PART I
On July Fourth of 2010 on ABC's "This Week" Sunday morning news program, Cynthia Tucker formerly of the "Atlanta-Journal Constitution" said (and I paraphrase her here 'cause I can't quote anyone to save my life): "Michael Steele is a Republican, affirmative-action failure."
I tend to agree with her — most, well, make that almost affirmatively.
But the fundamental difference between her and I, and I do fundamentally differ with her as to the basic, intellectual, polemical and philosophic roots of this issue, is that I admit and recognize that unpleasant reality (Steele). In fact I am one of many conservative voices who has called for and demanded the voluntary resignation of Michael Steele as the chairman of the RNC, or put more bluntly, I am one who who quite openly has clamored for both his voluntary or involuntary, if necessary, dismissal.
(Now for those of you with a typical, liberal, governmental, statist and collectivist, and intellectually, academically and scholastically worthless and substandard, as well as stultifying, ignorance-inducing, mind-numbing, zombified, brainwashed, propagandized, uncritical, unanalytical, mindless public-school education; the latter is simply a fancy way of saying "fired" and or "canned" as in "shit-canned.")
However the difference between us doesn't stop there. If Michael Steele, whom I, believe it or not, like and admire greatly, is indeed an affirmative-action failure, and a colossal one at that; then what pray tell is President Obama?
If the former (Steele) is a failure then is the latter (President Obama) likewise an even greater and even more colossal failure? Indeed, perhaps the worst politically-correct, affirmative-action failure in American history!
Moreover, as is so typical of the American liberal-left, Ms. Tucker, when it comes to blindly supporting, promoting and defending President Obama, again as is so very typical of her ilk, both white and black; is essentially a Stalinist-apologist which condition is again so very emblematic and prevalent amongst today's liberals qua liberal progressives qua liberal socialists qua socialists qua communists qua Marxists qua Neo-Marxists and other assorted "commie-lib" qua "lefty, pinko" lunatics and leftist true-believer fanatics.
Again, for those of you with a worthless, substandard, liberal, public-school education and therefore are quite ignorant, gullible and stupid; allow me to express this in very simple and easily understandable, direct terms: To call someone a Stalinist-apologist is essentially to describe that sort of true-believer fanatic who never, never admits his or her guy is mistaken or flat-out wrong or let us say, ethically challenged, that is to say, immoral and even downright evil. No, as in never, never, never! What it essentially is saying, is "my guy right or wrong" and that I will not be swayed by any facts and evidence to the contrary, no matter how incontrovertible and ironclad that evidence and those facts are. Again, as in never, never, never!
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Alan Kurtz
Wow, I thought at first sight. Ten pages; 4,401 words. This man must really have a lot to say.
Wrong. He actually has very little to say, but does so at great length. How does he accomplish this literary feat? Synonyms! Irvin F. Cohen is the Man Who Fell in Love with his Thesaurus. All the bulleted items that follow are direct quotations from this article.
