True Republicans are disturbed by the power that has been given to the Religious Right, and have ceded a lot of power in recent years to the Neo-Cons, the members of which have become the 'face' of the party. Richard Viguerie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie) was on Ed Schultz' radio show today, talking about the pathetic behavior (my phrase) of RNC Chairman Michael Steele in kowtowing (me again) to Rush Limbaugh. Asked by Schultz if Limbaugh was the head of the Republican Party, Viguerie stated that Limbaugh was the head of the Conservative Movement, speaking with almost disdain of the RNC. (Honestly, even I was embarrassed when Steele apologized to Limbaugh...)
See the thing is, when someone like Rush Limbaugh has his show broadcast on 600 stations (in some areas he is on opposite himself), they have the forum to espouse their particular point of view - to A LOT of people. Because of the power vacuum in the Republican Party, this has become the face of the Party:
I realize we have practically nobody on the right visiting us here at Brushfires, but if you know a Republican, ask them if they are happy about that. Ask them if they 'want the President to fail'. If you think they are True Republicans, ask them what they are going to do to take their party back. After two disastrous (for them) election cycles, how can they hope to bring moderates and independents back into the fold, if they think that the Republicans are the party of Rush.
As someone who can count the times she's voted for a Republican on both hands, you'd think I'd be happy about the disarray in the GOP. But, nothing could be further from the truth - I think that a democracy works best when we have more choices, not less. How many times have you had to choose between the lesser of two evils, stuck with the candidates who appealed to the lowest common denominator instead of our highest ideals. Only through loyal opposition (loyal to the country, not their party), can our public servants in government be pushed to perform at their best.
280 comments:
1 – 200 of 280 Newer› Newest»I can count the number of times I've voted Republican on the late Jerry Garcia's right middle finger. Speaking of fingers, the caption for that photo should read 'Pull my finger'.
I don't find it outrageous to imaging Rush Limbaugh running for President and winning. I don't. Ask me again why I don't want kids...
I've voted Republican fewer times than you could count on the late Johnny Cash's left middle finger (photo available at the bottom of this post, if you're interested).
I have been talking to my republican colleagues and they're quietly gloating because they warned me about TAXES. I don't think the republican party divides so neatly into three parts. The mythical morally rigorous fiscal conservatives support whatever the neocons say they need to do to keep the profits flowing.
We don't need two parties. We need 6, 8 or 10.
Here's to the neocons:
http://tinyurl.com/g7s3u
Well, hell, that was Johnny's RIGHT middle finger. Sorry.
There is a simple way to understand the Limbaugh phenomenon. He's the voice of those nasty small businessmen who dream that the resentments of their employees about broken promises over wages, benefits and hours will be channeled against illegal immigrants, liberals, homosexuals, multiculturalists and non-Christian foreigners. A lot of employees took the bait. But Americans are wisening up. Limbaugh may be able to bring a a delusional Joe the Plumber or two into the Republican Party. But that's about it. He and the party that he supports are in their death throes._
Posted By: hartal | January 24 2009 at 04:38 PM
The Republicans have a theological commitment to free markets overseen by the most minimal state which is rebating all taxes, especially those that fall on the richest. But with Greenspan [and now James Baker!] now welcoming bank nationalization no one can have any idea about what the Republican Party represents. If Greenspan wants to nationalize the banks (and perhaps it's only to protect senior creditors at the taxpayers' expense, but still it is a call for a massively interventionist state subsidized by taxpayer money), then why stop there? Let's nationalize Chrysler and organize it for wind turbine production.
I can see that the Republicans are tying to fashion themselves as the party of private business investment and anti-unionization. Such a party may prove to be a formidable opposition to the Democrats. And Michael Steele is trying to give the party that identity--see his comparison of private sector with temporary federal jobs. But such a pro-investment commitment does not entail or even demand a laissez faire approach. The credit on which business investment depends may require the nationalization of the banks. And the effective demand, infrastructure, containment of health care costs and R and D on which private business depends may require a big role for government, subsidized by more progressive taxes than Bush had it. I think the Republicans have not yet figured out that having a a business investment identity can't come with a dogmatic laissez faire approach. But if the leaders come out and say that, they'll lose their base that is only interested in tax cuts.
Posted By: hartal | February 17 2009 at 11:22 PM
That's ok, xoot. I meant to say 'less than', too. I'd say we kind of have a theme going with Republicans and middle fingers.
Yeah, right. False consciousness; the violence of capital. Cut the crap, hartal. Be brief when you only have a couple of things to say.
TS: I am not surprised that we agree. I think I'll put Johnny's cover of Rusty Cage on the box and close up shop for the night.
dsgonzale6 liked the first part of the message. I don't know what is false about consciousness or violent about capital? So not sure what you're getting at. But I thought it was important to remember that the Republicans are now divided over the nationalization of banks--this is rather astonishing--and to make the distinction between a pro-investment approach and a laissez faire approach. I really don' t waste words as you think I do, xootsuit.
Jerry Garcia's right middle finger? How about Bob Weir's?
http://www.trufun.com/gd.gallery/weir.finger.830713.jpg
Why in the world is Obama engaging Limbaugh? Rush is a lightweight thinker with the voice of God, the John Facenda of conservatism. The president has legitimized this buffoon and energized his wacko followers. Bad bad thinking, whoever is behind responding to Limbaugh on any level.
Actually, twinnie, it can be looked upon as brillant. The Republican party is imploding, and cannot find any new members. Do you really think that having Rush as a poster boy is going to attract moderate or independent voters? The Republicans are so busy fighting amongst themselves, and the leadership is being exposed as beyond weak - I think this has been engineered and encouraged by Rahm...
I don't know if any of you are locals, but there used to be a state Senator here by the name of Milton Marks - I can't tell you why now, but he appealed to me way back when, and was my Republican vote. I doubt I voted for him that many times, it probably was on one hand. (I probably should google him - I'd be mortified if he was some sort of Nazi whacko!!!)
I agree with Ferretti on this case, but here is a historic example of the consequences of leadership singling out an opposition leader--his meteoric rise and eventual ascension to power.
