciousness of the writer.

    Almost a looking back at childhood through the sobering eyes of the adult, transfixed with emotion, growing older, yet still feeling the same spiritually as a child.

    There is a view that these feelings create dichotomies within the individual … of inner and outer conflict, of being young and old, of presence, and of being itself – as well as change and stagnation within and regarding life itself.

    The writer manages to depict cycles of creation and destruction throughout, although the reader is left wondering which one is which.

    One of the main objectives of the writer seems to be the opportunity of offering the reader the chance at a sense of reflection regarding oneself, an opportunity to focus on the quietness and stillness that can still be found within each of us.

    While it diabolical on one level, the work is nevertheless beautifully created in a structure that resembles timeless layers of life itself unravelling through the meaning af one’s very own – the writer’s very own? – existence.

    One could could also presume that the writer agrees with the views of Gaston Bachelard, who believed the subconscious is ceaselessly murmuring and (it’s in) the listening to these murmurs that one ultimately hears the truth.

    In the end, the question the reader must contemplate is this: is it just that, as we surmise, or is it “art” pretending to be something else that might even be more clever than art … or is the writer simply showing us once again that he is a bloviating windbag?

    (apologies to M.Gochman).

  • Irv, despite the fact that your politics are pretty much diametrically opposite to my own, I like your panache.

    However, if you’re going to persist in calling the other Titanic passengers 74 different species of motherfucker, don’t be surprised if they won’t let you on board the lifeboat.

    Accusing us of taking ourselves seriously was, I’m fairly sure, the final straw for a lot of the gang.

  • Dr Dreadful (#100), are you implying that, metaphorically, Blogcritics has struck an iceberg and is sinking so fast that anyone left onboard will surely perish?

  • No, not necessarily. I’ve learned to liberate my metaphors from the literal.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Jordan wrote it because, in so colorfully chewing the scenery throughout this thread, Irvin F. Cohen reminded him of me.

    Not exactly…

  • Clavos


    Gloriously, ineffably and even transcendentally delicious!

    I’ve just spent a half hour catching up on this thread after a day’s absence, and am struck by the delicious spectacle, replete with irony, of the two participants herein who most take themselves seriously, Kurtz and Irvin, accusing all the rest of us of doing just that!

    And all the while, the veteran cadre of El Bicho, Doc, Jordan, zingzing, Baronius, STM and Roger, along with nearly the entire roster of Usual Suspects, nimbly dance in and out of the thread, rapiers drawn and slashing, metaphors ablaze, and repartee locked and loaded, having the time of their lives (well, this week, anyway) poking at and deflating Their Pomposities.

    Did I say delicious?


    (Doc, we’ll take up the matter of my purported resemblance to the good Bishop at a more propitious moment — say, when the Inferno congeals.)

  • You can call Alan a liberal, if you like, and I won’t mind. But please leave commies, lefty-pinkos, and other abler thinkers, out of it.

  • Wow, Silver Dude, you’re revealing a side of you I would have never suspected. It was you, remember, who cited the adage, Keep it simple, stupid, yet here you go venturing into the dark recesses of depth psychology.

    I like, BTW, the comparison between Christ’s suffering and the suffering of “the author” (still undecided, though, whether you mean Cohen or Krtz) and your insight concerning the subconscious as being the engine behind creative endeavors. I wouldn’t characterize, however, Cohen’s reaction to criticism as anything even remotely approximating the experience of suffering. There’s got to be depth in order for there to be latter. Bombastic responses and temper tantrums don’t qualify. Artistic skills take years to develop, years of discipline, self-denial and hard work. For some reason, that’s not how I picture Cohen. I think rather of a child or a novice who suffers from illusion of grandeur only to find out the talent either ain’t there, or it had not been developed, or that the depth of human experience is ghastly amiss. You take your pick but whatever the reason, it ain’t working.

  • doug m.

