Home / Culture and Society / Obama’s Authenticity Shines Through Bombastic Inquisition

Obama’s Authenticity Shines Through Bombastic Inquisition

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

President Barack Obama has been called many things by many people who don’t know him and many who have never met him. He has also been accused of many things by seemingly crazy people. He has been called a socialist by some conservative politicians. He is viewed as a foreigner by people known as birthers. A large number of Americans say that they think that he is a Muslim—even a secret Muslim. Obama has been portrayed at the same time in protest crowds as Hitler and Stalin. He has been accused of wanting to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor (read “black”). His health care plan has been described as a kind of reparations to black people for slavery. One well-known man even accused the president of having a deep-seated hatred for white people, though he has since retracted that statement. A cute delusionary woman fear-hustler portrays herself as being on the presidential level in knowledge and gravitas, only to hustle speaking fees from low-information voters. Low-information white people hate Obama, they say, because he is destroying America.

Barack Obama has consented to be interviewed by conservative commentators who are largely responsible for these negative views of him that have taken hold. He does this knowing how shabbily they will treat him and his office. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, interviewed the president on Sunday, February 7, 2011. During the interview, O’Reilly sat on the edge of his chair like an eager, over-sugar-fed child with attention deficit disorder. He pummeled the president with disrespect and interruptions. At one point O’Reilly’s behavior remind me of the “smart-ass white boys” ambassador Andrew Young described in the administration of Jimmy Carter, who shut him out from Carter. Finally O’Reilly became so obnoxious he resembled a drunken St. Patrick’s Day reveler stumbling out of a mid-Manhattan Blarney Stone Pub looking for a fight.

He asked the president how it felt to be hated by so many, a feeling O’Reilly has gotten to know very well himself. The president’s answer was sober. He said that people who hate him don’t know him. What they really hate are those distorted characterizations of him floating around out there, the same characterizations which O’Reilly helps to construct and perpetuate. Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC said that O’Reilly interrupted the president 43 times during the interview—he counted them on air. It antagonized many Americans to see the president of the United States handled in this manner by a person whose journalism methods are deceptive and meaningless.

Professor Harry G. Frankfurt, formerly of Princeton University, opens his thesis on deceptive drivel with these words: “One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit,” and he titled the book that resulted from the thesis On Bullshit.

I have come to the conclusion that Barack Obama sees through the bullshit. He is connected to the Universal Laws of self-actualization and this is why he is able to take all of this in good stride and stay way above the bullshit. I believe that Obama knows what I know (hang in there, this is slippery), and what is known by many of the world’s scientists and spiritual thinkers. That is, that everything in the cosmos is made of molecules. Science has been able to break down the composition of molecules to atoms and atoms to subatomic particles. From there, they have deduced that at the core of these subatomic particles is energy. Everything in the cosmos is energy: that tree, George Bush (both of them), a bone, a flower, humans and our thoughts, everything is comprised of energy, everything in the cosmos is comprised of energy. We are all made from the same subatomic particles. We are all the same thing connected like an infinite haze. This connection being absolutely total, the instant energy sends out a message from somewhere, it is received throughout the cosmos, processed through the Universal Laws, and manifested back at the point of origin all in an instant. O’Reilly’s insincere questioning is instantly registered and manifested in his karma; similarly all the other bullshit from bullshit people comes right back at them instantly. You’re an unhappy miserable human being because that’s the message you send to the cosmos; you are the energy that goes into what you think of yourself. You’re a confused middle-class infidel for the same reason. Why, there are even unhappy rich obstructionists not yet reconciled with the Universal Laws. People live the miserable lives they have because they are living in a dream state and unawakened to the Universal Laws that govern everything in the cosmos. To be happy and productive, you have to be consciously in sync with the Universal Laws—what’s known as the awakened state. President Obama is clearly in an awakened state of being.

More and more people are becoming awakened either through spirituality or through the advancements of science, but the vast majority of people still think that stuff in life just happens. They are unaware of the empowerment to be gained by living a life consciously in sync with the Universal Laws and they are the source of much, if not all, of the world’s difficulties. Bill O’Reilly is one such person. Look at that interview and judge for yourself which person is in sync, appears aligned and in harmony with himself, and which lives in the chaos of randomness. O’Reilly pummeled the president with disrespect and interruptions, but Obama’s authenticity shined through it all.