Writing about the Iranian Revolution, the late Eqbal Ahmad wrote about Khomeni came to dominate a diverse and disorganized opposition to the Shah:
Above all, it should be noted that the mobilization of the Iranian revolution toward Islam had been the work of such lay Muslim intellectuals as Dr. Mehdi Bazargan, Jalal Ale- Ahmad and Abul Hasan Bani Sadr. The most important populizers of Islamic idealism were Ali Shariati, a progressive layman, and the Ayatullah Mahmud Taleghani, a radical religious leader. Although the Ayatullah Khomeini had been an important opposition figure since 1963, he was far from being the central figure he became in 1978. In January 1978, as the revolution began to gather momentum, the Shah's regime did Khomeini the honor of singling him out for its most publicized and personal attack. From this point on, he became the counterpoint to the hated but central figure of the Shah. An explanation of his meteroic rise to charismatic power lies in the complex character of Iran's disorganic development...
It's a little early to be burying the Republican Party. "It's the economy, stupid" helped Obama win the election and it can still cost him the next one. No, Limbaugh won't attract moderates and independants but he can mobilize the right wing, and those people did not go to the polls this time as they have in recent elections. A unified right wing is not something to encourage, IMO.
FH, Milton Marks was a moderate Republican; so moderate, in fact, that he ran as a Democrat in his last two elections.
hartal, I don't specifically recall agreeing with that initial comment, but it sounds like something I would agree with. Personally, I think the current self-delusion of the GOP is one of its worst traits--a party that can claim to be financially responsible yet pour billions of dollars into the rathole that is Iraq is not in touch with reality.
I've never voted for a Republican in my life, nor has anyone in my family, EVER. I mean ever-not just in my lifetime: in my father's lifetime, and his father's, and his... my family were *union* Democrats , in the best possible sense. That is a huge part of why I supported Hillary Clinton. Obama has a very fragile alliance with working Democrats, people who for years had been the backbone of the Democratic Party. This is not a racial issue, it's about working people of any color. "Joe the Plumber" types have a lot more in common with working class Deocrats than the naive might like to believe. Obama better get that bailout money rolling downhill or there *will* be defectors, in droves.
Hartal: I have a challenge for you. See if you can make your point in 3 or 4 short sentences. Use the most descriptive language that you can.Imagine that you're limited to making your point in no more than a paragraph. Simplify and condense your thoughts.Try it--you may like it.
I love Johnny Cash, finger or not.
I vote for the formation of a third party. I don't like corporate greed (of which I think pharma corps are a big underlying problem), don't like big government and high taxes, don't like abortion, want lobbyists to go away permanently. Wouldn't mind nationalized health care if it was managed right and not turned into the corrupt nightmare we call California government. Don't mind unions, but they need to have their political clout taken away.Believe in a strong military as a peacekeeping force.
Can someone find a party for me?
ggg
Anonymous: Here's you challenge:Don't just reveal yourself to be a weasel; identify yourself. And then ignore me.
And Michael, did you not notice that Obama went to the left of the Clintons in his choice for Secty of Labor? She's a sponsor of major pro working legislation. Or did you think that Solís being Latina won't keep white male working stiffs in the Democratic Party? But the Democrats never win a majority of them unless they are unionized. And the whites they lose they more than compensate for by the Latinos they win and the higher turnout among blacks they enjoy.
Hilarious. Vlae Kershner had my IP address reinstated to SF Gate, but now Maximum Strength Mick is deleting any and all messages I send to his blog even though it was agreed that I had not violated the terms and conditions of posting to SF Gate.
Oh, Michaeltwin, I was wondering whether politico was one of your aliases at SF Gate.
No, I only post as twinfan on SFGate...
hartal: "his choice for Secty of Labor? She's a sponsor of major pro working legislation"
That is quite possibly the dumbest description of the situation I have read anywhere, hartal. Solis, in my opinion, was an inspired choice for Sec. of Labor. The truly important check-card legislation may or may not pass, but Ms. Solis won't have much to day about it. We'll see how she does in the realm where she actually will operate.
As I've noted here once before, the really interesting opportunity for Obama is the NLRB. The Bush admin. refused to play the bipartisan game that had gone on for so long and ended up in some sort of stalemate with Congress. Thus three seats on the 5-person board are open. Only one of the two now there is a Bush appointee.
Clinton appointed Prof. Gould, from Stanford, to chair the NLRB as I recall. (He's African American, hartal.) I was impressed. I had relied on (and, of course, cited) Gould quite a bit in a law review article I published during law school. Now Obama has a three-fold opportunity to dazzle similarly. I'll be interested to see how he does.
You know, hartal, I really hope I am wrong about you. I was wrong about Gina. She can be a pain in the ass, certainly. But she also contributes some original stuff here. I value originality and authenticity. Doesn't have to be sincere, but it better be genuine.
I see nothing genuine in the undigested regurgitation you spew, hartal. And when you do speak your own mind, it generally sounds like that dumb comment you made about Ms. Solis above, while you were trying to race-bait.
Let's see a metaphor, or some humor, hartal -- something genuine, that you've actually created.
You don't know what you're talking about xootsuit. That is why I seem ill informed to you. Or uncreative. You think you know what you're talking about but you don't. You said that you met Christina Romer. Big deal. Compare my analysis of what she has had to say with your empty posts. Or compare my specific criticism of Pender with your empty criticism about the ATM. The difference between you and me is that I rely on what I have figured out; I don't drop my connections or credentials.
No, you regurgitate or agitate or imitate, but you say nothing original. You don't "figure out" a thing. You just spew. How many articles have you published? What do you do with your "research," other than spew it out undisgested on other people's blogs? Nothing, I'm sure.
wv: syingred
Enough of this. In my view, hartal has ruined this blog.
You're losing whatever little sanity you had, xootsuit. It's not credible to say I am ruining the blog by pointing to Republican support of bank nationalization and the difference between a pro investment program and a laissez faire approach?
