Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Janeane Garofalo is a Mindless Fanatic

Janeane Garofalo is a Mindless Fanatic

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On the Bill Maher show the coin of the realm is sneering, elitist derision of the political right. Maher used to pretend to be a libertarian to broaden his audience, but now he’s dropped that pretense, no longer even has guests on with opposing viewpoints and just spews hate at those he disagrees with. A favorite target on recent shows has been the tea party movement, whose members Maher reviles as racist, redneck retards. He repeats the standard leftist spin that the protesters are all angry, old, white men who have no legitimate concerns and are just protesting because they are racists who don’t want a black president.

This week he had help in his ongoing smear campaign from Janeane Garofalo, who showed up with her own shovel full of bigoted bullshit. Maher may be a vicious, lying bastard, but at least he’s clever. Garofalo trumps him by both being irritatingly shrill and remarkably stupid. Maybe I’m being too harsh on her. It’s possible that she’s just bigoted and incredibly ignorant. I guess that’s marginally less offensive as it means that unlike Maher she doesn’t know any better and is just repeating what her masters have taught her to say, kind of like the loyal household slave lashing out at the field hands who still dream of freedom.

Garofalo demonstrated her hate and ignorance this week in a remarkably ill-informed tirade at the beginning of the show. Here’s a transcript with some observations and infusions of actual fact.

“It’s obvious to anybody who has eyes in this country”

Unless those eyes are actually watching the rallies and paying attention, of course.

that the teabaggers, the 9-12ers, these separatist groups that pretend that it’s about policy, they are clearly white identity movements, they are clearly white power movements.”

Which is why they show up in white hoods and swastikas with burning crosses? Oh wait, they don’t. The people carrying the racist posters at the rallies turn out to be Democrats. But she does almost hit on a real point. The movement does want to empower the people, all of whom are threatened equally by our runaway government which threatens people of all races equally.

What they don’t like about the president is that he’s black or half-black.

Raised by whites, educated in predominantly white schools and totally assimilated into white culture. The reason he’s acceptable to the left is that he’s black without being threatening because he’s such a nice, safe, white-acting black man.

What also is shocking is that people keep pretending that that’s not really the case with these people. I’m not talking about people that do have problems with his policy, that’s fine. But these people who are also being led by the Glenn Becks, Michele Bachmanns, Rush Limbaughs, whomever, they are no different than any other white identity movement that’s part of our history.”

I seem to have missed the mass lynchings, tarring and featherings, cross-burnings, church bombings and rioting associated with the tea party movement. Maybe the media failed to report it. So no, these peaceful protests which actually have nothing at all to do with race are not in any way like past white identity movements. Maybe Garofalo needs to read a book on the history of civil rights in America, because it’s kind of insulting to the memory of those who gave their lives in the struggle to be free and equal to suggest that all they were up against were a bunch of peaceful protesters.

“This has been going on since the founding of this country that white power movements have tried to establish themselves and hold on to power, and it’s just very weird that whenever this comes up in conversation so few people are willing to say that yes it’s racism, straight up racism.”

This might be because very few people are as paranoid, bigoted and stupid as Garofalo is, of course. It might just be obvious to everyone but the most kool-aid drunk partisans that people holding signs about economic and civil rights issues are actually concerned about those issues and not racism.

“And the Republican party has been willing to carry water for racists in this country since about the 1950s.”

I guess the Republicans were helping out the racists when they provided the majority support for every piece of civil rights legislation in Congress from 1955 to 1965. Again, Garofalo shows how much she needs to take a basic class in American history.

“Electorally these white power people don’t have their own party. Maybe they will one day, so they are electorally dependent on the Republicans. But also, troublingly, FoxNews is happy to feed into this. AM radio is happy to feed into this. And so they will continue to do this until somebody does something.”

Would that be something like silencing free speech and making protest against the government illegal? That seems to be what Ms. Garofalo is leading up to here. Shut down AM radio, take FoxNews off the air and round up the protesters and send them off for reeducation.

“What you’re saying is absolutely true. There’s this tacit nudging towards violence.”

Really? Then why has there been virtually no violence at these thousands of rallies? Quite a contrast to Garofalo’s leftist friends who were rioting last week at the G20 conference in Pittsburgh.

“Then also, how about showing up armed? What if black people showed up armed at a McCain rally. What would be the response? But can you imagine the media spin on that. If black people showed up armed we would be on lockdown martial law, first and foremost, but it would be considered the height of violent intent and malicious intent.”

And there’s the crowning irony. One of the first known protesters to show up armed at one of these rallies was in fact a black man, who brought his gun to a rally in Arizona. And the reaction was not a lockdown or martial law. The local sheriff pointed out that it was perfectly legal under Arizona law and the media bent over backwards to ignore him and cover up the fact that he and many other protesters were black.

If you go on YouTube and watch videos of the rallies you can find black speakers prominently at almost every event. Yet if you watch the left-dominated media those speakers never seem to get on the air and it is never the black protesters who get interviewed. They go straight for the craziest white guy they can find on the periphery of the crowd carrying an irrelevant sign. He may be completely out of step with the rest of the crowd, but if he fits their profile and looks and acts crazy enough he’s the one who gets on the air.

Garofalo is probably just a willing dupe who repeats the lies which make her feel good without applying any thought to what she’s spewing, all with plenty of vehemence and sincerity. She’s only one voice in a crowd which produces the relentless yammering from the left, but she makes a good example when it is so easy to demonstrate how incorrect her assumptions are. Garofalo actually has a good education. She ought to know better, so she’s either deliberately spreading disinformation or so filled with hate she’s brainwashed herself into believing that her twisted perceptions are reality. That kind of deep-seated irrationality is the badge of the fanatic. When Garofalo sounds like an idiot she has let her hate overwhelm her reason and she wears that fanatic badge with pride.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I can see where lots of folks will want to take it out on the little liar who was on TV. So, this is the little shit who incites scream-a-thons on blog sites and talk radio.

    It looks like you Americans are headed for a civil war in the not too distant future. Keep the powder dry and the guns oiled, Dave. You’ll need them.

    Sigh….

  • zingzing

    first of all, if “we” have garofalo, it’s a pretty good reaction to the ridiculous nut jobs on the right. she is to us as beck would be to you.

    “It’s possible that she’s just bigoted and incredibly ignorant”

    what is she bigoted against? i’m really struggling to figure this out.

    “Unless those eyes are actually watching the rallies and paying attention, of course.”

    well, that’s not true. we went over this a couple of weeks ago. you were asked for ANY evidence that backed up your claims, but you squirreled out of it by claiming you never claimed that which you just claimed again.

    “The reason he’s acceptable to the left is that he’s black without being threatening because he’s such a nice, safe, white-acting black man.”

    ha. barack hussein obama is just a man, eh? wonderful. you act as if a mean, dangerous, white thug could get into office… sophisticated, urbane, educated and charming are not exclusively white traits.

    “If you go on YouTube and watch videos of the rallies you can find black speakers prominently at almost every event. Yet if you watch the left-dominated media those speakers never seem to get on the air and it is never the black protesters who get interviewed. They go straight for the craziest white guy they can find on the periphery of the crowd carrying an irrelevant sign.”

    does “irrelevant” mean racist? and you do see black speakers. the right is perfectly happy to bring out the tokens. i’d like to see the black protesters amongst the crowds as well, but we went over this a few weeks back. there just aren’t that many.

    “so she’s either deliberately spreading disinformation or so filled with hate she’s brainwashed herself into believing that her twisted perceptions are reality.”

    oh my. go watch fox. i’m so glad the “death panels” thing died down. and i’m so glad that obama isn’t from nigeria or timbuktu or wherever the birthers are claiming now. and where does that information come from?

    “This might be because very few people are as paranoid, bigoted and stupid as Garofalo is, of course.”

    i can name a few… and i think you know who i’m talking about.

    “I guess the Republicans were helping out the racists when they provided the majority support for every piece of civil rights legislation in Congress from 1955 to 1965.”

    as usual, i’ll bring up that the civil rights legislation ALWAYS broke on regional lines rather than by party. but the “southern strategy” was certainly a republican idea.

    “the media bent over backwards to ignore him and cover up the fact that he and many other protesters were black.”

    no they didn’t. how’d you find out? i saw it on cnn.

    garofalo does go a bit overboard. and she does have some pretty whack opinions. i don’t really see why she gets the airtime she does. she’s a comedian, not a political commentator. (jon stewart started that way, but he’s just too damn good.)

    anyway, i’m not the biggest fan of her, but i do find some of the stuff you use to attack her to be just as suspect as the things she says.

    next, write a piece on glenn beck. now there’s a nut. and he’s even more obvious about it than she is.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Oh my gosh, Dave, I saw this Maher show the other night. It was so damn frustrating, I wanted to scream. Garofalo needs a muzzle!

    And it’s too bad about Maher… I used to like him a lot because he was more in the middle and had some good points to make. I still watch all of his shows, but he is going down the left-wing deep end and he’s angry to boot. Maybe he needs to change his brand of “pot”!

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    She should have been more accurate. She should have said it’s a movement that supports privilege. Guess what color privilege mostly turns out to be? But technically, you don’t have to be white. You could be Bill Cosby, for example.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Oh and as for those in the movement who are not rich, they’re simply the brainwashed dupes of the elite.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Anytime a right winger goes on a tirade against the left – which is often – one of the first words that comes out is “elitist” or elitism” or some other variant of the word. What the fuck does that mean? Who, specifically are the elitists? Give me some names, and then go into some detail as to what determines their elitist status. And then, go on to tell us how this is a bad thing. Are their right wing elitists? Are they bad or good?