    In my limited timr visiting this site this has to be the strangest series of comments I’ve read. I regret getting here after the editors got to them though. Is there some where a grown up can go read them? I do wish there had been a suggestion at the beginning to have a cocktail on hand. Would have been more enjoyable after a couple of martinis

  • Baronius

    Doug, they didn’t make much more sense unedited. We’re a week and a half away from what may be the biggest Congressional elections since 1946, and this is what we’re talking about in the Politics section. Go figure.

  • doug m.

    Baromius, biggest in what semse? I keep hearing references to ’94 when the Repubs took over in relation to this election so am I curious as to what you mean.

    While I understand Rs unhappy with Dems on principle, are the Dems and Obama really doing a bad job or is it just the fact that they are in charge while things are bad? And are things worse since the last election, or are they just not better?

  • Baronius

    There were 6 Senate seats and about 50 House seats that changed parties in 1994. Projections for this year are even higher. I’m pretty sure you have to go back to 1946 to find results that big. Of course, it’s worth noting that two years after the 1946 and the 1994 elections, the incumbant president campaigned against Congress and won reelection.

    The answers to your second paragraph’s questions are a matter of hot debate on the boards. I certainly have my own opinion.

  • doug m.

    First, I apologize for those wayward m’s. I was asking for your opinion. Are these boards you speak of elsewhere or scattered throughout this site?

  • Baronius

    Posting boards. Threads. Comboxes. Whatever you want to call them. What we’re reading and typing in right now.

  • I submit that the poor quality of discussion in Blogcritics threads is due in part to a simple lack of reading comprehension. Take, for instance, the preceding exchange. In #111, doug m. asked the whereabouts of “these boards you speak of.” In #112, Baronius responded as if doug m. had asked, What are these boards you speak of?

    The operative sentence in #111 consists of 12 words. Yet Baronius shows that as few as 12 words can be thoroughly misconstrued.

    How can we at Blogcritics dialog effectively if we have such low regard for other commenters that we can’t spare the time to read even a 12-word sentence properly?

  • doug m.

    Alan, glad to see the communication problem wasn’t completely on my end. Baronius bemoans what’s being discussed here, even though he has taken part. I ask some questions related to what he’s suggests is more important. Rather than respond directly he tells me those things are being discussed. I ask where and he offers generalities. He’s not required to respond but it does call into question what he was complaining about in the first place.

  • STM

    Rog: “here you go venturing into the dark recesses of depth psychology”.

    I must have missed something.

    Thanks Rog, but not quite. I was taking the piss.

    It’s a whole passage of complete fu.king gibber that took me two minutes to write, mainly because it means sweet bugger all.

    I used a bit of stuff submitted as a presas release by an art gallery on a new exhibition as the basis of much of it, although the Christ’s suffering and suice bomber comparison is all my own work.

    Incidentally, I believe Kurtz and Irv to be one and the same person. Two different personas written by the same person.

    That is why I believe it actually is close to “art”.

    Dark art, mind, but possibly still clever. Once only, though 🙂

  • Those suice bombers are murder, alright. Sorry to disappoint you, though. I’m me and he’s he and never the twain shall meet, not even as dark art. My bet is we’ll see more of Irvin F. Cohen not in spite of but because he’s such a one-trick pony. Those critters love to prance back into the spotlight to show off their Attic Greek prolixity and Anglo-Saxon profanity.

  • STM

    Yeah, thanks Al, for pointing out the typo first, instead of getting straight to the meat of the matter.

    Not convinced, though, Al in regard to you and Irv.

    In regard to Irv, I just don’t believe that anything could be done that badly – or that madly – if it wasn’t done purpose.

    Irv has also been strangely silent of late (expect that to change as of this moment).

    Mind you, having said that, I AM a great believer in the old adage: “If something’s worth doing, it’s worth doing badly.”

    Especially if creates the desired effect.

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Stew you motherfuckers, stew!

    Or rather, make that – stew you maternal fornicators, stew!

    And also…Stew in your own supreme being and divine power, imprecation juices!