• worthless, substandard
• ignorant, gullible and stupid
• simple and easily understandable
• surmise, expect and anticipate
• reduced and refined
• intellectual, philosophic and ideological
• friends, allies, supporters
• peers and associates
• bristle, demur and protest
• commentator and orator
• ardent and zealous
• deride and demean
• demonization and vilification
• endearing, enduring and sympathetic
• direct and straightforward
• clear, unambiguous
• overly and excessively
• sophisticated and nuanced
• earthy and sensible
• transformed himself and metamorphosized [sic]
• noble and dignified
• hedonism, narcissism, self-aggrandizement and moral relativism
• supports and bankrolls
• attitude, consensus and conviction
• standard, historical and traditional
• favorable and sympathetic
• fast and furiously
• typical, de rigueur, expected
• spurious and dubious
• liberal and leftist,
• hustlers and pimps
• sophistic and spurious
• rampant and pandemic
• None, zero, zip, nada, goose eggs, zilch, rien, niniento
• absolute and consistent
• complete and total
• abject, dismal
• academically and scholastically
• morally and ethically
• overwhelmingly and predominantly
• frauds and charlatans
• reasoning and argumentation
• words, terms
• rationale and logic
• personal and individual
• worthwhile and or acceptable
• ought and should
• recommend and exhort
• cannot and must not
• mandate and dictate
• compunction and need
• condescending and patronizing
• underlying root causes
• fact and reality
• casket which entombed
• terrible evils
• atone and make amends
• redeemed and given salvation
• bitter and rancorous
• miraculously and magically
• do so for good with an absolute finality
• Machiavellian machinations
• big-city, machine-politics
• thuggery and intimidation
• bold and decisive
• able, competent and adroit
• manager or executive or CEO
• nationalize, expropriate and seize
• serious and severe
• deleterious and destructive
• constitutional rule-of-law
• fathom and recognize
• stirling [sic] and courageous
• utter, absolute, guaranteed, complete and total unmitigated
• disaster and catastrophe
• evil is evil
• disaster and catastrophe are disaster and catastrophe
• words, pronouncements
• by nature and predilection
• can, could and would
• beliefs, convictions and or scruples
• hidden and quiescent
• very important and integral
• unaddressed and unspoken
• rile up and challenge
• conventional wisdom and preconceived notions
• reasoned but reasonable
• minds and intellects
• so-called, supposed
• reaches and attains
• ultimate wisdom and absolute truth
It's only October, but "Here's A Belated But Happy Fourth of July, America" clearly must be considered the frontrunner for Worst Blogcritics Article of 2010.
2 - Clavos
So now, among your myriad other narcissistic fantasies, you fancy yourself a critic, Al?
3 - Clavos
You should get a job, Kurtz, you have way too much time on your hands.
4 - Alan Kurtz
Clavos, did you "edit" this article? I recall that you took credit for "editing" the last such preposterously bloated BC monstrosity, Adam Ash's turgid and undisciplined 5,529-word, 12-page Who's Going To Hell Faster: Our Christians Or Our Republicans? This present article shows all the signs of your inimitable "editorial" touch.
5 - Irin F Cohen
Dear Mr. Kurtz,
Thank you for your commentary, I'm really glad that you really hate my essay.
Well actually I'm neither glad nor angry, just intrigued how you came to your conclusions; especially since you don't seem to have given any clear or well, thought out reasons save for my overuse of synonyms. Well, actually, descriptive adjectives to be more precise, but who's quibbling here?
Moreover I must also assume from the rather shallow and unsubstantial nature of your commentary that you are a proud product of our failed and feckless and worthless, substandard liberal public-schools. Oh, by the way, is that enough descriptive adjectives for you?
In addition I must also assume that you must be a "commie-lib," lefty-pinko, I mean liberal. Because rather than your arguing the merits or lack thereof, of my essay, you choose to address rather inconsequential and unimportant matters rather than directly addressing the more important and substantive issues I have raised such as affirmative action or Stalinist-apologism or the implied "discussion on race" we were supposed to have had, etc..
So my question for you is: Do you possess the intellectual integrity and honesty to address these issues in a meaningful, reasonable and rational manner, with a modicum of in depth analysis; without resorting to ranting and raving, name calling and snide and smarmy ad hominem smear? Please advise me.
P.S. Oh, by the way, Mr. Kurtz, I do not need a Thesaurus (although I do find it rather useful on occasion). And oh by the way, I also rely on and use several languages other than English, e.g., Latin, Classical Attic Greek, French, Spanish and a smattering of Italian.
P.S. P.S. And yes, Mr. Kurtz, I must readily admit and confess that I am quite often, in fact more than is humanly endurable; a condescending and pretentious, bombastic and overly pedantic, overbearing and obnoxious "anal-aperture" and "scion-of-a-female-canine" and lowlife, scumbag "maternal fornicator" to boot.
Is that also enough in the way of descriptive adjectives for you? Well if it isn't...just shoot me. Actually I had a more idiomatic, earthy and crusty phrase in mind, but I'm on my best behavior here Kurtz, so give me a break, will yah!
6 - Dr Dreadful
I like this guy...
7 - Dr Dreadful
On a point of order, though, Norman Lear did not strictly speaking create Archie Bunker.
