Liblogs, Lieberman, Israel, Goldstein and Frisch (Ugh).
The post below this one, on Israel’s disproportionate response in Gaza, has provoked an unusually lively debate among our commenters. The Middle East always does.
One of the strands lacing through the discussion is the relative silence of liberal blogs on the matter of Israeli war policy (which after all is generously underwritten by U.S. economic and diplomatic support).
One of our most regular commenters, known as “Reg,” came up with a couple of graphs which I think neatly sum up this omission. So I’ve decided to move them up here to the front page. Says Reg:
On the subject of the liblogs, let’s keep in perspective who these people are. Almost uniformly, they became politically obsessive in the wake of the Bush ascension and the war in Iraq. They are focused almost exclusively on domestic politics – even their blogging on the war is essentially through the lens of it being a disastrous mistake for the U.S. Frankly, in so far as they have any analytic competence, it’s pretty much limited to the “expose Bush, the GOP and Dems who fail to fight” realm.
I find it pretty pathetic that a segment of the “in-crowd” liberal blogs are currently more consumed by a “YouTube bad music videos war” than “bemoaning” what is happening in Gaza, to use JC’s phrase, but truth be told, bemoaning is about all they could do. They don’t focus on international issues unless and until they become part of the policy debate in the Beltway, and right now this isn’t.The usual suspects among bloggers have an MO that leads them to mirror the “official” discourse and in particular the vagaries of Bush. Marc’s observation on this is correct, more so than any agendas. The exceptions are folks who feel like they’ve got a dog in the race, which would tend to be a regional expert like Juan Cole, or folks – be they ethnically Arab or Jewish – who have some sense of a bond to the region. Otherswise there’s a world of pain and most of it gets ignored.
This is just an observation. I doubt that there’s any conspiracy of silence, because for most liberals condemnation of Israeli’s for overkill has become a pretty easy call. Almost as easy as figuring out where a solution might come from is hard.
Well stated, Reg. Now let me say a few more words that will undoubtedly tick him and some others off. While Israel has plunged the entire region perilously toward a wider conflict this week, the liberal blogs have obsessed, and I mean obsessed, over Joe Lieberman. This is something I truly don’t get.
Joe Lieberman, as long as I can remember at least, has always been a distasteful piece of work. He ascended to the Senate, defeating liberal Republican Lowell Weicker, by running to his right. Indeed, Lieberman was one of the primary reasons that I, for example, could not bring myself to vote for Gore in 2000. As someone who opposes Christian conservative attempts to inject religion into politics, I thought it prudent to oppose Lieberman’s attempts to essentially do the same. I had never heard so many references to God in a politicians’s speech as I heard in Lieberman’s first post-nomination appearance.
Anyway, as far I can tell, there’s nary a hair of difference between the Lieberman of then and the Lieberman of today. The same Democrats ready to chop his head off today were apologizing for him six years ago.
Why, all of a sudden, has Lieberman been identified as the right-wing bogeyman within he Democratic Party? Because he supports the war? The same war that Hillary and Kerry and Harkin and a long list of other Democrats also signed onto? True, some of them have since repented their earlier positions, or at least obfuscated them. But truth be told, Holy Joe isn’t that much different from a whole lot of his Dem colleagues –maybe only more recalcitrant.
Now there is some added shock and outrage among some progressives that Barbara Boxer is going to campaign for him. What’s the mystery there? Please remember that last time we checked Boxer was also a Democrat. She supports Lieberman out of party loyalty; the same way many of you reading this would justify your support of Gore-Lieberman in 2000. So why all the fuss?
I suspect that Ned Lamont is a nicer guy than Lieberman and that his political positions are more palatable (though he was far from impressive in his debate with Lieberman a few days ago). If I lived in Connecticut and were registered as a Dem I would no doubt vote for him (or almost anybody else) over Lieberman.
What I don’t understand is why this has become such a fevered, national crusade — at least in the blogosphere. It vaguely reminds me of some of my days in SDS in the 1960′s. If we couldn’t take over the government, then we would settle for seizing the administration building. Bush seems to be on the rebound, more analysts are now hedging the Democrats’ chance of taking back the House, but it will be some giant moral victory if Lieberman loses? Sorry, but building a progressive alternative to the Republicans (and the Democrats!) will take much, much more than dislodging Joe Lieberman. It will require the fashioning of some compelling national message that will stir voters and non-voters and offer the country some hope of a better future. On that score, the much-touted Democrat campaign for 2006 (what was it called again? I already forgot) has already faltered.
Readers are welcome to take issue with me on this with but one caveat. PLEASE don’t respond by accusing me of being soft on Lieberman or on the war. If that’s what you conclude, then please go back and re-read this one more time.
P.S. While we’re on the subject of blogosphere wanking…Something reminiscient of global thermonuclear war has erupted over an incendiary exchange between a hitherto unknown blogger/professor known as Deb Frisch and the much better known conservative Jeff Goldstein of Protein Wisdom.
Lefty Frisch seems a rather impetuous and unbalanced element who left some pretty hair-raising comments on Goldstein’s blog — essentially wishing the latter’s child dead. The ensuing ruckus, fueled by massive email bombardments and coordinated bloggings, has led Frisch to offer her resignation from her temporary teaching job in Tucson. She has also apologized. Though it seems too little too late.
I have no idea who this gal is and believe me I don’t really care to know. I’ve seen her type before and they are about as interesting as room full of Jehova’s Witnesses. She embodies the worst aspect of this ‘sphere — the combination of a nasty personality and an available keyboard. And Goldstein certainly deserves some moral support on this matter (though I’m surprised he’s decided to let Frisch continue commenting). He should also be given credit for stating what should be obvious i.e. that this lady is verbally reckless but hardly a real threat.
TalkLeft, meanwhile, has summed it all up fairly well. What I think absurd here is the drawing of any political conclusions. Some on the Right offer this incident up as proof that …. well…. fill in the blank. Ridiculous, of course. Neither the Right nor Left nor the Center for that matter can claim a monopoly on nuttiness. Open up a can of Planter’s and inside you’ll find a motley mix. I know, first-hand, what it’s like to be a target of blog swarms and email attacks. I’ve had them from both sides, unfortunately, and frankly a nut is a nut. When the shots are being fired and your character and integrity are being impugned believe me it matters not a whit from which angle the bullets are coming.
Deb Frisch, a left-wing wacko? It sure looks that way. Now, who would like to start compiling the list of right-wing loons? I don’t have the time, thank you very much.
July 9th, 2006 at 1:30 am
OT but still somehow relevant:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-wh-nsawiretapping,0,1906650.flash
July 9th, 2006 at 1:59 am
My apologies for making a lighthearted link be the first response to Marc’s very serious and impassioned post, I had just seen it and let impulse get the better of me. I look forward to the discussion of Marc’s points.
July 9th, 2006 at 3:59 am
The Deb Frisch episode illustrates that for many on both left and right blogging has become a blood sport like in Roman times, except that there is no blood–except out in the real world of places like Israel/Palestine and Iraq. I don’t exempt anyone in the blogosphere from this characterization, including myself.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:58 am
Republicans control all three branches of the federal goverment. Most of the face time for commentary in all media outlets goes to a debate betweem the center right and the far right. Supposedly credible writers like Hitchens, in “The Hell of War”, are writing the most appaulling defenses of American war crimes in Iraq; yet these draw no response from our “radical journalists.”
The real problem: Liberal blogs, some of which must be read by hundreds of people every day!
This is all too silly to respond to; yet to put it in a bit of perspective we might take a look at what Cooper’s friends on the right have been up to; if you want to understand a bit of what’s clogging up discourse in the MSM that SOME people actually read:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/07/08/nyt/
July 9th, 2006 at 7:21 am
Marc, I don’t share your worldview a-tall, but your post makes sense:
1. You’re dead-on about Frisch. Some on the right are going exploiting to excess her disgraceful deranged language, and not too many on the left acknowledge the awfulness of her mad comments, as you have done.
2. I see very little serious in the way of serious proposals from the opposition. It would be good for the country to have a competent opposition. Certainly the GOP has gone fat, lazy and slap-happy in power, especially in Congress. In part this is because when you listen to the Dem’s, “there’s no there there,” as Gertrude Stein unfairly said of Oakland.
3. The lack of a competent left is due to many things. Two are the lack of clear political goals for a black movement, which therefore is reduced to race-hustling; and the rapid decline of the labor movement, and its resulting domination by public employee unions, whose interests are at odds with the rest of the movement (teacher sinecures vs. effectively teaching hard-to-teach kids, for example).
The sectors that gave vigor to the Dem coalition are thus very weak, and so single-issue groups (abortion, homosexuality), trial lawyers, and rich guys (Soros, Corzine) have disproportionate influence. There is also a dearth of ideas. I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s the loss of credibility of socialism since its fall in in Russia (Kim-Jong Il: be like him?), and that we are close to the point where more government social programs would pose serious potential problems of their own.
Although I tend right-libertarian, it is bad for the country that no one is speaking sanely and effectively for worker concerns, against corporate welfare, for a pro-US but more cautious view of the national interest, etc.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Marc, I’m not sure what’s wrong with the blogs focusing on the war and Mr. Bush. It (blogroots) may not be able to be all things to every issue. Why not comment on what is being addressed effectively rather than what is not.
