May 31, 2006

Why Does The Unhinged Left So Hate Jeff Goldstein?
— Ace

Goldstein is, strangely enough, one of the most reviled figures on the right of the blogosphere. LGF may get death threats from jihadists, but actual American lefties seem to despise Goldstein the most.

Forgive me for repeating myself, as I so often do, in this post. I've expressed these ideas before, but, as I so often do, in a sloppy and slapdash form. I've tried to be a little more organized here. And, in case you're worried, this post isn't really about Jeff Goldstein; I, for one, cannot imagine a more excruciatingly tedius subject for an essay.

It's about the left.
Goldstein bitches about his role as the go-to villain for the moonbats on occasion, to which I always say, half-seriously, that I'm envious. I wish I had the increased traffic and apparent subversive powers he does. Then again, I don't get this crap day in day out. I think I'd probably get annoyed if I did.

I think I do know why Goldstein in particular is so reviled. He himself provides the answer here, writing about why the Left hates Israel and conservative blacks so much:

I’d simply add that I think one of the prime reasons the Western left, for all its purported “progressivism,” is so concerned with punishing Israel is that Israel, like, say, Michael Steele or Thomas Sowell, has wandered off the progressive plantation and rejected the narrative assigned it by those who presume to speak for a larger identity agenda. Which is to say, kibbutz culture has given way, over the years, to a strong capitalist system—and so Israel is considered by many on the left to be a traitor to the cause of worldwide socialism, just as surely as Steele and Sowell (among others) are considered race traitors for rejecting the political narrative assigned them by those who have assumed the mantle of “authentic” blacks.

The left, to a man, considers itself to be educated and enlightened. It matters not how little actual schooling a particlular leftist may have had, nor how unintelligent the person might be. They all consider themselves intellectuals of sorts. If they dropped out of college after one semester, they just think of themselves as autodidacts whose genius could not be stimulated by the ossified and bourgeois teaching of the academy. If they're just plain stupid or crazy -- like, say, Charlie Sheen -- they indulge in farcial conspiracy-theorizing, reassuring themselves that they are intellectual because they know things others do not. They are one of the chosen few brave enough to see past the web of lies and glimpse the arcane truth behind, say, the implosion of the World Trade Center (a SEAL team planted those charges, you know?).

This conceit, usually wholly undeserved, of practically every leftist in the world is what makes leftism so intoxicating for the intellectually insecure, and what makes leftists so easily led and manipulated. It's an attractive doctrine for those who wish to conceive of themselves as intellectual and brilliant, for it provides an instant short-cut to the equivalent of an MIT education. If you simply believe these things we tell you to believe, you are one of Us, one of the Intellectually Elite, one of the Cultural Vanguard. Just as giving oneself to Christ, and believing in His power, and accepting the need for and gift of His redemption, instantly makes one "saved" and enters one's name in the Book of the Heaven, so too does accepting leftist tropes and core beliefs make one one of the Secular Elect.

Now, the things the left wants you to believe are not easy to believe. It's hard to believe that, for example, taxing work and investment will not reduce work and investment (especially when one simultaneously believes that taxing the use of gasoline or other energy will reduce the use of gasoline or other energy). Nevertheless, while it may be difficult to believe these things, it's certainly easier to simply give in and believe these things than to, say, earn a Ph. D. in literary theory or semiotics or even something stupid like science or engineering.

So, if one wants to conceive of oneself as an intellectual, one can either actually become an intellectual -- which frankly takes a lot of work and reading, much of it terribly boring -- or one can simply believe what Noam Chomsky tells one.

As for myself: I actually would kind of like to be an intellectual, but I haven't the patience or discipline for becoming one the hard way, and I also can't believe what Chomsky tells me, so, alas, I have to honestly assess and accept myself as a non-intellectual.

That notion is abhorrent to your typical leftist, so he chooses Option B.

From a cost-benefit standpoint, it's really a no-brainer. Like I said: an easy way to "earn" the "equivalent" of an advanced degree from CalTech or the University of Chicago. Believe these things, accept this dogma, take these gods as your own and keep them sacred, and you are reborn holy and clean as one of the smart set.

This is, I believe, why lefties get visibly angry or astonished to learn that someone within their social group -- whom they had previously considered a nice, normal, college-educated and upstanding citizen -- may hold conservative views or vote Republican on occasion.

Leftism, and liberalism, and progressivism, and etc-ism. are not merely simple politics for most of these people. Their politics to them are a core part of their identity, and, more importantly, a central support propping up their egos. They are enlightened because they believe these things; someone who does not believe these things, and yet who, superficially at least, appears to be about as smart as they might be, represents a threat to their egos. The foundation upon which a crucial structure of their sense of self-worth is undermined if they discover that there may be people who can pass as normal and intelligent and yet do not believe as they do.

If one is smart, then one believes in progressivism.

If one believes in progressivism, then one is smart.

Those are the two assumptions that prop up their sense of self worth, and they are refuted by examples of smart people who don't believe in progressivism.

And because there is a great deal of personal psychological investment in progressivism, they react intemperately to rejections of it. It's not merely a tax cut that's being debated; it's they're very sense of importance that's being attacked. It's not merely gay marriage which is being argued against; it's their value as human beings that is being uncouthly denigrated.

This tends to make the left more emotional and, well, angry when debating issues. It's all well and good to discuss a purely theoretical issue. But when you have a strong emotional investment in it -- when you have skin in the game, as it were -- it becomes not an academic debate but a heated argument. Whether the oil companies should pay windfall taxes is, for me, a theoretical discussion about which I have an opinion but find difficulty becoming emotionally animated about. On the other hand, whether or not someone should be allowed to punch me in the face is a debate about which I might just become a little more heated.

When you're discussing drilling in ANWR with a progressive, make no mistake -- you are, more or less, having a debate on whether or not you should be allowed to strike him in the face. You might not see it that way, and neither does he on a conscious level, but subconsciously, that's precisely the argument you're having.

Because there is so much ego involved in the self-definition as progressive, the need for intellectual conformity becomes stultifying. For, if one can believe something different than you -- even if they are, on balance, progressive -- this represents a direct challenge to your own self-valuation as an intellectual worthy. Conservatives have sometimes heated debates about what the right position is, but they're not debates about whether or not someone is worthy or intelligent. Whether or not someone is a "good conservative" is sometimes argued, but that argument is not simultaneously about whether someone is a good human being. Lefitsts, sometimes by their own surprisingly honest self-admission, acknowledge that they are sometimes too eager to define and, worse still, enforce a group-mediated orthodoxy on the wider church, and excommunicate those who are deemed heretical.

Leading lights of leftism have a powerful psychological tool for enforcing their own preferred orthodoxies. It's one thing to tell someone he's wrong on an issue; it's another thing to tell him, impliedly, that he's evil or stupid because of his stance on an issue. True, a leftist can reject any progressive leader's opinion. But when he does so he imperils his sense of self-worth. If progressivism can be challenged on this point, why not that one? And if it can be fairly challenged on many points, then how can it be those who believe in progressivism are enlightened for doing so? If major tenets of orthodox progressivism are open to debate and challenge, doesn't that mean that one's status of intellectual, based almost entirely on one's belief in progressivism, is similarly open to challenge?

That way madness lies, of course.

I don't bother the left at all, because they consider me a moron. Don't snigger; they think the same of you.

I'm not really a moron, of course. But neither am I an intellectual. My various childish barbs don't represent any real threat to the Jane Hamshers and Atrioses. I don't self-identify as an intellectual, I don't write like an intellectual, and I have no advanced degrees indicative of intellectualism. (An advanced degree, yes, but in a more practically-minded field.)

On the other hand, there's Jeff Goldstein. He's a college professor. He's even in a field they respect as being particularly intellectual-- literary criticism, semitiocs. You know-- bullshit. (Sorry, Jeff.) So he represents to them a threat that I'm not, wish though I do that I were. He's a member in good standing of the intellectual class and has an official credential to prove it. Something that, for example, Jane Hamsher does not. (Unless serving as a producer on such movies as Natural Born Killers and, um, Double Dragon is considered to be a credential of intellectualism.)

He believes almost nothing that they do and in most of the things they don't. And, unlike them, his status as intellectual is founded upon something more tangible and indisputable than a mere belief that Al Gore is the currently elected President of the United States.

Ergo, a direct threat not so much to their politics -- they get that from all over the blogosphere -- but to their egos. And that is an insult they simply cannot let stand.

He should agree with them. He should be a pious member of their church. But he strayed; he is Heretic. His very existence is anathema.

It's about identity politics, of course. They say that in the progressive mode of thought, "victim" is the most holy identity of all. But that's not quite right. He holiest status among progressives is their own status -- the status of Redeemer, the Hero who Saves the Victim, who liberates the enslaved. Not through actual action, of course, but through the sheer power of caring. By their lofty rhetoric shall we know them.

When progressives talk about the oppressed, those who died in Katrina, have no doubt-- they're mostly talking about themselves. They are the ones who are concerned, who worry for the fate of this Republic. To borrow Goldstein's schtick-- the text of their expressions of outrage and compassion is merely a complex system of signifiers for the true authorial intent, the subtext, or maybe even the supertext, that they are among the chosen.

Bush lied, people died. Message: I care.

Is all of this overstated? Generalizing? I suppose so. But I do think this is primarily what fills the left with such emotion over so many issues. Emotion is a response to a stimulus that affects one personally. Not abstractedly, or intellectually, or theoretically, or even politically.

And looking at the unhinged rantings of the left-wing of the blogosphere, and left-wing poltiicians and pundits, I simply cannot accept that all we're talking about is politics here. I got physically angry when psychopathic death-cultists killed 2700 of my fellow Americans just 100 or so blocks south of my home. Jane Hamsher and Kos seem to get physically angry about-- well, what don't they become angry about? Why is humor and irony so common on the right and so hard to find on the left? Humor and irony require emotional distance from a subject-- something I would contend the left is in of rather short supply.

As they say-- the politics is personal. And they're quite right, though perhaps in not the way they think.


Pre-Emptive Rejoinder: Please, Larry the Urbanite, do not tell me you are angry because you "care" so damn much for this country. I care about this country too; not to get into a contest about it, but I'm pretty sure I care more about America itself (as opposed to "America and the rest of the world which is also, in a way, America") more than you do.

Your anger cannot be explained as simply "caring" more. I grant you-- you do seem to be more emotionally invested in these debates. But the question remains: Why? Not because you care about America. There must be a more personal reason for the perpetual fury.

Posted by: Ace at 03:00 PM | Comments (266)
Post contains 2287 words, total size 14 kb.

1 His very existence is anathema

Some might say his very existence is an enema.

Posted by: prozactus at May 31, 2006 04:59 PM (IqvU+)

2 Ace: I told you -- jeff cornholed them. He cornholed them really good. lol ! In fact, Thersites is no more.

As to Larry, I think his "anger" is more of a result of an inner conflict with his role as a husband, father, and working stiff.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 05:01 PM (Cw+TL)

3 I know, I went to his site because you wrote that. What post were you referring to?

Posted by: ace at May 31, 2006 05:07 PM (h7Mal)

4 Another excellent post, Ace. As a fan of Jeff, thanks.

I think his unassailable intellect intimidates them. And, as you said, they consider him to be a traitor.

Cases like these prove just how intolerant progressives really are. At least Jeff listens and computes; the Left doesn't even listen.

Real tolerance is on the Right.

Posted by: Muslihoon at May 31, 2006 05:11 PM (Q8UK2)

5 I'm not really a moron, of course. But neither am I an intellectual.

EXACTLY! and Jeff appreciates that as an intellectual argument of value. You have defined a small portion of yourself, and automaticaly the elite think they are better so they can scoff you off.

However; today, jeff had a post about the nature of his critical thinking, and understanding of fictional ideaology (I'm not using his words) and he mentioned that while he was working on his PHD, he had to learn the "code" of graduate students, so that he could prosper, but he also realized that he must defy that code. I didn't understand what he said, not yet, but I will someday soon, but the essance was "Others in my same position didn't bother pursuing the understanding of original intent by the author, or the challenge that was created by the author, but automaticaly ever student made a philosophical statement based on 'specialty'" which he himself admits is LAZY.

HE then elaborates in words that I understand, but sentences I don't (but one day I will, soon) cuz Jeff is actually educated, and he chose to use the code words of the liberal left, and DESTROY that code as a meaningless form of arrogance.

I think that Jeff is Hated? because, he defined the basic truth, a truth I've believed for a LONG time.

I will KINDA summarize Jeff, though, Jeff is the academic knowitall, who actually knows it all, (ain't that a bitch) THIS is the code we use, This is what it means.

OH SHIT! WHAT A BLASPHEMY!!!!!

Jeff tries to educate, while practicing his intellectual focus, where-as libs want to create a secluded class, where the secret handshake is only known by those who think and feel the same as they themselves do.

Jeff? It is DIFFICULT to understand SOME of his posts? however? even though I only understand portions, and must research the rest, _I_ am the better for having read the words of a man like Jeff.

The Left prefers that they alone understand, or allowed to BELIEVE they understand.

a Good Professor, is a bad person?

to quote sheila broflaski "WHUH WHUH WHUH?!"

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 05:17 PM (QTv8u)

6 Well put, Ace.

Notice too, how Jeff G. is attacked.

He's a stay-at-home dad.

He eats paste.

He has panic attacks.

Highly intellectual arguments against his Right-leaning views, doncha think?

One thing I truly admire about him is the way he can totally disarm these lowly insults with a quick wit and sharp humor.

As a recipient of both personal attacks like those, and jihadi death threats like LGF, I'll take the death threats.

Posted by: Vinnie at May 31, 2006 05:17 PM (/qy9A)

7 I know, I went to his site because you wrote that. What post were you referring to?

Is this addressed to me?

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 05:18 PM (Cw+TL)

8 "Progressive" is language defiled by Karl Marx. Leftists are less progressive, than is crotch rot.

Posted by: Layer Seven at May 31, 2006 05:19 PM (NXfxN)

9 Aside from a few quibbles (mostly about generalizations, like the fact that many conservatives put a lot of self-worth into a worldview), this is an excellent post.

I do believe that you put your finger right on the motivation for Goldstein hate - he's speaking their language, only with an awful funny accent.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at May 31, 2006 05:21 PM (hDDCf)

10 Goldstein doesn't back down. He takes, no matter how many there are, on. Most people just don't have his patience and stanima. I identify more with this statement of Ace's: When you're discussing drilling in ANWR with a progressive, make no mistake -- you are, more or less, having a debate on whether or not you should be allowed to strike him in the face.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 05:22 PM (Cw+TL)

11 Wicked,

Yeah, I read that bit. Seems to make sense to me.

I was going to write about something different, about how insanely-crazy they're getting over a FUCKING LITERARY CRITICISM THEORY. That doesn't really seem something to throw down over, does it? Jeff's view seems to be a counter to po-mo "make any shit up you want about a book and riff on it," so I do think it's closer to the truth. But either way-- this seems to be fodder for, if anything, a somewhat dry debate over authorial intent.

Not over whether someone is a lunatic monster, as the left seems to think is Jeff is for propsing such a heresy.

So I started writing about that unhinged reaction, and ended up not discussing the thing you quote at all. But that's sort of what started it-- the disbelief that a lit-crit theory could provoke such unreasoning rage.

I also liked the "intellectual" guy critiquing jeff who didn't know that a "text," for these purposes, could be a painting, or an opera, or even a stop sign or an event. Hurricane Katrina, for example, is a valid "text" for examining in these sorts of analyses.

Now, how could this guy claim to be an intellectual and not fucking know that?

Posted by: ace at May 31, 2006 05:23 PM (h7Mal)

12 Fights on the playground used to take the braggadocio out of these types. It is a self fulfilling prophecy that they are at this ego point they are, after 20 years of protection from the reality of the playground.

Posted by: Biff at May 31, 2006 05:24 PM (xuO5A)

13 it's another thing to tell him, impliedly, that he's evil or stupid because of his stance on an issue

How many times is this one hurled by the left. and after how many sentences (I usually count 2)?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at May 31, 2006 05:29 PM (miW+K)

14 Bill,

Not the same amount, no f'n' way. My belief that I'm smart and funny derives from the fact that I'm smart and funny, not from the fact that I'm right-leaning.

The "speaking the language with a funny accent" thing gets into why humans slaughtered the Neanderthals to extinction, but not, say, bears.

If someone looks something like you but not completely, they are a threat to the gene pool, as they can probably interbreed with your women and yet the offspring will be different.

Different races have, historically, hated each other and slaughtered each other, and yet no humans bothered with committing genocide against chimps. Chimps were too different, and thus not a threat.

Eh. Just some crackpot behavioral/evolutionary psychology.

Posted by: ace at May 31, 2006 05:29 PM (h7Mal)

15 When I saw the title of the post I thought, "Because he's an intellectual." Great minds, etc.

He invites it, though. He calls them out, sometimes by name, to get them to respond. It's the height of foolishness, I think, and I've asked him in e-mails why he does it. He tells me it's because he's an academic and he genuinely appreciates interesting discussion. The problem is, with few exceptions, they're not going to discuss it; as you say, these are spiritual matters to them, not policies. Him wanting to debate NSA data mining is like an atheist wanting to debate a Christian on whether Jesus's bloodline really can be traced down to a hot French woman.

What's interesting, though, is the pass given to right-wing law professors. They're academics too, of course, but no one much fucks with them. I assume it's because their expertise is more specialized than Jeff's is and thus their scholarship doesn't lend itself as easily to knee-jerk left-wing douchebag mockery.

Posted by: Allah at May 31, 2006 05:30 PM (CbBW/)

16 Conservatives have sometimes heated debates about what the right position is, but they're not debates about whether or not someone is worthy or intelligent.

Having had conservatives decide that prayers for my child (who had lost central vision suddenly) should be stopped or even retracted because I stated Terri Schiavo's bone scan could not be used to prove that Michael Schiavo beat his wife up for reasons x, y, and z, I call bullshit on that.

You forgot to mention they also hate Jeff G. because he's beautiful.

Posted by: SarahW at May 31, 2006 05:32 PM (mZUFb)

17 I think my next post will be the necessary follow-up, "Why Does The Right So Hate Jeff Goldstein, Too?"

Because fair is fair.

At least we have good reasons, though.

Posted by: ace at May 31, 2006 05:33 PM (h7Mal)

18 I think you nailed this one Ace. I still don't think the people you speak of are liberal though. Progressive and left maybe, but they are not now nor have they ever been liberal.


Posted by: Mike S. at May 31, 2006 05:34 PM (hI/OI)

19 I am honored that I, as a highschool dropout, as a college dropout, as a Court-Martialed Marine, who later became a Decorated (in peace) Marine, and random guy, who has never achieved anything outside of the military, gets that kind of response from a person like you, in defense of a guy like Jeff.

That isn't why I said it, I said it cuz I believe it, but . . . .


Thanks.