All in the Family was based on a British sitcom called Til Death Us Do Part, written by the comedy writer Johnny Speight, whose central character was an irascible working-class Tory named Alf Garnett.
8 - Irin F Cohen
Dear Dr. Dreadful,
Point well taken. Yes I was aware of Archie's British roots, but because of, believe it or not, space restraints and editorial considerations; and that I also considered our Archie to be an American phenomenon, I took the latter's status as a true American icon essentially as a given. My bad. That is to say I hope that is not too lame of an excuse for this little omission of mine.
(You know, even in my branch of the service that is no longer the stuff of blindfolds and a firing quad - well, as to the best of my knowledge - not anymore. They've really chick-i-fied and wuss-i-fied my Marine Corps, bunch of candy-assed, damn Eagle boy scouts!)
But nevertheless I must credit Mr. Lear, of course in a back, left-handed manner, of this creation of his of this great American icon. Clearly Lear was out to create a great, American, conservative villain and instead he created its opposite. He and his crew essentially put a human face on Archie and inserted a human heart into him too; and then breathed life and breath into this Frankenstein creation of his and further animated Archie with a powerful soul and compelling spirit. Which I think was just simply peachy, hunky-dory and divine.
Nevertheless, irony of ironies, Lear's hidden agenda simply backfired on him. Which I also think is just simply peachy, hunky-dory and divine too. But herein lies the nemesis of all liberals and liberal thought - it's called the "law or principle of unintended consequences." Which to state in rather clear and direct, but rather crude terms: is that liberals are just so intellectually and philosophically incompetent, they could, would and always do, possess the infinite capacity to fuck up a wet dream! God bless them - sort of.
Again, thank you Dr. Dreadful for your insightful and kind commentary. Sincerely yours,
Irvin F. Cohen
9 - Alan Kurtz
Spot-on article from The Wall Street Journal, published a day before Mr. Cohen's overstuffed turkey appeared here. Of course, no one else at Blogcritics will get it, especially not "editors" such as Clavos and Dr Dreadful. But I keep trying.
10 - Jordan Richardson
It's hilarious, Alan, that you're pointing to an article praising concise writing. It strikes me that "getting to the bloody point" has never been your strong suit, especially given the absurd self-indulgence you've displayed in this very thread.
Advice from the "spot-on article" particularly relevant to your case is here: "Think about how we describe a cityscape. We do not list and describe every building, we refer to one or two."
Keep trying.
11 - Alan Kurtz
Well, I did predict that nobody else at Blogcritics would get it. You should give me that much, Jordan.
12 - zingzing
so... you really think, even after reading the wsj article, that a 1,000+ word comment detailing all 91 supposed transgressions of concise writing--a list which no one will read, but will undoubtedly cause them to come away with a definite idea of your possibly ocd-related completeness--was the best way to get your point across?
maybe you should provide us with a summation of your problem with mr. cohen's article. which, i think, could be said as "too many words," or "tl;dr" in internet-speak. four lousy letters and a punctuation mark and you could have made your point so much more clear and without the usual kurtz-poop smell lingering in the air.
even more to the point, you could have signaled your disapproval by just refusing to read it. and aren't you the one who wants comment threads to stay on target? because i don't even know what this article is about, and we're a full dozen comments in at this point. it might as well be about you... as usual...
13 - Alan Kurtz
zingzing, you're wildly off base. Appearances can be deceiving. My comment #1 seems longer than it is because it's arranged in bullet points, which occupy a lot of vertical space. Far from 1,000+ words, as you allege, it's actually only 406 words.
By comparison, comment #5 by Irin [sic] F Cohen consists of 367 words. (Note that he is unable even to spell his own first name right. And Jordan and the "editors" think this man is a good writer? Sad, really.)
I'm pleased to note, however, that you "don't even know what this article is about." If I can keep the focus on me and off Mr. Cohen's overstuffed turkey, I will have done BC's readers a great service.
14 - Jordan Richardson
I don't recall saying anything about Cohen, let alone that he was a "good writer."