I, for one, am sick to death of the right leanings of the MSM and appreciate the progressive opinions of many blogs.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Why not comment on what is being addressed effectively rather than what is not.
That would require actual thought. Most wingnuts can’t go much farther than henpecking out “libruhlz are teh scum!”
July 9th, 2006 at 8:47 am
On the Frisch Affair: I’ve managed to find what she said. It is very, very ugly.
On the other hand (you knew that was coming, didn’t you?), the main thing that distinguishes her comments from the vile crap directed at her by other blog commenters at Protein Wisdom is that she’s not as witty. They are good at potshots. She is not.
Jeff Goldstein is also good at potshots. (No really, he’s quite funny and witty.) What he is not good at is careful thought. Take a look at
http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/20624/
and particularly at the astute rejoinders of commenter Charlie (Colorado), who seems to have his head screwed on straight about the Constitution.
Where is Jeff Goldstein coming from? Somewhere in the ongoing discussion of the Hamdan decision at Protein Wisdom, Goldstein roots the supposedly disastrous Hamdan decision in a failure of moral backbone (or something, I dunno) going all the way back to … no, wait for it … Derrida’s Hopkins lectures. In the Sixties.
Derrida. The Sixties. Ohmigod, don’t you see it now? Thanks, Jeff. What a compelling and scholarly insight: The frogs poisoned the SCOTUS Well of Wisdom. It was the wankin’ *frogs*! Feeding their postmodernist swill to future Supreme Court clerks! During tender years at Ivy League colleges, when they were perhaps also sampling psychedelic drugs — oh, such bad craziness in that combination. So THIS is why we’re on the verge of losing the GWOT. Man the barricades! I hereby propose: any threat from France of permitting yet another PoMo wank to be translated into English shall be treated as if it were a *successful* Tae Po Dong 2 launch by North Korea, splashing down in the waters off Hawaii. Because this shit’s gotta stop somewhere. Can we get Congress to draft a resolution to that effect? (Maybe there should be a rider about banning water flouridation while we’re at it.)
Toward the end of the comments at the above Protein Wisdom posting, Goldstein suggests that all these problems of Constitutional interpretation and the suspicious activity around “intent” could be solved if the Court would simply agree on principles of interpretation. Yeah, Jeff, but agreements are based on wording, and words are … open to interpretation. Admitting that doesn’t make you a PoMo. You’re stuck with the problem forever: language is always a little sloppy, always leaves unstated conditions, conditions that change in the real world. You can’t wave the problem away. Example: the death penalty has become unusual in the world. An SC judge notes this fact in an opinion, raising the issue of whether the death penalty has become “cruel and unusual”. The Right descends on him like a ton of bricks: Since WHEN should the standards of other countries apply to the U.S.? Yeah, but where in the Constitution does it say that they *don’t*? It doesn’t. If our Constitution were being followed in some Islamist country, chopping off the hands of thieves might be defended as being hardly unusual, and not cruel, not really, compared to sticking a guy in prison for five years to rot, or be exposed to rape, or perhaps worse for him and for society: to learn yet more about how to perpetrate crimes when he gets out.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. You find it on the Right. You find it on the Left. After many an ideological swerve through life, I find myself muddling toward the middle wherever I can. But the middle is turning into a DMZ wasteland. Reasoned discourse where both sides can walk away scratching their heads, undecided, seems to be dying. We consign each other to intellectual Gitmos instead, declare each other Enemy Combatants out of an apparent lack of rules to follow.
If the blogosphere has a fault, it’s that it favors simplistic AND witty, the itchy fingers of those who are smugly, incisively wrong, in their desire to be instantly right about every issue that heaves into view. After all, what could be duller now than somebody saying, “Well, I’ve given this some thought, and it’s not that clear and it’s not that simple…” No, we’d rather be entertained. As Balter points out, blogging has become a blood sport, except that there’s no real blood being shed. And you can join the fray so easily. It could make you nostalgic for the quaint notion that no word would appear before the public without the application of red ink to typewritten copy. It could even make you nostalgic for Robert’s Rules of Order. Sometimes boring is good, if it leads to structuring discourse so that wackos get ejected for being unable to follow the drill.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:53 am
well, i dunno.
frisch and lieberman both are data points for my Defector Theory.
do you have examples of extreme punishment for defectors from the rightside blogverse?
July 9th, 2006 at 10:14 am
Matoko-chan,
The threats to not allow Arlen Specter to chair the Judiciary Committee and his subsequent capitulation certainly qualifies.
Marc, when Lieberman makes comments like this:
That’s hardly a quid pro quo: Lieberman expects his party to look the other way while the ineptitude (criticism of which has been bipartisan, by the way and Chuck Hagel is a fine example of that) continues and he only asks of republicans that they bring aboard those who have been doubting the handling of the war. Makes you wonder which side he is on.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Marc: “much-touted Democrat campaign for 2006″
The word is ‘Democratic’.
‘Democrat’ is a noun. The only people who use ‘Democrat’ as an adjective are hardcore Republicans, poor writers, and the grammar-illiterates. You’re none of those.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Michael Turner: ” Sometimes boring is good, if it leads to structuring discourse so that wackos get ejected for being unable to follow the drill. ”
The soundest approach is to ignore wackos, rather than giving them the attention Marc does in this post.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Marc: “The same Democrats ready to chop [Lieberman's] head off today were apologizing for him six years ago.”
No they weren’t, not if you’re talking about the bloggers who are “obsessed” (your word, not mine) with him today. They were cringing as he “debated” Cheney by agreeing with him on almost every point. They were steamed at his sanctimonious criticism of Clinton on the Senate floor.
I worked for and gave money to Nader in 2000. I worked for and gave money to Kerry-Edwards in 2004. I’ve given money to Ned Lamont, and wish him well. I haven’t blogged about him or read even most of the posts about the Lieberman-Lamont campaign.
However, I feel strongly that defeating Lieberman in the primary, **and winning the November election**, will send a strong signal to the leadership and major funders in the Democratic Party that it can’t be run exclusively from the top any more. And that office-holders can’t spend every minute of their public lives issuing the opposition’s talking points and expect to retain power.
The extreme unwillingness to speak out about the Israeli government’s behavior has a great deal to do with the powers that be in the Democratic Party, their relationship to funders and lack of relationship to voters, and a ‘permanent government’ of corporate-tied consultants that are forced on candidates when they accept money from the DSCC and DCCC.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:28 am
What Nell said. Word for word.
July 9th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
Let me second Rosedog’s remarks and add my voice in support of Nell. Never heard of this Frisch character just as I never heard of Ward Churchill and only know of Bob Avakian because I once heard him on KPFK. Its great to dump on obscure leftwing loonies who no one sees or hears. But I’ll wait till the Malkins, Coulters, Falwells and Robertsons get the same media treatment. Oh wait, they’re righties so I guess they can say and do anything and still get mainstream attention.
Plenty of people objected to Lieberman in 2000. I remember the cry “Gore picked the wrong Jew” when folks wanted Feingold or Wellstone. And we all know why Holy Joe was on the ticket – Gore’s advisors (the same ones, presumably who told him not to discuss Global Warming) said Liberman, being the first Dem to denounce Clinton’s “Lying and immorality” on the Senate floor would innoculate against a (non-existant) “Clinton Fatigue.” Remember when Joe played patty-cake with Chaney? Notice how he also always dives into Dems – how he savaged Lamont (who gave as good as he got BTW)? No plenty of us had troubles with Lieberman. So why did we vote for Gore? Because we were adults Marc. We knew what a fuck-up Bush would be and we knew that Nader was a monomanical liar (ask his friends) who was getting GOP money then – and in 2004 – to be a spoiler.
Liberal blogs come in all flavors. But one difference is that they have comment sections. Right now the MSM is trying to suggest that Kos is some kind of sinister kingmaker. He speaks and everyone falls in line. What a laugh! You’re more of a despot than he is and I don’t see a bunch of clones parroting the party line on this blog. And quite a few left wing bloggers have expertise in various fields, not just Juan Cole.
I loved the remark above about liberals being too influenced by George Soros, Jon Corzine, and (gasp!) “Trial Lawyers.” Yeah like Richard Mellon Scaife, the Coors family and oil executives are political eunichs. Some people are all for billionaires getting to keep their moneyuntil they actually spend it! The nerve of Bill Gates (pere et fils) and Warren Buffet defending the Inhearetence tax!
July 9th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I never heard of this tiff either. She’s got a ways to go to compete with the whack zone on the right hand side of the dial.
July 9th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
first time i’ve agreed w/marc in a long, long time, primarily about frisch…she’s a nut, but nobody’s making a list of right wing nuts, now are they?
but, what’s all the hoopla about?
if anyone bothered to check frish’s technorati links, they’s see that, previous to this brouhahah (wherein she got thousands of hits), a mere dozen blogs had linked to her in the previous 9 months.
it’s rather as if the third baby owl in “i love to sing-a” (an old warner bros. merrie melodies cartoon from the 30′s ) was being singled out as the problem with animation today.
come on, what’s going on with jerome armstrong’s astrologist selling ken lay’s secrets from the dead? now that’s a scandal!