    I really don’t know how anyone from the right can have the temerity to go off on left wing pundits – even someone as “out there” as Garofalo in light of the bastion of right wing idiots who have commandered AM radio and take up virtually all of the air at FOX News.

    We could certainly measure their relative impact just given the ratings. How many people watch FOX including O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck? How many people listen to Limbaugh? Then let’s measure it against Maher’s numbers. Do you suppose that there are many conservatives who pay for a premium cable channel just for the priviledge of watching Bill Maher?

    Yes, Maher is well left of center as are Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow all on MSNBC. Again, their numbers rarely rival FOX.

    What left wing voice does FOX have to offer?
    At least MSNBC starts out the day with Joe Scarborough who spouts right wing ideology. CNN has the ever loveable Lou Dobbs.

    Dave and most other conservatives here vehemently deny the existence of racism in their ranks even to claim that all the people with racist signs at the stupid tea bag rallies were democrats. Did Dave or someone get their names and check their respective voter registrations?

    It’s such crap that they push the notion that Dems/leftists are racists, and the Reps/conservatives are all embracing of people of color. Talk about repeating crap that their “masters” have brainwashed them with.

    B

  • frog

    If personal attacks are not allowed, then why is this article onthis site?

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Um you did notice who wrote it didn’t you?

  • http://marksaleski.com Mark Saleski

    If personal attacks are not allowed, then why is this article onthis site?

    it’s personal attacks against other people in the comments.

    writers can spew whatever drivel they feel like.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    What kind of a stupid ignorant and ridicu… redicuo… uh dumb question was that anyeay?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, I suppose the writers have the privilege.

    Still, it looks like Dave couldn’t keep his normal demeanor under wraps, not for long anyway.

    After a fairly balanced article on unemployment, the real Dave comes marching in – roaring and spitting fire like a wounded lion.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I’m terrified to ask what reason the 1922-s dime comment was edited out?

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Of course it always helps to pay attention to which article you’re posting a smart ass remark on wouldn’t it?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It was too complex for me to digest it, Jet. Can’t help you there.

  • Doug Hunter

    The concept of ‘elitism’ as it is defined is in two parts, the first is the idea that your views are superior and wiser than normal coupled with the idea that that gives you the right to shape and govern society. By definition, libertarians, myself and Nalle included, don’t mean to intentionally shape society (not from the top down anyway) and believe in limited government sort of voiding the second part so that sorta leaves liberals to carry the banner.

    It’s really not the worst epithet in the world. I’ve noticed alot of left wing rants, like yours, come complete with taunts and implications of racism and I’d certainly rather be an elitist than a racist for example.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Anytime a right winger goes on a tirade against the left – which is often – one of the first words that comes out is “elitist” or elitism” or some other variant of the word. What the fuck does that mean? Who, specifically are the elitists? Give me some names, and then go into some detail as to what determines their elitist status. And then, go on to tell us how this is a bad thing. Are their right wing elitists? Are they bad or good?

    The elite are just what they sound like, the small dominant group that holds power via wealth and influence. Aka the bourgeoisie. The people for whom the rest of us are brainwashed into believing things like, the US is a meritocracy, on whose behalf the ‘work ethic’ is instilled in workers. The ones who originally robbed the land from the commons and funneled the now destitute into factories during the industrial revolution. On whose behalf we have government, so that government may engage in acts in service of their interests, like gaining more power.

    There used to be the aristocrats, after feudalism there were the bourgeoisie, also now called the elite. You didn’t think it just went from aristocrats to equality, I hope. Society was shaped by the interests of the bourgeoisie and it still is. It’s not like they have ever given up power once obtained. And there are self-made elite, not just inherited like in aristocracy. They still functioned and continue to function with the same power and influence.

    In short they are the ones who own 99 percent of the country’s wealth.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There’s another idea in the background as well.

    Many leading thinkers from the Left tend to be intellectuals, hold professorial positions in the universities and colleges, the Ivory Tower types, etc. – for which reason they have the reputation (not altogether unjust) of being removed from the hoi poloi. Yet, they seem to set the agenda for the Left at large.

    Not so with the conservative voice. Only William F. Buckley Jr., and George Will perhaps, could be said to carry such an aura.

    You certainly wouldn’t think of Limbaugh, Beck or Hannity as elitist types – in fact, they make their best to come across as “populist.”

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Anytime a right winger goes on a tirade against the left – which is often – one of the first words that comes out is “elitist” or elitism” or some other variant of the word. What the fuck does that mean? Who, specifically are the elitists? Give me some names, and then go into some detail as to what determines their elitist status. And then, go on to tell us how this is a bad thing. Are their right wing elitists? Are they bad or good?

    I was raised as a liberal elitist, Baritone, so maybe I can enlighten you. We come from old money, have trust funds, summer in the Hamptons or Bar Harbor or Nantucket (largely depending on what city you originate in), attend one of a small group of private schools and then go to certain particularly elite colleges (which is where I broke with the tradition). We go on to get graduate degrees and then get jobs in academia or with the government or with think tanks or in journalism or in the media or at museums.

    Who are we? Most of the Kennedys of my generation went to the same elementary school and/or high school I did. So did most of the Roosevelts and Rockefellers and Guggenheims. So did Al Gore and Evan Bayh and Harold Ford and Brit Hume and the list goes on — and there are other schools which serve the same crowd.

    If the system works as it should, these rich kids learn that wealth carries with it responsibilities, including an obligation to enter into public service and careers which help others. What they don’t learn is what life is really like for the lower classes, just that they need the help which only the enlightened members of the elite can give them.

    The elite really break down into two groups, the wealthy elite and the intellectual elite. They overlap to some degree, because some of the wealthy are intellectual as well and because some of the intellectuals are wealthy. My background is more in the intellectual elite than the truly wealthy.

    I really don’t know how anyone from the right can have the temerity to go off on left wing pundits – even someone as “out there” as Garofalo in light of the bastion of right wing idiots who have commandered AM radio and take up virtually all of the air at FOX News.

    Why? Garofalo’s behavior is worthy of consideration in its own right. You can write an article about how crazy Glenn Beck is if you like.

    What left wing voice does FOX have to offer?

    I’d argue that in many ways Bill O’Reilly is left wing.

    CNN has the ever loveable Lou Dobbs.

    And I certainly wouldn’t classify Dobbs as part of the conservative mainstream.

    Dave and most other conservatives here

    And as we’ve discussed before I don’t consider myself a conservative. I’m a liberal non-socialist and therefore incompatible with the modern left.

    vehemently deny the existence of racism in their ranks even to claim that all the people with racist signs at the stupid tea bag rallies were democrats. Did Dave or someone get their names and check their respective voter registrations?

    Actually, the group which printed the posters had their logo on the bottom and it’s not a right wing group. They’re basically marxists, but that still puts them on the left.

    It’s such crap that they push the notion that Dems/leftists are racists,

    That argument is going to continue to be made so long as the Democratic party continues its policies of racial exploitation and division.

    and the Reps/conservatives are all embracing of people of color. Talk about repeating crap that their “masters” have brainwashed them with.

    As an outsider you just don’t get it. Sure, there are some racist Republicans just as there are some racist Democrats. But the Republican party doesn’t countenance racism or race based policies, while the Democratic party certainly does. These are facts which you can’t just wish away, I’m afraid.

    Dave

  • Doug Hunter

    #11

    Yes, believe it. The racism attack the left has been chanting daily for the last year or more is obscenely frustrating and has drawn more than one rant from me as well.

    Seriously, a racist is viewed as about one half step above a pedophile and anyone not onboard the liberal agenda gets tarred with that virtually everyday if you come in contact with any form of media.

    The one positive to this is that the same raw emotions which cause Dave to pen an article like this are creating some significant backlash and activism on the right.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    What they don’t learn is what life is really like for the lower classes, just that they need the help which only the enlightened members of the elite can give them.

    What the lower classes need is to break away from the illusion that they need these bloodsuckers. People are trained to be good cows to be milked. That is what indoctrination that I talk endlessly about does. It creates a society of people who are willing slaves and never even question where they got the idea that things have to work this way. They just defend it–on autopilot.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I have never accused Dave of racism, Doug. I’m certain he’d be ready to confirm this were I to ask him.

    As to raw emotions, yes, we should put them to good use when we can – for activism, definitely. But backlash is reactionary, though emotionally satisfying.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Talk about repeating crap that their “masters” have brainwashed them with.

    The problem is that it’s not their masters. It’s the masters of the left and the right. The right are just more virulently selfish. The left are just as brainwashed–just not as selfish. They are still playing in the same game.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That was quite a revelation on Dave’s part, though. Now one can understand why Bush Sr. had no idea what the supermarket scanner does, and that’s just one example of how our “leaders” are removed from the ordinary folk.

    Yet the amazing thing is – we elect them as our representatives. Utter foolishness.

    Yet even Baritone here would argue that we’re better off for having the lawyers and accountants represents us – because they’re smart.

  • http://jetssciencepage.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Roger 17-But a lot of them graduated from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Baptist University… that’s something

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Like who, for example? You mean Hannity et al?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    No one who graduated from Liberty Baptist College could ever be part of the elite — not even the more conservative country club elite of the GOP. Tent preachers and televangelists and their followers need not apply.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    “But the Republican party doesn’t countenance racism or race based policies, while the Democratic party certainly does. These are facts which you can’t just wish away, I’m afraid.

    Sorry Dave, not a fact in sight.