Solis can do a lot with EFCA: 1. she can substantiate how bad the problem of intimidation and firings are during the election process, 2. she can help enforce the new fines on business, 3. she can oversee the card check process that will allow unions to circumvent all the delays at the NRLB.
hartal, you don't post, you paste. That's not "running" the blog, that's just clogging it up with junk. Why bother?
What the hell are you talking about? I only pasted the one paragraph by Eqbal Ahmad on how Khomeni came to dominate the opposition to the Shah--by the Shah isolating him for harsh criticism. If you don't find that interesting, there's a problem with you, not me. The rest I wrote. Are you intimidated by how much I know? Is the problem here that a warehouse worker should not know as much as I do?
http://tinyurl.com/c9lnp8
What's goin on here? You guys haven't put the pallets of widgets away? WTF? You haven't even filled the forklift with lpg yet?
Sorry, boss. It's just that hartal got going on the infusion of foreign gold into the US during the depression and, well, we just had to listen, you know?
Yeesh, I'm starting to dread reading my own blog...
xootie - I couldn't figure it out, but suzagoob mentioned an 'ignore' feature, you might want to check it out. I'd hate to lose your input.
I remember Milton Marks as a kid but I was too young to vote for him. Lived in the richmond district, if I recall. At least for a while. I remember him campaigning in the Safeway parking lot at the beach. Sweet demeanor. I also remember his son was something of a spoiled prick ;)
Remember when the Ayatollah Khomeini said 'allahdamn Iran!'?
Xootie - as a Congressperson, Hilda Solis was one of many co-sponsors of EFCA.
I remember that well, TS. Let's see. I was working in a lumber yard in Watsonville at the time, . . . . Jonestown, Milk/Moscone, the Ayatollah K -- heckuva winter. Lost a the tip of a glove finger, but pulled the hand out in time. (Most of the older guys were missing pieces.) Yep, heckuva winter.
.
I still haven't had an opportunity today to talk to any of my republican friends about Rush, Face of the Party. (Need to approach it carefully, you know.)
Oh, FH -- I know Solis's background. And she'll do what she can, for sure. But the fight will be in congress.
I helped organize a union once-- not in the lumber yard; Teamsters were already there -- but in a factory. The card-check system would've made it a whole lot easier and faster.
suzagoob mentioned an 'ignore' feature
**
i DO IT MANUALLY
;)
But the point remains is that xootsuit does not know what he is talking about; he's just bloviating.
He mocks my reference to the debate about how much importance Christina Romer had given to the inflow of gold from Europe, but that is what John Judis said, and that is what Brad Delong said Judis had misunderstand. This was an important debate at the time. Of course if Romer did not believe in the efficacy of fiscal policy, then there was reason to fear her appointment; or the conservatives had good reason to argue that Obama was proposing something he had no reason to believe would work. But DeLong showed that she had been misunderstood by the left liberal Judis.
To be accused of ruining a blog by pointing to such an important debate shows bad faith, the ethics of a lawyer trying to defend Mick LaSalle's decision to delete me.
Here's Judis:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=208a7b29-a401-4ee5-8ef7-3a9d0c80fb4f
My guess is suza uses a reader for blogs.
And where the heck do you get off describing my statement about Solis as the stupidest thing you have ever heard? I know that you are convinced of your brilliance, but you may not have the handle on things that you think you do. Didn't the host just remind you of the legislation that Solís had sponsored?
Hartal, Xootfruit isn't countering your argument, he's just attacking you because it's fashionable. There is nothing more tedious than an arrogant douche with a good education. I love how he was even bashing you because of your job.
You ankle biters are funny.
If defending Mick LaSalle is what you do, you are more than pathetic than I could have imagined because doing that won't mean that you'll ever be da man, too, xootsuit.
How did LaSalle get into this?
Look, I realize that you spent a year trying to prod LaSalle into recognizing you and, no doubt to your dismay, when he finally did deign to recognize you it was by flushing you down the toilet whenever you appeared. Frustrating, I guess. But it has nothing to do with me. Unless you see yourself as an exiled leader, recruiting for an insurgent return to power. (I rarely use smiley faces; get used to it.)
I still think the fluff PR piece on the Romers on the UCB website offers an interesting glimpse into the way the Obama administration uses its brains. Sharing that benign notion is what started all this. Maybe it's just a fluff piece. Or maybe it's a brief flash of recent history from the inside. I don't know. Decide for yourself.
xoot, did you ever visit Gould's office at SLS? The last time I saw it, it was the messiest office I had ever seen, by far. He's a Red Sox fan, you know.
No. I never even corresponded with him. (This was just before e-mail broke loose.) I read a few of his articles about twenty times. I'm happy to hear about his office, however. Makes me feel better here.
xoot, your critcism of the ATM is right on target. The damn thing is just too tempting and my bank account suffers for it.
BTW, is the anonymous poster who signs as "ggg" Gina? That's what I thought, but maybe I was confused.
xoot, there wasn't a single flat space in his office that wasn't stacked with books and papers at least 4 feet high, including most of the floor.
You think I care about LaSalle's approval or recognition? You're kidding me, right? Where is the smiley face? You and I know he wouldn't dare go at it with me; he'd end up looking as ridiculous as you did during the discussion of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. But he does not own the SF Gate space into which he blogs, so perhaps you can tell him that he can't treat it as his private space and delete me at will.
Did you see Pender's column yesterday? It was 100% cut and paste. No kidding. At least she used quotation marks (generally). Reading it was like hearing three or four people at the airport talking on cell phones at the same time.
I think I read that column two days ago, but two things surprise me. 1. Doug Noland of the Prudent Bear is a trusted source, and 2. he makes no sense as he says that the economy is imploding and the government needs limits though it has to do what it can to stop an implosion. In practical terms no meaning can be gleaned from that quote. Then there was the absurd quote taken seriously by Pender that the economy was doing better in Dec as measured by the stock market when Obama was not yet doing anything. But everyone knows now that the economy fell off a cliff in December in terms of employment and general economic activity. Not checking now but does she not quote a Wells Fargo official saying things are pretty rosy as if he may not have an incentive to hide the actual condition of the economy and his company.
Yes, not a very impressive piece.