  • zingzing

    oi. so now you, stm, think alan, who faked (as a joke*) that jordan was apollo c vermouth, is actually faking as irvin, in order to spoof us? i certainly wouldn’t put it beyond him… and there certainly is a style/disorder… but this isn’t something i’d considered. would alan be so devious? is “alan” “alan?” is this really just some big prank? i’m beginning to think so. obviously, “alan kurtz” is a presence on the internet, but is it a real persona, or a project? and is “irvin” part of that?

    his wool is thick. whomever it belongs to.


  • zingzing


  • Come on, guys, you’re becoming paranoid. Six weeks ago, Christopher Rose outed me behind my pseudonym A.B. Caliph (see comment #19). He determined this by comparing my handle’s IP address with that on file for Alan Kurtz. Obviously, Blogcritics did not respect the confidentiality of my pseudonym. Don’t you think with all the interest shown in Irvin F. Cohen by such BC perennials as STM, zingzing, Baronius, Jordan Richardson and Roger Nowosielski, not to mention editors Clavos, El Bicho and Dr Dreadful, that any such impersonation would be quickly exposed?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Alan’s played imposter before, for starters.

    Also, I first mentioned the “similarities” on October 18 and it took Alan until October 21 to reply. Feigning that he at first “didn’t get it,” Alan starts off with some explanation that Irvin must’ve reminded me of him. Sure.

    There’s also the similarities in “background.” And, for that matter, they even look alike.

    Plus we know it’s not beyond Alan to assume another persona and to hold on to it until he gets caught. The M.O. from his A.B. Caliph persona was similar: ignore the accusations initially and then break when all bets are off.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Actually, Alan, you can use a proxy to mask IP addresses. I think, I’m not sure, that somebody brought this up around the Caliph situation and it wouldn’t be hard for you to figure that out.

    Plus I first outed you that time. Chris confirmed what everybody else already knew.

  • Bullshit. I am much better looking than Irvin F. Cohen.

  • And stylistically, apollo c vermouth has much more in common with Irvin F. Cohen than I do.

  • zingzing

    but the style, being different, is the key, right, alan?

  • zingzing

    duhn duhn duhhhhhhhhnnnnn,

  • STM

    I just smell a rat, is all …

    But a rat that’s led to hours of fun for all and sundray, so I’m not sure we should be too worried about it.

    Plus, I don’t see the problem in having separate internet personas.

    They are all, after all, simply personas, aren’t they??

    Pixels on a screen, not real at all.

  • STM

    I’ll make that sundry, before Al stomps on me.

  • zingzing

    i dunno about that round here.

  • alias

    stm has a club foot!

  • alias 2

    stm’s club foot has a club foot 2!

  • zingzing

    i confess. i was both aliasses. mhmm. no, aliases aren’t good ideas. other than the aliases we all have. let’s not complicate things beyond the alias of the alias.

  • Clavos

    Kurtz, Caliph, Cohen, Clavos, Nails, Dreadful, Arch, handyguy, zingzing, tolstoyscat, whomever…

    In the final analysis, we are all just pixels on a screen.

    You guys keep forgetting that.

  • zingzing

    why do we live in fear of clavos and alan?

    fuck the grammar nazis.

    begone y’all fuckheads. dragons! feh! pew! you stink! we all hhaaaatttttteeeeee you. ugh.

    am i speaking for everyone?

    i don’t doubt it.

    better believer it, asswholes.

  • zingzing

    i am a humang bein.

  • Clavos

    You guys keep forgetting that

    Except for Stan, of course.

  • Clavos

    zing, it’s nearly 4 ayem, and you’ve been drinking so long tonight you can’t even type anymore.

    Go to bed, Dude.

  • zingzing

    he’s austeralianishistic. taht’s mroe tahn hmuan.

  • zingzing

    oh i can type, clavos. that’s not the issue. you just aren’t reading.

  • Clavos



  • zingzing


  • STM

    Lol. Had a couple of quiet ones zing???

  • zing haz couple ov drinx an endz up speakin lolcat

  • Clavos

    LOL, Cindy!