Near the end of the interview, which took place on Super Bowl Sunday, Obama gracefully reminded O’Reilly that he was invited to attend the Super Bowl party at the White House, O’Reilly quickly declined saying he didn’t want to “spoil it” for the other attendees. Dear reader, get into what O’Reilly meant by that—what are the ways, he thinks, he would have spoiled the party for the others? Does he know that he is out of sync with those who are aligned and in harmony with the Universal Laws?

Now extend this principle to all the other out-of-sync people and movements you see on cable television and hear on talk radio, and you see the extent of the problem. There is an entire cable television network created to generate dissention and prevent people from working together in harmony and reaching their highest potential as human beings. We have to work to first awaken (If you change yourself, you change the world) ourselves, then to awaken enough of them in the next few years to improve the quality of life in America. President Barack Obama’s amazing display of humility during the O’Reilly interview should go a long way in awakening some sleepwalkers. His authenticity had to have gotten through to some Fox News viewers, and what these people say to their families and friends about their conversions may even influence others to awaken and in time, a great awakening will overcome Americans and who will we have to thank for this? Bill O’Reilly and his crudeness. This is exactly how the reciprocity of the Universal Laws works.

Powered by

About Horace Mungin

  • How does shit like this even get published at BC?
    What a waste of my time even trying to read it!

  • It is actually quite easy, Andy.

    You click on that link top right under the search box, sign up, write an article and, hey presto, it is published. That way you could write your own shit!

  • I don’t think I need to sign up CR. But I get your point!

    I may post soon….

  • El Bicho

    A better question is how comments like Andy’s are allowed to stay. Why not offer a rebuttal to what Horace says that shows some thought?

  • Andy does behave on occasions like Archie Bunker. Not one of his better days.

  • Because I was too busy throwing up after reading it. Why bother? It’s typical leftist BS!

    Obama’s done two decent interviews in 4 years and O’Reilly was the person who asked the questions…and I’m not even an O’Reilly fan!!! I suppose liberals would love to see an interview where the president is asked a question and allowed to prattle on and on and on and on without really answering…but according to the writer, he was “interuppted” while he was trying to answer…no, he was interrupted when he was trying NOT to answer the questions! I’m sure Chris Matthews would’ve done a better job in between the times he’s stroking himself to get rid of that tingle running up his leg.

    We can tell where the writers loyalties lie just by reading the article. Or better yet, just look at the rest of the stuff (I said stuff so CR wouldn’t have to delete my real feeling on what he writes) that he’s written! Who gives a rats ass what admitted socialist Larry O’Donnell thinks?

    Even the Whitehouse said it believed it was a good interview…Hell! Even Morning Joe said it was a good interview!!!

    Is this still BlogCRITICS? I was just wondering…

    Oh yeah, that’s right, we’re supposed to be tuning down the rhetoric…I am! I’m tuning it down to about the same level as the union ASSHOLES in Wisconsin.

    Have a nice day…you bunch of whiners!

  • And Archie was from Queens, I’m a Jersey kid! Different animal!

  • Clavos

    A better question is how comments like Andy’s are allowed to stay.

    It wasn’t a personal attack, EB.

    Are you advocating censorship of speech you don’t like?

  • Truly, the Post Comment button can just easily not be a good friend. That’s why the Preview Comment button is there, on the left.

  • But truly, Andy himself owned up to the fact that his initial response, by way of expletive, was below (his) par. We both know he can do better. Regardless of what any of us thinks of Obama – and I’m certainly not his fan – or of the slant given by Mr. Mungin, Andy’s original response was nothing but an ejaculation.

    You may call it speech if you like; I don’t. Still, he’s got the right.

  • Clavos

    You may call it speech if you like

    It’s speech, and it’s protected.

  • I believe I said he’s got the right.

  • Besides, I was only trying to elevate Andy rather than appeal to his worst instincts.

  • Boeke

    Here’s the height of Andy’s thought process:

    “I’m tuning it down to about the same level as the union ASSHOLES in Wisconsin.

    Have a nice day…you bunch of whiners!”

    Judge for yourselves.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Horace –

    I strongly agree with you. The loony-tunes Rightists on here won’t allow themselves to recognize the virtues of graciousness and patience. In all honesty, President Obama’s patience reminds me of how many Asians I know refuse to publicly lose their tempers and criticize obliquely rather than use straightforward attacks as I would myself. That’s one of the reasons I like him so much – because I feel I understand him better than most.

  • Horace Mungin

    Finally a comment on the Substance of my article – thank you Glenn.

  • I do concur, Glenn, with a proviso though. It’s part of being in office, don’t you think? So who are we contrasting now President Obama with? Bill O’Reilly? Certainly not! What other office holder comes to mind? Now, that would be a meaningful comparison.