Thats one of the benefits of the "invisible community"

And I thank you for it, I hope that my thanks doesn't reduce your veritas (and YES ASSMONKEY LIBERALS!!! I know what it means!"

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 05:35 PM (QTv8u)

20 Most people just don't have his patience and stanima.

Soooooo true. One needs patience and stamina just to read his posts, let alone respond. More power to Jeff: he's a genius.

Allah has a point. It is sort of naive to expect the other side to engage in honest discussion. However, the other side's use of completely irrelevant attacks - attacking his parenting style, his alleged medical issues (which seems to be invented or exaggerated, or they really don't know Jeff's style), and so on - are unconditionally unacceptable. In my mind, it shows Jeff has won. They can't respond to his arguments so they call him names.

Posted by: Muslihoon at May 31, 2006 05:38 PM (Q8UK2)

21 Sarah is a genius. Everyone listen to Sarah, she seems to have a serious opinion about something she understands.

Posted by: Mike S. at May 31, 2006 05:39 PM (hI/OI)

22 My Crazy posts, other than the random desire to understand a thing that doesn't make sense, which is how I make large posts on your site Ace, are focused on the Military.

Confederate has been on the recieving end of my lunatic accuracy.

I see jeff, as a straight man, educating lunatics, who are right, but can't define it.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 05:39 PM (QTv8u)

23 Occam's razor: they hate him because he's better than they are.

Posted by: RW at May 31, 2006 05:40 PM (ONNLo)

24 One needs patience and stamina just to read his posts, let alone respond.

Hey, you're preaching to the converted. That's why I don't bother.

Posted by: ace at May 31, 2006 05:41 PM (h7Mal)

25 If someone looks something like you but not completely, they are a threat to the gene pool, as they can probably interbreed with your women and yet the offspring will be different.And in that sentence Ace describes the entire history of the Left, from the Mensheviks vs. Bolsheviks vs. Trotskyites, to Everybody Hates Chris! (Hitchens, that is).

The worst wars are civil wars, and no one fights civil wars like Leftists.

Great posting, pal. . . one of your best.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at May 31, 2006 05:41 PM (kc9zT)

26 Although a false sense of intellectualism comes with being a lefty, I don't think that's what draws most of them to their politics. I've come to the conclusion that the majority of lefties come from one of three sources:

1) Those who want to vacuum their uteruses
2) Gays
3) Telemarketers (and other office workers) who hate their bosses and, by extension, all rich people

Of course, Democrats have other planks that bring voters, like racial and union issues, but that's not what attracts the hardcore-crazy Kos crowd.

Posted by: adolfo velasquez at May 31, 2006 05:42 PM (YvD3t)

27 Also:

If progressivism can be challenged on this point, why not that one? And if it can be fairly challenged on many points, then how can it be those who believe in progressivism are enlightened for doing so? If major tenets of orthodox progressivism are open to debate and challenge, doesn't that mean that one's status of intellectual, based almost entirely on one's belief in progressivism, is similarly open to challenge?

Indeed, which is why they're not content to hate him but instead try to actively discredit him with the bullshit about Klonopin. Why, you'd have to be mad to be an academic who believes the things Goldstein believes.

Posted by: Allah at May 31, 2006 05:44 PM (CbBW/)

28 Dave,

I think, though, that that is a sadly human thing, not a liberal thing in particular.

Posted by: ace at May 31, 2006 05:45 PM (h7Mal)

29 One hell of a rant. You are a god.

Posted by: mgj at May 31, 2006 05:48 PM (MwPZv)

30 Occam's razor: they hate him because he's better than they are.

I think they hate Jeff because they don't get his jokes, but they're pretty sure the joke is about them.

Posted by: bbeck at May 31, 2006 05:50 PM (qF8q3)

31 One needs patience and stamina just to read his posts, let alone respond.

Hey, you're preaching to the converted. That's why I don't bother.

Well, yes and no.

Ace speaks to a crowd of thousands, and will soon be be millions.

Ace is sometimes overly passionate, sometimes snarky without real meaning, and sometimes just plain "WTF?!"

Ace is the random batch of curiosity that we all interact with easily on each day, after all, do we think carson palmer is a "cornholer" in the Broad American English sense of what "cornhole" means? or does Ace describe, rather than define, the foolish natures of our own opinions?

this topic, one that includes someone he counts as a friend, though a friend he "hates" he immediately takes part in the comments section?

really? humanity is complex, and that is what I love about ACE, btw, ACE is you a writer or a Lawyer, or both? you write like a writer, you yap like a lawyer, you are a better fiction author than Jeff.

Jeff is a better editor by far. But, really, content? Ace wins, no offense Jeff, I love your shit, but Ace wins. And I think that is part of why you . . . well, you know.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 05:50 PM (QTv8u)

32 ACE is you a writer or a Lawyer, or both?

First, and far most, Ace is a champion cornholer.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 05:54 PM (Cw+TL)

33 I was willing to "bash" jeff in that last, cuz one of my best friends used to fuck an english grad who wanted to be a fiction writer, and later she became a teacher, and she loved it and later, he married her, and this woman, is someone who gets on my SHIT every time I tell her I haven't gotten back into college (that isn't a selfish statement, but rather a statement about the honest ideology of REAL teachers)

And Jeff knows how literature works too well.

Example, I was in the Marine Corps as a Tech (I was in the Marine Corps? YOU HADN'T HEARD?!?) and my experience and knowledged tainted my ability to interact with regular life.

In fact, I REGULARLY say, whenever someone DARES to challenge me about "People don't think that way" a boss will say, and to tell the truth my arrogant, been around the world twice attitude sometimes, not always, but sometimes responds "You haven't been 10 feet MFer, I've been around the world, who are you to tell me about LIFE? or PEOPLE, or the WORLD?!"

blah blah blah.

but that is a highschool dropout, who has lived a life most will envy when they are 50.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 05:59 PM (QTv8u)

34 Aww, shucks, shawn, I'm not a "champion."

Sure, I started on my HS varsity cornholing team, and yeah, I made it to states, but champion? No.

I took second in the individual cornhole medley, though.

Posted by: ace at May 31, 2006 05:59 PM (h7Mal)

35 Ace
I think, though, that that is a sadly human thing, not a liberal thing in particular.
Difference being a liberal lashes out verbally (and much quicker) and a conservative swings a fist. We end up in jail more but it's always more satisfying.

Posted by: Biff at May 31, 2006 06:01 PM (xuO5A)

36 As surely as Cincinnati loves the cornhole, some of these cockwipes will link to this post tomorrow and scoff extravagantly at the idea that a "paste-eating wanker" like Goldstein could ever threaten their intellectual complacency.

And they'll go back to writing twenty new posts about him.

Posted by: Allah at May 31, 2006 06:02 PM (CbBW/)

37 pinto,

finish school=get paid serious cash.

Posted by: mike s. at May 31, 2006 06:03 PM (hI/OI)

38 FUCKING CORNHOLE!!!!

Kills me.

"Worms" "Worms" "worms" oh, maybe not worms, I kinda like worms.

NO! NO, "oh god, oh god, oh GOD OH GOD OH GOD OHGODOHGODOHGODOHGOD!!!!!!!! Now worms?"

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 06:03 PM (QTv8u)

39 Michelle Malkin is another example of the "reservation" phenomenon. In order to maintain group cohesion, the group must levy heavy penalties on those who would disrupt its integrity. Hence, ostracism. The amount of invective and the personal nature of it that she receives is beyond all reason. The only explanation is that someone is trying to make an example of her, a racial minority, but still I just can't imagine getting off on intensely hating Michelle Malkin. They must perceive her as a terrible threat, somehow.

Posted by: caspera at May 31, 2006 06:03 PM (jylGY)

40 Best line:

It's hard to believe that, for example, taxing work and investment will not reduce work and investment (especially when one simultaneously believes that taxing the use of gasoline or other energy will reduce the use of gasoline or other energy)

Posted by: Kevin at May 31, 2006 06:03 PM (+hkUo)

41 True, Ace. . . but there is something about Leftism that lends itself to particularly nasty varieties of infighting.

After all, if you believe that only your side has the "revealed truth," you're likely to treat apostates rather poorly. And it's easier to believe those who disagree with you are apostates when you characterize them as evil.

Besides, if we're only keeping score, I'll just dig out my Black Book of Communism and run up the tally on the price of lefty infighting over the past century.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. . . they call *us* the religious extremists ;-).

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Posted by: Dave at Garfield Ridge at May 31, 2006 06:04 PM (kc9zT)

42 And they'll go back to writing twenty new posts about him.

Boy, that's for sure. Goldstein has tied them up big time. When they are not churning out posts on him, they are busy running to each others blogs and PW leaving their comments. I wonder if Thersites is going to be back online? I suspect he is going to claim some nonsense that he was threatened.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 06:08 PM (Cw+TL)

43 MikeS?

I know what you mean, I'm . . . .different, I have a kind of crazy, that I cant really understand for myself. I've spent most of my life in need, so I can live a good life with very little money.

My problem is finding happiness, and I guarantee you University won't be the guide towards happiness, thats why I avoid it.

In fact, I was one of the Flag Unfurlers for every year in USC Games that I lived in Two Nine. either at veterans day or the new year.

and While I stood there, holding my flag, I was surrounded by cheerleaders who would look at us (Marines) and they would talk about which one they would take home with them.

My friend, a rich kid, would get pissed, cuz everytime I was "picked" by the collegiate girls, I would say "I would rather sever my cock, than fuck you!"

and I would call all of the guys "pussies"

I dropped out of college BEFORE I joined the Marines, cuz I was amazed at the selfish attitude of the university kids. AMAZED!

I SHAT on everyone who had shitty majors, and never bothored with HUMANITY, because I was a Marine, who dropped out, I was Every bit as Elite and arrogant as the leftists.

I need to fix that, I think I've started, but it's hard.

But thanks for the recommendation, I will, someday, but not yet.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 06:10 PM (QTv8u)

44 It too me, a conservative who believes in free markets, this much time to realize, EVERYONE SHOULD MOVE THIS DISCUSSION, to PROTEIN Protein Wisdom

did I do that right?

Jeff deserves participation, and random ad clicking.

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 06:14 PM (QTv8u)

45 Allah: Well said!

Posted by: Muslihoon at May 31, 2006 06:14 PM (Q8UK2)

46 Dammit, Ace. I had been meaning to write exactly this for a week or two now, and then you go and write it. Better than I had in mind, too. You stop that.

Curious that Thomas Sowell--a black conservative academic--isn't demonized more than he is.

Posted by: See-Dubya at May 31, 2006 06:16 PM (t2WCW)

47 Leftist progressivism is interesting due to its Newtonian idealism. If you know the beginning state of a system you can predict its behavior at any instant in time. Unfortunately, classical physics don't necessarily work on physical systems, and they certainly don't apply to behavioral systems. I gave up on the left after a brief flirtation following high school because I realized their model was wrong more often than not.

The hell of it is, noboby likes to be wrong.

Posted by: Justin at May 31, 2006 06:18 PM (yJ/68)

48 Oh, one more thing, the whole accusation about "the reduction in recruitment standards" isn't actually a reduction, it is actually, a reduction in REGULATION! The individuals who have joined since 2003, actually have an average AFQT HIER than the average AFQT under the Clinton administration, but hey, that doesn't matter.

The Mil doesn't require a CLEAR highschool diploma recipiants, and are accepting MORE GED recipients with HIGHER ASVAB scores. . . so the military is accepting people who qualify HIGHER on the standardized tests, while more willing to ignore the value of "graduation! diploma's" even though highschools are weeding out AMERICANS! read the post about how recipients of not just A, but 2!!!! scholarships are less important than a shitty "Validictorian" of X school scholarship, deserves recognition, rather than the recipient of a "NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MILITARY STUDIES scholarship" Fucking WESLEY CLARKE! your first hero of anti-americanism, was a west point grad, and he also became a Rhodes Scholar, just like your First President of American Politics.

But ONE highschool is better than west point?

Let me re-itterate my point.

FUCK THEM!

Posted by: Wickedpinto at May 31, 2006 06:25 PM (QTv8u)

49 Ace, you could have taken the Goldstein narrative further. I have little doubt that the "intellectual" lefties that so passionately despise him view him much the way you describe them viewing modern day Israel: as an entity that departed from its proper place on the lefty plantation of expectations.

After all, one could ascribe a "proper contextual place" for a generic man who happened to have these traits: the last name of Goldstein, who is a professor, an expert in an esoteric field likelingustics, a primary "house husband/child care giver", a respected writer, a partner in an interracial marriage, etc. And I would guarantee you that those who view Jeff less as a person than as a narrative would look at all those factors and say "he's the lefty ideal!".

And then the hammer falls, Jeff G. shows that he is an individual and not a member of some progressive groupthink collaborative, and their whole view of the "types" of people who make up the right and the left is shook. In other words, Jeff G.'s personal "narrative" upsets the apple cart.

To which I say great. Viewed from a simple "narrative" perspective, he is an example of the inherent fallacy of lefty identity politics and is a great advocate for the causes he believes in. (Muslihoon strikes me as a person with a similarly disconcerting "narrative" that the left would be shocked to learn has little in common with the kind of person they think he "ought to be".) I'm just glad his positions usually place him on my side of the partisan divide.

Posted by: Jack M. at May 31, 2006 06:25 PM (YpIcX)

50 Hoo boy that's a keeper

Posted by: pandelume at May 31, 2006 06:31 PM (4ut58)

51 I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!

Posted by: Jeff G at May 31, 2006 06:39 PM (0CJCd)

52 > He should agree with them. He should be a pious member of their church. But he strayed; he is Heretic. His very existence is anathema.

That made me think of an interesting parallel. A Jew or a Christian is eligible to become a dhimmi, but a Moslem who strays from the faith is screwed (e.g., Salman Rushdie, or that guy in Afghanistan recently). [1]

[1] Add pussified qualifier here (e.g., "under some egregiously fundamentalist forms of Islam", or whatever).

Posted by: Guy T. at May 31, 2006 06:56 PM (GpIR0)

53 wow was that a lot of crap

Posted by: tim d at May 31, 2006 07:00 PM (vT1ho)

54 I think part of the reason for the left's hatred of Jeff Goldstein is due to the fact that he's a conservative AND a Jew. There's nothing like a conservative Jew to put the left in the mood for murder. And when I say "murder" I mean that literally. For the left, being a Jew and a conservative is the worst form of political apostasy, deserving of the worst punishments. That's why the left hates Israel. They regard Israel as a conservative state. The left thought Israel was a fine and dandy place back in the late 40s when Zionest settlers were mostly socialists and they sat around the campfires on their kibbutzes and danced the hora [sic] and sang the "Internationale"; but then when leftists saw that Israelis were serious when they said "never again" and were actually willing to kill the people who wanted to kill them, the left decided that Israel was a facist not a progressive state and that Zionism was racism. For the left, there can be no enemies on the left. None on the right either. Everyone who isn't one of them ... must be destroyed.

Posted by: Ed Snate at May 31, 2006 07:05 PM (/aWtz)

55 I've told Jeff on his blog, and I'll say it here too - he has displayed some incredible grace in all this Thersites-orchestrated nonsense. Thersites and company, by contrast, have displayed pretty much what they actually are: small-minded, petty, vindictive sorts willing to go the most subterranean level to smear an opponent to whom they're losing an argument. If you saw some of their invective over at the now-defunct Metacomments, you know what I mean. It was like visiting some sort of online museum of egregious leftist stereotypes.

Posted by: Master Tang at May 31, 2006 07:26 PM (+DMjG)

56 If you saw some of their invective over at the now-defunct Metacomments, you know what I mean.

You got that right. This morning I read a number of his posts and comments and his comments on Althouse. Ann pointed out that Haggerty was obsessed with her which is how he also appeared with Goldstein. I did a technocrati search and the moonbats are still hurling invectives. You can also read some snippets from Haggerty's blog about Jeff. It's pretty disgusting.

Posted by: shawn at May 31, 2006 07:34 PM (Cw+TL)

57 Here is my Goldstein imitation:

"Well, it came to my attention, that a certain someone on the left blogosphere has deigned to call me, in simplistic terms no less, dishonest on the issue of whether the left thinks such things as I had observed, not postulated, mind you, but merely observed, to be self-evidently true. Well, far be it from me to question whether someone who can't spell dialectic is qualified to question my qualifications, but anyhow, this excrutiating attempt at a put down only serves to illustrate the depths of windbaggery which this so-called blogger in question has descended to. Which, I dare say, is rather low, dancing armadillos not withstanding. Should said left wing blogger or, as I think of him, crusader for truth, if truth is to be defined as the crazed fantasies of a syphilitic marxist on steroids, decide to reply to my reply to his reply to my observation about his snarky post about my essay on civil liberties and the academia, I will post my rebuttal to his flimsy attempt at obfuscation and abuse of logic here, in detail. In excrutiating detail. Now where'd that armadillo go?"

It could use a little work. Impressions aren't really my forté.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 09:03 PM (Epllv)

58 If the progressive hates the non-conformist with special passion, perhaps that’s partly because the hate is dual-purpose. As Ace says, the progressive shuns the dissident in order to survive. The progressive also needs the experience of hate for its own sake.

That’s because the progressive is empty, and forced to define himself by what he is not. “I hate X” yields “I am not X” -- which, dried by the heat of rage, leaves the residue “I am.” Thus the progressive hates because he must.

But the true conservative is substantial, and can build outward from a solid core of meaning. (After all, we conserve something.) There’s no requirement for an “other,” and no necessity to hate

Posted by: Lastango at May 31, 2006 09:13 PM (+RkMD)

59 It's forte, Sandy, forte. Properly pronounced "fort," not "fortAY." From the french forte (f), meaning strong, not the Italian forté meaning loud.

Sorry, pet peeve. It's what I get for reading There's No Zoo in Zoology so many years ago.

Posted by: geoff at May 31, 2006 09:18 PM (nH1Ad)

60 Zoh-ology.

An common American corruption of a French word is still proper though. It would be like saying we shouldn't pronounce Paris (Pah-ris) like "Pair-iss".

Alors tu apparais si fort en ce labcoat-la, Geoff! Peut-etre tu peux l'enlever pour que je puisse te voir. ROWR.

Posted by: Feisty at May 31, 2006 09:24 PM (YMoL5)

61 They hate him because he points out the fallacy of their beliefs, using their own language. He mocks their special phrasing and code words.

Hell hath no greater fury than a Liberal whose idea's have been held up to mockery.

Posted by: pigilito at May 31, 2006 09:25 PM (PPqun)

62 Damn.

Posted by: sandy burger at May 31, 2006 09:26 PM (Epllv)

63 Nice.

Now I'm going to send this to every progressive I know. Because I like to watch people's heads explode.

Posted by: violet at May 31, 2006 09:29 PM (Ai6hM)

64 In 1998 there was a television show that aired on FOX entitled Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed.

The revealer of these secrets was a character known as the "Masked Magician."

That's who Jeff is. That's why they hate him.