July 9th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Oh, BTW, Atrios (I know a “liberal blogger’ so obviously biased against Lieberman) points out that both Lincoln Chaffee and Daniel Akaka have strong Primary challengers. Why no handwringing in the media, or here, over them?
July 9th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Never heard of this Frisch thing.
In deference, you’d already made the core point about the bloggers tending a bit too much to be the “anti-Bush”.
I agree with Nell, rd, rlc on Lieberman – duh!
What I think you’re missing Marc: as lame as some of the liblogs can be in terms of extremely modest meta-analysis, near-zero “global vision” and a heap of slapdash writing, I think they are very, very important if there’s any hope for revitalizing liberal politics because they see themselves not primarily as bloggers who are dispensing clever thoughts into the “tubes” of the internet (as one moronic GOP congressman recently described it) for general edification, amusment or narcissistic kicks, but they operate as blogger-activists – “netroots”, if you will – who are trying to focus attention on key campaigns, raising money nationally and energy locally, to move the center of gravity of the Dems out of the Beltway and out of the hands of the old-line “professionals”. This is, to my mind, the most significant structural development in grass-roots electoral politics and “party-building” I’ve ever witnessed and I find it very hopeful. But don’t expect miracles and prepare for many missteps. For the record, I’ve found myself giving money to grass-roots Dems campaigning in Texas, Ohio, and elswhere numerous times – and at virtually no cost to the candidate’s campaign to reach me, solely because I check these blogs to see if there’s some small way I can help. I believe hundreds of thousands of us do this now, if not millions, and it offers at least some slim chance for the Democratic Party to change over time, not into some leftist’s dream party, but into a center-left coalition in which “little” money can at least counterbalance “big” money and influence the direction.
As for Dems “message”, I tend to agree with you in my gut that a populist manifesto would be a great thing, but I just heard Grover Norquist – via podcast – tell Tomasky, Myerson and some others over at TAP that if he were a Dem, he’d stick to pointing fingers at Bush and going easy on alternatives. Something about targets. Norquist is a creep and not someone I’d normally want to emulate, but he’s no fool when it comes to the contours of the national political landscape. The liklihood is that the races are going to be decided district by district and not by some national campaign message at the party level. The “Contract with America” has been vastly overstated as a factor in the GOP success in ’94. That said, the Dems running do need to stand for things that set them apart from their opponents.
Lamont is a pretty good example of this, IMHO. And I don’t think that fighting to put a more aggressive Democrat in the Senate is akin to smoking the Chancellor’s cigars and rifling his file cabinets.
Lieberman isn’t a target because of his pro-war stance – as you note many others have taken some roughly similiar positions along the way. But he’s been totally uncritical of Bush on the war, unlike others who happen not to demand withdrawal – like Hillary. Big difference. I don’t think it’s sinister to argue against deadlines for withdrawal, but I do think it’s nuts to go to Iraq and tell reporters who’ve been there on the ground that things are going swimmingly after a couple of days red-carpet treatment, acting as a PR man covering failure. Leiberman isn’t simply someone I disagree with on the way out of this war – he’s a menace who bolsters Bush, hurts the country and makes the mantle of “Democrat” in reality exactly the kind of joke you claim it always is.
And I couldn’t stand the sonofabitch in 2000. His kiss-ass debate with Cheney was enough to turn my stomach and was one of many moments that year where defeat was snatched, etc. etc.
Also, for the record, when I wrote that the liblogs have “no agenda”, my intended meaning was that they have no particular agenda as regards Israel, not that they have no agendas at all. I think it’s pretty clear the “net-roots” are quite unified on basic issues like single-payer health care and protecting social security, aside from Iraq and the need to shift the center of Democratic gravity away from the Beltway hacks and more toward fighters – be they “fighting moderates” like Dean, “fighting retro-Dems” like Murtha or “fighting liberals” like Feingold. The “net-roots” have also been pretty vocal in supporting an immigration policy identical to the one you have espoused.
Hope this was coherent.
Okay, now I’ll shut up.
July 9th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Liberal bLogs got me forking over cash.
This is what of the many right-wing churches do, whip something threatening like “Jewish-atheistic-lesbian-traitors are teaching history to good Bible-believing children, send some cash to fight this satanic threat!”
Except, right-wing nationalists are a real threat.
July 9th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
I think Frisch is a fringe character who does not reflect the left as a whole.
But I also think she’s emblematic of what gets hired in academia.
I’d be surprised if she disguised the virulence of her political views to the people who hired her at U of Arizona, and I think the atmosphere she operated in was conducive to feeding her views and it all was just fine.
It just goes to show what goes on in academia.
You don’t see too much of that fringe-freakishness of views in media, in the military, in welfare-bureaucracies, in bus-driver unions, in most any profession, but you do in academia. Again and again.
Far-left views that would be held to some kind of accountability in normal society flourish like hothouse flowers in academia, where there is none.
Unfortunately, academia is off limits to anyone who’s rightwing, but anyone who’s leftwing – even if he or she has freakish, emotional, drive-the-knife-in, Bush-Did-It manic views like hers – gets hired easily.
More diversity of ideas would probably check the growth of such rose-sucker-shoot ideas and their inevitable expression out in the Internet – which, like academia, also can be unaccountable in some circumstances.
July 9th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
Samuel Huntington and David Hansen Whats-his-name are asshole right-wing nationalists and they are working.
July 9th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
That’s Victor Davis Hansen.
There are plenty of conservatives in academia. It’s hardly off-limits to the rightwing.
Christ,even the man behind Bush’s torture memos, John Yoo teaches at Boalt Hall, Berkeley’s Law School. That’s like having Ward Churchill teaching at Bob Jones University.
July 9th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
What most right-wingers are upset about is the lack of fascists, not conservatives, in academia.
July 9th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Then there’s Robert George, one of the most hyped professors at Princeton, who teamed up with noted intellectual Phyllis Schlafly and the scholarly journal “Human Events” to condemn John Maynard Keynes and John Dewey for writing two of “the ten most harmful books of the 19th & 20th Centuries” – along with Adolph Hitler and Mao Tse Tung. Nothing fringe or freakish there.
July 9th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Also frankly, complaining about too many liberals in, say, a sociology department is like complaining about too many conservatives in an MBA program. Sociology – while not particularly liberal these days and tending to be a career track for market researchers, “organizational behavior” consultants and pollsters – was originally (like most “social science”) a creation of liberal intellectuals so it inevitably still bears at least a bit of their legacy. Economics departments are dominated by the “conventional wisdom” of markets and capitalism. “Cultural studies” and “ethnic studies” are dominated by exactly the kind of people who you’d expect to choose those fields. There’s something at play called “the market” combined with self-selection of compelling interests in most of these fields – academia by it’s nature tending to be a magnet for relatively liberal-minded folk in comparison to commerce, finance or higher-paying professions. Of course, since there aren’t many conservatives in, say, Women’s Studies Departments, it’s incumbent that we set some quotas on professors’ politics in order to keep students from being unduly subjected to liberal notions like affirmative action.
July 9th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Good posts, reg.
And just to be clear, I think we can all agree that what this creepoid Frisch woman wrote about Jeff Goldstein’s wife and child was loathsome, inexcusable, and should be disavowed by any sensible person of any political leaning
I just wish that, by the same token, the next time best-selling, zillion dollar-earning author Ann Coulter utilizes a large, public forum to wish for….oh…say….. the fatal poisoning of an 85-year-old Supreme Court Justice whose views she doesn’t fancy—(only one example among many of her slap-happy gems that involve the violent death of Americans not on her non-traitor list)—the disavowal and revulsion would be every bit as swift and pan political.
July 9th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Good point, rosedog. The main difference between Frisch and Coulter may only be that Coulter has an editor — and a bigger market. (OK, Coulter is actually clever, I have to admit, and that’s hard to fake.)
Reg mentions Robert George, Schlafly, and a Human Events 10 Most Dangerous Books Ever contest, and I got curious. Well, here are the results:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7591
Interesting that two of the judges gave The Origin of Species a vote. They get Keynes wrong — Keynes was adamant that you should pull the plug on stimulus spending after it has had its intended effect. They can’t tell when Nietsche is being ironic. They characterize Engels as “the original limousine liberal”, when he was actually a radical, and not exactly the first rich man to sponsor left wing activism. I’d like to know where they get this idea that Kinsey said sex between adults and children can be beneficial in some cases. Maybe Jeff Goldstein could dig that one out for us.
The appropriate unit for expressing the intellectual depth on display in this Human Events article: the millimeter.
Books don’t kill people — people kill people.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
I disagree, Randy. There are a few of them but put me on the campus of UCLA or any campus whose name you could pull out of a hat, and I would be really surprised if I met a rightwinger. Left is the norm in that group.
There were literally no conservatives, literally none, when I went to Columbia Journalism School. There were three conservative students, and we all were like a gay underground at the school, never revealing our orientation. To this day none of my classmates from the school – and that is the professional world of journalism – knows that I am conservative. I don’t let on, but none of my liberal friends feels compelled to conceal his or her political orientation.
Another poster pointed out that political orientations gather in certain fields, and that is a good point. While he or she is wrong that business is dominated by rightwingers – it’s not – some fields are – the FBI, the military, some business, some parts of government (one of which is not the CIA, which is full of liberals). But I don’t think that negates my point – isolation, ideological litmus tests (and I think it’s really strong in academia) and a refusal to mix ideas, is toxic and leads to complacency and extremism.