    Sorry, Horace, I’m not minimizing the force of your article, only posing a question

  • This article is very well written, at least until the ‘reciprocity of Universal Laws’ stuff starts. Lost me there.

    I didn’t object to the O’Reilly interview as much as some others have. And Obama deftly handled the ‘rude’ interruptions.

    I do wish, instead of denying that he wants to redistribute wealth, he had said, “Hell yeah, I’m undoing the redistribution of wealth that has robbed the middle class and vastly enriched the wealthy since at least 1981.” Might have caused a political tsunami, but it needs to be said.

  • Wouldn’t previewing comments be the same thing as thinking before you speak?

    Sorry, I don’t roll that way!

    I hear enough whining about Fox every time I turn on MSNBC, why do I need to read it here?

    Nice Boeke, you pick the last line of a fairly long comment, long by my standards, and say that’s the extent of my thought process. Apparently, you have a little issue with retaining what you read. If you didn’t, then you might have seen a little more of my “thought processes”.

  • Clavos

    Boeke sees nothing but what he wants to see — that which fits in his preconceived Weltanschaung and nothing more.

    He is exactly what he accuses me of being.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Andy –

    Fox News makes more (and more egregious) errors than all other major news networks put together…and it is glaring obvious that some of those ‘mistakes’ are intentional.

    I’m sure you won’t do it, but if you’d take the time to go to mediamatters.org, you’d find a list of several thousand errors, obfuscations, and outright lies told by Fox News. And these aren’t made-up – mediamatters shows the proof in every single accusation they make.

  • Glenn – I don’t watch Fox exclusively. I actually only watch it one hour a day, the 6 o’clock one to be exact. I know how the folks on Morning Joe felt about the interview because I watch it EVERY DAY. Well, not every day, no weekends.

    Lemme ‘splain it to you…

    I used to be a Fox fan. I used to watch O’Reilly every night. I even went to a live show back when I lived in AZ. Got on TV a bunch of times. They liked the longhaired jeans wearin’ guy in their audience I guess. His final talking point was actually about the question I asked him before the show dealing with his SVU tax that he and Arrianna Huffington always spewed about, before she became a crazy liberal. He stopped spewing it after I pointed out to him that his house was 3 times the size of mine and maybe he should be paying that same kind of tax there. Later, I felt, he got too big for his britches, so to speak, and I can’t stomach him much any more.
    I watch local news at 5, because Beck spews way to much religious BS for me. I’m a reformed catholic who spent way to many years in catholic school. I’ve had all the religion I can stomach for one lifetime.
    I do watch FoxNews at 6. I do think that Charles Krauthammer is worth listening to.

    After that, I chill, watch movies, listen to music, play with the dogs, or my granddaughter if she’s here.

    I’ve honestly tried to listen to Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz and O’Donnell, but they really get me yelling at the TV and I like having low blood pressure. I’d like to keep it that way. My pop has someone else’s heart in his chest and I had mine whacked open in 91. No fun!
    During the day, when I’m not here fighting with you guys or folks on FB, I try and hit a lot of different websites for my news. I even read some of the stuff here, including the arguments. Even when I wasn’t commenting, I still came back from time to time to see what you all were up to…

    I’m not the closed minded person some here think I am. I don’t give a rats ass about same sex marriage, an opinion that was changed here at BC BTW, I don’t care about abortion, unless I was involved in the creation. I’m for the legalization and taxation of marijuanna. I think it could really solve a lot of our countries economic woes, actually.

    I’m not a fan of unions. My pop was an independant long haul trucker for a lot of years and came home with bullet holes in his truck back in the 70’s. EVERYTHING in the northeast and in Cali costs more and I believe that’s directly related to unions. They’re a good thing for the people in the union, but they suck for the rest of us.

    These opinions don’t come from watching Fox. They come from living for extended periods of time in 7 different states and visiting 33 different countries. Yeah, yeah, somehow, when you visit places while you’re in the military you’re shielded from the real goings on in those countries…or so a few here have hinted. Like I never wandered into the seedier parts of town while I was in the navy! I never wandered out of them!

    I believe in safety nets, like unemployment insurance, medicaid and medicare. I think SS should be means tested.

    I’ll never vote for Palin or Rommney. I think they both suck.

    And lastly, I think our country elected an unqualified, community organizer, president. We’re heading down the crapper because our govt has become an ugly monster that feeds on dollars and our newly elected president wants to grow it even bigger.