Posted by: The Warden at May 31, 2006 09:33 PM (rZ5uY)

65 Spot on Ace. Leftism is nothing more than political narcisism. Any questioning of their beliefs is an attack on their entire being as far as they are concerned. And nothing throws their beliefs into question like a brilliant heretic.

Posted by: Scott Free at May 31, 2006 09:46 PM (WOHGE)

66
Michelle Malkin is another example of the "reservation" phenomenon. In order to maintain group cohesion, the group must levy heavy penalties on those who would disrupt its integrity. Hence, ostracism. The amount of invective and the personal nature of it that she receives is beyond all reason.


Michelle is an awful lot more strident than Jeff. Not that it justifies the violent, racist attacks she is subjected to, but she is a lot closer to the Ann Coulter, bomb-throwing wing of the VRWC commentariat than Jeff.

Jeff devotes an awful lot of time and energy to trying to address his attackers, even when it's clear they have no intention of carrying on an honest discussion. While this is admirable, intellectually, I think as a practical matter it tends to encourage those who are looking for a mud fight, much like responding to the comments of trolls tends to encourage more trolling.

In the latest episode, Thersites clearly revealed himself as nothing more than a troll who has his own blog.

Posted by: LagunaDave at May 31, 2006 09:55 PM (eDHaj)

67 Allah has a point. It is sort of naive to expect the other side to engage in honest discussion.

This is Goldstein's genius, and the ultimate source of the bilious hatred directed his way. It's the ultimate threat to the progressive mentality. Faced with his willingness, and considerable ability, to debate on a wide range of topics their options are to honestly engage in a discussion and risk having their worldview challenged and possible changed, or dissemble. Sure they are quick to deny such acts, but deep down it hits home - how can anyone who believes himself enlightened honestly avoid open discussion and a free exchange of ideas? Isn't that what fascists do? Every time they wimp out and fall back on the insults and canards they themselves know they have already lost.

Goldstein is the little boy who reminds them daily that the emperor wears no clothes.

Posted by: ThomasD at May 31, 2006 10:27 PM (p6WXs)

68 Dave from Garfield Ridge said: "After all, if you believe that only your side has the 'revealed truth,' you're likely to treat apostates rather poorly. And it's easier to believe those who disagree with you are apostates when you characterize them as evil."

The religious analogies are more spot-on than you guys mught realize. Before I turned to arguing politics, I spent all my time arguing religion, and it's the exact same thing. If you disagree with someone about their religion -- and if that someone is the type who likes to argue about religion on-line -- then you will reap the whirlwind, because your disagreement must mean that either you or he is a heretic or a fool. And no one who argues religion on-line wants to admit he's a heretic or a fool.

One example in particular comes from a certain fundie who reasons (paraphrased), "I know I am a Christian, therefore that which I believe is what Christians believe. Therefore no one who believes as I believe is a Christian, and those who say they are must be liars and of the devil." Sweet. Ego-centricity as a litmus test for Christianity.

Yet it must inevitably appear to the most hard-core of fundies that pretty much everyone on Earth is unique in their religious understanding and practice, even if only by the most minute of degrees, and so, rather than asserting they are the only Christians on Earth, they must deny the importance of the differences. That leaves the fundie in the position of having to determine which differences are important and which are not. Again, the determination is made based on egocentricity -- "I know I'm a Christian, and I know that guy over there believes sufficiently like me that I'm not made uncomfortable by his beliefs, and therefore he must be a Christian as well."

After years of reading that sort of tripe, I started arguing politics instead of religion, and found that the difference is barely perceptible. You're right, Ace: the Lefties are every bit as emotionally invested as the hardest of the hard-core evangelicals, whose very identity is threatened by a suggestion that they might be wrong.

And yet the libs call us the religious crazies...

Posted by: Sobek at May 31, 2006 10:45 PM (dmsUZ)

69 When your existence is based on shoving a major cognitive dissonance to the dusty back corners of the mind there's going to be odd psychological side effects of that containment.

Letting it go and recovering from liberalism is probably a function of how much one has invested in it. For me it was easy as a young man in his early 20's yanked out of the coccoon of north east liberalism and thrust into the world. I got better fast - transformed in a year or two maybe after a few good whacks with the reality stick. For a Chomsky, so deeply invested in the insanity, its near impossible.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at May 31, 2006 11:17 PM (gf5iT)

70 Why is humor and irony so common on the right and so hard to find on the left?

B-but what about the pantheon of humor gods and godesses like Stephen Colbert and Margaret Cho?

Oh. Right. Nevermind.

Posted by: Sean M. at May 31, 2006 11:29 PM (dc5zY)

71 Taken as individuals the Left is funnier than the Right.

There's something about Leftism though that, once three individually funny Left-leaning people are gathered, their humor turns earnest ... at which point humor gets bashed on the head, rolled in a carpet, stuffed in the trunk and dumped in the quarry.

Whereas gather three individually Right-leaning people and you get the Comedy Central Blue Collar tour.

so it's a wash.

.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at May 31, 2006 11:45 PM (PcDvW)

72 JG fan here as well. Great post - spot on.

To lefties, JG is the definition of an apostate - shunning quite eloquently the religious beliefs cult of the international church of ultra-leftwing orthodoxy.

Good on him. Both of you keep up the good work. Long years ahead :-)

Posted by: Good Lt at May 31, 2006 11:54 PM (yT+NK)

73 You know Ace, you've just put into words what I've long felt - but simply had a hard time assembling into some coherent fashion (probably because I'm one on the un-enlightened clods on the right).

But think about this, what you're saying is not only true for 2006, but it's BEEN true for as long as I've been aware of politics and political parties. Take for example the leftist view of ANY Republican president dating back to, say, Eisenhower:
Left says:

Eisenhowen = dumb soldier

Nixon = Dumb paranoid

Ford = Dumb Jock

Reagan = Dumb Actor

Bush 1 = Pampered Rich Kid

Bush 2 = Dumb


Now look at their view of the Democratic presidents:

Kennedy = Sophisticated Martyr

Johnson = Cowboy Realist

Carter = Intellectual

Clinton = God

Posted by: Dan-O at June 01, 2006 12:08 AM (Ldq+a)

74 He should agree with them. He should be a pious member of their church. But he strayed; he is Heretic. His very existence is anathema.

Bingo, Ace! You should see what it's like to come out as a conservative at gay social gathering. Stunned silence followed by rude and nasty remarks. It's like I took a shit on the buffet table or something.

Leftists cannot tolerate dissent. It shatters their world view.

Posted by: Log Cabin at June 01, 2006 12:15 AM (Vsh3q)

75 They hate him because they can't beat him. They hate him because he's just too good at elucidating their faults and failings, and they can't win a fair argument against him. And all the while that he's picking the meat off their bones, he's laughing and they simply can't abide by it.

If I, day after day after day, just kept beating you like a red headed stepchild, you'd hate me. So it is with Jeff, and the 'bats.

Swing on, Jeff.

Posted by: Pablo at June 01, 2006 12:33 AM (EErm0)

76 It's forte, Sandy, forte. Properly pronounced "fort," not "fortAY." From the french forte (f), meaning strong, not the Italian forté meaning loud.

Geoff,

Sounds as though you've been reading Jay Nordlinger as well. That's a recurring point made in his Impromptus column.

PS I was trying to link to his archive, but the filter doesn't like the last two letters of the site. The site is nationalrevi{echo-whiskey}.com, but the filter only barfs on echo-whiskey-dot-com.

Posted by: Dale at June 01, 2006 01:00 AM (Z887G)

77 After years of reading that sort of tripe, I started arguing politics instead of religion, and found that the difference is barely perceptible. You're right, Ace: the Lefties are every bit as emotionally invested as the hardest of the hard-core evangelicals, whose very identity is threatened by a suggestion that they might be wrong.

And that is why mothers teach their children not to discuss politics or religion in unknown company.

Posted by: Dale at June 01, 2006 01:05 AM (Z887G)

78 Great post and absolutely spot on. Where the hell were you when I was paying people to write my papers?

What I find so amusing and infuriating about the left is that no matter how many times their beliefs are proved wrong or their heros shown to have feet of clay, they just keep on keeping on. They chalk it up to evil Diebold or a lack of enlightenment by the great unwashed masses. Never do they let a sliver of doubt creep into their dogma. You just can't have a reasoned discussion with them.

when you have skin in the game

This, by the way, should be nominated as the informal motto of the World of Cornhole.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2006 01:11 AM (rnOZq)

79 Can someone please tell me what a "meta-narrative" is?

I usually read a few paragraphs of Goldstein (whom I love) and zip on over here to learn about giant.flying.robots.

Posted by: Gordon at June 01, 2006 01:13 AM (GzHh/)

80 When your existence is based on shoving a major cognitive dissonance to the dusty back corners of the mind there's going to be odd psychological side effects of that containment.

Funny you should say that PA. I just saw a car decked out in the bumperstickers. This (apparent) U. Mich grad was sporting both "guns kill" and a "keep abortion safe and legal"

I was wondering if shooting a fetus with a .22 would cause a dissonant head implosion.

Posted by: Gordon at June 01, 2006 01:25 AM (GzHh/)

81 As a movement, the left is a nasty, immature lot, as witnessed in the way they attack people who don't agree with them. Goldstein does more than disagree, he smartly and coldly slices them apart, so they are left sputtering and resorting to personal attacks. He's articulate and witty, so they despise him. Malkin is a feisty, cute Asian girl, so they despise her. And you guys are absolutely right, it stems from intellectual insecurity and narcissism. And the fact that they're assholes.

The left leaves Ace be, however, because they don't want to get called "twats" by him and 100 commenters.

Posted by: UGAdawg at June 01, 2006 01:32 AM (alGm/)

82 You should see what it's like to come out as a conservative at gay social gathering. Stunned silence followed by rude and nasty remarks. It's like I took a shit on the buffet table or something.

I dunno. Doing that might get you a grant for performance art or something. Coming out as a conservative just gets you shunned.

I hear it was once the other way around. I dunno. Never was in my lifetime.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at June 01, 2006 01:32 AM (1j9aH)

83 This is, I believe, why lefties get visibly angry or astonished to learn that someone within their social group -- whom they had previously considered a nice, normal, college-educated and upstanding citizen -- may hold conservative views or vote Republican on occasion.


This is so insanely true. My husband and I are avid fans of punk rock music. When people find out I'm Republican, their first comment is always, wow, you don't look like one. ( I don't look anything near like a punk rocker I might add) And then they are so, so disappointed and disheartened .

I usually find that when they try to argue a point with me, they are unable to after they state their memorized talking points.

Posted by: pajama momma at June 01, 2006 01:51 AM (IC2Qj)

84 Well this post was certainly as long as one of Jeffs'. I always make sure I have food and water when I wander over to Protein Wisdom. The left boils down to this.
“Liberalism is a mental disorder wherein any absurd and bigoted belief that supports its agenda must be tolerated, promoted by force and revered as doctrine by its fanatical partisans. Any and all means will be employed to achieve its despotic and tyrannical objectives, even the embracing of an enemy sworn to destroy it’s own existence and the sacrifice of it’s unborn infants.”

Posted by: Beto Ochoa at June 01, 2006 01:56 AM (Kg1DE)

85 True, a leftist can reject any progressive leader's opinion. But when he does so he imperils his sense of self-worth.

That sounds like a description of a cult, Ace.

Posted by: John at June 01, 2006 02:00 AM (RUqaj)

86 A country, a politcal movement etc. confident in the actual grounded-in-reality correctness of its fundamental choices tolerates dissent.

However those countires, political movements etc whose fundamental choices are incorrect, i.e. who keep trying to force reality to fit into the 'Procrustian bed' of their belief system (which is usually some nightmare Utopian fantasy) do not and literally cannot tolerate dissent because to do so would very quickly expose the bankruptcy of their ideology.

Or in other words, the Left is intolerant because it is wrong.

And there's no one the Left hates more than someone like Jeff G who takes them head-on and exposes them as the idiots they are insist on being.


Posted by: max at June 01, 2006 02:47 AM (pAyXV)

87 You must be spending time on the NYT forums. Damn that was perfect. Flawless. Even witty and pithy.

Thank you for writing all that. I've spread it far and wide - and on NYT - so as to, hopefully, force some loon lefties to see themselves.

I expect they'll be slugging back; I even intended it as "punch in face" - cause I don't like 'em much.

Thank you for your blog; it's the first I go to each morn.

Posted by: Shivas Irons at June 01, 2006 03:35 AM (A6ZZl)

88 I've become convinced that theresites made the obscene comment about his own daughter. Besides refusing to reveal the isp of the person who left the comment on his own website, he kept repeating the comment in his own posts. That's more than creepy.

Posted by: shawn at June 01, 2006 03:40 AM (Cw+TL)

89 Does anyone else recall the Alan Sokal hoax? I've always thought that little gem should be resurrected again and again to highlight the utter phoniness of academic cant. As a reminder, Mr. Sokal sudmitted a completely nonsensical paper to an academic magazine. The article was called:
"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" and the academic journal "Social Text" actually published it. When Sokal revealed that the article was just a bunch of meaningless academic-sounding blather he strung together, the editors at Social Text got their panties in a bunch about how mean that was.

The sad thing is that his article made as much sense as anything else they had published. What kind of a person edits a publication without the slightest concern for whether what they put between their covers conveys anything conherent to its readers? What a narcissistic, self-absorbed way to go through life.

Posted by: The Raven at June 01, 2006 03:50 AM (5UO9n)

90 As the smartest person on the internet (I read books that no one else would read, and I promuldictate multisyllabullic words), I think Ace's so-called reasoning is dangerous and shoud be banned from ever blogging again. I mean, he is wrong, but he still hurt my feelings. And my offended senses trump your free speech because that is hate speech, hate speech being speech that causes me pain, and speech that causes me pain being speech that I disagree with.

As for this Goldstein fellow, he claims to be a professor, but how can this be so when he does not claim capitalism to be the slaughterhouse of the masses (thank you tom toles)? Where is his scholarship if he does not advocate the cessation of economic activity to stop the earth from suffering a catastrophic temperature rise of 10 degrees in the next 500 years? How can he be an academic when he questions the very notions that underly my life? my beautiful, yet in no way indicative of a soul, life?

Sure, Ace picks on Larry, who wishes he were smart like me, but let me tell you, Ace. Sir, I care for America. Not your America, to be sure. Too full of people fond of jesus and guns and girls in miniskirts that ignore me. No, I am talking about the America that should be. Like the only other person as smart as me, Hillary Clinton Rodman (Bill, is of course, not a person, but a metaphyscial manifiestation of the perfection of mankind), has said, America would be the greatest country in the world, and one that I would love, if only it had more socialism and less white people.

So, there you have it, Ace. You snot. How dare you...Oh wait, sorry. I want America to be less white and more socialistic. Maybe without private property too. My love for America will be realized when America realizes her role as the Zimbabwe of the Western hemisphere. I am ashamed, both at our lack of progress on this and for our loss of international good will (natch), as Cuba and Venezula race ahead of us in their unwhiteness and their soon-to-be-Zimbabweness!

Posted by: ergaturdburglar at June 01, 2006 03:54 AM (K0x/A)

91 Having had conservatives decide that prayers for my child (who had lost central vision suddenly) should be stopped or even retracted because I stated Terri Schiavo's bone scan could not be used to prove that Michael Schiavo beat his wife up for reasons x, y, and z, I call bullshit on that.

Psycopathic Christian Zealots are a subset of Conservatives, and they aren't always welcomed or embraced by people who self-identify as "Conservative". Nonetheless, you raise a fair objection.

Posted by: Loundry at June 01, 2006 04:05 AM (svN5w)

92 Although a false sense of intellectualism comes with being a lefty, I don't think that's what draws most of them to their politics. I've come to the conclusion that the majority of lefties come from one of three sources:

1) Those who want to vacuum their uteruses
2) Gays


adolfo, I ask that you retract this revolting slur. I am a voting member of the gays, and I am currently trying to decrease the searing hate that I feel for every "progressive" on the planet. (I see that hatred as a character flaw -- thought I admit that it's going to take me some real strength of character to find some way to reconcile my desire for peace of mind with the reflexive defense and apology that "progressives" give to child rapists and psychotic Islamic bastards.)

Posted by: Loundry at June 01, 2006 04:09 AM (svN5w)

93 Ace,

Great post. I'm a big fan of Jeff Goldstein, and agree with pretty much everything you said here.

What really annoys me about literary critics is that they somehow think their work is important and relevant, when manifestly, it is an area of study less important than, say, car repair.

The cardinal sin of literary criticism, as far as I can tell, is that because the literary critics have been trained to study language for "hidden meanings", they therefore can apply this to any field of study whatsoever, whether or not they have any experience in the field or not. Therefore, political science, foreign policy, economics -- any discipline, really -- if they use language, they are therefore disciplines that these folks inherently understand, because they can see all the hidden meanings.

I'd dismiss literary critics as merely silly, if they confined themselves to studying literature -- but these folks now are saying that they have the ability to interpret anything. They are the self-appointed arbiters of reality. Noam Chomsky writes a few books on language and symbolism, and therefore feels he understands Hezbollah better than we do. Anyone outside the field of literary criticism looks at this and says "Chomsky doesn't know what the f*ck he's talking about", but to those inside the lit crit crowd, Chomsky is an all-important, subtext-finding, hidden-meaning-reading demigod. Because he understands language, he can deconstruct anything -- with his mind. It's laughable.

I also have to ask myself, what good has come of literary criticism? They're sure as hell not helping to produce better literature. So what good is it as a field of study? I'd rather have a few more competent tradespeople who can fix things when they break. A car repairman, a plumber, a contractor -- they usually give you an itemized bill for their services, and don't lecture you about politics when they do so.


Posted by: The Colossus at June 01, 2006 04:10 AM (5aSus)

94 This post makes my brain hurt. But you're a good man for sticking up for Jeff.

Posted by: NCVOL at June 01, 2006 04:50 AM (py/jP)

95 The academic community in Colorado is pretty kooky - case in point, that Ward Churchill hasn't been fired for plagiarism yet. My husband works for one of the K-12 school districts. He and two other guys are the only conservatives in the building. He could sue for a hostile work environment, things get so ugly about politics there. But since he's a real man and not a whiny liberal, he won't.

Posted by: Alice H at June 01, 2006 05:05 AM (jRtPb)

96 Good literary criticism is, in and of itself, a literary endeavor, and an art form. It helps us to understand what great authors were saying, or meant to say, or trying and failing to say. I'm not as smart as the great authors and so I appreciate good literary criticism. It makes the thinking of great minds comprehensible to me. In doing so it helps me to better understand and live my own life. I can't figure everything out on my own. I can learn from the work of great authors through the mediatory efforts of literary critics.

Check out New Criterion if you want to read literary critcism as it should be practised.