    “They’re basically marxists, but that still puts them on the left.” You didn’t write “Marxists” or leftists. You wrote “Democrats.”

    “I’d argue that in many ways Bill O’Reilly is left wing.”

    And you’d be wrong. And Dobbs is a conservative voice – mainstream or not.

    So the east coasters whether wealthy or intellectual, or both, who list to the left are elitists. Those who go to the right are just good ole down home folks like GWB, right? Presumably he got down and dirty wallowing with the low life’s to get his street cred.

    You were raised as a liberal elitist? Is that what your folks told you?

    Actually Dave, as an “insider” I’d say that YOU just don’t get it. It is you and Doug and Arch and the rest who are deluded. It is you who are aping the old hat anti-left drivel.

    Cindy – you may be correct in your particular definition of elitists, but they certainly are not only leftists as Dave would have us believe.

    He paints the picture depicting elitists as being east coast, moneyed intellectuals who turn to public service to salve their egos.

    But who REALLY runs this country? Corporations. The banks, big oil, and the insurance companies more than anything else. Recently, I heard a term I hadn’t heard for a while, but it seems apt given what’s been happening of late. Corporate communism. Works for me.

    With respect to the “backlash and activsim on the right,” all I can say, it’s tough being losers isn’t it? What is so stupid is that the “backlash” is lashing against phantoms. You’d think that everyone had been mandated to start wearing Mao jackets and report to the collective after sweeping the streets. Nothing has changed in the country except the prevention of a complete financial collapse brought on by the Reps.

    It is the right which has been fearmongering. It is the right that has been spreading idiotic crap about the evils of health care reform. It is the right that is rife with total idiots standing up to be counted. Most of them are the detritis of Rove’s wooing of the christian fundies who have managed to get some of their ranks elected to Congress. They are the Reps’ albatross. And of course, there’s Sister Sarah. My dream ticket for the Reps in 2012? Palin/Bachman. If they ran and won, it would certainly take us back to the golden years of GWB – only younger and – if possible – dumber. That’d be great.

    B

  • Doug Hunter

    #22 It is strange we remain so divided. Many of your posts read like something I would write (except those that describe my economic understanding as selfish)

    I see the capitalist view as no more selfish than the parent who has to explain to their child that they can’t stay and play all day, they must go out to work to provide food, shelter, and even a college and retirement fund. Certainly, from the child’s perspective this might be perceived as selfish but in the larger scheme it’s the greater good. Socialism is the shortsighted emotional easy road, the giving in to the kids now while abandoning the big picture and their future. Obviously, poltico-economic views can go too far too either extreme just as a parent can be a workaholic and neglect a child (or stay at home until the house gets foreclosed on and they can’t pay for food or utilities)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    ” And Dobbs is a conservative voice – mainstream or not.”

    At least insofar as immigration policy is concerned.

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’d argue that in many ways Bill O’Reilly is left wing.

    That explains a lot about you, Dave, if you think Bill O’Reilly could possibly be construed as “left wing.”

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    B-

    But who REALLY runs this country? Corporations. The banks, big oil, and the insurance companies more than anything else. Recently, I heard a term I hadn’t heard for a while, but it seems apt given what’s been happening of late. Corporate communism. Works for me.

    I second that. All of it. It’s no surprise that we supposedly live in some society presumably based on liberty and yet work every day in places that are totalitarian dictatorships. Do you think that design is just a coincidence? A necessity?

    Doug,

    If it is not a meritocracy, and it is not, then it makes no sense to pretend that a system designed to suck the wealth out of the bottom up to the top is one where any reasonable person should be expected to partake in when starting at the dregs.

    Believing in a work ethic makes one, in my opinion, a person who has not challenged the idea and thought it through.

    Everyone works Doug. Creative work is part of life. Even routine jobs are satisfying in good company and working for one’s own merit. A work ethic is an imposition through indoctrination to get people to do jobs that are unbearable, while some move ahead and then those can blame the ones who don’t or can’t. If it is not a meritocracy then it is selfish, whether intentionally or not, to hold the poor accountable for their lot.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I don’t see her as critiquing YOUR capitalist view(s), Doug – not at least insofar as it goes to instill a sense of responsibility, etc. Nor I think Cindy is arguing for “socialism” (if that means absolving people of responsibility for their actions) – as though the two views were the exact opposites of each other ON THAT VERY POINT!

    I see it rather as the, let’s say, ideological contrast between the Right and the Left. (In fact, that’s the distinction in #22). So the Left is either duplicitous (insofar as it uses ideology as means to power), or naive (to the extent it’s deluded into believing that its ideology, with emphasis on empathy, makes a difference).

    As to the Right, it can be deluded too (by believing in the conservative dogma), in which case it’s not necessarily selfish (which is where you, in her estimation, fit in). And there are others on the Right, but they’re not deluded but who actively espouse a doctrine of “domination” – like Dave’s praise of capitalism, for example – for the eventual greater good. So insofar as that segment of the Right is concerned, the moneyed class, their object is to preserve their status in society and the status quo. It is they who are “more selfish.”

    Anyhow, that’s how I read Cindy’s comment.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    My opinion is they are all deluded Roger. Both left and right. Unless we challenge the very notions that exist as reality for us, we are sleepwalking–acting under unexamined indoctrinated ideas, as am I and as are you. We did not escape the machine, nor have we come so far as to be able to see past all of our blindspots. Though some of us have seen past some of them.

    I am a Libertarian Socialist. I do not believe Capitalism instills ideas of responsibility. I believe it indoctrinates people to accept its myths–and spit them out as if they thought of them themselves. The idea of work hard get ahead, good people word hard is a myth. It has nothing at all to do with responsibility. Responsibility does not require that. It is in service of a Capitalist society to have people feel better about themselves if they work hard and snarl at others who have less because they presumably do not work hard. It is in service to people who make the money off off other’s work.

    It’s a lie, one can work extraordinarily hard in the lowest echelons and all one gets is worked to death. When you are born into poverty you generally do not have the same experiences, nor the same opportunities that the snarlers have had.

    This is what leads to what is called freeriders. Freeriders have my empathy. Because if I could not support myself in a game someone else designed with the rules in their favor and against me, then I would consider the freerider option my right. Social workers often go out to help homeless people by trying to reestablish them in the game. Some homeless want no part of the game. All it is is a struggle they cannot win and would have to give up their lives to try. I have a great deal of respect for that. Your life is all you have. Fuck their rigged game. In a decent society people who work would all be able to meet their basic needs without question.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Doug believes it does. But those in power don’t need to espouse what they truly believe. They can safely go on pretending they’re for progress and the betterment of mankind – so long as their lackeys do their dirty work for them and spew out the propaganda of the virtue of hard work and personal responsibility, followed by success. The Protestant ethics.

    Consequently, the dollar is King, everybody wants to be gainfully employed to get the slice of the American pie, and it suits the employers just fine because they need the labor pool. Except that now you can’t even get a job because it’s cheaper to manufacture overseas at the fraction of the cost. So for all your responsibility and hard work, you still lose your job because you’re not needed anymore. And then you’re branded as a social parasite and a tax burden for living on the dole.

    Manana.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Whilst not particularly being a fan of Ms Garofalo, this article is actually far more dishonest and offensive than anything she has said.

    For a start, the entire piece was more of a personal attack on her than a rebuttal of her arguments and falsely described her as shrill. Anyone taking the trouble to watch the embedded video could see that she isn’t.

    Furthermore, the attempted rebuttals of her points combined transparent attempts at misrepresenting her views with responses that were largely irrelevant. Just one example of this is when the author rebuts her assertion about white power movements by saying “Which is why they show up in white hoods and swastikas with burning crosses?”

    There are clearly several strong racist strands in US politics, just as there are in the wider country, and the Obama presidency is certainly making that more noticeable.

    To make partisan arguments that it is unique to one or the other of the two main parties is completely wrong, as there are clearly racists of different kinds all over the political spectrum.

    If the author wasn’t as dogmatic and prejudiced as he is, there could have been a thoughtful and intelligent article written that actually offered some insight into the current state of US politics and society or possibly even offered some thoughts as to how things could improve.

    Instead we got yet another load of thoughtless partisan bile which contributes nothing positive whatsoever, as if there wasn’t enough of that passing for political debate these days…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I have to agree with Christopher Rose in many of the things he says. Indeed, his second, third, fourth and fifth paragraphs are right on the money.

    Garofalo is not shrill. It is not the shrill people who are the dangerous ones. The ones who are the truly dangerous ones are not shrill at all, but those who speak in moderate tones but with fanatical conviction. Garofalo speaks in moderate tones, but with clear conviction – the conviction that those in America who oppose “The One” are all racists – even though she qualifies that statement – barely – and she implies they must be silenced, as racism is evil and must be suppressed.

    Those who share these convictions, and who are serious in supporting “The One”, regardless of his stupid and incompetent actions, solely because those who criticize him are racists a priori and therefore must be muzzled, are the ones who present the greatest clear and present danger to freedom of speech and assembly in the United States today. This is not an issue of political party or ideology, it is an issue of misplaced loyalty. And what makes thewse people dsangerous is the obvious attempts by the Obama regime to create a cult of personality around a thoroughly undeserving incompetent, and the willingness of this incompetent to kowtow to tyrants, dictators and would-be dictators. We have seen this with respect to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and Honduras.

    The silencing need not be accomplished by throwing people in jail, and won’t be in America – at first. Indeed we see Chris’ native England leading the way down the road to intolerance and autocracy.

    Let’s look at one example from the groves of English Academe. The World Net Daily in a report taken from the San Francisco Chronicle relates that Cambridge cancels Savage debate British society cites ‘legal issues’ just days before event.