Such bitter people with so little to day. So mindful life the point of your post is that even some Republicans realize that Limbaugh is an idiot. Wow. Thanks for sharing. You make politics so interesting! By the way, do you have another name over at SF Gate?
I only know one person who listens to Rush L. The guy is a retired electrician. Good guy, in many ways. But he buys into the whole package, it seems.
I'm always slightly surprised when intelligent and well-educated republicans I know cite Fox News. (You might think that would be annoying to me, but actually it's ok. Otherwise, I would have no idea what Fox news has to say about anything!)
Here's Rush in his own words:
Listener: Socialism is the government's going to take care of everything. That's it in a nutshell to me.
RUSH: Well, yeah. That's true. But to some people, we have to admit that sounds pretty good right now, 'cause they think the private sector has failed them. That's what Obama is trying to impress upon us. There are three primary definitions of socialism. It is "a political theory advocating state ownership of industry," and we see it's starting to happen with the banks and automobile companies. It is "an economic system based on state ownership of capital," meaning money. The state owns the money. Now, no money is theirs. They don't have a dime until they either print it or confiscate it from the people that produce it. But they're now operating under the procedure that all money is theirs and you're only going to end up with whatever they decide is "enough" for you.
Now, here are some variations on the definition of socialism. "Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." Meaning the government in charge of all food, the government in charge of banks, the government in charge of energy -- and you need to ask yourself: Given who government is today (it's majority Democrat) you have to look and say, "Well, when they've run things, have they succeeded? Is there any evidence to suggest that they know what they're doing?" No. In fact, they gave us the subprime crisis. They have given us a permanent underclass of people in poverty in this country. The Democrat Party has done this.
Another definition: "A system of society or group living in which there's no private property. A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state." Number three: "A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done." So you think that if Obama and his boys get total control that they're going to be fair, everybody is going to be the same, and outcomes will be equal. Wrong. Their buddies are going to do fine. Their buddies won't even have to pay taxes, like they don't have to now. But you're not going to do so well. So those are the basic tenets of socialism. We throw it around, but I don't think a lot of people take it more than government in charge of everything. It's far worse than that. I mean, government being in charge of things is bad.
I heard the beginning of Limbaugh's show a couple times because he was on KNBR and I'd have just finished listening to something else Giants related. The main thing I noticed in those 2 to 3 minute segments was he simply wasn't funny. Thought he was but really wasn't. As for the real political content, never listened long enought to notice
hartal, if FH is now dreading looking at this blog, and you find the comments of others here to be so insufferable, doesn't it seem like this might not be the place for you, or that maybe you might want to rethink your approach to this blog? It makes no difference to me, since I don't care what you do and can deal with whatever that might be; this is meant to be a constructive comment for your benefit.
Well, I'd be pretty pissed if somebody called me a stupid fry cook. I mean, really dumb fry cooks don't have that job very long, you know? I'd guess Hartal was a pretty smart fry cook. A pain in the ass, to be sure.
" Is that nugget sustainable?"
"I'm taking a break. I'll be at the Milk Express Station"
" Look at that guy on 4. A Palin supporter. I'm gonna go talk to him..."
All this talk of socialism is a hoot, especially since the government has been privatized for decades.
TS nailed it. How can Plutocracy equal Socialism? I guess calling people you don't agree with 'Liberal' just didn't seem harsh enough, so 'Socialist' was recruited.
The interesting question here is why xootsuit who knows a lot less about things than he pretends to know would go off on me in these terms:
Cut the crap, hartal.
That is quite possibly the dumbest description of the situation I have read anywhere, hartal.
I see nothing genuine in the undigested regurgitation you spew, hartal. And when you do speak your own mind, it generally sounds like that dumb comment you made about Ms. Solis above, while you were trying to race-bait.__Let's see a metaphor, or some humor, hartal -- something genuine, that you've actually created.
You don't "figure out" a thing. You just spew. How many articles have you published? What do you do with your "research," other than spew it out undisgested on other people's blogs? Nothing, I'm sure.
hartal, you don't post, you paste. That's not "running" the blog, that's just clogging it up with junk. Why bother?
_____________
Now here's the point. Xoot has a fancy education but he came off as a doltish blowhard in discussion with me about Conrad; and then he came across as pretty superficial when we began talking about things like Solis, the EFCA, the controversy over Christina Romer.
He has this sense of entitlement that a working stiff like me should be deferring to his brilliance and erudition, and I find him to be tragically out of his depth, relying on the shoulder rubs he has had with famous people at the local taqueria for the little credibility that he has.
Was that another chicken taco joke? It's hard to tell, but I'm sure it was hilarious. Speaking of humor (?), what would Lenny Bruce think of Rush, were he alive today?
http://tinyurl.com/c27olw
"what would Lenny Bruce think of Rush, were he alive today?" Rush died?
Don't know what Bruce would have said, but it's clear that what Limbaugh wants is freedom--freedom for the economy to collapse, freedom for families to collapse, freedom to shoot at any perceived threat, freedom from the truth, freedom from the perspectives of those who work and suffer, freedom to make a profit any way you can, freedom from any responsibility for tending to the conditions that make anyone's success possible, freedom from any consistent moral's standards.
hartal, here's the difference between you and me.
Background: First, you failed your Heart of Darkness test some months back because you actually are not famililar with the text. Second, you recast yourself as a "winner" in our exchange dishonestly. And third, partly as a result of all that palaver over Heart of Darkness you and I engaged in, I went back and not only reread it, but also re-read Chinua Achebe's brilliant (one-sided, but brilliantly one-sided) 1974 (or 75, I forget which) critique of the novella. Now, I did this because I like to read. Doesn't make me a better person than anyone else. I'm just doing what I like to do.
But, as a result, my view of the novella has changed significanlty since we had that exchange so many months ago (when you failed your exam). You see -- I've continued my education on the subject.
Meanwhile, you are still trying to rewrite what happened in the middle of the night on LaSalle's blog so many months ago. (And my guess is you still can't answer the question I posed back then.)
Tell you what -- let's go back to LaSalle's blog right now and have it out over Heart of Darkness, ok? [yeah!]