    That’s me…I’m a nice guy…the nicest I know actually! Not the nicest person, that’d be my youngest daughter, just the nicest guy.

    Any questions?

  • I read the entire rant masquerading as legitimate political commentary. Despite its contents being fit for nothing more than a particularly bad post on DailyKos, it proved something to me once and for all. When one is in doubt of the quality of his or her writing, he or she will usually apply obscenities and notions of false victimhood in order to mask its vapid nature.

    For anyone else considering taking this course of action, allow me to tell you in advance that it simply will not work. The thing that passes for an “article” above should be proof enough.

  • El Bicho

    “It wasn’t a personal attack, EB.”

    That might explain why I never said it was.

    “Are you advocating censorship of speech you don’t like?”

    Nope. Just declaring Andy’s first response is more of a waste of time and space than Horace’s article and I haven’t read Horace’s article. If he only wants articles he agrees with, he’s at the wrong site.

  • Clavos

    That’s right, EB, you didn’t say that Andy’s comment was a personal attack, but you did call for it to be removed (i.e. censored) by saying:

    A better question is how comments like Andy’s are allowed to stay.

    Which is what led me to point out that there was no personal attack involved.

    You say that you are not advocating censorship, but what is removal of a comment if not censorship? Even if the reason for said removal is because the comment in your words, “…is more of a waste of time and space than Horace’s article…” the result of removal is the comment gets censored.

    Fortunately for all of us (and the site), the Comments Editors are much more tolerant than you.

  • I thought O’Reilly was on pretty good behaviour, by his (for want of a better word) standards.

    The most striking thing was his demeanour with Obama in contrast to how he acted with his predecessor. I’ve just watched portions of a couple of interviews he did with Bush, one in October 2006 and another last November. O’Reilly for the most part listens in respectful silence, and interrupts the President only (a) to finish his sentences for him, or (b) when Bush refuses to be goaded into criticizing Obama or other political opponents.

    I was actually quite impressed by the dignity and poise Bush exhibited in both interviews, although he must have known O’Reilly was going to give him a relatively easy ride.

    It’s quite funny, really.

  • El Bicho

    Right, because after visiting here nearly seven years, I thought a disagreeable comment should be censored because it had the word “shit” in it.

    My comment wasn’t written in a vacuum. What is the suggestion of Andy’s that “shit” like this shouldn’t be published? Is that not censorship as well? Or does that get a pass because you agree with the sentiment?

    Fortunately for all of us (and the site), you aren’t the judge of who is tolerant.

  • I’m never sure what El Bicho means because his comments are usually so drive-by cryptic. He loves to toss off a snarky one-liner and speed away without committing in any meaningful way to the discussion.

    In this instance, if he returned to seriously contend that “a disagreeable comment should be censored because it had the word ‘shit’ in it,” then I disagree. I’ve lost count of the number of commenters who’ve called my own BC articles shit. But it’s been, as Marlon James (Keanu Reeves) agonizingly ventures in I Love You to Death (1990), when his cousin Harlan James (William Hurt) asks how many homers Reggie Jackson hit lifetime: “Shit, man. Wow. Fuck. A bunch!”

    Naturally I argued with many of those critics, sometimes heatedly. Yet I’ve never advocated that their comments be censored for including the word “shit.” And El Bicho’s suggestion that Andy’s comment (“How does shit like this even get published at BC?”) is itself a form of censorship–well, that’s just plain nonsense.

    As for Horace’s blog, I note that he gives us two conflicting dates for the interview. On page 1 he says O’Reilly “interviewed the president on Sunday, February 7, 2011.” On page 3 Horace says the interview “took place on Super Bowl Sunday,” which was February 6.

    Yet whenever the interview transpired, I’m puzzled as to why it took Mr. Mungin so long to write this article, which wasn’t published until February 18–nearly two weeks after the event. No wonder Horace’s blog comes across as overcooked. Two weeks is much too long to stew in one’s juices.

  • Clavos

    What is the suggestion of Andy’s that “shit” like this shouldn’t be published? Is that not censorship as well?

    It is, and no, it doesn’t get a pass.

    And I don’t agree with Andy’s sentiment, although I consider Obama to be an ass and an embarrassment.

  • I never said it shouldn’t, I asked HOW it gets published!