  • zingzing

    nah. the point is that if you can’t always be sure to beat the grammar nazis, you mite as well purposefully fuck up on every post, thereby driving them crazy with gramatical mistakes and the fact that they don’t know if you know what you’re doing or not, and sometimes, it’s just best to write one big fuckoff run-on sentence.

  • Clavos and Cindy, I’ve had the same suspicions about zingzing’s late-night postings. Three weeks ago, responding to my comment on another thread, he wrote, “and there’s the typo. we’re all human after all.”

    I replied, “What typo? Are you drunk?” He did not respond. Probably had passed out by then.

    I believe we grammar police–including nonprofessional volunteers such as zingzing–should remain sober while on duty. And any grammar policeman worth his salt is always on duty.

  • zingzing

    funny how i went from perfectly sober (or at least able to type) at “12:58 am” to raging, sloppy drunk at “12:59 am,” back to sober and able to type by “1:04 am,” isn’t it?

    isn’t it?!

  • zingzing

    and alan, i suppose it wasn’t strictly a typo, but it’s also not the 19th century. (and i’d not been back to that page since that time.)

  • You must still have a pretty good buzz on. There’s not a single mention on that page of the 19th century.

  • I believe we grammar police–including nonprofessional volunteers such as zingzing–should remain sober while on duty.

    Are we to imply, then, Alan, that you get paid for being like that?

    And any grammar policeman worth his salt is always on duty.

    A tip of the pointy hat to you, sir.

  • zingzing

    “You must still have a pretty good buzz on. There’s not a single mention on that page of the 19th century.”

    of course there isn’t. never said there was… are you drinking?

  • Dr Dreadful (#156), shame, SHAME on you! Using the word imply when the context requires infer. A sad commentary indeed on Blogcritics’ disgraceful “standards.”

  • zingzing

    you’ve been had, alan. or didnt you know that by now?

  • Alan, that should be “Blogcritics’s disgraceful standards”, surely…?

  • Don’t call him Shirley. It might spawn a new persona

  • I thought there was an exception for business names. To me, this looks right:

    General Motors’ stock finished the week up.

    Whereas this looks like stuttering:

    General Motors’s stock finished the week down.

    I concede, however, that I may be wrong. I’ll defer to your usage.

  • Clavos

    According to the AP Stylebook, ostensibly Blogcritcs’ standard (at least it is on the articles I edit/publish):

    “NOUNS PLURAL IN FORM, SINGULAR IN MEANING: Add only an apostrophe: mathematics’ rules, measles’ effects

    This, of course, begs the question of whether or not Blogcritics is “plural in form, singular in meaning,” or simply a “PLURAL NOUN ENDING IN S,” for which AP recommends: “Add only an apostrophe: the churches’ needs, the girls’ toys, the horses’ food, the ships’ wake, states’ rights, the VIPs’ entrance.”

    There exists a third possibility as well, depending on one’s POV in re the noun, “Blogcritcs.” AP notes: SINGULAR PROPER NAMES ENDING IN S: Use only an apostrophe: Achilles’ heel, Agnes’ book, Ceres’ rites, Descartes’ theories, Dickens’ novels, Euripides’ dramas, etc.

    So, irrespective of how one classifies the noun “Blogcritics,” its possessive is always written only with an apostrophe.

    I will expect to see this applied correctly in all articles and comments henceforth.

    Carry on.

  • zingzing

    but is it “blogcritcs” or “blogcritics?” eh? 🙂

  • What a fearsome spectacle this is: one BC editor pitted against another in a battle of apostrophes. This ground is sure to be soaked in blood before it’s over.

  • shur zing ur not drinkin, much.*

    *pic of zing frum thiz mornin

  • STM

    Doc: “Blogcritics’s disgraceful standards”.

    The rule of thumb is to do it the way it sounds … in other words, how one would pronounce it.

    So it would be Charles’s disgraceful standards, but Blogcritics’ disgraceful standards.

    Hope that helps end the dudes’s arguments

  • zingzing

    at least i’m not using my tongue as toilet paper, kitteh.