By the way, the passage I quoted from your post to TF was slightly misleading. I apologize for the confusion. The most offfensive aspect of the post, to me, was your race-baiting.
Michael, I KNEW as soon as I posted it, someone would spot my grammatical error. Thank goodness!
So you forgot that you criticized me for making the same point about how the novel was badly taught that Hochschild made in the wikipedia that you quoted? Remember how foolish you seemed, and you missed my quiz which was about how Conrad symbolized the death that colonial wealth had brought to the metropolis. At any rate, there is no reason to go back. Look at your posts here about Romer and Solis. You just don't know what you're talking about, but you are convinced that you must know more than I do because you have a fancy credential.
And I didn't race bait. Here's the truth of the matter according to Ansolobhere: if black turnout had not risen and the Latino vote shifted massively, Obama would have lost. That was the key to Obama's victory. He did not win because he won the Joe the Plumbers. That's not race baiting; that seems to be what the political scientists have found out.
To be honest, I'm not a big fan of Conrad's, I prefer Melville.
I prefer Melville, too.
Hartal, I've already posted my opening salvo over on MSM. Come on. Let's go at it. Don't burden the people here with your revisionist mendacity.
wv: hotta
You feel like Conrad today; I don't. We were talking about Limbaugh, Solis and Romer. See if you can keep up with that fancy education of yours.
I thought Obama won because all those many PUMAs changed their mind at the last minute.
Hartal, I ever said that Obama didn't benefit from the Latino and black vote. And you completely miss the nuance of my statement that "Joe the Plumber" types have a lot more in common with working class Demcrats than the naive might like to believe..." I never made a white/black/brown distinction. Obama inherited a lot of the Latino vote from Clinton and the historic nature of his candidacy attracted more blacks to the polls. Those are GOOD things, but it would be foolish to count those votes as good in perpetuity. The working class (not the WHITE working class only) is not sold on Obama, they are HOPEFUL.
I have to say, hartal's style is somewhat less irritating these days. It still bugs me to some extent, but nowhere near as much as it used to.
I PREFER MELVILLE, TOO:
That's better.
Do you know Mardi, dsg? I always liked that, uh, talkative character whose name could be pronounced "babble on ya."
Melville was very funny sometimes.
No. It's:
I too prefer Melville
;)
xoot, I have to admit that I never read Mardi, but I'm going to look into it.
Well, my guess you (and I and just about everyone else) would find greater joy in re-reading Bartleby.
oooh, hartal is butt hurt and thinks my comments are irrelevant. They may be, but at least you don't have to wade through 5,000 words to figure it out.
love, suzagoob
ps - if you'd been paying attention you'd know that's who I was. you never do, so I am telling you outright.
also, I don't like Melville or Conrad (both a couple of male centric writers if you ask me). I much prefer Edith Wharton. She's my fave. :)
MOBY RUSH
I'm into the Time/Life Apartment Improvement series, myself.
Can't we 'debate' the book *I'm* currently reading, "The Brothers Mad?" I bet Melville and Conrad never used the phrase 'phonus balonus' in *their* books. Buncha hacks.
wv: beargati - the preferred sports car of discerning Ursines.
Are you really determined to wreck this blog, Hartal? You're working hard at it. Control yourself for once.
Suza -- Your take on Melville is one I've heard from smart women for decades. You're absolutely right. Dammit, so am I.
Meanwhile, Conrad pisses off all kinds of people. Most of them are right, too.
That's one thing about art. The great artists put themselves into it and take the heat for not being perfect, even if they are geniuses.
I still have not had the chance to discuss Rush, The Face of the GOP, with an educated republican. Still on my list, however.
Now, what was wrong with a little satire, ferret?
I can't remember my dang password, or I'd logon.
Xoot, I don't know if you're really real or not, but you'd love my father-in-law.He'd argue your ass off if he decided you were worth his time.
wv:consho
Oh, and btw, red with tan tuck n roll sounds cool. When I was a little kid the teenage hot rodders I tagged around after all had tuck n roll, or wanted it. They used to debate endlessly whether any of the upholstery shops in Mexico would do a good job. ("They use dirty rags for padding." "My guy didn't." "How do you know? Huh? Bet you $100. Let's cut it open." "Don't dare touch my tuck n roll." And so forth.)
mmmmmmmm. Tuck and roll.
Gina -- Sounds as if I might like him. I would start out assuming he was worth the time. So obviously we would have a few things to discuss.
Control myself for once? It just does not matter to you people--you'll insult me even when I take a break from posting.
not that I don't enjoy a good tuck n roll, too . . . .
xootsuit said...
hartal, here's the difference between you and me.
>
No Xootfruit, the difference between you and Hartal is that he is proud of the fact that his daughter's teacher said she was the happiest child she's ever met. When you brag about your son, it's for something clever he said. Maybe he'll grow up to be a world class commenter on Mick's blog.
Hartal is also proud of his wife and having a good marriage. When you reference wife/ex-wife/girlfriend, you call her your kid's mother. That's not a sign of a healthy relationship. A while back, I was being hounded off The Splash by about twenty of the regulars there. At one point, someone calling him/herself, Poster Child, presumably the offspring of one of my detractors, joined in the pile-up with some mild taunts. I felt so sorry for him/her. Imagine, what kind of parent encourages his kid to be a bully? He's a year or so older, so he's probably entering the animal torture stage now. What we as a society must try to do is to prevent that horrible brat from ever ruining the life of Hartal's happy girl.
Xootsuit, it's an indesputable fact, you have badly misplaced priorities. As for Hartal, he taunted Mick for spouting the PUMA line of garbage. I'm shocked that DSG and others were more concerned about Hartal's attitude than Mick's ridiculous commets. I'm not that shocked that Mick is such a weak ass, that he deleted Hartal's comments. I mean WTF, he's got a whole pack of guard dogs there to protect him.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator
**
J.M.