    I have little use for Michael ‘Savage’. But my own opinions here of “the Wiener” are irrelevant. The point is that he was invited to speak at Cambridge (over a computer up-link – he is banned as a dangerous person who cannot enter the UK) to present a point of view.

    The point of view? The student society at the University of Cambridge wanted Savage to speak for the opposition in a debate titled “This House Believes Political Correctness is Sane and Necessary.”

    From the article:

    Savage, who has documented his ordeal with the U.K. in an upcoming book, “Banned in Britain,” noted official correspondence, released under the U.K.’s freedom of information law in July, revealing a decision was made at the highest level of government to use his name to provide “balance” to a “least wanted” list dominated by Muslim extremists.

    Savage asked: “Did they fear my reading the secret e-mails (at the debate) which disclose how the entire British leadership colluded to destroy a man’s name and reputation?”

    In the movie “Forrest Gump”, Gump speaking at an anti-war rally in Washington during the Nixon administration, finds his microphone cut off. And that is what has happened to Savage. His microphone was cut off.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    I see I ought to have italicized the comments from the World Net Daily. The paragraph about what happens to Forrest Gump is not in the article, it is me concluding my comment.

  • zingzing

    i see dave is ignoring that we can see through the lies and half-truths about the media and black protesters, the black guy with the gun, republicans and civil rights, and this supposed bigotry–against what?–of garofalo. he constantly pumps out the same nonsense, we call him on it, he weasels about, says he said something else, or completely goes silent, then a few weeks later, pops the same bullshit out. why? it’s like he’s hitting his head against a wall, but his parents haven’t put a bike helmet on him yet. it’s doing damage.

  • http://jeanniedanna.wordpress.com/ Jeannie Danna

    next, write a piece on glenn beck. now there’s a nut.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Christopher, I see you entirely missed the point of the article. My intent was not to hold a reasoned debate of Garofalo’s points. That would be ridiculous. You can’t have a reasoned debate with a fanatic. The point was to mock her and expose her ignorance and bigotry and basically just enjoy myself bashing on her. I found it quite refreshing.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    And you’d be wrong. And Dobbs is a conservative voice – mainstream or not.

    While you may disagree with both of them, that does not make them part of the right wing mainstream. Both hold views which many conservatives find repugnant. O’Reilly is basically a fascist and Dobbs is a populist. Philosophically both have more in common with elements of the Democratic party than you realize. We don’t have a party in America which really represents them. Some European countries which have Christan Democrat or Christian Labor parties would have a place for them.

    So the east coasters whether wealthy or intellectual, or both, who list to the left are elitists. Those who go to the right are just good ole down home folks like GWB, right? Presumably he got down and dirty wallowing with the low life’s to get his street cred.

    I think I made it very clear that there are right-wing elitists as well. Some of them come from the same background as the leftist elite, but more come from the world of business and finance and are usually a couple of generations closer to holding a real job.

    You were raised as a liberal elitist? Is that what your folks told you?

    No. I was able to figure that out on my own. I think the realization came at a birthday party at Bobby Kennedy’s house sometime in the 1960s while uniformed black servants were serving hors d’oeurves to 8-year-olds.

    But who REALLY runs this country? Corporations. The banks, big oil, and the insurance companies more than anything else. Recently, I heard a term I hadn’t heard for a while, but it seems apt given what’s been happening of late. Corporate communism. Works for me.

    So you are leaving the Democratic party, then, since this “corporate communism” is eomething which they are the primary practicers of?

    What is so stupid is that the “backlash” is lashing against phantoms. You’d think that everyone had been mandated to start wearing Mao jackets and report to the collective after sweeping the streets. Nothing has changed in the country except the prevention of a complete financial collapse brought on by the Reps.

    You really pay no attention to the world around you.

    Dave

  • Deano

    Honestly this spittle-flecked narrative reads more like a print version of “get the hell off my lawn you damn kids”…

  • Jordan Richardson

    You can’t have a reasoned debate with a fanatic.

    Quoted for truth, Mr. Nalle. Quoted for effin truth.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Now that we have Ms. Garofalo implying that those who criticize Obama are “racists”, implying in her statements that this “racism” ought to be suppressed, we now have Obama himself declaring war on free speech. The implications are clear. Anyone who opposes the OIC-backed resolution that restricts freedom of speech world-wide will be a “racist”.

    How dare they oppose The Messiah for having the gall to demand that hate speech (against Muslims) be banned world wide!! Racists, the lot of them. To the gas with them!!

    From the article in Human Events:

    In October 2008, I wrote this in Human Events about early signs that Barack Obama had no great love for the freedom of speech: “If candidate Obama is willing to have people arrested when they say things about him that he doesn’t like, will President Obama have the vision or courage or understanding to stand up against the OIC when it demands restrictions on freedom of speech at precisely the same time that he wants to build bridges to the Islamic world and demonstrate his power to restore hope and bring change to old stalemated conflicts?”

    The answer is in. The answer is no.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    “You really pay no attention to the world around you.”

    Presumably, if I agreed with you, I would have paid proper attention.

    B

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, the problem is that you utterly failed to make the case that Ms Garofalo is a fanatic whilst actually coming across as a fairly rabid ideologically loaded extremist yourself.

    You are actually doing more to help those of her view rather than undermine them and making yourself look pretty foolish in the process.

    I’d have thought someone with all your experience as someone who has been a “magazine editor, freelance writer, capitol hill staffer, game designer and taught college history” could have written a better article and as “Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, working to promote liberty in the GOP” wouldn’t have wanted to appear so gauche.

    Then there is the matter of how the families and friends of people who have actually lost their lives at the hands of fanatics would feel about seeing the term used in this context…

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, supporting a UN measure that “calls on states to condemn and criminalize any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” is not “declaring war on free speech”.

    Was it a kneejerk reaction that you simply couldn’t control or just blatant prejudice on your part that made you add the bit about it being directed to protect Muslims?

    If adopted as law in Israel though, which is probably fairly unlikely, would it make your calls for nuking not only Teheran and Riyadh but also Tel Aviv illegal?

    I’d not seen humanevents.com before and feel slightly dirty for visiting a site that is so lacking in respect for facts and honesty…

  • pablo

    Janeane Garofalo showed her true colors when she decided to accept employment on Fox’s torture show 24. This so called speaker for liberalism is nothing less than a whore for the New World Order. Any decent sentient human being would have turned down this job. Incidentally being the coinspiracist that I am I find it highly ironic that the show’s protaganist Jack Bauer played by Keifer Sutherland, has the same last name, Bauer that the Rothschilds used before they hung a red shield from their door. Anyone who is knowledgeable about the New World Order knows that it has always been led by the Rothschild Clan.

    Garofalo’s assessment that those that disagree with Osama’s ooops I mean Obama’s politics are racist speaks for itself.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good point, Pablo. She showed her integrity, though that still doesn’t exonerate her in Dave’s eyes. True fanatics may be said to have greater integrity than most of us.

    Dave, you cannot really be or consider yourself true elitist (in the sense of “noble”) – and the elitists do consider themselves as made of better clay than hoi poloi – after having written this piece.

    You ought to have written in to yourself if it made you feel good, or punch a hole in the wall, any of the above. But to make it public . . .

  • Doug Hunter

    #33

    I certainly agree someone has been indoctrinated here.

    I don’t even know where to start with gems like ‘hard work doesn’t get you ahead’. That’s absurd and counterintuitive on it’s face but it still warrants a response. First off, people wouldn’t work hard if it weren’t for the immediate payoff and to get ahead of where they would otherwise be. The large majority of the population puts the lie to this statement everytime they go to work. Secondly, not only does the person get ahead but all of society gets ahead when an individual works hard. If I slave from sunup to sundown to gather a bushel of apples, not only am I in better shape having a bushel of apples but indeed the entire size of the world’s food supply has grown as I have more apples than I can eat and will trade them away to someone else. Alternatively, it’s not hard to see that if no one worked the world as we know it would immediately fall apart.

    Although that was your statement, I think it’s likely not what you meant. You probably meant something along the lines that the worker does not get ahead enough relative to the owner for the work performed. As always, I’d like to invite you to start a business and test your theory out. If indeed there are these obscene and unfair profits then certainly you could undercut them. While you’re at it I heard women do the same work as men for 70% pay. You can test both these little leftist theories out at once. Surely, if you can cut labor custs 30% by hiring only women then slash those obscene owner profits then your business can thrive in the marketplace. I won’t be bitter if those ideas turn out to be true and you cut out the fat cats. Competition just means lower prices and a better standard of living for me.

    Finally, how the heck can you be supportive of feeloading? Freeloading is inducing someone else to be your slave. When you refuse to do the necessary work to support your life you force someone else to work extra to cover for you. That’s why the snarlers are snarling, becuase they are being forced to carry someone else’s load and instead of being grateful the freeloaders are simply asking for more. I can certainly understand that this is sometimes necessary, but to actively support and empathize with the behavior is questionable.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Chris,

    I’d not seen humanevents.com before and feel slightly dirty for visiting a site that is so lacking in respect for facts and honesty…

    I don’t want to dirty up your pure open mind (your comments show what a crock of shit that is) with reality, but these are the money lines in this article. Pay careful attention to the stuff in bold. Pricks like Obama like to hide the poison in sweetly wrapped packages, and you have to dig through the honey to get to the poison.

    “Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder — or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.

    Now no less distinguished a personage than the President of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave. The resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,” which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism — for that, not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that’s “negative stereotyping.”