  • u humanz has no clue, do u?

  • zingzing

    is it that good then? maybe i’ll give it a shot. if only i… could… reach…

  • STM

    ‘s a good look zing. Empty vodka bottle is a nice touch. Hope you were drinking Russian or Finnish vodka, not the bullshit stuff. BTW, the only cure for a hangover is sleep.

  • zingzing

    not really a vodka fan. not much you can do with it, and the drunk off it is terrible. for a far more accurate picture of me last night before i got on here, see this.

  • no thanks, i can see from the title that is your kind of tasteless video.

  • zingzing

    my kind of tasteless video… sigh, whatever. i dunno what i ever did to you cindy, but i’m sure i deserve everything. whatever grudge you’re holding, it’s rather useless.

  • no grudge. i just think it’s a disgusting title. maybe stan will like it.

    it is just beyond my, er…level of acceptability. i would have the same response to anyone.

  • family guy is beyond my level of acceptability. my nephew (and my mother when she is with my nephew) thinks it is hilarious. too each his/her own. i think that is disgusting too.

  • zingzing

    family guy? that’s pretty tame stuff. have you ever seen or read shakespeare’s titus andronicus?

  • no i, unfortunately (or fortunately?) never actually read shakespeare*. though i have seen some performances.

    *are you supposed to read that in high school? perhaps, i was off dropping acid. 😉

  • wikipedia says it was his bloodiest, goriest play.

    perhaps i should see this: “Titus (1999), directed by Julie Taymor. Stars Anthony Hopkins and Jessica Lange as Titus and Tamora, respectively.”

    ever seen that?

  • zingzing

    you should correct that. i read some in high school, but then i read all of them in college (for one class… so some of the lesser stuff is kinda jumbled in my mind).

    anyway, titus is the first play attributed to shakespeare, although there are some doubts about his authorship. i’d say it sure reads like him. it’s a revenge play, which were rather popular at the time (1590 or so), and it’s fairly simple on a plot level (for shakespeare). the characters are all fairly simple as well, being more iconic than human. so it reads easy.

    a shakespeare critic named hulse wrote that titus “has 14 killings, 9 of them on stage, 6 severed members, 1 rape (or 2 or 3 depending on how you count), 1 live burial, 1 case of insanity, and 1 of cannibalism—-an average of 5.2 atrocities per act, or one for every 97 lines.” it’s remarkably violent. but it’s completely badass. the character of aaron is one of my favorites, and he gives one of my favorite of shakespeare’s speeches on his own evil nature (all while trying to save the life of a child):

    LUCIUS Art thou not sorry for these heinous deeds?
    AARON Ay, that I had not done a thousand more.
    Even now I curse the day–and yet, I think,
    Few come within the compass of my curse,–
    Wherein I did not some notorious ill,
    As kill a man, or else devise his death,
    Ravish a maid, or plot the way to do it,
    Accuse some innocent and forswear myself,
    Set deadly enmity between two friends,
    Make poor men’s cattle break their necks;
    Set fire on barns and hay-stacks in the night,
    And bid the owners quench them with their tears.
    Oft have I digg’d up dead men from their graves,
    And set them upright at their dear friends’ doors,
    Even when their sorrows almost were forgot;
    And on their skins, as on the bark of trees,
    Have with my knife carved in Roman letters,
    ‘Let not your sorrow die, though I am dead.’
    Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
    As willingly as one would kill a fly,
    And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
    But that I cannot do ten thousand more.

    the bit about the corpse is just ridiculous.

    anyway, family guy has referenced and made versions of shakespeare plays quite often. southpark, another show i bet you don’t like, has actually done a version of titus andronicus (“scott tenorman must die,” or something like that). family guy is somewhat spotty, but southpark is actually, and very much by design, one of the most spot-on commentaries on american culture and politics out there. sometimes, the stuff that seems vulgar or tasteless has the most to say.