My apologies. I promise to never bring up Kenny G ever again
I am, for once, speechless, and profoundly thankful, YC
I didn't see what was deleted, but I can figure from the following comments that it had something to do with my dad's 55 merc. I don't care, the best parts about it are that he loves that car, he's letting me use it for my wedding, and it's free (free is the best best part if you ask me).
he's very proud of the tuck n roll (is that how you spell it?) because it used to be white and he had it re-done recently.
anyway, thanks xootie. :)
The thing about Melville and Conrad is that they are both artists - and unapologetically so. An artist doesn't defend their work - like Hemmingway. They put it out there and you like it or you don't, but if it's good it lasts for generations.
I don't care much for Hemmingway either, but I respect his work. Same for Melville and Conrad. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is inherently bad, evil or wrong.
Since I know you don't get subtlety, that last sentence was for you, Hartal.
I'm the fool Xootsuit? Perhaps. You are a sinister being. There's just no getting around that.
I badly misspelled indisputable, was that the thrust of your last post? Is that how you argue face to face? If so, you must be missing a few teeth. Do you honestly feel you don't have all of the same character flaws as Rush Limbaugh?
Some people who argue frequently with Hartal, including myself, sent LaSalle E-Mails asking that Hartal be reinstated. LaSalle responded to my E-Mail by saying that Hartal had been abusive and disruptive. While Hartal can argue forever that it was unjustified, this much is certain: as the author of the blog, LaSalle has the right to ban him, just as Ferret had the right to delete his posts this evening ( which were 4 or 5 posts saying blah blah a few hundred times). It's one thing for fellow posters to insult each other, quite the other to insult the author. Nothing to do with who'
s right or wrong: it's DUMB.
I wrote no such posts, saying blah blah hundreds of times. What I am guessing is that this Gina submitted those posts under my name. I hope the host does not think I wrote all those deleted posts.
Xootsuit hides behind a spell check.
I only know they were "signed" Hartal. The blog hostess would be the only one who should be able to tell who really wrote them. If it was not you, my comment about wrecking the blog is withdrawn.
I think Gina is admitting to have submitted posts under my name when she talks about having fun with satire.
*
Now we know why Susan Eisenhower was at the Democratic Convention.
From Dwight Eisenhower
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business
man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.
WV-redlogin...I've got nothing
hartal - I would suggest you get a log-in in order to avoid that happening again. It wouldn't be the first time that someone posted under another's name.
Suza - I am so sorry that, if in my pique at the endless 'blahs', I deleted your comment. I would have loved to have read about your dad's Merc. My dad had one too, years ago, but he sold it. A thousand pardons...
Can we PLEASE stop the bickering???
"Do you honestly feel you don't have all of the same character flaws as Rush Limbaugh?"
Only yogi/sonofabastard could ask such a stupid question and think it sounded smart. Even hartal has more discretion than that.
wv: hotster. keep the theme going!
FH -- yes we can.
no FH, I think gina was posing as Hartal to make comments about my impending nuptuals. I misunderstood from the following comments, but you didn't delete any of mine.
no harm, no foul.
:)
I'll try to stop bickering...living in the TL has taught me that it's far safer and easier to ignore the clinically insane than to validate them with any sort of response.
You deleted a post about a 55 Merc?
THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
If I am not mistaken the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits such censorship.
(I learned automobile repair helping my father keep his white & turquoise 55 V8 merc running. And running well. Bride Suza and Groom Mr. Suza intend to take a 55 Merc for a honeymoon spin. We're talking some serious stuff here, FH.)
"STOP: C0000221 STATUS_IMAGE_CHECKSUM_MISMATCH"
Just one of the many things you don't wanna deal with at bedtime...
So, Xoot, you're not married,either?
This is the unmariageables club after all.Ha.
Hartal, you'd better be careful. You might catch the McVirus and end up one of us.
By the way, dear Hartal, don't give up entirely on e-mailing LaSalle. Just try a different e-mail.He should post it in a day or two, or maybe a co-worker will mention it in a rather sneaky way. I got through to him for a whole year blathering away like an idiot. Of course, there's is the option of just leaving the poor man alone.
Gina -- don't believe anything "personal" you hear from Yogi "Sonofabastard" Crumpet or hartal.
For a while last year I posted about how nice it was to cruise around town in my 1959 Pink Cadillac convertible with Alaska plates and three bullet holes on the driver's side. Yogi took my silly metaphor literally and tried on The Splash and on MSM to publicize my irresponsible contributions to global warming. (Of course, I then posted that I had converted it to bio-diesel long ago.)
wv: expla
Xoottoot, I don't know or care about your marital status. My point was that the only time you ever referenced the mother of your kids, you called her just that. I believe it was last Mother's Day, when you wrote that you and your sons took their mother out for dinner. My psych degree may be from a notorious party school, but even I know you can't possibly have a happy marriage. Like I give a shit.
I contend that Hartal's commitment to his marriage is an indicator of good character. That he is foremost concerned about his children's happiness is an indicator of being a good parent. That his daughter comforted another child is further proof.
My point is this, you can tell a lot about people based on what they brag about. Rush Limbaugh brags about having talent on loan from God. You brag about your deep knowledge of literature (although your ignorance of Edward DeVere belies that). I brag about the bullies that I have defeated. Gina brags about not having had an abortion. Hartal brags about having the happiest child in the world and that he is a great online debater.
WV- flesters...I don't know what it means, but it sounds like something Xootsuit would do.
Your point is that you waste everybody's time obsessing about bloggers you don't really know anything about. Pathetic.
Besides -- I thought my kids and I took MY mother out last Mother's Day. . . .
http://tanehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/stop_congratulating_your_indian_friends.php
I just want to say that my wife is also hot.
sorry here is the link
http://tanehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/stop_congratulating_your_indian_friends.php
oops it's not coming out, but look up tanisha coates
at the atlantic.com and look for the video stop congratulating your Indian friends
Sure. We'll get right on that, hartal.
Hartal, you have to go to tiny url and convert it. Long urls can't be linked to here because of the narrow margin
Actual photograph of Yogi Crumpet and hartal in a car together, blogging while driving:
http://tinyurl.com/bfnv4e
Slightly off topic: Why do people seem to be so needy for attention these days? It appears to me that this phenomenon is a big part of our problems these days.