    But we still have the First Amendment, right? Legal expert Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn’t that easy to dismiss this. “If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech,” he explains, “presumably we are taking the view that all countries — including the U.S. — should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.” He adds that in order to be consistent, “the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed ‘hate speech’ that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).”

    Last year the Secretary General of the OIC chief Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu issued a warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”

    To make a long story short, screaming for Jews to be gassed is okay, according to the OIC and the terror groups who comprise it. Adopting this as inyternational law will make that standard normative and create on the international law books a dhimmi status for all non-Muslims world-wide – including the United Soviet States of America. Big picture guys like you obviously cannot see that.

    Now, I didn’t talk about Israel’s laws because at present, that standard in the paragraph immediately above is exactly how Israel’s incitement laws are enforced now. Arabs can say what they want and Jews go to jail for opening their mouths.

    Largely that is a function of fear of violence. Haredím, the guys in the long black coats who seem super-religious are especially violent – almost as violent as Arabs are – and police generally do not want to deal with them. I said almost. The difference between an Arab rioting and a Haredí who riots is that the Haredí who riots will hesitate and not try to kill a cop or a soldier if he thinks him to be a Jew. The Arab doesn’t give a damn. The more dead Jews the better.

    The result is that when Arabs riot, cops will hightail it. Soldiers usually will not, but are so restricted by engagement rules that they will tend to hide – doing exactly what the imams and mullahs describe: “The wall and the rock will say – O Muslim, behind me is a Jew! Kill him!”.

    The cowards in the government and the High Court of Injustice here never think this crap through. They are too busy shitting their pants with fear of Arabs and of the Americans who shove Arab-based policy down their own lying throats. They are so unlike the kids and adults around me here in Ma’alé Levoná and Gush Shiló.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Doug (#50)

    A bit of reality check, Doug, to introduce some perspective into this discussion.

  • Baronius

    You know who really runs America? No one. Not the corporations – plenty of them can barely run themselves. Not the government, although some people wish it did. Not the evil Chinese creditors, whose national savings are entirely dependent on American prosperity. Not Big Oil, Big Pharma, or Big Consonant.

    We’re a country of competing interests.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    50 – Doug,

    Let’s talk about how much people should work. Is there an objective number that results in the right outcome? Here is some background. The workday was once about 14 hours. It did not decline to 8 hours because 14 hours days were no longer necessary. 14 hour days were wanted by the owners of industry to reap the maximum benefit to themselves from labor. The change to the 8 hour workday was brought about by protest.

    So, my question is (pay attention to the part in bold)–who told you that working hard in a full-time, 8 hour job is a good thing? Where did that idea come from? Is it based on an objective assessment of what society needs? Did we not produce wealth without 14 hour days? Who is to say we wouldn’t with 4 hour days?

    I can describe how, at this point, an 8 hour workday is detrimental to society and has been for a very long time. Here are the problems:

    1) There is not much innovation. Companies compete with each other very often to make the same product. Products that used to last for 30 years now have to have planned obsolescence built in so that consumers will require replacing them more often.

    Can you see the huge waste of resources for no value that this creates? The only value created is profit for owners.

    2) This unneeded work that goes to make these products uses up the best resource human beings can own–their time.

    So, then how do you objectively define what hard work is and how much is needed? And who does a system of producing goods intentionally designed not to last–when they could last–benefit?

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    We’re a country of competing interests.

    So, we are a country of competing interests, but the interests with the power don’t use it to control outcomes?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Why should they? Everybody’s in it for sport.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    We’re the country of disposables – from douche bags and razor blades to grandmas and grandpas (now we’re told).

    So long as the assembly lines are operating at full capacity, whether in Indonesia or in China, and our appetite for Walmart-quality products insatiable, all is as it should be.

    It’s the capitalism’s glorious march.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Why should they? Everybody’s in it for sport.

    Some questions for you.

    Everybody is in it. But, how do they get in it? Do you have a choice when you are born to simply do something else? How does one get out of a game that is in progress when one arrives on the scene? How do we come to believe that it is a legitimate game. Did we believe this when we were born? So, what happened that caused us to conclude that what is, is legitimate? In whose interest is it to make this game seem legitimate?

  • Doug Hunter

    Roger, that’s essentially an anecdote. Those types of factory jobs can be very secure once you have seniority with guaranteed pay scales and benefits. We have the Peterbilt truck plant near us and lots of people, many of whom already have decent jobs, would love to get on there. Just like in the link, the actual starting pay isn’t that impressive but it ramps up to $60-80K+ good benefits very quickly with time on the job.

    We have no idea what caused the massive amount of applications or the situations of the people who applied. For example, if the Peterbilt plant here decided to add 90 jobs and it got picked up by the Dallas media and promoted I wouldn’t be surprised if they got a similiar flood of applications even though the area hasn’t really suffered much this recession.

    As for anecdotes, both my brothers got good jobs last year with little effort. One, with a college degree, had multiple offers right out of school but turned them down because he knew where he wanted to live. Within 2 months he found a job in the in specific area of the specific city he wanted (he had another job offer across town he was about to take when this opportunity came along). My other brother out of the blue dropped out of college and quit the baseball team saying it wasn’t for him. He worked as a waiter for 3-4 months while searching for a better job. He got one with security and benefits where he has already been promoted (with a clear path to further advancement) and makes $40K+ and he’s not even 21 yet.

    Sure, neither one of them are catching Bill Gates anytime soon but to act like it’s so impossibly hard to get by in today’s world is bollocks. It’s hard if you have to support a drug habit, it’s hard if you have a history of violence and criminality, it’s hard if you’re trying to take care of kids alone, it’s can be hard if you have an attitude and sense of entitlement… I don’t promote any of that, in fact I would tell anyone who would listen to avoid those things.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I was sarcastic in #56. But you’re right, it starts early, very early.

    I don’t really believe that everybody shares Baronius’s or Doug’s view. Some see through if not the stupidity than the futility of “the game,” like the hippies in the sixties.
    Remember, I spoke of “rebellion” before.

    I don’t really think that all individuals are equal (meaning: the same). We all have different characteristics. Some are “born” (or predisposed to be) conformists, others less so. So individual variation is not to be discounted – regardless of what the parents or the society tries to do.

    There has always been conflict between individuals as to whether the acceptable norms, roles and mores are really acceptable. Some accept without question, others rebel.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Do you mean it media-manufactures for publicity’s sake? Why are you so ready to dismiss it as such?

    Judging by the unemployment crisis, still unabated and unlikely to quickly disappear, I’d rather think the situation is quite typical.

    What caused such an avalanche of applications? I don’t have to ask myself that question. People are out of a job and even $13.00 an hour sounds great to them.

    Personally, I’m so financially depleted I wouldn’t mind even $100.00 a week for a twenty-hour work week. So no, I’m not puzzled at all.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, please don’t waste your time trying to criticise my open-mindedness; you wouldn’t know what open-mindedness was if one of your sons married it.

    Based on your actions in calling for the nuking of everyone you disagree with, from Wahhabi Muslims to gay or liberal Jews, I would actually be willing to oppose the parts of this resolution that condemn “negative stereotyping of religions”, but then you are the living embodiment of that far more than any Muslim I have ever communicated with.

    I haven’t seen any language in this that doesn’t protect all groups from hate speech and your continued attempts to depict it as favouring Islam is simply incorrect, but don’t let the facts get in the way of that nice persecution complex you are so fond of.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Rebelling doesn’t guarantee anything. Look at history. It’s a dominator game.

    I’ve got to go outside. It’s a beautiful day. I can’t bear to be in here hearing things like we don’t know why 10,000 people applied for 90 positions when millions have been laid off.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    And I don’t have any drug habit, Doug, unless you want to count my smoking and a half-pint of Bourbon every other day – shall we say, eight dollars a day for discretionary income (or $250 a month).

    I don’t think it’s any kind of exorbitant living by any standard, especially in the richest country in the world.

  • Doug Hunter

    #54

    “Is there an objective number that results in the right outcome?”

    No, everyone should work however much they see fit. If you want to live off the land in your backyard and just do enough work to keep your garden and chickens happy I’m all for it.

    As for hours, my father was always self employed and I’ve been a business owner so I’m used to very long hours, 8 hour days at a normal job always seemed like a helluva deal, plus as a worker you don’t take the problems home with you like the owners do.

    To lack of innovation/obselescence/cheap chinese crap: you’re preaching to the choir here. I would never tell anyone to spend their money on status symbols and useless junk. The most worthwile thing you can buy with wealth is freedom and time. How do you think I have the time to spend here? Would you rather I have been taxed more where I would be forced to work now so that wealth could be redistributed?

  • Doug Hunter

    “I don’t think it’s any kind of exorbitant living by any standard, especially in the richest country in the world.”

    Roger, you smoke, you drink bourbon, and you spend your time exchanging ideas here. What else do you want from life? More chinese junk and an Escalade. Come on man.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’re missing the point, Doug. I don’t.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You are displaying the right kind of values, though: “The most worthwile thing you can buy with wealth is freedom and time.”

    Socrates would be proud, and you’d be welcome in Plato’s Academy.

    It is about leisure and freeing oneself from material constraints. Except that in our society, you don’t need wealth in order to do that – only a measure of comfort.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    As I recall, The Onion posted a headline a few weeks after 9/11 essentially stating that we needed to get over our preoccupation with the attacks so that we could once again focus on meaningless crap.

    How much of what some people do in fact spend 8 hours a day producing, falls under the “crap” moniker?

    I wrote a blog post a couple of years ago regarding something I found at an interstate truck stop in northwestern Indiana.