  • zingzing

    “ever seen that?”

    yeah, it’s great. taymor makes some strange choices, but all in all, it’s one of the better shakespeare movies i’ve seen. very ambitious. if you buy into its eccentricities, it’s very satisfying. she obviously respects the material, and the cinematography is very creative.

    i’ve never seen titus performed (it rarely is), so that’s about the best option i can think of.

    shakespeare is almost always better seen than read. and it’s always better read without footnotes. just get through it in the original language, without stopping to read the notes, as you can always figure it out.

  • i think the occasional south park is not intolerable. i did find the one about the mormons amusing, for example. i would not necessarily leave the room if someone was watching it. family guy, though, i would likely go find something else to do.

    if i want to be amused i will watch george lopez 😉

  • zingzing

    oi. lopez is far too sanitized. if you watch titus, let me know what you think.

  • funny stuff


    (okay, re titus)

    nightie night zing…meow

  • Irvin F Cohen

    zingziing…now I know who you are.

    Aren’t you that fat, doofis, lazy, fornicating panda bear they imported from China to the Washington, D.C Zoo for the sole purpose of impregnating (by the way, that’s not a euphemism, but the word fornicating is) the other fat, lazy, worthless, unintelligent excrementum, panda bear? But the other worthless, fat, lazy, fornicating panda bear must have been a typical, male-hating, three hundred pound, diesel-dyke, lesbian; cause she wouldn’t fornicate you! Which I suppose must make you one hell of an ugly dude. Is that who you are?

    Let me state here rather emphatically and unequivocally that I am
    not a Shakespearean scholar nor expert, but I hope that you might surmise by now I am quite a fan – in fact, one might say, I love the dude to death! So I’d like to take this opportunity to add my worthless, highly pedantic and bombastic two-cents worth to the mix too.

    Actually I read the passage you cited from “Titus Andronicus” and I have to confess I like your taste. Even though the play still sucks in me ‘umble estimation, this passage is actually, as is the wont of the Great Bard of Avon, just fornicating, dye-know-might! Again, good literary taste on your part and I say that of course, quite begrudgingly and reluctantly.

    Now for a healthy dollop of my de rigueur, rather condescending and overbearing, pedantic heavy-osity. You know of course that many of his themes, plots and major characters were derived and taken either directly out of, or were variations upon Greek Tragedy. Even that which comes seemingly directly from the Romans such as Seneca, (into Shakespeare’s plays) also have their roots in the Greek Tragedians (Aeschylos, Sophocles, Euripides).

    Sooh, Hamlet is a variation of Orestes (Aeschylos) and Lady MacBeth one of Clytemnestra (also Aeschylos) and Tamora is Medea (Euripides), et al. In fact the list is just too fornicating long and exhaustive for this thread.

    However don’t take my word for it, look it up for yourselves, do a little research and get off your collective, fat derrieres, and oh my God, and God forbid, or whatever you believe in or don’t believe, actually go to the original sources, and actually read something, anything, preferably for more than five seconds as is your collective wont and the sum total of your collective, entire intellectual, attention spans.

    Just read the maternal fornicators! Cause you might just; one, learn something, and two, you might just like it, and three, and more importantly, you might just be moved, inspired, uplifted and civilized by the experience! Again, God forbid.

    Ignorance combined with a profound lack of cultivation and or learning, is not bliss, not even for Blogcritic poseurs and intellectual phonies.


    P.S. A slight correction here, I got the gender wrong of the fat, lazy, fornicating panda bear which was imported to the Washingon, D. C. Zoo. That fat, lazy, fornicating panda was the typical, male-hating, three hundred pound, diesel-dyke lesbian and not you. If that is any consolation to you.

    I must now bid you all a not so fond adieu. Because I am currently slaving away at my second trick so that I will no longer be a one trick pony, but rather shall shortly become a two trick pony. So fornicate you all, you flaming commie-lib, fornicating anal apertures and worthless, commie-symp maternal fornicators.

  • I have to admire a fellow who knows when to tuck his tail between his legs and run.