I think people have always been needy for attention. It's just easier to get it in the internet age.
Either that or I have no idea what you're talking about
I guess I can't be mad about Hartal not getting details about everyone else correct when he doesn't even get the name of the people he's reccommending right. It's Ta-Nehisi Coates.
Became familiar with him when I lived in DC, but honestly haven't thought of him in ages.
Thanks for correction.
So that guy's your wife, hartal?
Not getting that one. I really wasn't recommended Ta-...well let me say...Mr Coates--just the video he linked in an effort at some self-deprecating humor. But it failed.
Well at least Suza Mindful Life may get a kick out of the conservative commentator David Frum's take on Limbaugh:
"Here's the duel that Obama and Limbaugh are jointly arranging: On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him. And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence--exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating!... Rush knows what he is doing. The worse conservatives do, the more important Rush becomes as leader of the ardent remnant. The better conservatives succeed, the more we become a broad national governing coalition, the more Rush will be sidelined. But do the rest of us understand what we are doing to ourselves by accepting this leadership?... [Limbaugh] cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise--and we have to find ways of assuring the public that he is just one Republican voice among many, and very far from the most important."
It seems that the Republicans have walked into a trap.
Yes, but this leaves out of the equation the real trump card. That is, regardless of irrelevant conservative performance, if Obama fails, Ralph Nader becomes the de facto messiah.
If Obama fails, Marx will actually be vindicated. Ralph Nader seems to have spent as much time talking about NBA corruption as financial sector corruption in the last election cycle.
My gut is that there is an 80% chance that the stimulus stabilizes the economy by the end of the year and it takes two years for the banks to liquidate in an orderly way their bad assets and companies a couple of years before they began scrapping old plant and technology and reinvesting again. So my gut is that there is a 20% chance of global catastrophe
Squabbling after a rout is hardly as new thing. No doubt the Republicans are going to need to become an inclusionary party to survive. Engaging a radio show talking head is making him more relevant than he deserves. There may be some short term satisfaction in watching the ensuing bickering but I don't think it will have any long term benefit to the Democrats. If anything it will hasten the GOP's transition to a more appealing party for moderates and independents. IMO.
Has the GOP started their hip-hop ad campaign to draw in the urban faction of the violent, consumerist, 'me first' demographic? I think some rapid fire cuts of Malcolm X, MLK on the ground and Obama hugging and kissing fellow politicians could be the key ingredient in such a strategy. Now, if they could just make Jindal a little more hard and real...
Well, one republican just told me that Rush L. is right. That it's fine to want Obama to fail if that's what it takes to save the country. This particular republican is very upset over the tax plan. I'm not so sure the right is going to have a hard time finding common ground.
hartal's back on MSM. Very respectful and on topic.
Well done, hartal.
I see. That particular Republican sees his finances as 'the country'. But we knew that already.
Rich republicans are the ones who make "the wealth." That's the theory.
I had praised in similar terms LaSalle's review of Dogville before. I still can't square the guy who wrote that review with the guy who was so one sided in his criticism of Obama, Reverend Wright and those who thought some of Clinton's campaign was objectionable. I actually think it was those who constantly complained about how insufferable the Obama supporters were that helped to build the momentum for his victory as they were oblivious to the ways in which they themselves may have been insufferable. Well he certainly did win with record money and an actual majority of the vote. I'm betting he turns this around and those Republicans will live with the old tax rates if Obama saves the economy.
Michael, I think you're missing Frum's and FH's point--as long as Limbaugh is the leading voice of the GOP, it can't become an inclusionary party. After all he's the guy who says feminism was invented by ugly women.
And if Limbaugh succeeds in making himself the prototypical Republican, then the GOP has no future in CA at the very least.
Well, I did advise Hartal that some sniveling would work...
Really, I'm disappointed in you. Get right back over there and tell that weak ass cowardly liar what you really think ... give up your ideals for a weak ass post about a film review? I'm shocked.
H, Limbaugh is not going to become the "leading voice". I do get their point, I just disagree with it. Now go get MLS.
Major League Soccer? Where'd that come from?
"Get right back over there and tell that weak ass cowardly liar what you really think ." OK done. Well I suggest that he is a pretty bad reader of poetry.
I remember flipping out when I heard RL say that Feminism was just a way for ugly women to get rights. It was the height of my feminist ire. Although, as an unattractive man, he should be somewhat sympathetic to women who are his appearance equals. Most of them are probably his intellectual superiors.
mindful life, as an unattractive man, I agree with you full heartedly!!
So we have an anti-feminist who has made repeated references to 'grabbing his ankles.' Is there a connection? Or is he merely referring to his experiences with airport security?
hartal, I tend to agree with your estimation, and I think a 20% chance is not insignificant when you're talking about a global catastrophe. I wish I could be more optimistic, but I can't. It is definitely a frightening possibility.
Didn't Obama have something to do with the creation of deregulated home loans for people that most likely couldn't afford them?
It kinda looks like the whole failure of the banking industry was just a way to nationalize the banking system and move towards socialism. Collapse the economy, save it with massive, massive tax debt, and voila, you've got a nation of people completely financially dependent and bound to the government.
Great, we have a pro Limbaugh voice and personality on the list. But as for the housing market, Brad DeLong is correct that we will probably have to "unleash the gses [Fannie/Freddie] to borrow at the Treasury rate and by up--at current market--every mortgage in the country." That's how bad the problem; there will have to be a second round of the stimulus package too.
Gina - you're so cute! Obama entered the Senate in 2005. The Graham-Leach-Bliley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act) was passed in 1999.
But, like his grandparents placing a birth announcement in the Honolulu papers - even though we all know Obama was born outside of the US - these people are always are planning and plotting ways to take over our government.
There's just no way a Muslim like Rush Limbaugh will ever lead this country.
The republicans are suddenly such historicists. Dig back, befor GWBush to find the roots of the current crisis in the Clinton administration! Of course, those aren't the roots. That's just a branch, which will take you to the bole, which is centuries old. Whoa, it's a long way down to those roots.
hartal, I see LaSalle is flushing your posts again. I really hoped I would find some samples of your poetry there this a.m.