Posted by: Ed Snate at June 01, 2006 05:07 AM (/aWtz)

97 I think you're pretty close to being right on target. But I think the unhinged left isn't so much a religion as it is a fad, a fashon craze. Like leg-warmers. An awful lot of energy on the left side of things is spent on being percieved as being well-liked and in with the cool crowd. When fashion changes, the positions espoused by the left will change.

That being said, no one gets more crap on the playground than the kid who doesn't dress right and won't shut up

Posted by: lost my cookies at June 01, 2006 05:16 AM (XXri7)

98 What kind of a person edits a publication without the slightest concern for whether what they put between their covers conveys anything conherent to its readers?

Um, Ace.

Posted by: JackStraw at June 01, 2006 05:20 AM (J8+2b)

99 Something that doesn't get pointed out nearly enough in this whole brou-haha with Thersites and Jeff G is that Thersites has made no secret of the fact that he considers civility shown to his political enemies to be "weakness". We reich wingers don't deserve to be treated with anything other than scorn, derision and contempt. As a matter of policy.

Expecting a reasonable discussion with this sort of person is simply, well, unreasonable.

Posted by: Artist Formerly Known as Fred at June 01, 2006 05:53 AM (0iMKq)

100 I think you should guest-post this at PW. You've met the length requirement.

Posted by: KM at June 01, 2006 05:57 AM (SxR3N)

101 "What kind of a person edits a publication without the slightest concern for whether what they put between their covers conveys anything conherent to its readers?

Um, Ace.

Posted by JackStraw at June 1, 2006 10:20 AM "


Technically, this blog doesn't have "covers," so Ace is in the clear.

Posted by: Sobek at June 01, 2006 06:09 AM (6GK9U)

102 Check out New Criterion if you want to read literary critcism as it should be practised.

Ditto, here.

Great post, ace. Glad to see you and Jeff call off that nasty blood feud. Y'know, for the children...

Posted by: kelly at June 01, 2006 06:17 AM (AISkQ)

103 Nice post Ace. Goldstein continuously offers those who believe in the leftist dogma an opportunity to listen to their conscience, which is bound to make them angry because it is likely to tell them the same things that Jeff is. An unfor*givable sin.

In addition, he attacks the one area that they have hope of success, which is changing language to remove the possibility of dissent from their canon. That he can do so while mostly remaining humble drives them out of their minds.

The filter made me add the *. Not sure why.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 01, 2006 06:24 AM (jPCiN)

104 For further reading on this topic:

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell

A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowel

Posted by: at June 01, 2006 06:41 AM (Gi7oA)

105 I'm envious. I wish I had the increased traffic and apparent subversive powers he does.


Have you ever considered changing your name to Ace of Spadestein,? Or maybe Ace of Loks and Bagels?

Just sayin'.......

Posted by: at June 01, 2006 06:46 AM (KeOQp)

106 Have you ever considered changing your name to Ace of Spadestein,? Or maybe Ace of Loks and Bagels?

Hey, there's only room for one Jewzilla.

Posted by: shawn at June 01, 2006 06:52 AM (Cw+TL)

107 I think one thing that gets the leftists all steamed at people like Jeff (or at Michael Steele, for that matter) is that Jeff speaks the leftists' language better than the leftists themselves. Anyone who is a Jewish conservative probably comes from a family with a lot of socialists or even communists in the family. Similarly, black conservatives more than likely have plenty of leftists in the family and the community.

When you speak the leftists' language, you are not fooled by theri simpleminded slogans or poor understanding of economics. You are almost "battle-hardened" and know how to fight them with facts. In fact, you can hit them back double with slogans of your own. You also know better than anyone the logical consequences of their worldview (poverty, slavery, etc.)

For these reasons, the leftists reserve most of their vitriol for the Jeff Goldsteins and Michael Steeles of this world. Explains the venom directed at "neocons," doesn't it?

Posted by: Ron at June 01, 2006 07:02 AM (Bhe/R)

108 What really annoys me about literary critics is that they somehow think their work is important and relevant, when manifestly, it is an area of study less important than, say, car repair.

Well said, Colossus and thank you.

I was attracted to literature classes in college and liked to chew on a good book.
But you can't really take the blue collar out of somebody. I was often struck by the uselessness of such pursuits.
And who couldn't help but notice that the purveyors- academics- were little more than career hobbyists.

Posted by: lauraw at June 01, 2006 07:05 AM (znbCB)

109 Having a philosophy minor myself (but my major is honest work, I swear!) I can attest to the secret handshakes and liturgical cant that would get me through classes without too much effort. While I think part of the problem is certainly academic laziness, I think too it is a reaction to the imperative to publish or perish.

If the academy is an environment where THIS is correct, and THAT is incorrect, it limits the amount of verbage that can be slung at academic journals, and makes more difficult the task of writing something coherent. If the academy is an environment where nothing is right or wrong, but thinking makes it so, it becomes much easier to publish nonsense without being questioned too hard about it.

I distinguish this from academic laziness because the motive is not to avoid effort, but to avoid being fired or dead-ended. So by calling attention to bullshit, JG is not only questioning their holy writ, but is threatening their job security.

Posted by: Cautiously Pessimistic at June 01, 2006 07:06 AM (JKlMI)

110 Ace,

Well long winded, but I liked it!!

My condensed version is:

Leftist == inexperience.

Why? Well consider, ever noticed who are sitting in the crowds at most leftist rallies? Kids, students, generally <30. I attribute that to inexperience.

For most of their formative years their parents provided guidance. They get out in the big world and discover to their chagrin, that having ignored their parents they are illequiped for the world. So they go looking. Like a carnival barker, the leftist sees another sucker. And gleefully the victim follows for now they have guidance again, of their own chosing so they think.

It is not till they are duped one too many times do they wise up that they had been had. Hopefully most figure that out when they are about 30 or so. But many do not even at 60.

It's a pity.

Posted by: JohnMc at June 01, 2006 07:09 AM (cMd8l)

111 Log Cabin:

I completely get what you're saying. Being a conservative who is gay must be a little bit like being a conservative who writes for a mainstream newspaper (that's me). The first time anyone at my former place of employment found out that I -- gasp! -- voted for Bush, three of them stood around my desk and pelted me with questions: "You did what? But we never knew you were THIS way! What's wrong with you? How could you?"

Two quick asides: A liberal co-worker of mine hates religions -- thinks it's a tool for the weak and all that jazz. Yet question any of the tenets of his church -- that being liberalism -- and he'll get so angry he starts shaking and his eyes look like they're going to explode out of his head. Hmmm.

Then there's my mother-in-law. She doesn't pay that much attention to politics or world affairs (it's very clear if you ever have a conversation with her), but that's OK. She can feel good about herself every time she mentions "how bad everything is" or how "we'd be better off if Gore were president." She doesn't actually have to do anything. She gets to claim "good person" simply by saying that others are bad and misguided. She's one of these people who actually believes we're trying to take away the Dixie Chicks' freedom of speech if we say we're not going to buy their album. Sigh.

Posted by: Beth (the other one) at June 01, 2006 07:15 AM (rrMUp)

112 Nice to see that I have identified the "most endangered species", 1) a gay Republican, 2) a black republican, 3) a MSM republican, and 4) an academic Republican. Sad to say that it is indeed true.

Ace, I think that your theory could be extended to account for BDS. Most past Republican Presidents were "tolerated" by the Left because they somewhat could be identified as of the generic breed of Presidents. GWB does not fit into that mold. He doesn't party with the DC elite, he is uncomfortable in "formal" settings, he is "dismissive" of critics, rather than trying to accomodate them (even in his own party), he doesn't govern (obviously) by the polls and he has this attitude of, "I said it, why wouln't I mean it?"

In essence he is a danger to their "idea" of the Presidency.

Posted by: RLS at June 01, 2006 07:25 AM (Lh7Vt)

113 I got swept up in the battle between PW and Metacomments, and I must say, it was damned fun. Being a regular at Jeff's site (and here), the comments coming from the other side were not just personal, but became insane as we watched a lie ("a PW commenter outed Thersites, his wife, and said something pedophilic about his kid!") perpetutated ad nauseum. The ensuing battle led to Metacomments being shut down by Thersites, the ultimate cave-in.

It was priceless.

Posted by: Brian at June 01, 2006 07:32 AM (H6O74)

114 the comments coming from the other side were not just personal, but became insane as we watched a lie ("a PW commenter outed Thersites, his wife, and said something pedophilic about his kid!") perpetutated ad nauseum.

And it continues, in that they seem to be giving Scott Eric Kaufman hints that he is not toeing the line.

Posted by: shawn at June 01, 2006 07:42 AM (Cw+TL)

115 Excellent post Ace.

Posted by: natesnake at June 01, 2006 08:11 AM (8dA+A)

116 I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!

Well, technically, yes you are.

Posted by: bbeck at June 01, 2006 08:34 AM (qF8q3)

117 Good analysis, Ace. I'd complement it with some additional factors that contribute to the liberal psyche, though.

My own observation is that liberalism is symptomatic of mental laziness, which is itself an avoidance mechanism: there's a lot of inner emotional ugliness I've observed in the left, which I believe at some level they also perceive but can't bring themselves to confront because, as you've alluded to in another context, to do so would threaten their entire sense of themselves.

So they rationalize.

The starting point is what Napoleon Hill referred to as the "Seven Major Negative Emotions:"

- Anger
- Hatred
- Fear
- Superstition
- Greed
- Jealousy
- Revenge

If one examines what liberals/leftists write and say, it's typical to find a cocktail of two or more of these emotions underlying the statement. Hatred, anger and fear are perhaps the most common; the more esoteric ones tend to manifest themselves in leftist economic philosophy (greed, jealousy), the quick resort to conspiracy-mongering (superstition), and of course the desire to "punish" those they blame for the miserable, humorless lives they lead and for the unpleasant consequences of their "alternative lifestyles" (revenge).

The insidious thing that Hill identified about the negative emotions is that unlike their positive counterparts - which must be consciously cultivated - the negatives will voluntarily fill a mind that isn't guarded against them. This is what makes the liberal's mental laziness so destructive, because it leaves the door open for the negatives to crowd their way in; those negatives then lead to the rationalizations and avoidance mechanisms they use to justify the mental laziness.

So we're talking about the same thing, Ace, but approaching it from different directions it seems. As you state, it's easier to just bootstrap yourself into "intellectual" status by parroting canards, cliches and slogans than it is to actually go and get an advanced degree.

It's easier to hate people who are more prosperous than you are, and to be jealous of them and want "revenge" upon them for their ill-gotten wealth, than to emulate the way they acquired that prosperity.

It's easier to expect the government to provide you with something for nothing (greed) than it is to rely on yourself; for the government to supply you with "free" benefits (paid for, of course, by heavy taxation on the "ultra rich") than to provide for your own economic security; it's easier to expect the government to sink millions into "social services" programs than to abstain from indulging in the attitudes and behaviors that lead to poverty and ill health.

It's easier to believe in dark conspiracies than it is to engage in honest self-examination as to why you feel so rotten about yourself, or about what you might be doing or failing to do that contribute to the things that aren't going your way in life.

And it's easier to be afraid, and to run away in fear of your inner demons, than to confront and defeat them.

Anyway, sorry for the long post; I'm just curious, though, as to whether the major negative emotions are the "chicken" or the "egg" in your overall theory of the origins of liberalism/leftism.

Posted by: Spurius Ligustinus at June 01, 2006 08:50 AM (r99Fg)

118 What really annoys me about literary critics is that they somehow think their work is important and relevant, when manifestly, it is an area of study less important than, say, car repair.

The problem with car repair, from the point of view of a literary theorist, is that there's a right way to do it, and a wrong way to do it, and it's pretty evident when someone does it the wrong way. This raises the possibility that someone might be better at it than someone else, and therefore more deserving of being paid to do it. That's not very progressive.

Also, there's no political value involved in fixing a car. A car doesn't care if it's been repaired by a liberal or a conservative. And to a large (probably total) degree, people who hire mechanics don't care if they're liberals or conservatives. Thus, auto repair cannot be used to further a "progressive" agenda, making it a field of no social value. (Never mind the fact that ensuring that people have working cars allows them to get to work, which in turn allows them to produce and earn and generally increase the material prosperity of society. Oh wait, that furthers capitalism, so it's a bad thing anyway.)

Wow, car repair is actually a noxious capitalist conservative field. No wonder intellectuals don't do it.

Posted by: Farmer Joe at June 01, 2006 09:01 AM (vKn4M)

119 A fine analysis, but I think we're missing the big picture here.

The Left hates Jeff Goldstein because of his brief stint as Naked Testicle Spiderman.

After all, there's nothing the Left loves more than Spiderman.

He mocks the Left with his testicles.

Posted by: Phinn at June 01, 2006 09:13 AM (DiZv6)

120 the comments coming from the other side were not just personal, but became insane as we watched a lie ("a PW commenter outed Thersites, his wife, and said something pedophilic about his kid!") perpetutated ad nauseum.

And it continues, in that they seem to be giving Scott Eric Kaufman hints that he is not toeing the line.

Posted by shawn at June 1, 2006 12:42 PM

Can someone please spare a link or two for this? Thanks.

Posted by: max at June 01, 2006 09:35 AM (EhDj0)

121 Hahaha. This is excellent comedy.

I see we have a bunch of coffee shop psychologists here who have an excellent understanding of the "liberal psyche".

Please keep it up guys. I do enjoy the laughs.

Posted by: KC at June 01, 2006 09:41 AM (Efww0)

122 “Ergo, a direct threat not so much to their politics -- they get that from all over the blogosphere -- but to their egos.”

“The holiest status among progressives is their own status -- the status of Redeemer, the Hero who Saves the Victim, who liberates the enslaved. Not through actual action, of course, but through the sheer power of caring.”

Most decidedly.

Hardcore Lefties often exude messianic & narcissistic complexes of varying intensity, and so often are found to be overeducated underachievers. Most are unflappable idiots, and though engaging them in substantive debate is generally futile, ridiculing them is simply too delicious to pass up.

They much more closely resemble a religious cult than a political faction, what with the echo-chamber herd mentality, and the self-reinforcing mantras.

In simpler terms:

Leftism=Cult Religion

Cult Religion=Warm Fuzzy Acceptance for Group Members

Warm Fuzzy Acceptance for Group Members=Need to Maintain & Defend the Group

Need to Defend & Maintain the Group=Intolerance for Ideas Anathema to The Group

Intolerance for Ideas Anathema to The Group=Hatred for Persons Espousing Anathema Ideas

Hatred for Persons Espousing Anathema Ideas=…

…Particularly vicious rhetoric for Outsiders & extreme intolerance for those who look like other group members, but have strayed from the Tenets of the Group.

Ever notice the importance of the “self-esteem doctrine” to the Left? They spoonfeed it cold and hard to schoolkids, as if self-esteem somehow springs from the ether via spontaneous generation. This proves far easier and immediately gratifying (for the spoonfeeders) than actually fostering the skills and self-discipline required to toil in a competitive environment, subsequently achieve, and actually earn the self-esteem. This “end-around” to self-esteem reveals a paradoxical distaste for competition and exaggerated need to “feel good about oneself”.


An exaggerated need to feel good about oneself is generally indicative of overcompensating for self-loathing.

A distaste for competition is generally indicative of temerity and/or laziness.



Poor Moonbats. If I were one of them, I’d feel bad for them.

Posted by: Idly Awed at June 01, 2006 09:44 AM (5aWTl)

123 Oh man. I'm rolling here. Note no anger in my tone. Hahaha.

Please, Mr. Goldstein, tell me why you think we "hate Israel" and "conservative blacks". Hahahah. Because, as card carrying members of the secret society known as "the left", we all must pledge devout hatred of both.

AND - the WTC was taken down intentionally!! We all know it! Bush himself planted the explosives in WTC7, well with the personal assistance of Osama Bin Laden!!!

Dude, OMG. I'm speechless. I could easily copy and paste the ENTIRE entry above, change a couple of key words and insert "right" where I see "left" and "conservative" where I see "progressive" and it would remain what it is: GARBAGE.

Time to go back to smoking dope, watching Gay Porn, Impregnating young girls and paying for their abortions with the money I make from my Masters Degree in EE from MIT!

Later guys!

Posted by: KC at June 01, 2006 09:50 AM (Efww0)

124 This conceit, usually wholly undeserved, of practically every leftist in the world is what makes leftism so intoxicating for the intellectually insecure, and what makes leftists so easily led and manipulated. It's an attractive doctrine for those who wish to conceive of themselves as intellectual and brilliant, for it provides an instant short-cut to the equivalent of an MIT education. If you simply believe these things we tell you to believe, you are one of Us, one of the Intellectually Elite, one of the Cultural Vanguard.




Hardcore Lefties often exude messianic & narcissistic complexes of varying intensity, and so often are found to be overeducated underachievers.


Ummm..so which is it? Overeducated underachievers, or uneducated self righteous easily manipulated pseudointellectuals?



Keep it coming! This is comedy gold!

Posted by: at June 01, 2006 09:54 AM (Efww0)

125 Interesting and Telling...as best I can tell from reading through the comments, no lefty touched this post. Hmmm.

I think this post and all comments are right on AND I'd add...when Jeff composes a long, well written, meaningfully thought out and sourced post-- on any given subject-- leftist bloggers and their cult member commenters get penis envy.


I mean any moron with a keyboard can compose a post "Jeff G. eats paste...OPEN TEH THREAD" or reach so low and pull the kolonopin card.

I think most of the hate directed at him is because he reveals their idolized bloggers as providing nothing of substance (Open thread) and they are embarrassed their idols are sort of dumbish deep down.

Posted by: topsecretk9 at June 01, 2006 09:58 AM (LCPB7)

126 Spades’ premise is flawed. Most of “The Left” doesn’t 'despise [his friend] most,' it doesn’t know he exists. Those who do, despise others more, & contempt for him isn’t unique to the left. And the dominant reaction to him isn’t rage.

But there is something to be explained. Among the possible reasons for Goldstein’s notoriety, Spades mentions only the one most flattering to him. There may be some truth to his view, but other factors, again not peculiar to the left, are more important. Some aren’t esp. admirable (sloth, spite, etc), others perfectly reasonable. The episodes at issue were largely occasioned not by cool, devastating feats of reasoning, but by hot, outlandish behavior: vindictive invasions of privacy, recurring fantasies of sexual humiliation, etc. Goldstein’s critics don’t share the view of his credentials & perspicience that Spades’ argument presupposes. They view the idea that he's intellectually devastated his critics as a risible example of the grandoise bullshitting pretension that Spades (accurately) ascribes to sections of the academic left. Attempts to discuss issues of substance with Goldstein all too often quickly devolve into a blur of fury, evasion, invective & lies. This is simply a fact; it can be demonstrated case by case.

Interestingly, Spades’ argument essentially is that the left has features of narcissistic personality disorder. (This also is Goldstein’s claim.) Interesting because it so strikingly projects Goldstein’s own behavior: rage at criticism, grandiosity, etc. I wish people would leave him alone, but Spades does his friend no service by participating in his pathology.