  • zingzing

    “You know of course that many of his themes, plots and major characters were derived and taken either directly out of, or were variations upon Greek Tragedy.”

    and many other sources. most of his plays have a source in history or myth or literature. titus combines british myth and a lot of ideas from the revenge plays that were popular at the time. titus may, actually, be something of a parody of those kinds of plays, given the ridiculous amounts of violence and vulgarity.

    i’ve read a lot of these original texts and lots of criticism placing shakespeare alongside his influences.

    still, my god, man, you need to calm down. and come up with something other than “maternal fornicator.” you must be really angry.

  • Clavos

    Um, it’s merde, not meurde in French, and scheisskopf, not sheiskampf in German.

  • zingzing

    grammar nazi strikes a blow for good, world collapses.

  • Irvin F Cohen

    I stand corrected, a bit too impetuous perhaps, nay, make that especially so with my French, shame on me.

    However it does go to prove quite conclusively that I am a terrible speller, and can do so in a half dozen languages as proof.

    Don’t want to get too petty, and quibble over the point, but I see Shakespeare, and perhaps far too much so, as opposed to the French Renaissance Humanists (Rabelais, Montaigne, Descartes, Molière), as part of an intellectual and cultural continuum in which most of the ideas, themes and intellectual and literary conventions were thoroughly grounded in the Classics. Even the Medieval, Christian literature was also steeped in the Classics but not as much so as later on in the Renaissance when more of the Classics resurfaced in Western Europe. This is something lost on most Americans for the past century, but not only by the overly educated, elitist scheisskopfen such as myself, who were formally educated in the Classics, but also by the ordinary, common folk who were somewhat aware of the Classics in the general culture and literature too. And even though I agree with most of what you say, I still yet maintain it isn’t quite as parochial as you might consider, but rather, that Shakespeare was indeed more influenced both directly and indirectly by the Classics than most modern scholars are wiling to admit, or for that matter are too ignorant to understand, that is to say, in order to connect the logical, dotted lines. Is that enough pseudo, intellectual and highly pedantic merde de taureau pour toi. Véritablement, cela suffit comme ça pour toi, n’est-ce pas?

    Now as for “tucking my tail” etc., don’t pride yourself on perceived but in reality false victories – I ain’t done with you yet [edited]

  • zingzing

    “Shakespeare was indeed more influenced both directly and indirectly by the Classics than most modern scholars are wiling to admit, or for that matter are too ignorant to understand, that is to say, in order to connect the logical, dotted lines.”

    shakespeare’s connection to earlier literature, history and myth has been part of the criticism and appreciation of shakespeare for centuries. his synthesis of multiple sources is one of his strengths from a critical view.

    he represents a great fulcrum of literature. he’s a lynchpin of western literature and art, both to the past and the present. you certainly aren’t anywhere near the first person to realize this. don’t kid yourself.

  • 192 – I ain’t done with you yet, you commie

    Ah, but I am done with you.

  • Irvin F Cohen

    No excrementum murgetroid! But that is exactly the point.

    No I am not the first, of course, to discover this, and surely I hope not the last, although your generation and those other generations in their infancy and adolescence, appear to be in the throes of unlearning that and many other lessons of the past to the point where ignorance and anti-intellectualism and cultural barbarity, reminiscent of the Dark Ages, seems to be an ominous and portentous self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Furthermore, that message was not so much addressed to you as it was to those intellectual and cultural fools and clowns, of whom you may consider yourself numbered, who dance around the proverbial head of a pin spouting and debating the proverbial question of how many millions of intellectual and cultural capites excrementosi and têtes de merde and kephaloi koprou can jaw, jaw, jaw, blabber, blabber, blather, blather and prattle nonsense while learning, cultivation, decency and the heritage of the ages and civilization burn to the ground.

    And then there are the ignorant, uncultivated, unlettered, anti-intellectual, cultural, philosophic and ideological louts and barbarians, who I maintain have no place in nor seat at the table of the agora log?n and arena scientiarum, the marketplace of ideas; because they are contaminants and pollutants who represent a cancer which will eventually destroy the former and halt human progress in the process and ultimately bring down civilization as its ultimate consequence.