    Plastic vomit. The packaging noted that it was “New and Improved.” Improved how and, even more to the point, why? How good does plastic vomit have to be? Can we assume that one or more plastics engineers or whatever, spent days, perhaps weeks or months in their efforts to “improve” the product? Was there a mandate from above – some corporate mucky-muck directing their R&D people to bring plastic vomit into the 21st century? Was or is there competition? Is there more than one company producing plastic vomit? Was there perhaps a celebration noting the achievement – a popping of a few bottles of cheap Champaigne; a round of toasts? Are there hoards of American, Mexican or Chinese production workers spending their entire working lives whacking out those gross little plastic puddles?

    Walk through about any retail store and take note of how much useless crap we have at our disposal. And disposal is the correct word as about 90% of such things wind up in the trash, often within hours of purchase, or at best are soon relegated to the back of some shelf or closet or garage collecting dust.

    But all of the above doesn’t matter as long as the aforementioned mucky-muck and his or her fellow mucks are lining their pockets in gold through the production and successful marketing of cheap, useless crap.

    B

  • Doug Hunter

    And I guarantee you that plastic vomit was made in China. Everytime I look at something like that I imagine how big of idiots the Chinese people must think we are.

  • Baronius

    “I don’t think it’s any kind of exorbitant living by any standard, especially in the richest country in the world.”

    There we go back to relative wealth. Why should you compare your financial status to your fellow Americans? How is that any different from the greed that you can’t stand among the wealthy?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “Everytime I look at something like that I imagine how big of idiots the Chinese people must think we are.”

    But they are right.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    But Baronius. I never registered any complaint about my situation relative to anybody else’s. I suffer neither from envy nor greed. I’d like to believe I’m free of that.

    But when I speak of greed, I’m commenting on others – about their wasted and or misdirected lives. So yes, I am passing a judgment.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Don’t worry, Chris,

    I won’t waste time commenting further on your alleged open-mindedness, nor on your desire to keep facts from interfering with your delusions. Like many other Europeans, the Arabs have you trained to be a good dhimmi. I’ll consider that point and remember it in ALL the comments you make from here on in. As my neighbor says when asking us to dismiss the comments of a retarded girl we all know, “consider the source”. She gives good advice….

    Good evening.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Ruvy, you waste your time whenever you try to attack me personally and ignore the factual matters of your simplistic and offensive views.

    Of course, if you want to keep undermining both your views and your adopted homeland by continually revealing yourself as a craven liar who won’t respond to matters of substance and is scared of shadows, go right ahead. That is freedom…

    As to your offensive remark about a “retarded” person, you might want to consider this extract from a comment made today by candye kane on this article Kill the Disabled – They Are Unworthy of Life before making another remark along the same lines “I just came back from the world congress for down syndrome in Dublin, Ireland… We featured two down syndrome performers – Sujeet Desai of Syracuse, NY who plays clarinet, violin, piano and a host of other instruments and Hayley Rehbock of Capetown, South Africa who dances and emceed articulately. Both are down syndrome individuals. Both are amazingly bright and engaging as people and it was a privilege to see and hear them perform.” I wonder if anyone has ever said that about you?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    I’ve just now read your article…and you’re hiding your head in the sand. I don’t agree with everything Garafalo said (and her history is somewhat fuzzy), but she is right that there IS a significant racist bent to much of the conservative rhetoric.

    Remember, YOURS is the party of Bill Bennett’s “Violence would go down if there were no more black babies” and Rush’s “Barack the Magic Negro” and Rush’s “Buses should be segregated”…

    …c’mon, Dave – you KNOW I can go on all day about this with good hard provable FACT. The racist words and actions are almost completely committed by conservatives and those who support them.

    Dave – you’re an intelligent man. That’s not patronization – it’s a statement of fact. But it’s really sad to me that you feel you need to post articles like this when all the evidence and available data show the racist attitudes of so many within the Republican party.

    Frank Herbert once said that knowledge is the surest barrier to learning. Apply his maxim to your ‘knowledge’ that there’s so little racism in the Republican party.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Glenn,

    I posted a response to you on the other thread (an earlier article by Dave, on unemployment).

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Dave, YOU HAVE to see this new video that Kevin Jackson made about Garfola…

    Garofalo Defines the Racists

    Too funny and the timing fits into your article!

  • http://marksaleski.com Mark Saleski

    The reason he’s acceptable to the left is that he’s black without being threatening because he’s such a nice, safe, white-acting black man.

    wow. without a doubt one of the most ignorant statements you’ve ever made at bc.

    actually, one of most ignorant statements i’ve ever seen at bc, irrespective of source.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I must concur. Somehow the statement escaped me, probably because I didn’t want to believe my eyes.

    It is, indeed, one of the most ignorant statements ever, and the most racist to boot.

    I can’t only surmise it was voiced for the sole purpose of provocation.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Brilliant video, Christine. Glenn and the rest of you, why don’t you go tell it to Kevin Jackson.

    And Mark and Roger, it’s a simple statement of fact. The racism is in the eye of the beholder, as is so often the case.

    And don’t you dare try to put it on me, because during the election all of a year ago Obama was criticized by many african americans for not being “black enough” — I hardly came up with the idea. They had articles about it in those notorious racist publications Time Magazine and Esquire among scores of others. Give me a break.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Well, Dave. When you say “it’s a simple statement of fact,” I have no idea whom you have in mind. I certainly don’t feel that way, so whom are you speaking for. The whites who had voted for him?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The racist words and actions are almost completely committed by conservatives and those who support them.

    I’m sorry Glenn, but this just doesn’t match my experience. In my experience the most racist people I have known are working class union Democrats from the northeast. And whatever racist conservatives there are — and I acknowledge that there are some — don’t seem to be involved in the tea party movement in any notable way.

    Glenn, have you been to one of these rallies? Have you talked to any of these people? I have. Kevin Jackson has in the video Christine posted. We know what we’re talking about. You’re just repeating the second hand slanders of people like Garofalo.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Honestly this spittle-flecked narrative reads more like a print version of “get the hell off my lawn you damn kids”…

    Yes, Deano. But sometimes you really do have to get the damned kids off the lawn. And in Texas we’re allowed to shoot them.

    Dave

  • http://marksaleski.com Mark Saleski

    And Mark and Roger, it’s a simple statement of fact. The racism is in the eye of the beholder, as is so often the case.

    eh, no it’s not a fact. it’s an opinion. and i didn’t say it was racist, but ignorant…a necessary but not sufficient condition for racism.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    To tell the truth, I was tempted to characterize the statement as racist as well, but I am glad I haven’t.

    Still, it’s a hell of a presumption that Obama was elected because wasn’t a “regular” black. Meaning what? Coming across as belligerent, aggressive, irrational – any of the above? Just asking.

    Why not say that the whites who voted for him was not for the absence of any of those “traits” but rather because he did come across as capable and intelligent enough for the office? He did overcome Hillary, and I don’t think no other Democrat at the time would have a chance in hell (in spite of her many negatives). But no – you are reducing any positive appraisal he had earned in the eyes of the white electorate and replace it with a taint of possible racism. Namely, that Obama beat Hillary (and McCain later on) as if by default – not because of any qualities the whites so in him but only because of the lack of “negatives.”

    Do you really comprehend what you’re saying? It’s like indicting most of the whites who had voted for him in the primaries and in the national election as . . . either racist or so anti-Bush that they’d rather see a “nigger” in the White House rather than another Republican – as long as it’s a “good nigger.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/christine-lakatos/ Christine

    Dave, glad you caught the video. As you know, I have written several articles on this “racist accuser” issue and it seems futile. For some reason, many, like Garofalo are stuck in their ignorance, or is it “stockholm syndrome”.

    If Kevin is not convincing them, what are we “white folk” gonna do? At least my friends believe me! LOL

    It’s too bad because this issue just creates more division and distracts us from the real issues of the day and healing our land from racism. Sad for the USA!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Do you really comprehend what you’re saying? It’s like indicting most of the whites who had voted for him in the primaries and in the national election as . . . either racist or so anti-Bush that they’d rather see a “nigger” in the White House rather than another Republican – as long as it’s a “good nigger.”

    You said it, Roger, not me.

    But the truth is that the more mainstream someone appears to be the more electable they are, and it’s not just about race, it includes religion and lifestyle. A married candidate is a safer bet than a divorced one. A mainstream denominational Christian is a safer bet than a fundamentalist, catholic or mormon. Remember the controversy over Kennedy being a Catholic? All part of the same syndrome.

    Dave

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There’s no argument here about “electability,” only with the manner in which you couched the issue.

  • pablo

    Chris 47 you said:

    “Ruvy, supporting a UN measure that “calls on states to condemn and criminalize any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” is not “declaring war on free speech”.

    Suppose there was a religion that spent centuries literally torturing, and burning at the stake those that did not agree with it, God forbid. Would it then be ok with you if a person attacks that religion with venom and hatred through words? If not, I suggest that you would be extremely naive and utterly wrong.

    It is one thing to discriminate against another human being because of her/his race, or even religion, it is quite another thing to criminalize speech which is hateful towards another person, or religion for whatever the reasons. The road you tread Chris with your United Nations buddies is a very perilous one indeed. I not only have a right to hate others and/or their beliefs, I have a right to voice them as well. Although political hatred in and of itself is not mentioned in this UN resolution, it will surely come as well.

    I not only hate the religion that tortured, maimed, and burnt human beings for centuries, I also hate nazi scumbags and their ilk, for a variety of reasons.