Posted by: KH at June 01, 2006 10:02 AM (MWRUT)

127 Interesting and Telling...as best I can tell from reading through the comments, no lefty touched this post. Hmmm

Until about now, TS9.

Posted by: kelly at June 01, 2006 10:23 AM (hjmYH)

128 ... a bunch of coffee shop psychologists ...

If we were credentialed psychologists we'd need drool bibs and 7/24 hour keepers.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 01, 2006 10:26 AM (gf5iT)

129 Interesting and Telling...as best I can tell from reading through the comments, no lefty touched this post. Hmmm


Ya got me. Us "lefties" were stunned. Simply unable to overcome the staggering, ingenious reasoning abilities on display. Our ivory tower, Ivy League educations (or pretensions thereof) have nothing on the sheer intellect and incisive commentary in the main entry and the comments that follow here today.


We are in awe. Shock and awe. And much like Icarus, and my arguments against Intelligent Design and Global Warming, any statement I wish to make to the contrary of the iron clad indictments of "the left" posted here today simply melt away and disintegrate in the blinding light of truth and logic which emanates from the intellectuals on this board.

Again, I'm speechless, and I'm hereby converting to neoconism.

Posted by: KC at June 01, 2006 10:32 AM (Efww0)

130 If we were credentialed psychologists we'd need drool bibs and 7/24 hour keepers.


You (and Tom Cruise) are right. Those credentialed psychologists and psychiatrists are all just a bunch of quacks practicing a pseudo science.

Posted by: KC at June 01, 2006 10:36 AM (Efww0)

131 Those credentialed psychologists and psychiatrists are all just a bunch of quacks practicing a pseudo science.

Based on recidivism rates, one certainly would conclude that they are just practicing and don't quite have the hang of it yet.

I took two years of psych and abnormal psych in college as electives. It is largely quackery pseudo-science IMO.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 01, 2006 10:55 AM (gf5iT)

132 Hahaha, keep it coming, wingnuts. I am so totally laughing, it's so laughable comedy gold or whatever.

My entire world is so overwhelmed and devastated by your analysis! Ewww!! I am a leftist and you totally got me!! Now I will watch Nascar and listen to Ted Nugent.

NOT.

See, in case you retard reactionaries didn't know, this is sarcasm, a technique which we MIT EE graduates hone while we are at studying our for our MIT degrees at MIT.

This means that when I say "I am devastated," I am not really devastated, but ironically skewering you with the subtextual messaged that I am in fact completely undevastated, you retards.

And also, I went to college at MIT.

Posted by: iowahawk at June 01, 2006 10:58 AM (C9YlT)

133 What, pray tell, is "neoconism?"

Posted by: Meekrob at June 01, 2006 11:10 AM (mA9tr)

134 It's a good thing I know who Iowahawk is. I just waved my Parody Detector over his post and nothing happened. Stupid moonbats owe me for the repairs on this thing. Maybe Sears has one that doesn't need to be recalibrated so often.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at June 01, 2006 11:16 AM (rE+jU)

135 What, pray tell, is "neoconism?"

It's funny that you should ask, meekrob, (you dunce). I was just thinking about this the other day.

When I first heard neo-con I thought it was a cute way for the Left to describe a Conservative. I figured the term was supposed to conjure up images of Nazism, fascism, zionism, all the bad -ism's.

But now, I'm thinking that the Neo-Cons are the moderate Republicans who used the Conservative base to further their single agenda -- making large corporations richer with cheap labor and international markets.

I'm now wondering if Bush was so upset on 9/12/2001 because it shut down Wall Street and would scare people into not laeving the house and spending money.

In retrospect, Bush's reaction to 9/11 was suspect. He did not immediatley secure the borders, overhaul INS, and shake-up the intelligence agencies.

No, Bush told everyone to go about their lives, spend money, let him worry about the new War on Terror.

In the months following 9/11, Bush invaded Afghanistan and ousted the Taliban from power, prepared to invade Iraq, left the borders wide open, and his INS agency awarded visas for some of the 19 hijackers from 9/11.

Yeah, I'm starting to question Bush's motives.

Posted by: at June 01, 2006 11:40 AM (/9c7l)

136 ^
me

Posted by: Bart at June 01, 2006 11:40 AM (/9c7l)

137 The INS has been a thoroughly broken bureaucratic nightmare for many years. To find more incompetent government agencies, you have to go to third world countries.

I'm not excusing Bush, but fixing the INS isn't something that could be done easily. It's gonna involve a major fight with government labor unions.

Posted by: sandy burger at June 01, 2006 11:49 AM (Uuy++)

138 nvolve a major fight with government labor unions

i.e. dream on.

Posted by: topsecretk9 at June 01, 2006 01:17 PM (LCPB7)

139 Great stuff, Ace. I find the same problem when debating global warming - advocates who cannot comprehend the science call it incontrovertibly proven. Just ask them who caused the arctic heat wave 55 millions of years ago and they go off to some do loop about how the fact that it happened then without industrialization shows how much worse it will be with industrialization....

You know like the taxes don't suppress the economy but let's tax gas to suppress it's usage logic.

I call that the left's Heads-I-Win-Tails-You-Lose-coin-toss intellectualism. It's the only game they know.

Posted by: Kathy at June 01, 2006 01:24 PM (1Z73S)

140 So why do leftists hate our boy Spurwing?

Posted by: Sticky B at June 01, 2006 02:20 PM (EJgMZ)

141 KC, so good of you to illustrate Ace's thesis so abundantly. Such generosity is seldom encountered.

(Hint: in order to condescend you have to start with a little altitude. Substituting a "t" for the "l" doesn't help.)

RLS, you have part of it. George Bush is a child of privilege, son of an East Coast intellectual. His mother is a Pierce, f'r cat's sake (as in "Franklin"). He went to all the right schools and was properly irresponsible as a young man. There was every reasonable expectation that he would grow up to be, to all intents and purposes, John Kerry. Instead he left all that, repudiated it in fact, and joined the Christer wingers. Every good lefty has to ask: Could that happen to me? To my kids? What malign influence could possibly have had such a horrid effect?

And since it's common to hate what one fears and fails to understand -- voila, BDS. Simple once you understand it, really.

Regards,
Ric

Posted by: Ric Locke at June 01, 2006 02:24 PM (BiG1a)

142 Oh man. I'm rolling here. Note no anger in my tone. Hahaha.

Gee, I don't get the impression that you're trying a little too hard at all.

Posted by: The Warden at June 01, 2006 03:00 PM (mj/rC)

143 Ha! MIT is for "amateur" wannabe moonbats (other than that asshat Chomsky).

My advanced degree in the sciences is from the University of California -- the gold standard for moonbatism.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 01, 2006 03:46 PM (gf5iT)

144 allah-

What's interesting, though, is the pass given to right-wing law professors. They're academics too, of course, but no one much fucks with them.

They'll try... if you are Justice Thomas.

How many times have you seen a 'leftist' criticize C.T. as a "Scalia clone"?

Ask that leftist, "Who concurred on a higher percentage of opinions: Thomas and Scalia; or Marshall and Brennan?"

After they confirm the 'bad news', I predict you'll be called a 'hater'...

Posted by: fletch at June 01, 2006 03:53 PM (e5ifM)

145 Right on brother I hear you! I think that Jane Smiley's post-election Tantrum on "Slate" summed up the "left" perfectly --you people are too stupid to be entrusted with the right to vote because you failed to recognize the genuis of Moveon.org and the democratic party candidate, in the future, you morons should just do what we, us intellectuals, tell you to do.
I have always felt the the arrogant intellectual position of the left is why the left, "the party of the people" have been responsible for so much bloodshed. Socialism in all its incarnations (Facism included-after all it is "National Socialism") assumes mental and moral superiority over others. When you assume that you are brilliant and those who disagree with you to be mentally and morally inferior, you can treat them with distain and destroy those who are not capable of recognizing this. After all, the left is really doing mankind a favor by ridding humanity of those undersirables. (Sound familiar?)

Posted by: tjann at June 01, 2006 04:04 PM (0aqQJ)

146 The City Pages, Minneapolis's alternative weekly, did a cover-story take-down of James Lileks about two years ago, and I always thought the tone of that article came from the same place that you describe about the left's reaction to Jeff Goldstein. On all discernable criteria Lileks belongs in the liberal camp - he refuses to leave Mpls for the suburbs, he loves good design, he is famous for his witty approach to pop cultural history, etc. What sort of Bush-supporter is that? DOES NOT COMPUTE!!!

Posted by: Jonathan at June 01, 2006 06:28 PM (80Ics)

147 Geez, you guys talk a lot. Have you ever stopped to wonder if it's simply because they can't figure him out? Except for the journalists and six bloggers, the average reading comprehension level for a liberal is stuck somewhere between eighth grade and gym. That's why they invented books on audio. I thought everyone who reads blogs knew that.

And thanks for screwing up my url Ace. I can't comment because it ends in ew-dot-com?? ha ha I never knew you were so politically correct. ; )

Posted by: Dan at June 01, 2006 06:40 PM (7e1m4)

148 test

Posted by: Tudalu at June 01, 2006 06:41 PM (QRBhQ)

149 According to the article, we should not be led into calling them positive words like 'progressives', 'elites', and 'liberals'. They are nothing of the sort.

An explanation on leftism resulting in automatic anti-Americanism. Ironically, countries moving away from leftism are now very pro-America. Some surprises here.

Posted by: Tudalu at June 01, 2006 06:42 PM (QRBhQ)

150 you're on, tudalu.

GO!

Posted by: rt at June 01, 2006 06:56 PM (0p4xh)

151 I second Sowell's Conflict of Visions. Really, if you want to understand the origins of modern political ideas, you have to find the time to read this book. It's scholarly but assessible. And in the academic style, it betrays no attitude toward it's subject, unlike some of Sowell's more recent, popular work.

Anyhoo, as I've posted elsewhere, my favorite part is when Jeff takes his opponents' argument and restates it for them—better than they could ever say it themselves—complete with references, in their own lingo... right before he turns around and guts it like a deer, starting with their premises and finishing with their implications. It's both beautiful and horrible at the same time.

They hate him because he not only has broken their code, he has read all of their "important" books, knows all of their themes and theories most often better than they do. Because of this, Jeff can rebut their arguments based on their internal logic. It's so fucking devastating it borders on the brutal. But Jeff never gives it to anyone who doesn't ask for it, in my opinion, so hey.

:peter

Posted by: Peter Jackson at June 01, 2006 06:58 PM (LQEWm)

152 I've picked corn, I've husked corn, I've boiled corn and I've grilled corn. How, exactly, does one hole corn?

Posted by: triticale at June 01, 2006 07:06 PM (LprMM)

153 "That way madness lies, of course."

Bingo. It seems to be a cult-like self-induced paranoia, which includes delusions of grandeur. And when you don't go along with their delusions, they respond angrily, sometimes hinting at violence, and in extreme cases becoming violent. All justified by their delusions, of course.

Sounds almost like a fundamentalist religion, doesn't it? Maybe that's why they hate fundamentalist Christians - they see what they dislike most in themselves, but dare not acknowledge it.

Posted by: Jim C. at June 01, 2006 07:26 PM (K0sWO)

154 "The left, to a man, considers itself to be educated and enlightened. It matters not how little actual schooling a particlular leftist may have had, nor how unintelligent the person might be."

I find the highly educated, these days, to be incredibly stupid as well as ignorant. The modern "education" system has been described thus: "If another country had foisted our education system on us, we'd consider it an act of war".

They really need to changed the term to the "Indoctrination System", as it's more appropriate to Hitler, Stalin, Mao...

Posted by: Sharpshooter at June 01, 2006 07:48 PM (2+/nF)

Posted by: GK at June 01, 2006 07:55 PM (QRBhQ)

156 I'm a lefty (with libertarian leanings) and a fan of Jeff's many high-, middle-, and lowbrow musings. I don't agree with him that often, and I see a lot of hypocrisy (or is that HYPOCRISY!) is him, but above all, he makes me think outside my usual opinions. I don't always get that from left-leaning blogs.

I'd get bored reading lefty opinions all the time. Reading some leftish blogs shows me that there are many righty commenters out there who also like to stray off their reservations. Good for them. I'm glad we aren't a nation of dittoheads.

Posted by: jon at June 01, 2006 08:03 PM (+vPyn)

157 Goldstein is spewing some rehashed Hermaneutic Theory that has been around for quite some time. There is nothing new in what he says. The 'Texts' have been gone over many times before. The Code is just to speak alot of Mumbo Jumbo Convoluted BS, so people like you, here, think he is some kind of genius, Yet none of you even know what he has said.
WTF does that tell you?
Jeebus, you think that I didn't look into and read that stuff? You think that Im a liberal because I dont agree with this Theory of Goldstein, thats NOT new, I, Mean come one Reynolds, many a fmaily member of mine has served this country, and here we have a college chicken hawkm with a stupid Scroll and Key 'code', and you are protecting this stupid shit?
Read this link Reynolds.
And lOOK before YOU leap Pal.
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-06/06-3-19-e.htm#gaut

Posted by: Its OLD CRAP at June 01, 2006 08:34 PM (FiP+x)

158 Good job, Ace. You manage to write a whole rant about "leftism" without even once citing any evidence from any prominent "leftist." Writing about reality instead of your own unfounded stereotypes is probably too much to ask.

Lets take an example, from the Goldberg quote: "Israel is considered by many on the left to be a traitor to the cause of worldwide socialism..." I am a certified leftist, UC Berkeley educated even, and have never ever once heard this sentiment expressed by anyone. I can confidently say that this belief has no influence whatsoever on any debate over Israel in the United States. It is completely made up by people on the right to demonize those on the left. Just like this post.

Posted by: bbq wings at June 01, 2006 08:36 PM (c+1UA)

159 Actually jon you've just described yourself as a dittohead for Jeff.

Posted by: SM at June 01, 2006 08:40 PM (wdk1s)

160 What is so interesting about this theory, and what I haven't seen brought up in the commentary, is that Ace's assertion (about progressives' self-worth/ego being so tied up in their political beliefs, and consequently their hostility to those who reject the normally-assigned narrative) is testable.

The gut feel test is whether this jives with what you know about progressives that you know personally. I have certainly known progressives for whom this was not true. OK, I shouldn't have used the plural; I've known a progressive for whom this was not true. I have known of others, but that was from their later, conservative or libertarian, incarnations. Most conservatives I have known are very ideologically locked into their beliefs and unwilling to accept challenges outside a certain narrow realm (that is, they tend to set the terms of the debate, and quickly resort to name-calling or other debate-stopping tactics when the debate moves beyond the ground they set). This is also true of very religious, but not very intelligent, conservatives. The gut feel test checks out, but indicates that the signifier might not be progressivism per se, but any belief that has a basis in faith rather than reason. (And as Ace noted about the cognitive dissonances that are required to be progressive, much faith is a given for most progressives.)

A more rigorous test would be to look at some characteristic of a person as rated by themselves or a neutral observer (say, their level of faith given my gut check, or the ratio of their self-worth to their actual accomplishments looking at Ace's proposition), and score that against, say, a test that measures whether people's reactions are visceral or reasoned when presented with positions they strongly disagree with.

A lack of correlation would throw cold water on Ace's proposition. A correlation would indicate that more refined testing would be in order. (For example, is one's personal sense of investment in policies that don't impact you personally also correlated to one's feelings about people who are like you except that they believe differently on particular issues?)

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at June 01, 2006 09:16 PM (7Q2cA)

161 I find it interesting to note the difference in tone between the most popular left-wing blog (Daily Kos) and the most popular right-wing blog (Instapundit).

Posted by: sandy burger at June 01, 2006 09:28 PM (Epllv)

162 I agree with you in theory, Jeff. But in practice:

a test that measures whether people's reactions are visceral or reasoned when presented with positions they strongly disagree with

Good luck finding an objective measure of that.

Posted by: sandy burger at June 01, 2006 09:30 PM (Epllv)

163 By the way, I have to say, I'm a little bit disappointed that my Jeff Goldstein imitation didn't manage to provoke an angry response from him or his readers. You know he's been reading this thread.

Even more evidence that I'm slipping. Sigh...

Posted by: sandy burger at June 01, 2006 09:39 PM (Epllv)

164 can i just ask a little question about all these pronouncements on "leftists" and "progressives" and so forth? who exactly are these leftists that all y'all know? do you spend a lot of time hanging out at the daily worker headquarters or something? i'll be honest, i went into skim mode on your post as soon as i hit the part about "worldwide socialism." do you really know people who advocate "worldwide socialism"?

i mean, i grew up in a liberal family (two parents, opposite sexes -- imagine that! -- lived in a nice house in the suburbs, my mom was a stay-at-home mom for most of my childhood), and i've known hundreds if not thousands of liberals in my life, and i've yet to encounter a devotee of worldwide socialism. the people i know like to make money, buy stuff, go to 4th of july fireworks, all that kinda thing. they're also pretty big on america, albeit maybe in a more kind of warts-and-all way than y'all are comfortable with.

i don't know much about this goldstein guy -- i've seen the paste-eating cartoons on atrios, which seem pretty juvenile, but then so too does an awful lot of what i see on the right-wing blogs (if you're really wondering which side is more civil and couth and adult, the answer is neither).

i assume a fair number of the people who post on these blogs, left or right, are reasonable adult humans, and if we happened to be at a bar or something we could probably have interesting conversation without getting into calling each other communists and nazis. i think that side of blogs is pretty regrettable. i guess i'm not even sure why i'm here. it's just that every once in a while i get the urge to try to reach out a little beyond all the bullshit nonsense stereotypes (one more time, american liberals are not actually communists, any more than you're a closet fascist) probably to no avail.

but anyway, if you ever get a chance to talk to a real honest-to-goodness liberal -- you know, maybe someone in your office voted for kerry or something -- it might help. because if you want to argue with people who believe what i believe, it would help your cause an awful lot if you actually knew what that was. just sayin'.

Posted by: liberal, yup at June 01, 2006 09:51 PM (dO5Sl)

165 Sandy: There's another possible interpertation - it was dead on, and worth a laugh.

Old Crap: Rehashed hermaneutic theory it might be, but that neither discredits it nor makes it impossible to understand.

At heart, his point is simple: If a reader decides to recast a text using his or her own view of what the author meant, that's fine, but it's not interpretation, it's the creation of a new and possibly derivative work.

I, apparently alone among the two of us, fail to see what's so hard to understand and agree with in that theory.

Posted by: Patton at June 01, 2006 09:53 PM (Kc90N)

166 "I find it interesting to note the difference in tone between the most popular left-wing blog (Daily Kos) and the most popular right-wing blog (Instapundit)."---


Give me a break, that is just comparing a place where more extreme people have easy access to readers to a one person blog who makes a point of coming across reasonably. If you take a gym of liberals and compare what you hear on the most extreme, of course it is going to be more histronic than a moderate conservative. To be fair in comparison, you have to compare one on the right blogs where people post, which I hazard to say often sound like everything liberal's sometimes accuses far right conservatives of: racism, classism, war-mongering and all the rest.