It goes for the right, too.
July 9th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Let me add a little dimension: Although they were all leftwing to a man and woman, not all of the Columbia professors were intolerant of views that didn’t match their own – some were able to distinguish “opposite opinions” from “the absolute truth” – and didn’t penalize students for thinking differently – and that made a difference in the quality of education. But some fell into less attractive categories.
I think there have been halting moves – not very good, but at least the right direction – to diversify the ideological base of universities in recent years. But there still is a way to go.
That Frisch woman said what she said because it was normal talk where she was at and because she was isolated from other points of view. I doubt she would have said that crazy stuff to someone to his or her face – though in a politically undiversified academia, it might have been easier. Isolation from other views causes that behavior.
July 9th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
“There were three conservative students, and we all were like a gay underground at the school, never revealing our orientation. To this day none of my classmates from the school – and that is the professional world of journalism – knows that I am conservative.”
What the hell were you afraid of, being burnt at the stake or were you engaged in some version of sucking up to professors ? I think this is sick…on your part. What a chickenshit – in the world of journalism, no less. I really look forward to your contributions.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
“put me on the campus of UCLA or any campus whose name you could pull out of a hat, and I would be really surprised if I met a rightwinger”
This is not surprising, since according to you their behavior at most campuses is akin to folks who could only meet anonymously in public toilets and such for fear of persecution.
Bizarre, sad, but ultimately strikes me as whiny victimology and rather remarkable cowardice. You really missed something valuable if you had the privilege of attenting Columbia Journalism School and failed to engage Todd Gitlin or Victor Navasky in open and honest discussion of how political perspectives might influence one’s work as a journalist.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Don’t be ridiculous, Reg. There’s no point in contronting people for no good reason. Do you confront your boss at work all the time to show your “courage”? If you did, I doubt you’d stay employed. I suppose I could have confronted my professors, but there is no way I would have won and what would the the point have been anyway? I got my degree, I’m out here and I prefer to maneuver from a position of strength. Nobody would give a damn about some student rebel with a minority point of view so there’s no point. There is a such thing as picking one’s battles. But there shouldn’t have to be those battles in the first place.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Open and honest discussion? Please. There is no point in engaging Gitlin or Navasky if you don’t trust that they’d not take it out on your grade or whether you pass if you challenge them. Unless there is some proof that they are objective (as journalism should strive to be), there’s no point taking that risk.
July 9th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
Why did you bother to got to the school if it was just going to be fraught with furtive meetings and the certainty that the professors were beyond any honest or open discourse ?
I just looked at their website and went through the vitae of the main faculty and I can’t think of anything more exciting academically than to study with those people. But if I thought they were a bunch of left-wing wackos and backstabbers who weren’t decent or “objective” enough to engage in honest discussion or deal with challenging questions, it’s the last place I’d want to be.
As I said, your comments sound weak and whiny. Doesn’t bode well for a sterling career in journalism. Although I’m sure that you’d be a real star at some rightwing bitchfest like The Corner. Too bad that’s not journalism.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
* Do you confront your boss at work all the time to show your “courage�
I’m not in a profession that quite requires the same character traits and independence of thought that I’d ascribe to any journalist worth their salt, but yes, I confront my “boss” if it’s an issue of substance that advances common goals. The fact that I don’t just treat the work as some rote sausage factory but am willing to push the envelope even if I might be a pain in the ass sometimes is one of the reasons I’m valued. In your case the common goal at J-School was your education as a journalist. You seem to have missed the boat bigtime and just copped some careerist credentials. Tryiing hard to figure out what your “position of strength” is.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
Also, I have to say that you really confirm some of my admitted biases against the kind of people I believe conservatives tend to be.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:09 pm
Sorry but the idea of conservatives as a persecuted minority, even on college campuses, just makes me laugh. Reg, your points are right on but don’t take this nonsense too seriously!
July 9th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
“I suppose I could have confronted my professors, but there is no way I would have won”
Hate to be running this into the ground, but it strikes me with that comment you totally and rather grandly miss the point…and so, yes, what you describe would be pointless.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
You’re getting off topic, Reg. This blog isn’t about me or your opinion of me, it’s about why someone like Deb Frisch could make such crazy statements, by anyone’s judgment, or well, almost anyone’s.
I think I made a good point that lack of academic diversity such as is found in most universities is a good hothouse for the development of some very strange flowers.
If you never have any opposition to any of your views – as US academia seems to be missing – then there are no consequences to having outrageous views. Deb Frisch probably doesn’t know a single rightwinger – which is why they seem so non-human to her. Had she had some exposure to multiple political views in her daily life and some social checks on demonizing any that were different, she might have had less polarized and crazy views that eventually led to her self-destruction.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
You’ve made a string of assertions that are far more indicative of a half-baked mindset on the part of most conservatives than anything this Frisch person represents relating to liberals – even liberal academics. No it’s not about my opinion of you, because I could care less as I assume you of me, but I’m taking your arguments at face value and subjecting them to critique. It’s not personal, it’s about bullshit I’ve heard time and again that is some combination of muddle-headed and victim-mongering. I don’t doubt that there are plenty of professors who are assholes, but your version of life for cowering conservatives at Columbia Journalism School strikes me as bizarre. More to the point, it sounds like a litany of your own poltical biases, fears and careerist concerns which were apparently never actually tested against the world you inhabited, rather than a credible indictment of the arbitrary or unfair practices of such as Gitlin, Navasky or whoever.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
Based on your statements, Reg, it’s pretty clear you know nothing of the experience of going to Columbia Journalism School – not one thing – and therefore have no real critique other than personally directed insults against those whose views you abhor. You literally have no idea what it’s like, and therefore have nothing to critique.
I suggest you get back on topic and explain whether you think Frisch is a symptom of a monochromatic politico-academic culture where only a single political point of view is represented or not. That’s the subject of this thread.
July 9th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Sounds like you don’t know much about it either, since you never really showed up except furtively. But I’ll just take your word that it’s a terrible totalitarian environment. That Nick Lehmann has always struck me as a sinister guy.
As for Frisch, it’s not worth obsessing on and doesn’t mean much. Certainly not compared to your tale of oppression at the hands of cohorts of Bill Moyers.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Don’t distort my words, Reg. Go back and read my posts, particularly th 8:36 pm one.
Then try to get back on topic, on whether a politically monolithic environment has anything to do with why people like Deb Frisch crop up, again and again, in politically monochromatic academic environments.
Anything else is begging the question.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:09 am
I read that post and I was stunned that in the previous comment you claimed you and two other conservatives formed something akin to a “gay underground” and that you apparently weren’t ever open about your political perspective with a single person, much less faculty, who wasn’t also a member of this three-person “underground”. My point stands that it seems like a hell of a way to spend your time at a journalism school, of all places, fraught with missed opportunities – assuming your beliefs have any substance – and IMHO says more about you and your version of “conservatism” than it says about the school.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:34 am
A.M. Mora: You are plain wrong. Leftists are certainly better represented, and over-represented, in universities compared to their numbers in the general population. There are many reasons for this and most of them are far from nefarious.
That said, the universities are also chuck full of conservatives and, yes, a good number of right wing loons who are just as much cut off from reality as any sectarian lefty.
Your notions about Columbia J School dont check much either with reality. To paraphrase a recently deceased US Senator fromn Texas, I know Victor Navasky (quite well) and I can assure he is NOT the type to prejudice a grade because of a student’s politics.
And Todd Gitlin? For Chrissakes, Gitlin is a liberal Democrat, hardly a leftist. He spends most of his time critiquing the hard left and then has to spend overtime fending off the counter-attacks from the lefties. I also know him and to suggest that he would grade somebody down on the mere basis of ideology is factless and insulting.
In my own case, teaching at Annenberg J School, I rarely know or can guess what a student’s politics might be. Nor am I much interested. I care much more that he or she be a critical thinker… and one’s ideology tells me nothing in that regard.
This last year I was indeed suprised when two former students who asked me for letters of recommendation told me how deeply conservative they were. So what? I wrote them glowing references and was proud to help both of them get into law school.
Ive also gotten some of my best evaluations from conservative students who enjoyed and benefitted the challenges I presented for them.
Anyway, stop whining. It’s ludicrous to beleive American universities are under a leftist hold. Ever been to a USC football game for god’s sake?
July 10th, 2006 at 1:52 am
Marc: If you’re all so tolerant, how come you never hire anyone who’s conservative at the university? Name one rightwing professor at USC in the journalism department.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:01 am
And I feel skeptical of your claims about the probity of guys like Navasky, Gitlin, and for that matter, maybe even yourself. I’d rather have the word of a rightwinger, given the asymmetrical power relationship between teacher and student. Of course you’re gonna say you grade only on critical thinking … they say that at Columbia, too, and no one would ever say differently, probably Deb Frisch said the same thing but this is hard to verify. Here’s what makes it tough for conservatives:
1. The assumption of the profs that everyone is liberal, therefore anti-men comments can be made to great merriment, anti-Republican comments can be made, ridicule about the president can be made, insults to Giant Corporations can be hurled around, especially about Halliburton, claims about bias and discrimination by favored groups can be made – and this is the entire soupy intellectual atmosphere that goes on at these universities. You could challenge one, or another, or another … but why bother?