15 - Alan Kurtz
Are you now conceding that he is a terrible writer?
16 - zingzing
alright, so it's not 1,000 words. (it actually double-copied into word... mea culpa, in order to use a wildly-offensive foreign phrase when a perfectly good english phrase could have been used.)
sure does look long. but meaninglessly long. you didn't have to go through the trouble. and quite a lot of trouble it was. copy-paste 91 times? and you sure read it well enough for the lot of us.
"If I can keep the focus on me and off Mr. Cohen's overstuffed turkey, I will have done BC's readers a great service."
censorship comes in many forms... and get out a thesaurus so that you can come up with another insult other than "overstuffed turkey." insults should be original and varied. you use them too often, they lose their flavor.
17 - Jordan Richardson
I don't have an opinion on Cohen's work because I haven't read the article. I know, I know. "Mission Accomplished." Or something.
Anything to get the focus off of your obvious missteps.
18 - Alan Kurtz
That's my point, zingzing. An overstuffed turkey has no flavor of its own; it's smothered by the stuffing.
As for "copy-paste 91 times," don't be silly. I copied and pasted once, then created a Word macro to isolate the redundancies. Piece of cake, really.
19 - Clavos
I don't recall saying anything about Cohen, let alone that he was a "good writer."
Nor I...
I did say some negative things about Kurtz, though.
I do enjoy skewering him and his sesquipedalia verba, he literally begs for it.
And, from what I've seen in these threads, I have plenty of company.
20 - Alan Kurtz
That's so typical of you, Clavos. You came back to this thread to once again "skewer" Kurtz, but evaded my direct question in comment #4. Business as usual.
21 - zingzing
alright, well, i read the article. i disagree with the politics. (and the simplicity of the argument... really? obama was elected because of affirmative action? he does try to say something like "well, that's not the only reason..." but then spends the rest of the article not telling us any other reason, then going to on to say that obama is an inept, yet cunning crook... you really can't be both.)
the language, since that's the point of this comment thread at this point, is a bit flowery. it does get lost within itself a few times. the repetition and the implied condescension do get to be a bit much. but the guy does have a way with words and a strong voice, if nothing else. it comes across as conversational, albeit the kind of conversation that might end with you punching someone in the face.
irin/irvin isn't a bad writer. maybe an irritating one. but that may have to do with either his politics or my apparent sore lack of education.
22 - Clavos
Kurtz, I can think of any number of activities I consider more important, certainly more entertaining, than responding to your impertinent questions; watching paint dry and getting a root canal done come readily to mind.
But, no, Kurtz, I did not edit this article.
23 - El Bicho
I am impressed you slogged through it. Considering his poor assessment of both Alan's political leanings and the Archie Bunker character combined with his adherence to the Michael Savages school of cliched political writing on the first page and in his comments, I took a pass on it.
24 - Dr Dreadful
Irvin,
You're welcome. I've actually never seen the American version of the show (I'm British, and have only lived in the States since 2001), so I can't make an informed judgement as to your characterisation of Lear's intentions, although I suspect you're doing an injustice to the man's creative powers. I write fiction, and know from experience that one's characters are quite capable of rebelling, behaving in unexpected ways and generally refusing to conform to their creator's original conception of them. (The little bastards.)
Alf Garnett (played by Warren Mitchell), though bigoted and obnoxious, was never intended solely as a means of ridiculing the right wing. He was also Speight's mouthpiece for a fair bit of biting social commentary: the fact that he was a working man, and not some upper-class twit, was no accident. The excesses of the left also came in for mockery. Central to the show, and key to its humour, were Alf's battles of words and wits with his socialist son-in-law Mike, who lived with him. Alf got the better of these exchanges almost as often as Mike did.
Mitchell continued to appear in character as Alf long after the show ended - even, on occasion, as a guest on chat shows. A fair number of people believed he was a real person. Talk about a character taking on a life of his own!
25 - zingzing
and yes, alan, "overstuffed turkey" was a good one. one. you can come up with another, can't you? maybe something about an over-sexed unwed mother who can't figure out who the father is? wait, which crime is worse here? repetition or long-windedness?