Here's an open question, by feeling the need to attack the 'intellectual' underpinings of 'liberals', doesn't that just reveal a deep-sourced insecurity about the low level of 'intellectualism' in say, the Republican Party?

I say that acknowledging the accruracy of the story of why some kids go to school and turn into 'leftist', but I think any fair discussion mentions people feeling out of touch, angry and ignorant at the 'intellectual elites' and turning to their preacher to learn new words of hate. I mean, how do uninformed far right conservatives get their politics? Well, they get it beaten into them every week at thought camp, or as some call it church. But here I want to make a very clear distinction, the kind I think the author of this post should have done bu didn't, I am not saying that ALL people who go to church and are conservative are intellectually insecure and just parrot mr. preacher. I AM saying if you look at the average uninformed far right religious conservative, their beliefs are underpinned by as much intellectual insecurity as any, hence appealing to conservatism which allows them to look down on people in their own way. (Basically, both side experience this phenomenon, but you know, that kind of idea wouldn't make for a nice inflammtory-'let's cut out the intellectual underpinnings of all liberal pretention'-post now would it?)

Posted by: Alex at June 01, 2006 10:29 PM (lS2nE)

167 You want to know why I have a problem with Israel? Cause they keep oppressing people. Killing them, even. Indiscriminately at times.

That's why I have a problem with the Palestinians, too. (Although my government isn't sending huge amounts of money, blah blah. You've heard it all before and it's bounced off your thick skulls.) It's not an "either/or" proposition, being anti-human-rights-abuses. It's a "both/and."

And worldwide socialism has even less to do with it than my mother's tuna casserole does.

Posted by: It's Not Difficult at June 01, 2006 11:14 PM (aTZaE)

168 To clarify:

"Isn't sending amounts as huge as to Israel."

Obviously.

Posted by: It's not difficult at June 01, 2006 11:16 PM (c7rNU)

169 Thank you for telling me who to hate. Before I read this post, I had no idea what a Jeff Goldstein was and I've been a lefty blogger for nearly four years.

It might be because I don't go places where it seems like teenage flamers rule the roost.. Nor do I take time to ask for their names because what's the point?

Nor do I understand what a Little Green Football is, beyond a blog title.Maybe it alludes to something only an erudite scholar can 'get'.

Oh well. So who else am I supposed to hate as part of my lefty quota?

Posted by: Kevin Hayden at June 01, 2006 11:57 PM (4ty6T)

170 Kevin Hayden says:
"It might be because I don't go places where it seems like teenage flamers rule the roost.?"

If you exclude the flamers on the left side of the blogosphere then the list of sites to read thins quickly. Goodbye Atrios, Kos and Hamsher and that is just to start.

Posted by: Chris Sandvick at June 02, 2006 12:34 AM (Tf+YP)

171 Ace attends mostly to the idea that people who disagree with him collectively are distinguished by a character disorder, but he also refers to a “reservation” theory. It’s a bad theory.

Anywhere politics is thought to affect the welfare of groups, people's group identity will affect our evaluation of the appropriateness or perversity of their political attitudes. The distinction between external enemies and internal traitors arguably is a moral universal. (It may extend to nonhuman primates.) Even non-members have opinions about what attitudes are appropriate in others, based on their group identity, given what it’s thought they themselves should think, given their identity. Both Jews & gentiles distinguish between Ivan the Terrible and a Jewish kapo. Both are evil, but the later also is moral-psychologically perverse, given his identity. I don’t think that’s an obviously wrong claim. Some people claim that left-wing Jews perversely connive with their enemies, others that right-wing Jews do. Some people who say A say nobody should say B, but especially members of group X (businessmen, workers, Christians, Jews, gun owners, gays, blacks, whites, veterans, real Americans, etc). Even people who don’t think white supremacism is wrong may suspect that there’s something perverse about black collaborators with it (e.g. the black Nazi in Vonnegut’s ‘Mother Night’ or a black assistant to a Jim Crow politician). These are all assignments based on identity.

Politics consists in part in efforts to change perceptions of its group effects, and so of what’s appropriate and what’s perverse for group members. Nazis & their enemies contested, among other things, the moral legitimacy of Quisling’s politics. Members & nonmembers equally seek to change what’s seen to be good for – and appropriate or perverse among – businessmen, workers, Christians, Jews, etc. Political factions cultivate spokesmen who, by virtue of their group identity, may change perceptions not only of the group-structure of politics, but also of the range of views deemed appropriate among members of their groups. Ace’s theory is itself an effort change perceptions in this way.

None of this is distinctive to the left or to identity politics, however conceived. It’s just a general feature of politics, period. For Ace’s critique to succeed, further distinctions are necessary.

Posted by: KH at June 02, 2006 01:47 AM (MWRUT)

172 What an outstanding post. As an apostate myself since 1998 (lefty Dem for 30 years), I know what you write is true. In 1998 I had finally had it with the lies and rank hypocrisy on the Left, and there was no room left for me in the Democrat party. (My particular beef, as a lifelong feminist, was with feminism, but it spread to everything else as the entire house of cards crumbled for me.) Still, so emotionally invested in the notion of being a liberal Dem was I that I wandered in a hideous limbo for 6 - 8 months, unable to go back, unwilling to go forward even though I knew I had to. Even as my mind turned rightward my spirit rebelled. Just the word "Republican" was an obscenity. Never doubt that is exactly what the Left thinks/feels (and remember, for the Left, there is no distinction between feeling and thinking).


For any of us who have traveled the Left to Right path, it is very much like EST (anyone remember that?); a whole purging/withdrawal/purifying/relearning experience that is a total shock to the mind and heart. "Paradigm shift" is not a cliche or understatement. It was a most painful experience, similar to the death of an immediate family member or the loss of a limb. This is due to the phenomenon Ace describes.

A
s a Republican and much more importantly, conservative, I hold very strong principles and ideals, but an attack on them is not an attack on me personally. That is so not true when you are a Democrat and more importantly a liberal/Lefty. (And I agree; they are NOT liberal; they are anti-Semites, racebaiters, gender- and gay-baiters, and some of the most misanthropic people as a group that I have ever known.)


Those of us who used to be on the Left know there is no real intellectualism there. There is endless self-delusion and fraud...but it makes them feel good and superior, so it's all wonderful. The really fascinating thing for me is the way they deal with us apostates. If the Left is "smart" and the right is "stupid," how do they account for the great number of us former lefty rightwingers? Did we suddenly lose all our smarts? This is another aspect of what drives them insane, besides the obvious rejection of the lefty worldview. They literally cannot understand this, and not understanding something is utterly unacceptable, so it must be rejected and denied.


"Truth" as we understand it literally has no meaning for these people.

Posted by: Peg C. at June 02, 2006 01:51 AM (BCvPl)

173 I know what you mean about the conceit of the Left. I've encountered people--some of them very nice people otherwise--who are, by any standard I can think of, uneducated, or at least half-educated; who rarely read books; and who regard the syllogism the way Dracula regards a crucifix. Yet they think of themselves as being part of an intellectual elite (often castigating Americans as "stupid"), mainly (from what they tell me and from what I can observe) because they have access to the Internet and can fill their minds with the various moonbat party-lines accessible there. I recall in the late Fifties or early Sixties a liberal critic ridiculing the John Birch Society, comparing it to Charles Atlas: that the JBS offered any befuddled, put-upon schnook--just by "filling out the coupon" (i.e., signing up for membership) the chance to become part of a Commie-bashing elite, smarter and stronger than the rest of America. If it were true of the JBS (and actually all of the Birchers I've met have been fairly literate, well-read, educated people), it must be doubly true of today's Left. People who would once have been semi-literate doofuses get to become smarter, better, stronger and more enlightened than the masses just by "filling out the coupon" and signing up with the Left.

Posted by: Bilwick at June 02, 2006 02:49 AM (AktpP)

174 Give me a break, that is just comparing a place where more extreme people have easy access to readers to a one person blog who makes a point of coming across reasonably.

It's not the content itself as much as the popularity of that content that makes the comparison important. The reasonable tone of Instapundit (#13) obviously has a widespread appeal among moderates, liberatarians, and some conservatives. The caustic tone of Kos (#2 and #4) and Eschaton (#14) obviously has widespread appeal to the far left and some moderate liberals.

The more strident tones of Michelle Malkin (#1 and LGF #19) offer an equivalence on the right to Daily Kos and Atrios on the left, but they are about 4.5 times less popular than DK.

Posted by: geoff at June 02, 2006 03:07 AM (nH1Ad)

175 Ace, that's a great rant 'round the mulberry bush, and I agree 100% with what you say, but you miss the 900 pound armadillo who sits wherever he wants on the elephant, as long as we're mass murdering metaphors here.

Leftism is the substitution of Marxist / neo-Marxist orthodoxy for judeo-christian religion. The reason leftists hate Goldstein - and to a lesser degree you and me - is because the mannichean universe of the pre-reformation Church has been utilized as a framework for the discussion of politics and every little thing. Whereas the old world view was a dichotomy - Of the City of God / Not of the City of God - the new world view of the progressives, so-called, is With Us / Agin Us. The same good/evil distinction the medieval Church once held, now applies to the way the left views life. If you are not 100% on board, then you are a heretic and a worthy target of the Church's full and weighty weapons. The violent reactions of the left towards anybody not completely with their program, are completely understandable when you comprehend their politics as an extension of the medieval mindset.

Conservative Blacks and Jews, and former leftists and liberals like David Horowitz, merit special spite in this system. Unlike you and I, Ace, and many of our friends here, we're mere pagans, Turks to the leftists' Rome. Yeah, I got a law degree and a pretty rarified practice area, but I'm a former enlisted guy and my professional writings are of a technical nature, not a grand sweeping vision for Utopian societal reform, or long-winded expositions of the impact of Shakespeare on transexualism. I don't count because I'm not supposed to be in the leftist camp. On the other hand, presumptive leftists - people of color, Jews, intellectuals - who stray from the party line are viewed as much worse than you or I. While some of us ignoramuses can be virtuous pagans insofar as we can agree with a few things the leftists say, and are at least suffered with good will at times (if it suits the Pope), those who stray from the reservation are heretics. They should know better than to commit such a grievous sin, to attempt to disprove that All Good Blacks or All Good Jews should be leftists, and as such are subject to trial for heresy, the punishment for which is burning at the stake.

All your discussion of this and much of the commentary above is correct, but I think you need to understand the religious overlay of the leftist viewpoint, otherwise it doesn't make sense why they would have such intense, personal investment in it. Marx set out to kill God, and indeed he did. The only problem was, in the absence of God, there's now a lesser god, or perhaps a pantheon of lesser gods in His place, and forgiveness and searching inquiry in pursuit of objective truth do not seem to be virtues according to the Doctors of this new Church.

I speak as a guy who was just recently called a sick scum and threatened (non-colorably) with physical violence for holding conservative viewpoints and accused of being a handmaiden to something akin to genocide. I think the reason was I failed to condemn a co-blogger's discussion of the hard left as treasonous, or something to that effect. My rejoinder was that it was a rather Stalinist tactic to assume my silence meant endorsement of the rhetoric, which was met with more accusations of mental illness, and so forth. It was charming, really, and like most encounters with leftists, finished with me asking why I should ever bother tolerating them. No debate is possible, no compromise possible. While you and I start from the premise "reasonable minds can differ" their premise is "if you differ from my opinion, you are either evil, or clinically insane, or evilly insane." It's not worth trying to deal with such people because, just like arguing religion, you are never going to convince them of anything.

Posted by: Al Maviva at June 02, 2006 04:23 AM (JWPkP)

176 The crux of your piece can be summed up in the very phrase that Team Lefty loves to throw about: "Speaking Truth to Power". An utterly meaningless term that lends itself to great authority within modern leftist circles, while having no actual legitimate meaning or purpose. Pretty much sums of the entire thesis you have presented.

Posted by: Gabriel at June 02, 2006 05:00 AM (NTVio)

177 Liberalism is mental disorder, blah, blah blah. You should team up with Goldstein sometime. Never have two writers together used so many words that, in the end, signify nothing.

The reason "The Left" (that monolithic entity that also, incidentally, eats babies with barbecue sauce) "hates" ("laughs at" is probably closer to the tone of rhetoric I see) Goldstein is that the man is a narcissisitc troll. Write one word mentioning his name, and, sure enough, he'll show up in your comments section spewing his two-penny philosophy interspersed with asides about the author blowing his dog. It's as though he spends his days trolling the Internets for any mention of his name all the while thinking up new canine blowjob metaphors.

Anyway, when you guys finally send us liberals to the reeducation camps, please, please, make sure Goldstein is not an instructor.

Posted by: In Vino Veritas at June 02, 2006 05:01 AM (/KYMD)

Posted by: Peg at June 02, 2006 05:10 AM (Ffvoi)

179 " . . . when you guys send us liberals to the reeducation camps. . . ." There's a good example of what the shrinks call "projection."

Posted by: Bilwick at June 02, 2006 05:16 AM (AktpP)

180 Me, I think some folks just don't got no sense of humor.

You know - assholes.

Posted by: mojo at June 02, 2006 05:30 AM (D3yRn)

181 Liberalism is self-loathing and blaming others for your problems.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at June 02, 2006 05:32 AM (pzen5)

182 If you tell a Lefty that raising taxes would damage the economy and probably result in less revenue for the Treasury and they accept these things, they'll still want to raise taxes.

That alone tells you all you need to know about what drives a Lefty to be a Lefty.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 02, 2006 05:39 AM (uSomN)

183 According to In Vino, liberalism is all about blowing one's dog.

Posted by: shawn at June 02, 2006 05:39 AM (Cw+TL)

184 In Vino... is right!

Posted by: M/ke at June 02, 2006 05:41 AM (mA9tr)

185 Uh, Goldstein isn't a college professor. He's a former grad student who didn't even finish his Ph.D. Such "credentials" impress nobody but his fluffers, well-represented in the comments here.

Posted by: Big Worm at June 02, 2006 06:16 AM (mY5wf)

186 I didn't know that.

I hate his fucking guts now.

Posted by: spongeworthy at June 02, 2006 06:23 AM (uSomN)

187 Uh, Goldstein isn't a college professor. He's a former grad student who didn't even finish his Ph.D. Such "credentials" impress nobody but his fluffers, well-represented in the comments here.

I'm not impressed by credentials. Being a PhD or a college professor doesn't require an emorous intellect. Just a desire to stay in a nice safe academic world and not have to face the real world.

What impresses me is a demonstrated intelligence and the ability to demonstrate independent thought. I see little of the former and almost none of the latter on the left.


Posted by: JackStraw at June 02, 2006 06:34 AM (J8+2b)

188 Hey Reynolds, you are always talking about blood and death, I have seen first hand what it does to people, people in my family. How about you shut the hell up, go join blackwater and Kill some folks, Isn't this what you want to do, Profit and Kill?
To Prove your a Christian He man?
I dare you, I double dawg, spit on my gun, and dare your ass, to take it to IRAQ, and when you get back, if you do, tell us then about what you saw, and when you can't sleep at night, and screams and death fill your dreams, and your wife leaves you, because you are "not the same", then you, and every one of you here, can then and only then have the right to ask others to go to war for you.

Till then Assholes, I expect to here nothing more of your Anti-War Liberal Bullshit.
Go sign up Tom Delay will assist you in your wish to Kill.
Go, and take that nasally wimp Goldstein with you. Worthless Damn Chicken shit Bloggers.

MAASS: WHAT IS Blackwater USA?

Scahill: BLACKWATER USA is the most rapidly growing and, arguably, the most successful mercenary firm in the world today.

A few years ago, no one had ever heard of it. The company was founded by a very right-wing fundamentalist Christian and former Navy SEAL by the name of Erik Prince. Prince comes from a family that was a major bankroller of far-right-wing causes. His father was a close friend of Gary Bauer and helped him to found the Family Research Council.

Blackwater started in the late 1990s as a firm that was going to train law enforcement, and supplement the work of the U.S. military. When the Bush administration took power and then September 11 happened, the company absolutely exploded--and turned into an all-out mercenary firm.

Blackwater was awarded the prize contract in Iraq to provide security for the original head of the U.S. occupation, Paul Bremer. At the time, it was a $21 million contract, but more important than the money was the prestige that came with being the guys who were guarding the head of the U.S. occupation.

Then in March 2004, four Blackwater contractors were ambushed and killed in the Iraqi city of Falluja, with two of their bodies hung from a bridge. That really put Blackwater on the map.

The company viewed this as a great moment to profit. The day after those guys were killed, Erik Prince hired the Alexander Strategy Group, a very powerful lobbying and p.r. firm. Now, it's a disgraced firm, but at the time, it was very powerful--it had been set up and staffed by former senior aides to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Posted by: Filth O'Lielly at June 02, 2006 06:38 AM (Qs09C)

189 Big Worm -

So if he knows the ins and outs of lit theory and semiotics and can formulate intelligent arguments that point out the shortcomings in modern lit/crit, it still doesn't count because he's just a "former grad student who didn't finish the Ph.D?"

In effect, you're doing exactly what Ace pointed out in his post--attacking Goldstein's intellectual credentials in order to discredit his arguments, and then going one step further, sublty attacking the worth of credentials themselves via sneer quotes, in order to give yourself an out if someone on the other side tries to play the academic "who's got the bigger brain/ more advanced degrees" trump card.

Clever rhetorical setup, in that it manages to completely ignore the actual arguments being made in favor of adopting a superior pose from which to safely disregard the conversation at hand.

Oh, and I only possess a lowly MA in English Lit and theory, so feel free to disregard my comment as insufficiently intellectually elite and group me with the "fluffers."

Posted by: BAW at June 02, 2006 06:44 AM (vPr8Z)

190 Stupid fecks, Why aint you literature professors throwing down your damn books and speaking your convoluted bullshit to the Iraqis? Oh yeh You want to talk and not fight, I see.

So how do you propose to be A Patriot?
By Yapping yer useless snakeholes? Bashing people whom have been to war, because you think they are Liberal is Patriotism?

Cmon Professor, shut your mouth, pick up a gun, go to Blackwater, tell them I want to kill people in Iraq. I want to make money.
And Waa Laaa, you are that Great Warrior you want to be. The you will have nothing to prove to this "Liberal" about being Patriotic.
Take Goldstein and your Dialectic to IRAQ if its that damn great and can Explain 'LIFE'
I'm sure you intellectuals can beat them down with your words? Right?
I mean you are a Christian Prophet right?
Goldstein is a Rabbi? An Elohi? He is YHWH? Are you Adam Reynolds? Adonai?
You are Adepts?
You have seen God?
And you Know all the great truths and wisdoms upon this planet?
Are you so sure of thiose words to fight for them?
And if so then why do Goldstein and Reynolds only Blog Bullshit?
I say they should put money where mouth is. Go to IRAQ Reynolds or STFU

Posted by: at June 02, 2006 06:48 AM (Qs09C)

191 So if he knows the ins and outs of lit theory and semiotics and can formulate intelligent arguments that point out the shortcomings in modern lit/crit, it still doesn't count because he's just a "former grad student who didn't finish the Ph.D?"

when its dark and bullets fly over your head, maybe you guys can make some pretty prayers with all your words and semantic, Dialectical, Symbology and theories. Cause Brother If Bush creates a world war, we may be sharing a Fox hole. Just remember that.