  • Actually, I consider Cotto’s “commentary” (#23)as more of a personal attack than Andy’s. Andy’s response was strictly emotional, whereas Cotto’s “masterpiece” is a premeditated effort to dismantle Mr. Mungin both as as writer and a person. And why? What’s the reason for all this vitriol? It can’t be because of how one feels about Obama. Is it perhaps because of Mr. Mungin’s loose reference to “being in sync” that Mr. Cotto found so offending? Or is it perhaps the very title containing the word “authentic”? One may disagree of course, but is it reason enough to warrant Cotto’s type of response? And where are the obscenities that Mr. Cotto finds so hurtful to the ear? Use of the word “bullshit”? It’s part of African-American speech, part of our speech, and Mr. Mungin is only writing as we all too often talk, a strong point, I should say, and it comes off naturally.

    I may agree this may not have been Mr. Mungin’s most fortunate piece, but Mr. Cotto would have done himself a great deal of favor had he taken a minute to peruse Mr. Mungin’s author page and some of his past articles. And if he does know anything about writing, he would have quickly realized that he’d never be the kind of writer Mr. Mungin is and spare himself the embarrassment.

    Lastly, Mr. Cotto’s allusion to “false victimhood” is another gem. Who is Mr. Cotto to talk and to talk credibly about the subject? Apart from still being a pup, he hadn’t walked a yard in Mr. Mungin’s shoes.

  • I never said it shouldn’t, I asked HOW it gets published!

    Andy Marsh (#30), did you get a satisfactory answer to your question? If not, perhaps it’s because others, like me, fail to grasp your distinction between asking HOW something could happen and implying that it ought not to have happened.

    If I ask HOW slavery could have occurred in America, most readers will understand that I’m not requesting an explanation of the mechanics of slavery, but am rather posing a rhetorical question as to the wrongness of said practice.

  • As was I Alan…How could something that was, in my opinion, that bad, get published? But CR did in fact answer the question.

    I never suggested censoring it. I was kinda thinkin’ that maybe they had standards here, but apparently anything can be published, no matter how terrible it is!

  • “That bad,” Andy? How do you mean it? Stylistically, topically, or perhaps metaphysically, because of the “being in sync” reference?

  • Horace Mungin

    Alan Kurtz, the article was posted 2/11/11. And, anyone in sync with themselves and the universe would find this to be the finest article I’ve here.

  • That must be it Roger, I’m not in sync with the universe. That’s why I think it sucks! I’ve already given my reasons why I think it sucks, I’m not gonna go through it all again…it’s too painful.

  • Clavos

    And, anyone in sync with themselves and the universe would find this to be the finest article I’ve here.

    I don’t really know what being “…in sync with themselves and the universe…” really means, and I choose not to argue with your characterization that this article is “…the finest article I’ve here.”

    I do, however, completely disagree with your and your article’s depiction of Barack Obama. I think he is easily the worst president in living memory and perhaps beyond.

  • Being unduly harsh, Clavos, methinks – is it perhaps of built-up expectations? It’s getting to be an increasingly complex world. Just like most everyone before him, he’s trying to play both ends against the middle. Not good enough for me, but hasn’t this been the presidential standard?

  • …. is it perhaps because of …

  • Horace Mungin (#35), you’re living in a dream world. Your article was published on February 18, 2011, at 5:44 am, not a week earlier on 2/11/11 as you claim. Andy Marsh posted the first comment thereto on the same day at 7:13 am.

    So you are hardly in a position to lecture me or anyone else about being “in sync with themselves and the universe.” You’re not even in sync with the same calendar the rest of us use! First you get the date of O’Reilly’s interview wrong, and now you misdate publication of your own article.

    And by the way, this article is at best mediocre. It’s hard to believe it was written by the same man who authored “The Phantom Culprit.”

  • Horace Mungin

    Alan, I said that the article was posted – being submitted – 2/11/11. It sat there until someone got to it and published it. I don’t lecture. On another matter, may I suggest that you all google Prof. Harry Frankfurt’s scholarly little book that traced back the origin, history and meaning of the words and actions his study deems “bullshit.” The study is called “On Bullshit” and will be worth a read.
    oh, yes, Alan if you do find out about the suggested book and read it – please then re-read my article.

  • Clavos

    An interesting account of “The Decline of Liberalism” in America, from The American Spectator.

  • I’d say it fits the article…

    From the description of “On Bullshit” on Amazon.com

    The difference lies in the bullshitter’s complete disregard for whether what he’s saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he “does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.”

    Guess I called it right the first time.

  • @42, yes, an excellent “insider’s” analysis.

    Now, do you suppose the average American has an adequate command of history, not to mention the ability to process ideas, so that their political stripes can be said to be similarly grounded (as the author suggests)?