    I cannot help but wonder what you think of laws in various so called democratic and free countries that put people in prison for disagreeing with orthodox history, I sense that you do not find a problem with it, I hope that I am wrong. This road is nothing less than a tyranny and will ALWAYS lead to more hatred not less, and totalitarianism.

  • Jordan Richardson

    The racism is in the eye of the beholder, as is so often the case.

    You’re an idiot.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Pablo, I normally ignore your comments because they usually combine profound long-windedness with a lack of understanding, literalness and pedantry that numbs my mind.

    Although your latest comment is still full of those qualities, it was brief enough that I can still formulate a response.

    Your hypothetical scenario is irrelevant because the UN measure calls for condemning or criminalising “hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, not hatred itself.

    You will therefore still be free to say what you hate, just as I am free to say that I hate wilful stupidity and ignorance, particularly when it is coming from montheistic sources such as the triple madness of militant Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which I strongly dislike and distrust.

    What you wouldn’t be able to say, if it ever became law wherever you live, is “I hate those xxxxxxxxs, let’s kill them all”.

    Although I believe the world will be a far better place when the literally fantastic beliefs of monotheism have declined in credibility and importance to the level of Astrology or Phrenology, I wouldn’t support murdering all the gullible and cruelly manipulated people who believe this stuff.

    I might possibly go so far as to support a certain limited amount of discrimination against faithists in situations where their beliefs could lead them to not be trusted to perform certain employment related duties or to commit acts that caused danger to others, such as employing people who believe medical treatment to be wrong in health services, but even then the matter would need some seriously nuanced handling and is fraught with potential problems.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    A bit off topic, but I imagine the right wing pundits will be going off on Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. I think they are still apoplectic over Gore having won it.

    I do think it is premature, but I believe the Nobel committee awards its Peace Prize based in part on what the recipient may be able to accomplish in the future. Obviously, Obama has the potential to make significant advances toward the goal of world peace, if he chooses to do so.

    For starters, he ought to get us out of Afghanistan as quickly and cleanly as possible. Afghanistan is an enigma no one has been able to crack. Do people really want to sacrifice their sons and daughters simply so the US can save face? It’s a bottomless pit.

    B

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    “For starters, he ought to get us out of Afghanistan as quickly and cleanly as possible.”

    Right. But he does seem to be caving under the pressure. Not a good quality in the executive.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    There’s another problem, B-man. What to do with the armed forces once they’re not “gainfully” employed? At least now they’re earning their own keep by munition manufactures and the war industry. But if peace comes about, what are we going to do?
    Release them to the vagaries of our labor market? That’s surely jack up the percentages by a couple of points.

    (Some sarcasm intended.)

  • http://marksaleski.com Mark Saleski

    don’t you be dissing phrenology mr. rose!

    ;-)

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Doug,

    28- It is strange we remain so divided. Many of your posts read like something I would write (except those that describe my economic understanding as selfish)

    50 – Finally, how the heck can you be supportive of freeloading? Freeloading is inducing someone else to be your slave. When you refuse to do the necessary work to support your life you force someone else to work extra to cover for you. That’s why the snarlers are snarling, becuase they are being forced to carry someone else’s load and instead of being grateful the freeloaders are simply asking for more. I can certainly understand that this is sometimes necessary, but to actively support and empathize with the behavior is questionable.

    It’s because I don’t support this system of doing things at all, Doug. I don’t believe in repairing or reforming it or honoring its tenets. I believe it is altogether a flawed design. I don’t oppose working. I am in favor of everybody working for their support. I also see evidence that if the plan was fair, people would work. When it is dehumanizing and rigged, I don’t think they should have to. I oppose a game where some cannot win because others insure it. And I see the ‘moral code’ of those who have set the game up as manipulative and exploitative.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    right down Mr. rose’s alley:

    Etymology
    Originated in Jamaican Vernacular English, perhaps originally short for disrespect or disparage.

    Verb
    to diss (third-person singular simple present disses, present participle dissing, simple past and past participle dissed)
    (US, British, slang) to put (someone) down, or show disrespect by the use of insulting language or dismissive behaviour.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    For starters, he ought to get us out of Afghanistan as quickly and cleanly as possible. Afghanistan is an enigma no one has been able to crack.

    It’s quite simple. It’s a lesson that Alexander the Great, the British and the Soviets, among others, have learned and whose experience ought to have given the current expeditionary force some pause.

    The solution to Afghanistan is to stay the hell out of the place or, failing that, get the hell out.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    The racism is in the eye of the beholder, as is so often the case.

    Ah, I see!

    Barack the Magic Negro wasn’t racist – we just THINK it was!

    Oh my my my, what were we thinking when we thought these statements by Rush Limbaugh were racist?

    “You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.”

    “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?”

    “The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.”

    “Take that bone out of your nose and call me back”(to an African American female caller).

    Rush’s call for segregated buses isn’t racist, either, I guess.

    And the Drudge Report’s headline “White Student Beaten on School Bus; Crowd Cheers”, gee whiz, that CAN’T be racist – I mean, the inclusion of ‘white’ in the headline is purely incidental, isn’t it?

    And gee whiz, the vice-chairman of the Young Republicans couldn’t have had any racist feelings when she laughed at racist comments by others on her Facebook page…and ‘de-friended’ someone who complained about those racist comments.

    And GOP senator Trent Lott’s longtime support of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a neo-Confederate outfit that grew from the white Citizens Councils, support of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and opposition to civil rights and integration…well, we’re SO silly for thinking THIS was racist.

    But then neither was Trent Lott’s mentor, Strom Thurmond, huh?

    And racism can’t have played any part when Lou Dobbs blamed Latino immigrants for an alleged leprosy epidemic that was widely debunked, and asserted Latinos’ criminality with the wild exaggeration that “illegal aliens” take up a third of the cells in our prisons and jails, and hosts extremist guests like FAIR, the Minutemen, and controversial Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who he called “a model for the whole country”.

    And silly me for thinking there was any racist element in GOP congressman Roy Blunt’s “monkey rules” for D.C. – I mean, he was referring to India, right? Of course it doesn’t mean anything that the guy who introduced him was his close friend Tony Perkins, who in 1996 while working as a GOP Senate race campaign manager Perkins paid $82,500 to buy a phone banking list from former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Then, in 2002, Perkins spoke at a fundraiser for the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a national white supremacist group.

    Now Karl Rove’s mentor Lee Atwater can’t have been racist either. He must have been talking only about politics when he said in an interview: “You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.””

    Hm. Here’s this story of how non-racist Texas law enforcement is in Teneha, Texas. But I must admit that law enforcement in one small Texas town cannot be indicative of Texas white conservatives.

    When Dubya said he was going to tell the Jews that they’re all going to hell, that wasn’t racism! Actually, it’s not – it’s religious intolerance.

    Dave, I’m really getting tired of your insistence that racism isn’t playing a major role in modern conservatism. As I said previously, I can go on ALL DAY listing examples of racism by conservatives…whereas YOU canNOT provide like examples of racism by liberals. Yes, SOME liberals are racist – but if DOCUMENTED CASES are any guide, far, FAR fewer liberals than conservatives are racist.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    DAVE!

    I really try not to post significant portions of articles here – it’s probably a violation of BC rules and rightly so – but your willful ignorance of how racism is affecting the conservatives needs to be ripped away.

    The below is an interview with a retired Air Force Brigadier General, a conservative who says he loved Bush 41:

    A retired Air National Guard general called Thursday with three worries.

    “Something bad’s gone wrong in this country,” said retired Brig. Gen. Tom Daniels, 62, of Fort Worth.

    “Something’s wrong in Arlington. Something’s wrong in Austin. And something’s wrong in America.”

    He flew missions in Vietnam. In the Pentagon, he served proudly under President George H.W. Bush “whom I loved,” he added.

    “Now our country chooses a black man as president, and suddenly, the governor is talking about secession? And Arlington is boycotting the president? They won’t even let children see him in school?”

    Eight years removed from 9-11, Daniels feels a chill.

    “Look how united we were!” he said in his booming command voice. “Now look how we’ve squandered it!”

    He didn’t even have to mention U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson:

    “We’re hollering at each other now,” Daniels said. “We hate each other.”

    And he sees that as dividing our heroes in uniform.

    “I talk to military guys all over the world: white, black, brown,” he said. “They’re asking, ‘If it was unpatriotic to talk this way about the last president, isn’t this unpatriotic?’ They’re concerned. This is nothing but open, unabated racism. Nobody’s saying that.”

    I know what some of you are going to say. It’s political, not racial.

    But I also can’t imagine people acting this way over, say, a President Harry Reid or even President Al Gore.

    “All I know is, the black guy wins, and suddenly these nuts are out there on TV and radio preaching to long-haul truck drivers all over the country,” Daniels said.

    “Somebody needs to start talking back. Where are the moderates in the Republican Party? Where are the people like George [H.W.] Bush who made sense? They’re letting the nuts lead them around by the nose.”

    He is particularly steamed that Arlington schools still refuse to replay Obama’s address to schoolchildren yet will bus fifth-graders to hear George W. Bush on Sept. 21 at a Super Bowl event at Cowboys Stadium. “I’ve always called Arlington a true all-American city,” he said. “I love the parks. I love how they stuck their neck out to get baseball and football.”

    He lives near the Arlington border and shops in the city.

    “But now they’re one of the few cities in America boycotting the president’s speech? That’s wrong.”

    Daniels reserved special vitriol for Gov. Rick Perry.

    “He’s Air Force. He should be ashamed,” Daniels said. “I’m ashamed of him.” Perry “should know better” than to float talk about Texas leaving the U.S., Daniels said.