Posted by: at June 02, 2006 06:51 AM (Qs09C)

192 Ace:

I disagree with your self-assessment: Your analysis sounds quite intellectual -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

Seriously, though, I recommend that you and many of your commentators read up on one of the sub-types of narcissistic personality disorder, i.e., borderline personality disorder. I think you will agree that professional psychologists (who are credentialled intellectuals, by the way) have developed a "unified field theory" that explains how Bush Derangement Syndrome, and Jeff Goldstein Derangement Syndrome, arise and are expressed. For more, see shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2005/02/narcissism_mali.html
and especially drsanity.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Kneave Riggall at June 02, 2006 06:51 AM (4U4Og)

193 Your very first excerpt demonstrates why most intelligent humans, progressive or otherwise, find Pasty a pathetic excuse for an "intellectual". Because he is so invested in his predetermined narrative -- all lefties are members of some mythical worldwide socialist conspiracy -- it never occurs to him to actually read any progressive commentary on Israel. Rather, he like many wingnuts, is going to graciously let us know what it is that we think. I really can't remember the last time I worried about the declining population of kibbutzim in Isreal. Maybe a dinner party in 1973? And I'm fairly sure the stock portfolio contains any number of good capitalist Isreali companies.

Now our complete and utter contempt for the wanker is easy to understand. He makes a big fucking deal of signing the bogus "Online Integrity" pledge and then proceeds to egregiously violate it by outing an anonymous blogger.

Teh mature.

He's a hypocrite, a WATB, a mental midget and an utter waste as a human.

Posted by: flory at June 02, 2006 06:51 AM (zhQ++)

194 Oh goody, another semi-literate castrato troll. Just what's been lacking around here.

Posted by: Meekrob at June 02, 2006 06:53 AM (mA9tr)

195 Well, but there is another thing, Simmias: Is there or is there not an absolute justice?

Assuredly there is.
And an absolute beauty and absolute good?
Of course.
But did you ever behold any of them with your eyes?
Certainly not.
Or did you ever reach them with any other bodily sense? (and I speak not of these alone, but of absolute greatness, and health, and strength, and of the essence or true nature of everything). Has the reality of them ever been perceived by you through the bodily organs? or rather, is not the nearest approach to the knowledge of their several natures made by him who so orders his intellectual vision as to have the most exact conception of the essence of that which he considers?

Certainly.
And he attains to the knowledge of them in their highest purity who goes to each of them with the mind alone, not allowing when in the act of thought the intrusion or introduction of sight or any other sense in the company of reason, but with the very light of the mind in her clearness penetrates into the very fight of truth in each; he has got rid, as far as he can, of eyes and ears and of the whole body, which he conceives of only as a disturbing element, hindering the soul from the acquisition of knowledge when in company with her-is not this the sort of man who, if ever man did, is likely to attain the knowledge of existence?

Posted by: at June 02, 2006 06:55 AM (Qs09C)

196 Try reading the post, BAW. Ace's whole theory is that "the left" hates Goldstein because he's a credentialed professor who is also right-wing. The fact that he isn't, in fact, a credentialed professor kinda knocks the legs out from under that theory.

Ace made this about Goldstein's credentials and premised his theory on a falsehood, to which my comment was directed. Might want to ask your school for a refund.

Posted by: Big Worm at June 02, 2006 06:57 AM (mY5wf)

197 An intelligent man can act illiterate.
An illiterate man cannot.

Do not take my typos as a sign of intelligence, nor my use of simple sentences lightly, for they contain more than paragraphs about hermaneutics could ever thus describe about that what will not avail itself to you as long as you have bias in your heart.
If you were not an unbalanced form of energy, such as the Cross of Christ, then you would not exist.

Posted by: Anonymouse at June 02, 2006 07:02 AM (Qs09C)

198 Nicely put, Ace. The only thing I can add is:

BECAUSE OF THE ANATHEMA!

Posted by: Tom at June 02, 2006 07:02 AM (ZYXl9)

199 There are in effect only three simple things that create the whole. Aei Pei and flow.

That what Thales described as a soul in lodestone, is easily comparable to the magnetic field of earth.
The Schumann Resonance is thus compared to Poseidon whom chained at the ankles shook thy earth.

Does not this Resonation exist and been proven today?
Why for is it that thou cannot see simply?
Has not this simple things caused you to think greater things?

Posted by: at June 02, 2006 07:06 AM (Qs09C)

200 ntodd and Haggerty outed Haggerty. And I have no doubt it was Haggerty who wrote the disgusting comment about his own daughter on his own blog. Why else would Haggerty not give up the isp? Why would any father repeat the disgusting comment several times in his own posts? Talk about a lack of integrety – online or otherwise. Bleh.

Posted by: shawn at June 02, 2006 07:07 AM (Cw+TL)

201 ^

I have seen some truly bizarre comments in my day, but I think that right there takes the cake.

Posted by: Johnny GetShotALot at June 02, 2006 07:09 AM (971Ew)

202 Then thusly if thy earth shakes, and it is so, why so do you man not feel this?

Doth not the EKG signals emit from thy scalp? And what prey tell is the frequency of these lines of energy we draw upon scrolls?

Whom hath noticed that our cells are like small black holes, todays quantum cellular envelopes?

Doth not a human create an Aura?
How so can one explain this unbalanced energy that does not burn hot?
Must it then be a negative or scalar energy?
Doth not a spark make you heart beat?

YaY, ye with a heavy heart, full of rage and bias, shall surely sink to nefarity to accomplish your goals.

No. Again No.
It is not good vs Evil, it is light vs heavy.
The light resides in each and every one of you. You wil not find it thru wars, nor money, nor power of position.

Posted by: at June 02, 2006 07:17 AM (Qs09C)

203 Big Worm,

Go back, read what ace wrote - move your lips if it helps you understand the sentences you'll see.

ace didn't write what you thought he wrote.

or, since the evidence is that you'll not read this either in this format.

aec dind't wirte waht yuo thuohgt eh wrteo.

m'kay?

Cheers.

Posted by: BumperStickerist at June 02, 2006 07:19 AM (PcDvW)

204 Anyway, when you guys finally send us liberals to the reeducation camps...

I've been hearing about this for 6 years now. Why hasn't it happened yet? I demand answers Mr. Bush! What kind of fascist are you supposed to be, anyhow? I say contract Halliburton to take care of it at once!

Posted by: Zuke at June 02, 2006 07:22 AM (WGcw3)

205 He's the worst sort of idiot, a pseudo-intellectual who can't admit when he's wrong, it's not hate it's more amused contempt.

Posted by: salvage at June 02, 2006 07:24 AM (xWitf)

206 Looks like we are going to see the whole spectrum of moonbattery in this thread.

Has anyone called us or Bush fascists, yet?

Posted by: Bart at June 02, 2006 07:30 AM (iHe1O)

207 Bumpy,

On the other hand, there's Jeff Goldstein. He's a college professor.... He's a member in good standing of the intellectual class and has an official credential to prove it.

Or, to put it your way:

u r teh stoopd.

Posted by: Big Worm at June 02, 2006 07:31 AM (mY5wf)

208 Salvage, enough about Thirsty. What do you think about the rest of the left?

Write one word mentioning his name, and, sure enough, he'll show up in your comments section spewing his two-penny philosophy interspersed with asides about the author blowing his dog.

IVV, if you showed up in my referrer logs, or if you were blowing my dog, I'd notice it and consider having a word with you.

Why blog if you don't want people (and...erm...dogs) to react?

Posted by: Pablo4200 at June 02, 2006 07:32 AM (4dm7X)

209 he left, to a man, considers itself to be educated and enlightened. It matters not how little actual schooling a particlular leftist may have had, nor how unintelligent the person might be. They all consider themselves intellectuals of sorts. If they dropped out of college after one semester, they just think of themselves as autodidacts whose genius could not be stimulated by the ossified and bourgeois teaching of the academy. If they're just plain stupid or crazy -- like, say, Charlie Sheen -- they indulge in farcial conspiracy-theorizing, reassuring themselves that they are intellectual because they know things others do not. They are one of the chosen few brave enough to see past the web of lies and glimpse the arcane truth behind, say, the implosion of the World Trade Center (a SEAL team planted those charges, you know?).

This conceit, usually wholly undeserved, of practically every leftist in the world is what makes leftism so intoxicating for the intellectually insecure, and what makes leftists so easily led and manipulated.

See what the problem really is that Goldstein cannot manipulate the Leftists, as if he ever did, they are wise to the convoluted parsing of the language the might professors claim to have some magical power over. That only 'they' thru College. [LOL] can understand words, that other 'men' simply cannot fathom.

Well it's a load of crap, and Goldstein and Reynolds know it. A whole bunch of Gobblydegook mental masturbation, meant, as Goldsteing himself said, to mislead, ergo a mislead is a Liar, ergo Goldstein and Reynolds, the snake oil salesmen of Orwellian double-verbena,
are full of hermaneutic dung.

Do I seem like I'm maipulated by Goldstein?
Hardly. He and Ace here, are a hoot, a laugh, a joke.
They Just Admitted they are liars above.

Posted by: Abraxas at June 02, 2006 07:43 AM (3jcly)

210 You guys aren't even intellectuals, your Sukas, Parrots. You rehash the same crap over and over, add a new twist, a name, and call it some psychological 'ISM'

I wonder how you so called Educated types manage to do anything without questioning it to death and creating that what does not exist.

Anyway you admitted to using your "credentials" to mislead people.

Isn't is poetic justice that your argument, Goldstein, Ace, are shot down by your own words?

My. My. Shouldn't talk so convoluteds Should we? Makes you sound like Bush, or Delay, Or any one of those other liars.
Those whom speak, and you have proven this thru reynolds words;
Those who speak extravagantly
do so because of hidden agendas

Posted by: at June 02, 2006 07:50 AM (3jcly)

211 No, Abraxas, you seem crazy as a shit-house rat. Quotation marks around random words, inappropriate capitalization, no distinction between quoted text and comment...you've got all the earmarks of a grade A nutcase.

Which, I have to admit, is a refreshing chance from the usual stupid we get trolled with.

Posted by: S. Weasel at June 02, 2006 07:52 AM (rasT+)

212 This conceit, usually wholly undeserved, of practically every leftist in the world is what makes leftism so intoxicating for the intellectually insecure, and what makes leftists so easily led and manipulated.

LOL Goldstein ADMITS he's a misleading LIAR!!

LMAO.
'Intellectualy Insecure' Goldstein, Yupp. that fits the bill perfectly. He's gonna beat up the leftists with his words.
Truly Hilarious.

Posted by: Bubba at June 02, 2006 07:53 AM (3jcly)

213 Jesus christ! It's an epidemic.

Or is all this sudden batshit nuttiness coming from the same IP, by any chance?

Posted by: S. Weasel at June 02, 2006 07:55 AM (rasT+)

214 Now, we're being besieged with Thirsty's dog blowing trolls who have a hard on for Reynolds? Or, is it just the same guy?

Posted by: shawn at June 02, 2006 07:57 AM (Cw+TL)

215 o, Abraxas, you seem crazy as a shit-house rat. Quotation marks around random words, inappropriate capitalization, no distinction between quoted text and comment...you've got all the earmarks of a grade A nutcase.

Which, I have to admit, is a refreshing chance from the usual stupid we get trolled with.

I dunt much care about typos, to you that's 'important', anyway, my IQ is about 160 and Im a certified technician, whos been repairing jets since 1987 Braniff Airlines.
Now, I don't much think a TYPO, proves anything. I make alot of them, But I will still take apart your words, and as above, use them against you.
Now Sir, how do you know what I have read or studied?
Do I need a college to read and comprehend Physics, or Programming? Or language? Assuredly not. The assumption that college makes intelligence is wrong.

Posted by: at June 02, 2006 07:57 AM (3jcly)

216 Blah blah blah

It's Friday, so it's time for...

Sorry, not today I'm afaid, seems the little fella had a hankerin' for an egg salad sandwich...

Posted by: Pupster at June 02, 2006 07:59 AM (NMGPj)

217 Oh come now, Im just a stupid troll?

My My. So If I talk about scalar em and selp pumping phase conjugate mirrors, lorentz, and all that stuff, then I am an Itellectual?


Oh Please, You guys are so full of your paper degrees it's funny.

Posted by: Abraxas at June 02, 2006 08:00 AM (3jcly)

218 Classic. Absolutely fucking classic.

Posted by: S. Weasel at June 02, 2006 08:00 AM (rasT+)

219 Uh, it's the same guy posting under different names and no name. He's boring as hell, too.

Posted by: shawn at June 02, 2006 08:00 AM (Cw+TL)

220 Agreed, that was beautiful.

Posted by: Slublog at June 02, 2006 08:01 AM (R8+nJ)

221 I disagree, shawn. You could put the Oxford through a Cuisinart and not get such perfectly-blended, content-free word salad.

Dumb is boring. Crazy has a charm all its own.

Posted by: S. Weasel at June 02, 2006 08:03 AM (rasT+)

222 But hey if I talk about TCP/IP protocols, maybe dynamic link library files, smtp, spoofing packets, creating databases,
and repairing commercial jets. I am an Idiot.

WOW. Classic is these people whom only study one subject. maybe you guys should try other 'HOBBIES'
Ya know broaden your scopes a little bit?

Hey can you draw an electrical circuit?
Can you trim the EPR of a Jt8-d?
Can you guys program in C++
How about drafting?
Repairing Air Conditioners?
Plumbing? Drywall?
Oh you want to talk about Dialectics, Kemp, Hampson, Locke, Maybe some fukuyama stuff?
How about that Leo Strauss or Hegel?
Karl Marx or actually Karl Levy?

You guys are classcal simps.

Posted by: Anonymouse at June 02, 2006 08:06 AM (3jcly)

223 S. Weasel,

They aren't typos, silly. He's taking apart your words - with his mind!

Posted by: Victoria at June 02, 2006 08:08 AM (v2tO4)

224 Can I keep this one, Ace? Pleeeeeeease? I'll feed it. I promise!

Posted by: S. Weasel at June 02, 2006 08:08 AM (rasT+)

225 I'm one of thenm autodidacts.

I flunked out of the University of Chicago after one year. Joined the Navy and became a nuclear reactor operator.

In civilian life I worked my way up from bench technician to computer/a e r o s p a c e engineer. With quite a bit of control and communications theory and work thrown in.

I started out on the hard left, but a study of war and economics moved me to the right.

I'd have to agree with your premise. The left has no intellectual foundation.

*

Posted by: M. Simon at June 02, 2006 08:18 AM (g/LBf)

226 We always knew far too many Americans were kind of clueless and dull, but we never really knew the US population had such a high proportion of inveterate liars and con artists.

Great country you got there, assholes.

Posted by: The Rest of the World at June 02, 2006 08:19 AM (RAnnn)

227 Note: a e r o s p a c e is a forbidden word.

I suppose because t contains "e r o"

BTW the right has its historical/intellectual problems.

Prohibition ring a bell?

Posted by: M. Simon at June 02, 2006 08:22 AM (g/LBf)

228 Now that this blog is fixed...

The right certainly has its fair share of problems, being composed as it is of human beings. But the left's problems these days are much greaters, because so much of their belief system is based on flawed economics. (Jeff Goldstein has his philosophy kick, I have my economics kick.)

Economics matters a lot. If you don't understand wealth creation and think that economics is about how to slice a fixed-size pie, you'll arrive at horrible conclusions.

For example, in a country going through tough economic times, any successful minority will be assumed to be exploiting the masses (after all, their wealth had to come from somewhere, and poor people's wealth had to have gone somewhere). We saw this in Germany in the 1930's. The Germans didn't need proof of a Jewish conspiracy; leftist economic theories coupled with the Jewish success they saw with their own eyes was all it took.

For a much more benign example of flawed economic thinking on the left, look at France's attempt a while back to reduce unemployment by mandating a 35-hour work week. The mind boggles.

Just doing my part to stir the hornets' nest...

Posted by: sandy burger at June 02, 2006 12:36 PM (Uuy++)

229 Ace:

What I just read is the single smartest thing I have ever encountered on the Internet. Certainly on a blog. The single. Smartest. Essay. Ever.

It sounds like hyperbole. It's not. That essay - particularly the first two-thirds of it - was simply brilliant. Mark Steyn would be jealous. It was that insightful.

Brilliant.

And ironically, for someone who claims to be a non-intellectual - you sure sound like an intellectual. And that's meant as a compliment. You sound like an intellectual with his eyes open and the blinders off.

Your essay resonated so deeply with me perhaps because I've lived the phenomenon. For most of my life, until my late 20s/early 30s, I was a self-labeled liberal ... for exactly the reasons you describe. It was an emotional investment; it was part of my identity; I was thoroughly wrapped up in the idea that my beliefs were both smart and good, and that I was therefore smart and good.

It never occurred to me to actually QUESTION those beliefs. Not for many years. Not until I found myself surrounded by liberals in graduate school and realized that many of them were far less than brilliant, and that they believed things that were frankly impossible to believe.

The day I began to change, one of my classmates had started a petition to support a convicted cop-killer. I asked a single question: are we sure he's innocent? I was roundly and soundly condemned for even asking the question. Because that wasn't the point. The point was - just as you describe - that the SMART and GOOD thing to do was ignore the facts and support the poor prisoner.

Not only did my classmates have an emotional investment in being RIGHT, they had an emotional investment in very, very carefully avoiding any facts at all that might bring their rightness into question.

I stopped being a liberal that day, or at least started asking a few questions.

I lived what you wrote. I saw it from the inside. It took me years to escape my own self-induced echo chamber, to find a little independent thinking and intellectual freedom.

Bravo, Ace. Bravo. The best thing I've ever read. Bar none.

Posted by: Professor Blather at June 02, 2006 01:25 PM (TVzNq)

230 logic!

1.liberals h8 america
2.conservatives have 'american values'
3.conservatives = america
4.jeffGoldstein=america
ergo
liberals hate jeff goldstein.

Posted by: Shorter Rightwing Assholes at June 02, 2006 04:44 PM (eIYIv)

231 The initial block quote mentions Sowell as someone who has wandered off the "plantation." The general thrust of your post has been covered by Sowell himself in his book "The Vision of the Annointed." If you agree with this post, I would recommend the book as a means to expand Ace's argument. If you disagree, read it anyway, if only out of deference to the maxim "know your enemy."