2. The lack of ideological diversity in the faculty in the matter of ideas. It speaks for itself as to what ideas are favored and what ones are not.
Meanwhile, no one knows how many students have been turned down for admission, awards and other matters based on the wrong ideology. On that I could not say, except that the results speak for themselves.
Academia needs to work harder on presenting idea diversity. Extremists don’t flourish well in those more evenly matched settings.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:39 am
What ticks me off about the Liebermann types is their refusal to admit that Iraq is a mess, and it is, moreover, a COMPLEX mess.
All the Bush answers to the Iraq problem have been simplistic sound bites, ranging from “bring it on” to “stay the course”. Sound bites are not a rational answer to complex problems, they are someone claiming they can criticise a physicist because they learned all about physics from Sesame Street!
Joe loves Bush sound bites, and repeats them incessantly.
Lamont recognizes this, which is why Liebermann attacks him on grounds of “multiple positions”.
Other things are in proportion, Liebermann is very much a repeater of Republican originated sound bites and is very much an enabler of the Bush Administration. Even worse, he will often defend Bush against rational criticism, to the point of making Democrats unable to use a Bush position during an election, because “well known Democrats supported this position, therefore this person is outside the Democratic mainstream”.
We should remember the history of the Republicans during the long stretch of Democratic control of House and Senate. They made no headway until after the Nixon fiasco, when they were in “disarray”, and they ran clearly Republican candidates against the “Rockefeller Republicans” (Yes, that’s how they said it and spelled it, and I’m tired of someone hunting for minor spelling errors or grammer errors and crowing about the ignorance of the writer. Most of us don’t have infinite time to proofread these electronic post it notes.)
Afterwards, they made constant and consistent gains, until the present time, when they control everything. A clear and consise message, that is held by all members of the party, speaking with a single voice, will always pull more weight than a scattered group of mixed messages.
And a scattered group of mixed messages is exactly what Democrats are producing today, thanks in large part to the Joe Liebermann’s of the Democratic Party!
July 10th, 2006 at 6:00 am
Marc, the only reason that you consider that conservatives are somewhat fairly represented on college campuses is the same reason that AMMyLeon says that college professors don’t understand conservatives–it’s because you don’t have much exposure to conservatives in your field of journalism.
I think that college professors and journalists should be required to write an essay on “What is a Conservative” when they enter their respective fields to prove to the rest of us that they have no idea about what makes a conservative. This is from the same group that considers the NY Times an impartial paper.
Trust me. The only place that you can find conservative professors of any significance is at Bob Jones & Ole Miss.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:41 am
There were literally no conservatives, literally none, when I went to Columbia Journalism School.
That’s a world of difference from this statement of yours:
Unfortunately, academia is off limits to anyone who’s rightwing,
Such is the folly of writing in absolutes.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:45 am
I have to agree with LCDAC. Using aboslute terms merely allows those who disagree with you to poke holes easily in your argument.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:45 am
“Never heard of this Frisch thing.”
A couple of minutes of checking the source of the outrage will reveal that this is entirley an inside the jammy media thing.
Jeff Goldsetin seems to be an uninteresting creep but that just means that I prefer not to read him.
Incidentally, Tim? I touched your sister in her secret places. Lots.
Posted by: Jeff G at November 17, 2005 10:42 PM
and
” Give me your home address, Jesse, and I’ll come over and give you the spanking your parents should have given your bitch ass long ago, before you turned into a smug little 125-pound pre-cancerous mole on the body politic.Fuck you, you whiny pussy.”
You have to be seriously deranged to keep reading this stuff and even more so to comment.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Mora y Leon writes: “Deb Frisch probably doesn’t know a single rightwinger – which is why they seem so non-human to her. Had she had some exposure to multiple political views in her daily life and some social checks on demonizing any that were different, she might have had less polarized and crazy views that eventually led to her self-destruction.”
Yeah, but what about the idea that she’s just a fruitcake? There are fruitcakes of every ideological stripe.
As for “demonization”, try reading what commenters were saying about her in Goldstein’s blog. If her only exposure to “multiple political views” was there, I could hardly blame her for thinking the worse of conservatives — as demons who are themselves out to demonize. That doesn’t excuse what she said — it was clearly below the belt, not to say deranged. (As she seems to recognize, now, however dimly.)
Woody writes: “Marc, the only reason that you consider that conservatives are somewhat fairly represented on college campuses is the same reason that AMMyLeon says that college professors don’t understand conservatives–it’s because you don’t have much exposure to conservatives in your field of journalism.”
Um, Woody, you’re saying this to a guy who’s on a first-name basis with David Horowitz?
Oh, wait a minute, why am I even trying to argue with a guy who uses “leftist” and “liberal” as synonyms half the time? How ironic that Woody, who is clearly colorblind in the leftward half the ideological spectrum, is accusing Marc (of all people) of colorblindness in the rightward half. Of course, Woody exemplifies a whole market that Horowitz has learned to play to — remember his “Who is the Left?”, that included Peter Jennings AND arch-conservative islamist terrorists in a photo montage of links to half-truth bios?
July 10th, 2006 at 7:08 am
I really wish Marc would either ignore wackos, or demolish their arguments.
As journalism–presumably what Marc presumes he’s practicing here–it just doesn’t do to bring up snippets of what this nutcase or that wackjob said, then condemn them ad nauseum without accurately and completely representing their arguments.
This trademark Marc Cooper style of journalism has got to go. He’s even admitted that this fascination with a fringe-left wackos is a “rash he has to scratch,” I just wish he’d get it treated.
It’s especially obnoxious when attacks people like Chomsky and Galloway in the most scurrillous unsubstantiated ways, then censors posters who destroy him for it.
Lest I be guilty too of making much ado about the sayings of this or that nutcase, let me leave anyone who’s bothered to read this far with my advice for the American left. Focus on building a sane policy toward Israel.
The current policy is geopolitically unsustainable and is leading to a rolling catastrophe and has deeply perverted U.S. foreign policy.
By that I mean all manner of readers have already reached for the anti-semite accusation macro button just because I happen to have made the obvious comment that our policy on Isreal is unsustainable, a position polls show many in Isreal agree with.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:22 am
What really pisses me off is that many of the right-wingers posting here do not know the first thing about conservative philosophy. Most of you are RIGHT-WINGERS and not CONSERVATIVES.
You quote right-wing theorists like Coulter and the NR crew, but what conservative thinkers and traditions do you adhere to? This same phenomena happens in countries where fascists take over! Many German, Spanish and Italian conservatives believed they should allied themselves with the growing fascists movements over some sort of “right-wing solidarity†and their conservativism suffered for it.
Let’s get this straight, there is a difference between right-wing theorists and conservative thinkers and traditions…and most of you right-wingers are not conservatives.
July 10th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Of course since Woody has not GONE to journalism school he knows who does. After all it’s common knowledge right? Not. This is an example of blind belief bias.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Who Is Joe Lieberman?
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/09/your-daily-ned-bushs-lap-dog-wants-it-both-ways/
July 10th, 2006 at 11:40 am
“What the hell were you afraid of, being burnt at the stake or were you engaged in some version of sucking up to professors ? I think this is sick…on your part. What a chickenshit”
Reg’s & Marc’s attitudes to self-proclaimed “in the closet Repubs” pretty clearly proves the wisdom of staying in the closet.
A guy named anti-media at media bias documents it a lot:
http://www.antimedia.us/
who I met at Jay Rosen’s Press think
http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/
I think Callimachus, current guest blogger for Michael Totten, is another media in the closet war hawk.
Neo-Neocon, ex liberal, has the best series on “A mind is a difficult thing to change.”
http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/
Just now looking at the bumber sticker
“Friends don’t let Friends – Vote Republican”.
Kind of symbolic of the intollerance; “politically correct” long ago became synonomous with tolerated or not. Potty mouth insults only make it more obvious, but the Reps also need cleaner mouths.
Dems are not allowed (by Dems) to disagree on:
tax-cuts (against them) or abortion (for it); and almost not on the Iraq war (against; pull out now).
Reps ARE allowed to disagree, and some do, on each issue. Today, they are more open to agree on disagreement, but still work together in coalition for a victory where they do agree.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Michael Turner wrote in response to my claim that Marc misapplies the term conservative to those who aren’t…”Um, Woody, you’re saying this to a guy who’s on a first-name basis with David Horowitz?”
Michael Turner, if Marc Cooper really knew what a conservative was and what a conservative thought, then he would be one.
And, just knowing one doesn’t bring that about. Marc Cooper has a wife and is on a first-name basis with her. Ask him if he understands women.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Oh, piffle, dear Mora y Leon. Poor you.
I teach journalism at UC Irvine and guest lecture at USC, UCLA and Occidental College.
Politics stays out of the classroom—unless brought in by students, in which case (as Marc said earlier) the quality of critical thinking, organization and prose style is evaluated, not the politics.
The instructors in the department where I teach do likewise, as does any university instructor with any sense.
Granted, common sense on both the right and the left in all areas of modern life, sometimes seems in woefully short supply, but that has zero to do with the political make up of journalism departments.
Grow up.
PS: Self pity is unattractive, particularly in print.