  • Clavos

    The “average” American, Roger? I suppose that depends on one’s definition of “average” (I know, I’m being Clintonesque here).

    As a purely personal opinion, I don’t think the average American has the grounding in history. As to the processing of ideas, this is trickier ground; over the years I have known relatively unsophisticated people with limited formal education who were very adept at grasping fairly complex concepts, using them and coming up with impressive insights, so yes, I do think “average” individuals can be capable of sound thinking. I believe that after all, most well thought out ideas (of a philosophical and/or political nature — not pertaining to hard science or mathematics) are the result of practical, commonsensical thinking — not necessarily a whole lot of book larnin’.

  • Maybe so, but the kind of analysis you’ve linked to would be over the head of, say, ninety percent of the population. Perhaps the ideas contained therein are more or less intuitively grasped and held, but that’s another story.

    I suppose the point I was making is that what is conservatism or liberalism in the popular mind is much more subject to the inherited values and yes, more emotional in making than the author of the article suggests, rather than grounded in the type of analysis he’s offering. Which is why I called it an “insider’s view.”

  • Clavos

    Damn, Roger, ninety percent???

    I certainly hope you’re wrong on that, or we are truly doomed as a nation.

  • I’m an ardent believer, Clavos, in the native ability of Everyman given the right conditions. But we never cultivated those conditions in America; quite the contrary, we’ve made it a point to discourage them. (I’d say that in Germany, for instance, the number would skyrocket to thirty percent.)

    Willing to bet you, only one in ten of the BC participants have bothered to read the article you cited to its conclusion.

  • Horace Mungin (#41), I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by “posted.” I presumed that would’ve been the date your article was published. It’s certainly regrettable that it just “sat there” for an entire week. I’ve had numerous articles of my own published in BC’s politics section (although none this year), and I never had to wait seven days between placing one in the Pending queue and seeing it online. A full week’s delay seems excessive.

    Why do you suppose that happened, Horace? Have you inquired? I wonder if it has anything to do with your race or with your subject matter in this instance. I’d be appalled if either were true.

    Anyhow, please note that I was never among those who called your article “shit” or “bullshit.” I merely stated that using such words should not be grounds for censoring a comment at BC.

  • Now that I think of it, while there are hundreds of active writers at Blogcritics, very few are black. Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes that discourages their participation. If so, I categorically condemn such discrimination.

  • Horace Mungin

    Alan, I appreciate your sentiment – thank you. I don’t feel discriminated against until I read “some” of the comments on my articles, I’m 69 years old so I’m kind of used to dealing with these kind of people. I do wonder will it ever end?

  • Horace, I do believe it will end. Maybe not in your lifetime or mine (I’m 65). But someday. Meanwhile, for however long we have left, we owe it to both our generation and to those that follow to call out such attitudes wherever we can and stomp them into dust.

  • Horace, please see comments 1 through 3 on the linked thread. The assistant politics editor asserts that your finished article did not “just sit there” awaiting publication for a week. If that is true, I retract my comments 49 and 50 above.

  • Horace Mungin

    The article in question was first submitted 2/11 in the Culture Category. After it was not published in two days I emailed asking that it either be published or rejected – no response. I moved the article to the Political category without any response there, so I sent another email. I had given up, but while I was at the “Y” on the 18th. I received notice on my phone that the article had been published. I then braced myself for what was to come. Hey, guys, this isn’t that important that I should lie. Andy, I am not, have never been and will never be anyone’s victim – things are what they are. I am a man who takes care of himself even under very trying circumstances, something of which I am very proud.

  • Clavos

    I moved the article to the Political category without any response there, so I sent another email.

    Horace, there is a log of all actions taken on each article. That log indicates that your article was placed in Draft at Politics on February 14th. You received no response from us because its status was Draft. It then sat there, still in Draft, until February 17th, at which time you changed its status and it was immediately worked on by another editor that day and published on the 18th.

    Horace, if you leave an article in Draft, it will not get published (and we will not communicate with you) because being in Draft indicates to the editors that the article is not yet ready for publication, so be sure to put your submissions in Pending as soon as you’re ready for them to be edited and published.

    In any case, no one is accusing you of lying; I’m sorry if you got that impression.

  • Horace Mungin

    Think you Clavos, now I see how the mix up played out. Clavos, I’m thinking of writing a review of Prof. Frankfurt’s book mentioned in my article. Alan, does 49 and 50 remain retracted?

  • Horace Mungin

    Thank you