Posted by: Fish at June 02, 2006 05:29 PM (o2qyS)

232 Flory said:

"He makes a big fucking deal of signing the bogus "Online Integrity" pledge and then proceeds to egregiously violate it by outing an anonymous blogger."

Umm, no. He didn't. I think it was me actually. Ntodd, NYMary, and the good Dr Haggerty himself left more than enough online tracks between emails and photos to out Thersites' real name. Someone put together about 95% of it but posited that some other poor fellow was Thersites. With the information in his post, anyone could have gone the extra 5% to Haggerty in about 60 secs of googling. I did wrestle with it for a bit before tossing out the last required connection, but there were already indications that the other poor guy was going to get tainted with the Thersites tag and it didn't seem right to sit on the information and allow that to happen.

Whatever Jeff knew about Thersites' real moniker beforehand he kept to himself.

Posted by: Just Passing Through at June 02, 2006 05:35 PM (lwUzC)

233 Ntodd, NYMary, and the good Dr Haggerty himself left more than enough online tracks between emails and photos to out Thersites' real name.

That's right. But the moonbats insist that we ignore the man behind the curtain. And again, the fact that Haggerty refused to reveal the isp and bizarrely repeated the comment about his daughter several times certainly makes him look like the one who posted it.

Posted by: shawn at June 02, 2006 06:18 PM (cwkCk)

234 Also, the comment on Theristes site used the word "d**k", where as a person familiar with Goldstein's work would use the word "c**k".

Posted by: Anonymous at June 02, 2006 06:37 PM (UYbhw)

235 Also, the comment on Theristes site used the word "d**k", whereas a person familiar with Goldstein's work would use the word "c**k".

Posted by: Anonymous at June 02, 2006 06:38 PM (UYbhw)

236 Shorter Rightwing Asshole,

That was not, of course, what I wrote at all.

Shorter Shorter Rightwing Asshole:

1. I don't bother to read

2. I'm sure you guys are all just a bunch of stupidmorons

3. I'm going to pop off with my kneejerk putdowns whether they're apropos or not

4. because I'm a fucking moron.

Juice-box, please.

Posted by: ace at June 02, 2006 07:01 PM (h7Mal)

237 Have to agree with the rare non-blathering professor. And boy, howdy, this thread stands as a vivid instantiation of your points.

Posted by: Deep Trope at June 02, 2006 07:04 PM (4gHqM)

238 Have to agree with the rare non-blathering professor. And boy, howdy, this thread stands as a vivid instantiation of your points, Ace.

Posted by: Deep Trope at June 02, 2006 07:05 PM (4gHqM)

239 Sorry about the double post--didn't think it went through the first time. I guess I need a juice box, too.

Posted by: Deep Trope at June 02, 2006 07:08 PM (4gHqM)

240 the left's problems these days are much greaters, because so much of their belief system is based on flawed economics.

that kinda depends on what "left" you're talking about, bud. if you're talking about western liberalism -- which is more or less what this country's been, most of its history -- then i wonder what "flawed economics" you mean. globalism IS liberal economics, haven't any of you dudes ever read a history book? you know the banner teddy roosevelt rallied under in college? "free speech, free trade, free beer." christ almighty. the conflation of marxism with liberalism is just dumb propaganda from the corporatist greedheads. what did teddy roosevelt consider the greatest threat to american democracy? corporations, that's right, go to the head of the class.

so let me repeat because i don't think you're getting it: AMERICAN LIBERALS ARE NOT COMMUNISTS! anyone who tells you we are has, shall we say, ulterior motives. you want a roll call of american liberals? ok. george washington. benjamin franklin. thomas jefferson. ralph waldo emerson. henry david thoreau. walt whitman. frederick douglass. harriet tubman. teddy roosevelt. mark twain. louis armstrong. this list can get very long. some of these people hated each other. but they all believed in america. unlike this parsimonious, pruny, sad shriveled little idea of nationalism that seems so prevalent right now, where the most "american" thing you can do is accuse another american of being "un-american." fuck that. we're all americans.

now are you guys gonna get back on this boat or not? yeah, you might have to live with gay marriage, sorry. and maybe legal abortion too, if you can stand it (but maybe we can talk more reasonably about, like, birth control and that kind of thing so we don't have so many). oh, and you might have to put up with actual SCIENCE being taught in schools.

if you can live with those things, i think we can deal with each other. don't you?

Posted by: still liberal afta all these beers at June 02, 2006 10:10 PM (dO5Sl)

241 Jeff Goldstein's blog title "Protein Wisdom" and his paste-eating go together nicely. I'm sure he has other sources for his "Protein Wisdom", other than paste. Probably polishing Bush's knob is another source of "Protein Wisdom" for him.

Posted by: Balzac at June 03, 2006 05:16 AM (jBeQD)

242 I just came across this post. You capture about ninety-eight percent of what I've been thinking recently about the current state of the "intellectual" left (or the lumpenintellectual left, to borrow a favorite term of my father's). That is, the large extent to which their attitudes seem to be driven by ego, by the need to feel themselves qualified as intellectuals. So I thought I'd contribute the other two percent.

You suggest that members of the intellectual left hate conservatives because we challenge their cherished progressive beliefs. I think that's a little bit backwards. It seems to me that many on the left have no core beliefs at all, beyond the certainty that people unlike themselves are evil.

The easiest way for a human being to give himself a sense of self-worth is to give himself an enemy to hate. Hatred has been the central driving emotion behind many movements throughout history and remains so today--one certainly doesn't need to look far for examples. And the left, I think, has fallen into this trap. Forty years ago, or perhaps even twenty years ago, when I started college, there may have been a positive set of "progressive principles" in which most members of the campus community believed, but I don't think this is the case today. Even among die-hard Chavistas, for instance, which emotion is more important: a love of the socialist paradise that Hugo Chavez is building in Venezuela, or an awareness that they share with Chavez a hatred of American businessmen, the American military, and President Bush? Or take what is perhaps the most universally, and stridently, defended "principle" of the left--a woman's right to an abortion. How much of the left's rhetoric attempts to present a positive defense of the "right to choose," versus how much simply vents spleen at those bad people who would interfere with that "right?"

Or, for a final example, how do you explain how the same people decry the invasion of Iraq as a crime against humanity, and demand that we invade Darfur? Except that the first act is one taken by a Republican, born-again Christian president, and the other is an act he hasn't taken?

No, the lumpenintellectual left doesn't hate Jeff Goldstein because he challenges their core beliefs; hating Jeff Goldstein (and Bush, and born-again Christians, and neocons, and the Zionist lobby, and the American soldier, and white-bread middle America, and, in short, their neighbors) is their core belief.

Posted by: Dan at June 03, 2006 05:21 AM (4Seq0)

243 Just Passing Through:

Whatever Jeff knew about Thersites' real moniker beforehand he kept to himself

Except that Pasty went over to Thers' old blog, made a big fucking deal about how badly he was being treated, since he'd removed your offending post and when Thers called him a poopyhead charged back to Pasty HQ and threw up a post listing both Thers AND HIS WIFE by name at least a dozen times.

As I said above -- Teh mature

I did wrestle with it for a bit before tossing out the last required connection, but there were already indications that the other poor guy was going to get tainted with the Thersites tag and it didn't seem right to sit on the information and allow that to happen.

What a saint. You absofuckinglutely had to reveal both Thers' name AND HIS WIFE'S in order to clear up the confusion? (This "other poor guy" was going to be identified AS THERS' WIFE?)
Didn't occur to you to ask Pasty to clear up the matter with a post?

No -- you saw a chance to fuck over someone who was tearing your hero a new one and jumped at the chance.

Posted by: flory at June 03, 2006 12:19 PM (zhQ++)

244 Why Does The Unhinged Left So Hate Jeff Goldstein?

I think it has something to do with 1984

Posted by: David Boxenhorn at June 03, 2006 12:22 PM (NAXT0)

245 Flory, I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do I care.

Just call it instinct, but I'm pretty sure that you deserve a big, hearty fuck you for your comment.


Posted by: Bart at June 03, 2006 12:26 PM (7OTn/)

246 I think that's a little bit backwards. It seems to me that many on the left have no core beliefs at all, beyond the certainty that people unlike themselves are evil.

The easiest way for a human being to give himself a sense of self-worth is to give himself an enemy to hate.


I agree with this, too. I believe that it is quite possible to have a religion without a God, but it is simply impossible to have a religion without The Devil.

Posted by: ace at June 03, 2006 12:44 PM (h7Mal)

247 I'm pretty sure that you deserve a big, hearty fuck you for your comment.

He deserves more than that, so here's another... Fuck you!

Posted by: A at June 03, 2006 12:46 PM (mA9tr)

248 Except that Pasty went over to Thers' old blog, made a big fucking deal about how badly he was being treated, since he'd removed your offending post and when Thers called him a poopyhead charged back to Pasty HQ and threw up a post listing both Thers AND HIS WIFE by name at least a dozen times.Try again, cupcake. Andrew Haggerty and his ilk continued to make accusations, explicit or otherwise, all over the goddamn internet that jeff posted, and or promoted, the offending comment and that it was posted on PW. You and your ilk refuse to address the fact that the comment was posted on Haggerty’s crappy blog and that both he and his wife, Mary Donnelly, refused to reveal the isp of the poster. It was also exceptionally creepy that Haggerty continued to repeat the comment about his own daughter. That's fucked up.

And yes I posted both Andrew Haggerty's and Mary Donnelly's names. Anonymity is not a license to lie. You people have been busted, so shut the fuck up already.

Posted by: c3 at June 04, 2006 04:23 AM (PwXoX)

249 flory said:

"You absofuckinglutely had to reveal both Thers' name AND HIS WIFE'S in order to clear up the confusion? (This "other poor guy" was going to be identified AS THERS' WIFE?)"

This is really getting old. Like so many of Haggerty's clown corp, you obviously either never read the relevant comments, or can't understand them. Waste of time.

Posted by: Just Passing Through at June 04, 2006 11:16 AM (lwUzC)

250 Bush and his host of assholes have invaded our country, have raped and pillaged our resources, and shit upon our country's constitution. They have sullied our reputation throughout the world. They took a beautiful shining diamond from the capable hands of the previous caretakers, and immediately sucked all the value from its core, reducing it, much like superman converts coal to diamond, to shit. But first and foremost these fat pigs must enrich themselves and their benefactors, feasting at the trough of our country's prone, evicerated entrails.

And for this, we are told to watch what we say? We have to be AFRAID to excercise the rights that have been passed to us from generation to generation? Freedom of speech? The rights my grandfather and millions of other Americans have fought for with blood and sweat?

Why am I to suffer tyranny at the hands of an untouchable nitwit with omnipotent power who claims that God talks to him? This crew of assholes feel they can rob us (Halliburton), torture people (Abu Ghraib), murder innocent families (Haditha), arrest Americans indefinitely (Padilla), create a gulag (Guantanamo), spy on the citizens of our nation (NSA), violate the Consitution (all the time), hire convicted felons (Negroponte), be completely incompetent (Katrina, economy, etc, etc) work closely with Enron, hide everything under a blanket of 'national security', lie, kill, destroy.

And why should I tolerate the assholes that support them? The enablers, the pimps, the whores like Goldstein or instapundit or little green asshole footballs? They are just as bad as the people in charge, marching along in their brownshirts, waving their war flags with cheeto-stained hands.

Well, FUCK them ALL. Go CHENEY yourselves, gentlemen.

Fuck Negroponte, Kissinger, Baker, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, Bush Fl, Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Santorum, Frist, Delay, Ney, Cunningham, Abramoff, Scalia, Rice, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rove, and any other fucking asshole winger.

GO CHENEY YOURSELVES, RIGHTWING ASSHOLES

Posted by: Shorter Rightwing Assholes at June 05, 2006 06:05 PM (eIYIv)

251 All jacked up on Randi Rhodes, Shorter?

That's some gooooooooood Crazy, you got there, son.

Posted by: Bart at June 05, 2006 06:15 PM (ZkAej)

252 You use this word "shorter."

I don't think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: Sortelli at June 05, 2006 06:48 PM (Bjdtq)

253 NICE post, Ace. While you lack an advanced degree in the "soft sciences," you deserve an honorary doctorate in psychoanalysis for this one.

Posted by: demian at June 08, 2006 03:32 AM (daJev)

254 What an amazingly astute piece of psychological analysis. I have often wondered why humor and irony are lacking in liberals. It never occurred to me that it had something to do with the distance one lives from the World Trade Center. I must say, though, I have heard liberals laugh on occasion. Do you suppose this is some sort of involuntary muscle reflex or is it possible that that they have a different sense of humor that is undetectable to conservatives, which only they can hear, the way dogs can hear certain sounds that humans can't?

Posted by: Jon Swift at June 08, 2006 04:46 AM (iod3w)

255 Maybe you're a smart guy, but defending a douchebag like Goldstein is the wrong way to go. He has no integrity. He could not defend his argument and so had to attack the messenger (Thers). Actions don't lie.

Yes, we were attacked on 9/11 by 19 guys with box cutters. And the left was supportive of the war in Afghanistan. But the inspectors were in Iraq, inspecting, and were pulled out by Bush, so he could have his war. The intelligence was "fixed" around the policy. The war was planned in 2000 - read COBRA II.

Bush lied us into a war and now 2700 more Americans are dead. 15000 are maimed for life, and 100,000 will have nightmares and PTSD.

Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the "secret" prisons.
Domestic wiretapping without warrants.
Massacre at Haditha.

How much could we have grown our economy with the trillion $$ spent on Iraq? How many scientists and doctors have we lost because there won't be funding. How many cures for how many diseases will we not have because we spent them money on killing and death?

Bush and his crew are turning America into a totalitrian state and you and Goldstein are applauding. Read a history book for God's sake. Open your eyes.

19 guys with Box cutters cannot destroy America - but Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Republican party have done a LOT of damage.

Posted by: fasteddie at June 08, 2006 03:50 PM (/gP9t)

256 fasteddie:
And the left was supportive of the war in Afghanistan.

You're telling me you supported a fictional war which was really all about an oil pipeline?! (c.f. Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 911.)

Man, pull your head out of Bush's ass and think for yourself. You're almost as bad as the Rethuglicans. 9-11 was the perfect excuse for Bushitler to whip up American rage against brown people, and our so-called Democrats marched in lockstep with the war machine and voted to take away our rights. Thanks to sheeple like you.

Posted by: sandy burger at June 08, 2006 04:15 PM (PQyeQ)

257 Good website!

Posted by: Blonde at June 23, 2006 01:52 AM (Refwd)

Posted by: Roonr at July 02, 2006 01:45 PM (9m4yu)

259 What a great thread until it was rogered, buggered, and hosed without a reach around. By the way, you can buy pharmecuticals online without a prescription. Who knew?

Posted by: Chip at July 08, 2006 09:36 AM (M3MqL)

260 "the Hero who Saves the Victim, who liberates the enslaved. Not through actual action, of course, but through the sheer power of caring. By their lofty rhetoric shall we know them."

Liberals: no plan and no action. Ace nailed it.

Great article.

Posted by: Ralph at July 08, 2006 03:22 PM (JVIoP)

261 http://pispeakers.com/catalog/illness/index.html > coral calcium|calcium|calcium supplement

Posted by: WWRel at July 08, 2006 05:27 PM (K1uNf)

262 Well, at least you recognize that you're frequently "childish", Ace. Even the longest journey, etc. The real trouble is that you're also childish even when you're trying to be serious (the latest evidence of this being nicely summed up at http://sadlyno.com/archives/002878.html ).

As for Goldstein being on psychotropic drugs: so what? A hell of a lot of us are (including little old me), and I would never have guessed it of him in a million years. My objection to both of you is simply that you're a couple of fanatical nitwits -- as proven, for instance, by your straight-faced insistence that not only most liberals, but even most people who object at all to POWs being tortured or to Bush bungling Iraq and Katrina beyond belief, are really Noam Chomsky admirers. You betcha.

Regarding one of my points above, by the way: I failed to mention a few days ago how neat it was of you to carefully clip out Sullivan's reference to that official Pentagon study on how the torture practices at Gitmo "migrated" to Abu Ghraib. Goebbels couldn't have done it better. (Oops; did I just compare you to Goebbels? My bad. It would be more accurate to say just that you resemble him on that particular point.)


Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at July 10, 2006 12:52 PM (EfmTX)

263

Throughout the entirety of the incoherent ramblings contained in this article, I have discovered one resolute truth, hidden near the beginning of the passage: this message certainly was assembled in a sloppy manner.

However this sloppiness is not limited to the musty efforts wielded in the literary organziation of the thesis, like a cancer it is spread throughout the passage, infecting the arguments posed.

Though it may come as a stark surprise, the reason various peoples have questioned the legitimacy of Israeli policy has nothing whatsoever to do with the bizarre scenario proposed by Goldstein, by which liberals are dismayed at the anti-Socialist policy in Israel. More, it is do to the incessant Israeli antagonism of the surrounding nations, particularly Palestine, and the fact that quote a few of the actions of the Israeli government towards the Palestinian people are so severe as to constitute crimes against humanity and to instate Nuremberg Trials. Simply put, there are those of us who find slaughter unappealing, particularly when it is enacted upon peasants by a technologically backed nation.

 

Of course the Palestinian people are antagonistic as well, but a quick look to any record of events will show that the Israeli’s, with the backing of the most powerful nation in the world, have unleashed far more casualties and deaths upon the Palestinian civilians living in rubbish heaps, than they have been met with.

 

In the future, you may consider it advantageous to consult matters of fact before “sloppily” arranging arguments which bare neither substance nor reason upon even moderately close inspection.

 

Posted by: John at May 15, 2007 03:15 PM (+GvJM)

264 I'm a regular visitor by came to this archived post via the Singularity 2050 site. Excellent piece. It wasn't always the case though. I remember about 20+ yrs ago real debate was still possible with the Left as then populated (in Ireland and Britain at least). But Leftists then were still true radicals used to the polemical trench warfare of real politics. Once they became the Establishment things changed, the dilettantes moved in, the activists became acolytes and the process you so accurately describe played out.

Posted by: liamascorcaigh at January 02, 2010 11:51 AM (3G9kZ)

265 If we hermes say that fashion is modern totem , then produced Hermes Kelly bag (Hermes Kelly), is certainly among the spotlight is on patterns , on this package of imagination and desire in the sac hermeslives of modern women Lane has never subsided . Only Hermes Kelly Picnic Picnic package was introduced last year , but is ignored by us to match it , hermes sac Hermes staff with excellent image processing has produced this set sacs hermes of interesting pictures , all kinds of things that constitute the main screen , sac hermes pas cher and then Kelly package is so popular, so that its outline is still caught in the first time , people left a deep impression.

Posted by: huokonglon at December 02, 2011 10:05 PM (JxPc4)

266 Thanks, for your efforts, i really liked it and to be shared with my friends

Posted by: شات الخليج at December 19, 2011 03:36 PM (b6Qrz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
296kb generated in CPU 0.52, elapsed 2.2606 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.9018 seconds, 502 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.