July 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
To follow-up on Nell’s comment much further upthread, not only were these Democrats not appoligizing for Joe Lieberman six years ago, most of them weren’t even blogging, which isn’t something that people did during the 2000 election. MyDD, DailyKos, Firedoglake and the rest didn’t even exist.
Marc bemoans the Democrats for failing to present an attractive alternative to the Republicans, but electing people like Ned Lamont is part of that process. If the current party leaders can’t get their act together, then we’ll find people who can. Ned Lamont may be one such person or he may not, but at least we’re doing something, and as Nell points out, it sends a message to the current party leadership. It’s a slow and frustrating process, but that’s politics. Once we elect progressive leaders, then we can push a progressive agenda.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Here’s what Nicholas Lemann, dean of Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, has to say on the issue of political balance in journalism schools.
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/1/lemann.asp
Okay, I’m going back to work. Sheesh.
PS: Woody, with regard to your remark to Marc: “…it’s because you don’t have much exposure to conservatives in your field of journalism. ….”
This is, honestly, hilarious.
July 10th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
“There were literally no conservatives, literally none, when I went to Columbia Journalism School. There were three conservative students, and we all were like a gay underground at the school, never revealing our orientation. To this day none of my classmates from the school – and that is the professional world of journalism – knows that I am conservative.”
About half the people currently working in journalism today NEVER went to j-school, and about 95% of the remaining j-school grads NEVER went to Columbia.
I graduated not from Columbia but from an equally prestigious j-school, and I can attest that the professors and administrators there never cared about political bias so long as you kept it out of objective reporting. (in magazine-related courses, you COULD write opinion pieces, but only with sufficient reporting to back your arguments up). And the only times they really got PO’d was when work was turned in late (as if you’d missed deadlines in A Real Newsroom).
No offense, but if you can’t recall your j-school days without being traumatized — be you liberal, conservative or other — you ain’t gonna make it in the profession…
July 10th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
The funny thing about this Vintage Right Whine is that there actually exist universities in this country that enforce rigid ideological uniformity. Places where, literally, dissent from the faculty or students on some fundamental issues – including some basic science – aren’t tolerated, much less encouraged. It doesn’t take a genius to name them. But when you bring up the most allegedly egregious liberal PC environments – Harvard, Columbia, UC Berkeley, Oberlin, etc. etc. – you find tons of conservative alumni sounding the alarm about how they’re factories for liberal ideology. Ex. Michelle Malkin and her husband, Mr. Malkin, are products of Oberlin where they were aggressive conservative voices on campus, with funding from Irving Kristol and William Simon’s “Collegiate Network”. Mr. Malkin was so battered by his Oberlin experience that upon graduating he took refuge in a Rhodes Scholarship and left for Oxford. Not Oxford Mississippi. The other Oxford. The good news is that he had been steeled for the trauma of attending an ultra-liberal college by attending Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Berkeley CA.
The ability of the Malkins to survive the horror, the horror is an interesting contrast to the little-known story of Jon Stewart, a young Jewish boy who went off to Bob Jones University seeking a higher education. While there he discovered that the whole campus, excepting him, were far-right Christian fundamentalists. But he toughed it out and founded an alternative campus newspaper, with funding from George Soros, and became known as the lone, wacky voice of dissent. His specialty was doing satirical turns on stuff like creationism and the ban on interracial dating. People dismissed him as a clown, but they tolerated him to a degree because that’s the kind of folks they are. Tolerant. After four years, he matriculated to Oral Roberts University because he believed it would be the best place for him do advanced study in his chosen field of standup comedy. (He’d seen Oral Roberts himself performing on old videotapes.)
It had been a tough four years for Jon at BJ-U, but he’d stuck it out and everyone thought that based on his unique experience he just might have a shot as a comedian, succeeding against all odds, given that his extreme liberal views, his Jewish faith and his penchant for aggressive satire rubbed most folks the wrong way in a Christian fundamentalist environment. Not to mention the rumors that he was gay. But about a month before he was scheduled for his orals at Oral, he was found dead n a motel room in Tulsa. He’d shot himself after getting booed off the stage at an open-mike amateur show at the campus coffee house. Couldn’t take it. Tulas’s tough.
There’s another Jon Stewart who’s got a program on Comedy Central, but he’s no relation.
July 10th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
“There were three conservative students, and we all were like a gay underground at the school,”
Wow, paranoia as a new higher art form.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
There is a kernal of truth to the right’s whine that it’s ideology doesn’t go far on college campuses.
But instead of alleging some kind of conspiracy against it, the right should be asking itself why its supporters so widely fail to achieve academic standing.
If they bothered to ask that question, they’d come to the conclusion that their ideology is actually less hospitable to open intellectual inquiry than is liberalism, in general. That, not some cabal conspiracy, is why conservatism is so unpopular on American campuses.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
rosedog, please write a brief essay not to exceed 200 words on “What is a conservative.” I’ll grade it and let you know if you’re on track or have lived on the left coast too long. I will also give you ten bonus points because you are disadvantaged by living in a blue state.
When I read people on this site getting upset with CNN and networks (besides FOX, of course) because all of them are too easy on Bush and aren’t liberal, well…I have to think that their opinion of middle-of-the-road is the Democratic Underground.
Truly, rosedog, I really don’t believe that you, Marc, or most others really have a sense of what a conservative is about. Your exposure to them is limited within your industry, even though you might think otherwise. Journalism is not a field where conservatives are welcomed, and they have many fewer career opportunities to advance. You just think that you know them, but you don’t.
Hang around with me a few days and you’ll get a better idea, and it’s not as dangerous as inner-city L.A. The only G-dogs around here are Georgia bulldogs (dawgs), and their mascot doesn’t bite–he just licks himself. Come to think of it, maybe a lot of the commenters from the left have something in common with him.
Now, here’s a conservative in journalism that could have taught you something, as evidenced by this thought provoking story (abridged):
Earnest and Bubba were at a Georgia home game, when a sweet young thing leads Uga out on the field during the pre-game. Uga sits down at mid field, and commences to do what a dog will do. Bubba turned to Earnest and mentions ‘you know what I wouldn’t give to be able to do that?’ Earnest looked back at him and says – ‘Bubba, that dog’ll biiite you!’ #17 http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/grizzard
Now, do you get that kind of journalism in southern California? I don’t know of a liberal journalist who could report that as well as Lewis Grizzard.
July 10th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I’d like to help out mr Mora a Leon. Next time he is on the UCLA campus and wants to meet a conservative prof I would suggest a trip to the Economics Dept which has the largest set of Monetarist and Rational Expectations this side of Chicago. Also check out the “Law and Economics” people in the Law School.
Glad to be of help.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
“Reps ARE allowed to disagree, and some do, on each issue.”
Tell that to Lincoln Chafee (R) of Rhode Island. Athough his refusal to vote for sitting President and leader of the Republican Party George W Bush in 2004 did not get nearly the press that frothing Sen. Zell “drool like an idiot” Miller garnered the same year for not supporting Kerry, Chaffee is lambasted on a daily basis by Republicans in terms much more harsh than those that are used against Lieberman by his fellow Democrats.
In fact, Tom Grey, next time ask Lincoln Chafee how many of his colleagues in his own party have come to Rhode Island to campaign for him in his reelection bid this year (he, like Lieberman, is facing a serious primary opponent who has been handpicked by the far right). It doesn’t even come close to comparing to the numbers of Democrats coming to Connecticut. And Boxer, by the way, coming to Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman is, like, the equivalent of Sam Brownback, Orren Hatch, or George Allen coming to Rhode Island to campaign for Chafee. Only difference here is, the latter scenarios would never happen.
Dissent is far more permissable in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and I say that as an Independent. Anyone who says otherwise has the IQ of a shirt.
July 10th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
“rosedog, please write a brief essay not to exceed 200 words on “What is a conservative.†I’ll grade it and let you know if you’re on track or have lived on the left coast too long. I will also give you ten bonus points because you are disadvantaged by living in a blue state. ”
Okay, Woody, but only because you’re my friend.
(As usual, however, I’m changing the assignment. Drive’s my editors crazy.)
******************
Rather than offer a definition, I’ll tell you where I most often spend time on a regular basis with conservatives: I report on law enforcement.
Now, certainly not all cops are Republicans or describe themselves as conservative, but an awful lot of them are and do—from LAPD command staff to rank and file police and sheriff’s department. types, to my dearest, closest cousin, a much respected deputy sheriff in Rapid City South Dakota.
When we talk, they assure me that, from their POV, I’m to the left of Che Guevara, and I mention that, in my eyes, they’re to the right of Ivan the Terrible. Yet, we hang out and sort through the problems of our fair city (s) as best we can, even though we don’t always agree on every detail of every solution.
Did I mention I was raised Whittier, California, , Dick Nixon’s home town, and spent most of my summers in my (Republican) mom’s home state of Montana?
Marc has his own version of the above. But you’ll have to ask him for it.
*****************
That’s 179 words.
.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I wish I was in Montana, a very conservative state, but still good fishing in between superfund sites.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
There are Universities where a right-winger should be able to attend without feeling “persecuted”
Pensacola Christian College, Bob Jones University and etc.
I don’t understand why they just don’t attend them and be done with it. Unless, they are full of shit and would hate to attend a university where their ideology is actually practiced.