    And no, it is not I who is kidding himself, but rather it is, well, I suggest you look in the mirror to find out. Yeah, I admit that i am an intellectual and cultural caput excrementosi and worse, but thee? I know I am not humble, that I have not, make that, have never learned the great lesson of humility, and that I take myself much too seriously – but what about thee?

    Someone declared previously that my great sin to all of you was I said that you take yourselves seriously. Yes guilty as charged, but even more guilty of the sin of omission because I intended and meant to impart the fuller idea, that all of you (numerous expletives deleted and their tedious euphemisms voluntarily censored and edited out lest I bring down the wrath of the ‘comments” editorial Gods of discretionary judgement and outright censorship upon my head and shoulders); take yourselves much too much seriously. The operative words here are “much too much” which I cannot emphasize enough. [Edited]

  • Irvin F Cohen

    No threads for two whole fornicating days, what the fornication’s going on here?

    Didst thou not with baited, tremulous breath attend and wait on my every petulant, misanthropic word? Like puppies, nay, like mangy dogs fearfully and anxiously awaiting their master? Oh so very apprehensive, not to be lovingly and adoringly petted on the head, but to be whipped and beaten like the scurvy, servile, fawning and cringing, mangy dogs thou art? Oh thou scabrous, flea bitten, canine curs thou art, wherefore art thou? Et tu, thou scumbag-us-es, have thou too forsaken, deserted and abandoned me? I who am your sadistic master who beats thee so mercilessly upside the head which you crave and want so masochistically.

    Again, wherefore art thou, thou slimy, scumbag, toadying, highly conformist, nauseatingly lockstep, commie-lib, commie-symp Stalinist apologists?

    Wherefore art thou, for didst thou not lap up so willingly, and so obsequiously and yet so enthusiastically revel in mine many, very evil and vile, vicious and vituperative reproaches couched in “74 species of motherfucker?” (Or is that better said, ‘maternal fornicator?”)

    Wherefore is thy “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, or close up the wall with our English dead!”?

    And yes to be sure, while the cat of supreme, editorial comment was away, we mice did play.

    But alas, the Gods or God (depending on whether one is a polytheistic pagan or nominal Christian monotheist, or whether one believes in God or in some such other supreme, divine being at all) of Editorial comment and thereof, therein, of supreme editorial judgement, discretion and righteous indignation, and of cut-cut, snip-snip, thou shalt not say this or that, lest thou piss off the Gods or God of supreme, editorial censorship and bring down upon thy heads his or her or their righteous wrath and ah-tay (até) thereof, therein.

    So now both you and I are now consigned, banished and exiled to the dung heap and foreboding dungeon, with its rigors of duress, of self-censorsip (or outright censorship from without).

    But know this and know it quite well, there are more ways to skin a cat, or as the Great Bard of Avon would put it, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of” in your commie-lib, commie-symp, lemming, brainwashed, conformist, proselytized, propagandized, zombified, stupefied, stultified, refried-shit-for-brains, intellectual masturbation, little pea brains.

    More to come – Stand by.

  • Irvin F Cohen

    Playing hard to get… unnh? Well, I’m losing my fornicating patience.

    Alright… you want the fornicating truth… nothing but the whole fornicating truth… Well, you can’t handle the fornicating TRUTH!

    That’s right… I am one big fornicating hoax… it’s all been one big fornicating scam! [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

    You all done been had! You fools. Ha, ha, ha, ha… nah-nah-ne-nah-nah!

    I ain’t fornicating you… and you ain’t fornicating me!!!

    Cause I’m fornicating KURTZ from the fornicating left coast!!!

    Ding, dong… long live the wicked bitch (or should that read witch) from the wicked left coast!!!

    Ha, ha, ha… nah-nah-ne-nah-nah!!!

    See if I care if you shun and avoid me [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

    We’ll see who wins this round… my little pretties.

    And attention, attention? Who needs no steenking attention, I doan need no steenking personal affirmation and mindless adulation and excessive praise… [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]