    “Even for a campaign, it’s the wrong thing to talk about,” he said. “That’s not our Texas. We love our country. We’re not going anywhere. We don’t believe in secession.”

    He had one final question.

    “When is somebody in Arlington or Austin going to stand up to these people?”

    OPEN YOUR EYES, Dave – Please!

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    99 Dr.D

    It’s too early to drink for me (only because I am still on coffee, not because I adhere to any prescribed notions about much of anything :-) and hopefully for you too (unless, of course, you are rebelling against drinking times at 9:00 a.m. or have stumbled upon a particularly wonderful ongoing party). But I’ll get some wine to make a toast to that idea–for later.

  • Doug Hunter

    “And the Drudge Report’s headline ‘White Student Beaten on School Bus; Crowd Cheers’, gee whiz, that CAN’T be racist”

    Your entire comment, and this point in particular, is so devioid of logic or perspective that it’s simply breathtaking. I want you to breath deeply and perform a mental exercise.

    See that feeling you get when you read this headline regarding a white victim of racism, now imagine the roles were reversed. You’d be doing what Drudge was doing and I’d be the one pointing it out as racist. If you had at least held a consistent view and applauded Drudge for shedding light on another racist incident I could respect your position on logical grounds, as it is you’ve shown yourself to be nothing but a political hack with limited capacity for intelligent analysis.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You may have a point there, Doug. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.

    Why shouldn’t the “race” of the victim(s) be pointed out in either case? One has to have an agenda to do so only in some cases, but not when the shoe falls on another foot.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Have to agree with Doug here. This was clearly a race-based attack.

    Glenn’s other examples are pretty cut-and-dried, although I’m not sold on the argument that the Republicans, the Democrats, the Libertarians, the Greens or the Give The Moon Back To The Clangers Party are either institutionally, or even simply more inclined to be, racist.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc and Roger –

    Do not rush to judgment. The fight on the school bus was NOT racially motivated. The student being charged is mentally ill. Indeed, the attack occurred not on a run-of-the-mill bus route, but one specifically serving a school for emotionally disturbed children.

    I’ve been in a couple of fights with blacks that was not at all racially motivated…and this was back in the day when I was still racist! The school bus fight wasn’t at all about race – it was about bullying. It was only the rabid right that wanted to believe otherwise.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    I don’t believe the Republicans are ‘institutionally’ racist – but they are strongly influenced by racists…far more so than are the Democrats. You know it. You see the proof.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Maybe so, Glenn. But why it’s always racially motivated when it’s the other way around. I’ve lived in Oakland, CA for the past ten years and I don’t need to know enough about this particular case to know that racial bias and prejudice cut both ways. So let’s be frank.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    As I’ve said often before – racism is in all cultures, peoples, nations.

    The difference lay in the fact that the Republicans are tolerating such racism by politicians and conservatives pundits in their own party whereas the Democrats do not show such tolerance for racism by their own.

    If this were not obvious to the masses, would the minorities indeed be staying away from the Republican party in droves…even when the conservative family-first Republican party platform is significantly more compatible with the cultural mores of most of America’s minorities?

    No. They see where the racists are tolerated, and where the racists are not tolerated.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I’m not going to dispute that, Glenn, only saying that I see no point arguing the matter over and over again with people who are just going to flatly deny it. What do you plan to gain? A confession?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Rog –

    “Whoops there goes another rubber tree plant”. I’m trying – I can’t help but try.

    Yeah, I know I’m beating my head against a brick wall – and who knows! Maybe not today or this month or this decade, but someday Dave might take a second look at a lily-white GOP convention…and things click into place.

    Or I might be wasting my time…but by doing the research necessary to face off against the conservatives, I’ve learned a great deal – and part of what I’ve learned is from you in that I needed to find the right lever, the right button to push.

    Thanks, Rog -

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Not in a million years, Glenn. Remember, facts never convince. You’ll have to break his defenses down and smash his political philosophy to smithereens.

  • pablo

    Christopher 92 you said:

    “Pablo, I normally ignore your comments because they usually combine profound long-windedness with a lack of understanding, literalness and pedantry that numbs my mind.”

    It never ceases to amaze me that people such as yourself Chris who is an editor (censor) on this site set the tone for comments. You could have chosen to ignore my comments about the recent UN hate speech resolution, or responded to it civilly, however you choose to preface your remarks with denegration and ridicule. It is no wonder that the politics section of this site is hurting for traffic.

    This is one of a variety of reasons that I rarely comment on this site anymore. Aside from the fact that to prop up your web stats you have instituted a scheme that makes the user reload the page ad naseum to see what has been commented on, with no regard for the user, having folks such as yourself that constantly condescend and ridicule others that you do not agree with speaks for itself. Oh I know you may retort that I have done my own share in the past of ridicule, however I am not an editor (censor) of this site, and I NEVER with the only exception to Baronius initiated such behavior.

    I also got a chuckle how you pulled all the multi-syllable words out of your limited vocabulary to act as though you have a command of the english language, indeed it comes across as a person with a serious inferiority complex.

    I also got a kick out of how about a year ago you came sniveling to me on how to make dough online as an affiliate, to which I responded with an offer to you, of which you were not quite able to grasp the opportunity that I did in fact afford you. Last year I pulled in well over $234,000 in affiliate sales, how about you kiddo? There is nothing like cutting off your own nose to spite your face Chris. Enjoy! I sure am :)

  • Jordan Richardson

    don’t you be dissing phrenology mr. rose!

    The Roots!

  • Jordan Richardson

    This is one of a variety of reasons that I rarely comment on this site anymore.

    I’ll give you three Canadian dollars toward your affiliate sales if you can turn that “rarely” into a “never.”

    :)

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Are you sure you’re OK, Jordan?

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Pablo, telling the truth as I see it is not “denegration and ridicule” (it is denigration by the way).

    I shudder at the prospect, but I can’t really let your various presumptious inaccuracies pass unrebuffed.

    The politics section of the site is one of the most popular. You have no access to the site traffic stats so you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    There isn’t a “scheme that makes the user reload the page ad naseum” (it is nauseum by the way).

    Condescension is in the eye of the beholder. I wrote the truth as I see it and rebutted your sloppily written and inaccurate comment.

    If you see that as condescension, I can’t do anything about that except recommend that you try to read with more comprehension and less presumption before making your own contribution.

    As you already know, if you or any other participant in this site feels that I have over-stepped in the execution of my duties as the evil censor, the process is to take it up with the senior management, so feel free to do so if you think you have a case. I am only human and if did occasionally make a mistake it would be understandable and they would quite rightly correct me.

    I must apologise for the use of words of more than one syllable. I will contact my English teachers and tell them what a mistake they made in educating me so as to have a reasonable vocabulary.

    Finally, your final paragraph is a complete misrepresentation of our conversation, which I will prove by reproducing it:-

    Me: I too am making some of my income off the internet and am always interested in learning more about it, so I was curious as to what exactly it is that you are doing? I am doing PPC for CPA and CPC offers, online publishing (separately to Blogcritics stuff) and also doing a lot of SEO and PPC for third parties.

    You: As to internet marketing, it is indeed a fascinating subject. Everyone, including myself wants to know how much another is making online, and more importantly what is their niche. However no one in their right mind wants to really disclose this, particularly niches.

    I prefer an offer for an offer to help each other along the way in our venture to make dough online. What I mean is perhaps I can show you a trick as it were, in return for one of yours.
    Everyone that is involved in internet marketing (and actually making some money) has tricks, that they either discovered or someone else showed them.

    I have one that I could offer you for the same. The condition being that if I offer you an internet trick, (a technical online gadget for advertising) that you did not actually know about, you give me the same back in return. An attempt at value for value, involving no money.

    Me: Personally, I don’t care about keeping stuff to myself. you can barter with me if you want but I am very happy to discuss anything, even specific niches, because I don’t believe it makes any difference. In fact, I think I’d go so far as to say that openness is a better strategy, but I’m probably in a minority on that point.

    At which point the email exchange ended as you didn’t reply.

    I do hope the money you are making online is some kind of compensation for the brain-bending warping of reality you are maintaining as you live out your days in Asia.

  • Clavos

    Nauseam

  • Baronius

    Clavos is right. A naseum is a public display or exhibit of noses. “Ad naseum” means going to the naseum.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Thanks, Clavos!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good to see you, Clavos – even as a grammar Nazi.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    AD NAUSEUM

    vs

    AD NAUSEAM

    “Seeing how often ad nauseam is misspelled makes some people want to throw up. English writers also often mistakenly half-translate the phrase as ad nausea.

    This Latin phrase comes from a term in logic, the argumentum ad nauseam, in which debaters wear out the opposition by just repeating arguments until they get sick of the whole thing and give in.”

    Source: wsu.edu.

    Apparently, Christopher Rose’s “nauseum” must be a variant, English spelling.

    I don’t have OED so I can’t vouch for it authoritatively. Anyone – correct me if I’m wrong.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    No, it was a mistake on my part.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Sorry, Chris. It was an honest question.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good show, Arch. Trenchcoat is just fine, like the good old McGruff, except fighting for the American way.

    Somehow, I’ve always pictured you so.

  • jeff phillips

    Hmmm, I thought she should run for congress

  • J.T.

    >The elite are just what they sound like, the small dominant group that holds power via wealth and influence. Aka the bourgeoisie.

    The bourgeoisie is actually the upper middle class, and the left is plenty bourgeoisie, like I don’t know, Garofolo for instance. Especially the way she uses the classist term redneck.