July 10th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Thank you, rosedog. Also, thanks for the brevity, as I can’t take any more dissertations like Eleanore used to give us. But, I will have to take away the bonus points for not completing the assignment as directed.
Let’s recap. You talk with conservatives. Some are police. One of them is your cousin. Sometimes you argue with them. They are to the right of Ivan the Terrible. You have lived in Republican areas.
rosedog, now I know why your editors can go nuts. I asked you to define a conservative, and I learn that you know some of them and lived in some of their same towns.
rosedog, I’m in the garage a lot, but that doesn’t make me a car. And, when I talk with a mechanic, I learn that cussing is essential in discussing car repairs. But, that still doesn’t help me understand what makes a car run or how a mechanic solves a problem.
We, conservatives and liberals, argue specific issues when we should be discussing our basic differences in philosophy that force us to opposite conclusions. If you really understood what made me tick and vice-versa, then the debates wouldn’t be over micro-issues, but they would concentrate on a general approach to problem solving that is best for everyone. Of course, that presumes that we have a common set of values and common needs, which isn’t true. This is getting too complicated. …If you’re ever unsure about an issue, just know that I’m right.
Your score: a generous 82–because of effort and timeliness and because I know that scores are supposed to boost self-esteem rather than report achievement in today’s world.
I will be happy to critique any one else’s definition of a conservative, but the bar just got higher and the grading just got tougher.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
“Some people get credit for being conservatives when they are only stupid.â€
July 10th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
reg is a conservative?
July 10th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Hi Marc, I am curious about Mora’s comment regarding your hiring practices. Can you please answer her question? Thanks!
July 10th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Time for a little common sense, people. I mean no disrespect to Marc, but I never knew that Senior Fellows were the ones responsible for hiring.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
I hesitate to get into this exam with Woody grading but here goes:
Conservatism is a political belief, with its modern roots in the “One Nation” Toryism of Disraeli and Burke. It might be said to take the Hippocratic position that in politics, as in Medicine, the first rule is to do no harm. Beware of change for change sake without considering the consequences.
Conservatives believe that the society that works best is the society that is rooted in family, community, and nation in that order. They believe with Hobbes that without order life can be a contest of all against all and, therefore, nasty, brutish and short. But when citizens are placed in a hierachy where their duties and rights vis a vis one another are delinated it is possible to have a good society. Politics is about recognizing what changes are needed while minimizing those change’s effects on society as a whole. In short it is a philosophy of caution and the burden of change is on those who wish to change not on those who prefer the status quo.
Please note that the current crowd in control is not conservative but a dangerous radicalism base solely on self-interest and not on the polity as a whole. The conservative believes in Establishment (see Lester Thurow). That is a public spirited elite. They can be wrong but they act out of the good of the community. The current group is an oligarchy – what’s in it for them and damn the present – and most tragically – the future.
There thats about it in a nutshell. Want more? Read Russell Kirk and see what a conservative intellectual can be.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
“If you’re ever unsure about an issue, just know that I’m right.”
F for vapid. You’re the most shallow logicless ideologue I’ve ever crossed paths with. Money makes you tick. Your so-called values are sold accordingly without regard for law or ethics. That makes you a stock Republican based on the credo, and ideas on issues, all of which have failed repeatedly and left the country in financial ruin where we are now. Get the hell out of my country. We can’t afford citizenry this clueless.
July 10th, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Conservatives are definitely Hobbesian where liberals are Lockian like Jefferson and Madison. I’ll go with them anyday over Cheney and Hobbes.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
RLC gets an A.
July 10th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
WE have an army of reactionaries pretending to be conservatives.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Hey, Publius, actually, Montana isn’t all THAT conservative. Idaho is conservative, Wyoming is conservative. Montana is red with a lot of blue streaks.
First off it’s got a Dem governor—at least for now—one Dem senator (whose wife reportedly keeps a “Peace is Patriotic†sign in her window, but was convicted of assaulting another woman at a shopping center a couple of years ago, yet I’m sure she meant it in the most peaceful possible way.).
And one corrupt Rep senator (My characterization has nothing to do with the fact that he’s a conservative. Conrad Burns is just a crook and an egg-sucking weasel.).
Montana was the first state to send a woman to Congress, Jeannette Rankin, in 1916.
Plus its state library association was one of the first to refuse to comply with Section 215 of the Patriot Act—and has been more active on this issue even than California.
And Livingston, Montana has more professional writers per capita than either NYC or San Francisco. (I’m not kidding about this. Tom McGuane moved there thirty years ago and brought all his friends.)
Oh, I guess there ARE a few other pesky little issues, like Ted Kaczynski, and those unpleasant Montana militia people. (No state is perfect.) But, seriously, mountains don’t come more gorgeous than in Montana, and as long as you refrain from bring up subjects like wolves, timber rights… or guns…..you’ll do fine.
**********
Boy was THAT ever off topic! Sorry Marc.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Bravo, RLC! I’d go with A+.
July 10th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
The only reason I didn’t give him an A+ is because he failed to suck up to the prof by casually dropping Michael Oakeshott’s name into the mix. Of course, if I were Todd Gitlin or Victor Navasky I’d give him an F for daring to treat conservatism as an honorable intellectual tradition rather than a virulent social disease.
July 11th, 2006 at 5:47 am
A contemporary American conservative and a contemporary American liberal are having coffee.
They are distracted by a commotion just outside the coffee shop window and so turn to see what it is.
A policeman is beating someone up with his billy club.
The liberal’s INSTINCTIVE first thoughts are: why is the policeman abusing his power, will the person be severely injured, does it hurt, will the person get a fair trial?
The conservative’s INSTINCTIVE first thoughts are: why is the person resisting arrest and what bad thing has he done to provoke the policeman’s wrath, will the person escape and do more bad things, will the prosecutor be able to convict him?
If the coffee-sipping liberal and conservative are intelligent enough, they will both suspend final judgment until they gather more information. If they are not, they’ll stick with their initial gut reactions and rationalize away any facts that interfere.
To be a conservative in America today means to instinctively empathize with the traditional institutions and manifestations of power. To be a liberal means instinctively empathizing with the powerless and the institutions that attempt to empower them.
The intellectual roots of liberalism and conservativism are interesting and important in their own right, but have little to do with how people who call themselves liberal or conservative in America vote and think today.
I think right-wing is a more accurate label for most Americans who call themselves conservative these days.
July 11th, 2006 at 6:51 am
I’m short on time today, and will have to analyze rlc’s answer in more depth later. It deserves more consideration on my part. But, I will give a quick analysis, for which I might reconsider some points.
Rlc’s definition was thoughtful and concise, but relied a little too much on referencing other thinkers rather than stating his own beliefs. His order of priorities left out the first one–God. Rlc is correct that conservatives act with caution and demand more justification for change. That is why we prefer the legislative route to change, because it is debated, whereas the left likes the judicial route to change where the voice of the majority can be ignored. I think that I sense that rlc sees conservatives as liking a totalitarian government to maintain order, but that is not correct (if I am correct on his view.) conservatives prefer individual choices and freedoms and prefer government that is closer and responsive to the people rather than centralized. But, conservative choices are tempered by respect for authority, respect for our laws and Constitution, and respect for life. Rlc did not mention the conservative’s view towards national defense, but he was approaching the 200 word limit.
Rlc’s presentation deserves more consideration that I can’t give at this time, but I will issue a tentative grade of 86. I will revisit this again this evening. Rlc may appeal the grade or take it home and make corrections and resubmit it.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Bunkerbuster, I do interchange the term liberal and leftist, but that use is not completely correct. I usually do it for readability and there is overlap, as there is by using Democrat for the same people, but there are distinctions. Likewise, I see differences between right-wing, conservative, and Republican.
I think that most of us used to label ourselves by political party affiliation, but that changed when it became difficult to see much differences in the parties. Therefore, liberal and conservative came more into use. But, when the extreme socialists and MoveOn crowd gained influence, left-wing became a better term for them. Some of you may consider the NRA a right-wing organization. (Oh yeah, gun rights is another conservative issue.)
I liked this statement of yours, as it is very concise and to the point:
To be a conservative in America today means to instinctively empathize with the traditional institutions and manifestations of power. To be a liberal means instinctively empathizing with the powerless and the institutions that attempt to empower them.
Conservatives can empathize with the powerless, but they would prefer that changes be done through the legal process rather than mob rule or anarc
July 11th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Bunkerbuster, I do interchange the term liberal and leftist, but that use is not completely correct. I usually do it for readability and there is overlap, as there is by using Democrat for the same people, but there are distinctions. Likewise, I see differences between right-wing, conservative, and Republican.
I think that most of us used to label ourselves by political party affiliation, but that changed when it became difficult to see much differences in the parties. Therefore, liberal and conservative came more into use. But, when the extreme socialists and MoveOn crowd gained influence, left-wing became a better term for them. Some of you may consider the NRA a right-wing organization. (Oh yeah, gun rights is another conservative issue.)
I liked this statement of yours, as it is very concise and to the point:
To be a conservative in America today means to instinctively empathize with the traditional institutions and manifestations of power. To be a liberal means instinctively empathizing with the powerless and the institutions that attempt to empower them.
Conservatives can empathize with the powerless, but they would prefer that changes be done through the legal process rather than with mobs or anarchy. That process is much slower, though, and it may have taken another ten years, for instance, to integrate schools–which is not so good if you’re the one who is in school and don’t have another ten years.
In giving this quick review, if you were defining conservatives as opposed to liberals in response to my question, I give a grade of 89, because you got to the core of the differences with a good illustration and concise summary. The grade could be raised if the last sentence was omitted, but I’ll give that some more thought today.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:12 am
It appears I hit the submit key without realizing it with the earlier post at 7:02 AM. Ignore that and go to the completed post at 7:09 AM. Sorry.
July 11th, 2006 at 8:23 am
Woody wrote:
That is why we prefer the legislative route to change, because it is debated, whereas the left likes the judicial route to change where the voice of the majority can be ignored.—————————————————–
See, you are so full of shit! Traditional conservatives never trusted “democracy†and were more “republican†in their out-look. The “demos/masses†could not be trusted with power and believed that there should be brakes on legislative power through the courts. It is right-wing populists/fascists who have faith inn the legislative, when they think they know the out come.
Woody, at best you are a right-winging populists at worse you are a fascists.
God, does what you want him to do, please stop blaspheming and leave him out of your little demonic mouth.
July 11th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
“they would prefer that changes be done through the legal process rather than with mobs or anarchy. That process is much slower, though, and it may have taken another ten years, for instance, to integrate schools”
Why the hell didn’t Thurgood Marshall try using the legal process, rather than resort to mob anarchy to integrate schools. I’ll never forget those mobs of black children forcing their way through the polite gatherings of genteel white folks back in Little Rock and Ole’ Miss.
(Is it just me, or is he getting nuttier and nuttier ?)
July 11th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
reg, what I said, IN ITS ENTIRITY, made sense. Politicians react to mobs faster than they would reason. Witness the recent support by the left of law breakers who then amass to protest the laws that protect our borders and citizens, and the politicians fell all over themselves to accomodate them. Anarchy and mobs get more attention than do reason. I was the good kid in school, and the one who got the attention was the bad kid. I know which you were.
I prefer to think things through and do them once and do them right rather than rush things with bad results.
It’s just you.
July 11th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
The shorter Woody: “What I say makes sense even when it doesn’t.”
Oh yeah, and “I’m good and you’re bad.”
July 11th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
reg, on my answering machine today was a “personal message” from Zell Miller asking me to vote for Ralph Reed for Lt. Governor. I want a Lt. Governor who isn’t going to go to battle using only spit balls.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Woody, to amplify my position, I certainly do see traditional Conservatism of the type I described as admiring Totalitarianism. In fact one of the best defesnse of civil society and anti-totalitarinism is found in Burke’s “Reflections of the Revolution in France” which stands up pretty well after two hundred plus years. And Disraeli advocation a “One Nation” Toryism that had room for all classes in the polity. Hardly an authoritarian – let alone totalitarian – position.
July 11th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
I might also point out that Burke saw much in the Colonist’s greivances against the crowd and criticized the actions of parelement as counterproductive. He certainly wanted to keep America as part of the Crown but believed that differences could be worked out. And frankly the model of Canada (“Dominion” as a political solution to the problem of home rule and allgience to the soverign) is a Burkean solution that has worked out pretty well.
July 11th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Please, for the record, my penultimate item should read “I certainly DO NOT see tradional conservatism of the type I am describing as admiring Totalitarianism.” Boy those modifiers are sure tricky little devils ain’t they?
July 11th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
“But, seriously, mountains don’t come more gorgeous than in Montana, and as long as you refrain from bring up subjects like wolves, timber rights… or guns…..you’ll do fine.”
Not easy for a biologist and a writer. I almost moved to Livingston. I may for real someday, having lived in Ennis, Libby, and Hamilton. I know the place well. In fact I may know the woods better than the cowboys who grew up there. It has some of the most devastated timberlands I’ve ever seen. Richard Manning can tell you about that.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
“Far-left views that would be held to some kind of accountability in normal society flourish like hothouse flowers in academia, where there is none.”
Judging from the considerable overreaction to your comment above, A.M. Mora. I’d say you struck a tender nerve. Got too close for comfort to the rocking chairs on the back porch.
July 11th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
“Got too close for comfort to the rocking chairs on the back porch” of academia.
July 11th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
yeah, jim russel, the man who thinks we should have maybe nuked korea to ‘liberate’ it in the 50′s and do even more to help out those collaborators with Japanese fascism…yeah we should listen carefully to this man’s assessment of academia.
July 11th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
“Bunkerbuster, I do interchange the term liberal and leftist, ”
my definitoin of liberal: ” a slightly watered down version of Woody”
July 11th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
also on key important issues like NAFTA, budget cuts, welfare ‘reform’, federal sentencing guidelines, corporate tax cuts, etc. …liberals aren’t that terribly far from ‘conservatives’. indeed, my prediction is that Hillary Clinton will deliver both social security privatization and an invasion of Iran…not that terribly far from Woody’s own wishes.
July 11th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
How can anyone think of politics afer the National League blew another All-Star Game?
July 11th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Close enough A. M. to notice and report back most are rocking in a funny synchronism. Not back(left) and forth(right) in equals as you would see in a normal situation, but biased strangely to the left causing an inordinate number of tip-overs into the headlines.
July 11th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Lordy, it sure is entertaining to see a liberal (rlc) explain conservatism better than a “conservative” (woody). When even the right can’t be (or understand) conservative, you know the country’s in trouble. Explains a helluva lot.
Oh, and Jim Russell, I think you’re drunk again. Put down the bottle, fella.
July 12th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
I would have given RLC a 100 for the following reasons:
1.) It’s thoughtfulness.
2.) It’s historical accuracy
3.) A fair comparison to the other side’s hysterical and often ad hominem condemnation of everything liberal/left on this blog, leaves RLC’s comments clearly on the side of reasoned discourse.
Well done!
July 12th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Fallin Ringtone…
Come Back To me Ringtone Come Back To me Ringtone Drag The Sunrise Down Ringtone Drag The Sunrise Down Ringtone The More I See You Ringtone The More I See You Ringtone Taking A Chance On Love Ringtone Taking A Chance On Love Ringtone To The Teeth Ringt…
July 12th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
rlc, I’m sitting here with a torn rotator cuff dying of pain and the sorry doctor wouldn’t give me a shot of cortisone, so I sure can’t concentrate on the possible relevance of writings by Burke and Disraeli to today’s conservatives. Honestly, I study taxes, and political writings of the past were just something to learn long enough to make an A on a history test. I decide “what is what” by my own views and experiences without reading what well-known philosophers thought first.
I do believe that you are wrong about the totalitarian views of today’s conservatives. Think “Reagan Republican,” and I believe that you’ll get closer to our views on government.
For your response, I’ll give you five points for extra credit.
July 12th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
Woody, try actually reading RLC’s comments. You’re reacting to what was an obvious omission of a word (even when I first read it because of the comments that followed the misstatement which made it clear that conservative thought isn’t totalitarian) which he then explicitly corrected. It’s apparent you either aren’t reading or aren’t comprehending what you’re allegedly responding to. You’re a babbler.
July 13th, 2006 at 5:21 am
reg, I’m on pain killers and muscle relaxers. My head is swimming so much that if I voted right now I might actually pull the Democratic lever by accident. Sorry, rlc. I apparently missed your point but will try again when the meds weaken.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Always with the excuses. A retread republican was it?
July 13th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
A genuine Conservative would never say that government is the problem not the solution. He would recognize the need for government (“Leviathan” as Hobbes called it) as the instrument to keep order. But there are limits to government and it is the nature of those limits that create the tension that we call “politics.”
July 13th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
I agree with that, rlc. Government is necessary. Too much government is not.
To defend some government, I even agree that the anti-trust acts were right. However, I don’t like a large centralized government telling the people of all the states to do silly things and to do them the same way when the local community knows better.
The other day I was listening to someone discuss the EEOC discrimination suit against Hooters because they didn’t have male waiters in those cute, low-cut tops. Only a liberal or big-government lover could think that was right.
July 14th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Not all cases are actually accepted. Even valid ones.
July 20th, 2006 at 7:32 am
Kiss me w poker rureqbn
July 25th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Ich can mich an dich uberhaupt poker nicht errinern.xnx
May 29th, 2008 at 4:28 am
poker en ligne payant…
Nowadays regles poker old poker en ligne gratui poker ligne le poker gratuites sans téléchargement jeu poker virtuel…
June 9th, 2008 at 1:37 am
gagner au casino en ligne…
Sowieso slots machines gratis jouer au poker gratuit internet poker site texas holdem combinaisons apostar paginas internet…
June 9th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
premios portales internet…
On other hand online wette 7 card stud online triche poker online juegos instantaneos portales casino online game…
July 11th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
salles virtuelles de jeux gratuits…
Dessus texas holdem poker game pai gow poker casino website juegos de poker online gratis omaha poker rule…
October 6th, 2010 at 4:12 am
This article along with http://hubpages.com/hub/Dog-Potty-Grass are the perfect on the topic dog potty grass I’ve discovered so far.
December 13th, 2010 at 3:46 am
Excusez-moi si ma langue française n’est pas extraordinaire mais je trouve tout ceci excellent. Merci pour le blog et cet articleBonne continuation.