Just in time for Spring Training, we have some real republican problems to gloat over:
http://tinyurl.com/bo3h74
Oh, and if Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell combined lead you to believe there's no hope in Kentucky, think again:
http://www.hillbillyreport.com/
Limbaugh's no Muslim, he worships graven images, especially the ones printed by the U.S. Treasury.
Great links, Xoot. Thanks. I almost like Bunning, because he's so weird...but not quite.
Gina, why is it that you guys always think we want the government to be in charge of everything? It's simply not true, and to think there's some sort of secret plot to socialize our financial system that's at the root of the current economic crisis is paranoid.
TS, how many do you think will know that Jerry lost his right middle finger when he was a child?
wv: boodelov :-X
I didn't realize half the finger was actually gone. I thought he had it bent back deliberatley (and cryptically).
Xoot, that would be Jerry-ish, wouldn't it? But no, he lost it in an axe-ident. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)
I always felt Jerry played on the cutting edge.
Apparently, when Jerry was a child, his brother chopped it off with a blonde Rickenbacker. That is one sharp axe.
It was a minor accident that left Jerry somewhat diminished, but augmented his mysterious persona. I know, I know... that joke fell flat.
TS, on a scale from 1-10, I give it an 8 (th), but there was a major omission.
That was hilarious, dsg! Did I mention Jerry's penchant for slash chords?
And no silk black t-shirt, either. Only 100% Pi_a cotton for Jerry. Uh-oh... here comes the hook...
FH is probably longing for the bickering to return right about now.... ;P
wv: buluene I don't know what it is, but I like it.
These jokes are starting to get a bit phillesh
I intend to sue for treble damages. (And no, I'm not going to refer to emo distress.)
Jeez, xoot, I thought you were growing tired of making such a fool of yourself. Wordsworth was clearly writing of preservation and memory in the face of loss but LaSalle pretentiously quoted the verse on a post of embracing the creatively destructive nature of cultural production. You offered not one reason why the verse was well chosen but you began hurling insults at me for being a philistine, and accused me of hating poetry. You criticized me for writing “philosophical” in my discussion of the poem where Wordsworth had written philosophic. But I was not quoting him and nothing hinges on the distinction. But what was clear is that you did not understand what Wordsworth meant by a philosophic understanding of loss.
You are belligerent and idiotic, and you need to take my assessment. You clearly did not know how to read Conrad. You couldn't discuss the interpretation of Wordsworth without hurling abuse at me.
You are demented (look at the previous abuse), and you are not an insightful reader of poetry or literature. But you insult me because you'll never have the insight or intellect that I do, and that has just rattled you.
I bet LaSalle enjoys flushing your juvenile posts. Unfortunately, FH does not. She would prefer to let you leave your tripe posted here, on principle, if you would only stop acting so foolish.
Here's your poetry quiz for the day, little harry:
When Steven wrote of "the palm at the end of the mind," was he describing a beautiful mirage or the hand of police officer signifying "stop"? You have 3o seconds to answer, harry.
wv: stablob
perfect
sorry, Stevens. didn't mean to mislead you.
time's up. gotta google more quickly, harry.
Now tell me about yourself. What's your favorite Paul Blackburn poem?
You know, there is one item in your tantrum tirade worth addressing. You wrote:
"You criticized me for writing “philosophical” in my discussion of the poem where Wordsworth had written philosophic. But I was not quoting him and nothing hinges on the distinction."
harry, the word appeared in verse. The poet chose "philosophic" for reasons of meter and music and resonance. You chose "philisophical" because you . . . . well, I'll leave it there. Don't want you to get too riled up.
xoot, there you go again, waxing poetical.
I'm leaving work now, so let's stay on Wordsworth, you intellectual lightweight. How about the Solitary Reaper? I have an old notes on it from freshman English class.Now I was discussing the idea of philosophical in the poem--in that context the syllable count or rhyme structure had no relevance. You still don't understand the poem, do you? How sad.
FH is probably longing for the bickering to return right about now.... ;P
**
Oops
Look how you change topics as any rattled person would. Did LaSalle choose verse that spoke to what his post was saying? I showed you why not. You don't know how to respond so you begin abusing me and now trying to change the topic. And don't forget that I gave a good answer to your Conrad quiz but you gave no answer to mine. I do hope that you showed our exchange to that professor friend of yours, for I am sure that s/he confirmed my judgement.
I see as I leave that you are dropping names but not staying on topic. So you are not only belligerent and idiotic--you are superficial. Look at the difference in what we posted on Romer, Pender or Solis. You were busying saying that you had met Romer, insulting Pender and telling us that you had met William Gould to say anything of substance. Blowhard. Didn't you attend Cal when even I could have gotten in?
To be fair, xoot didn't say he met Gould, because I asked him if he had seen Gould's messy office, and he answered by saying that he only cited Gould's articles and had not met him or been to his office. I'm not proud to admit that I took a class from Gould (Labor law) that I attended only three times--the first day of class, the day I had to prepare the notepool, and the exam.
Poetry does not have *a* meaning, how it touches you and what it means to you is what it means. This is an asinine thread, as was the thread on LaSalle.
"There's naught in this world as delicious and sweet
As the dry crusty bunions on an old codger's feet"
Now I take that to mean...
TF -- you're right. About poetry, I mean.
DSG -- I actually said that not only did I not meet Gould, I did not even correspond with him. I simply studied some of his articles (particularly those concerning the concept of "job as property"). This was in late 80s, just before email made correspondence less formal and infinitely easier.
hartal -- I have quite a few friends who are English professors. One happens to be an expert on British Modernism. I've had many very lively and interesting discussions with that prof. about Heart of Darkness. I didn't take notes, however.
The point about Gould is this. As a law student, I published an article, a fairly good one, and Gould was one of the fundamental sources I cited. Since then I have continued to publish -- as a sole and as a co-author.
WTF have you done except spew your boring, derivative and tone-deaf stuff on other people's blogs? Nothing. Nada.
And if you're interested in reading what I've published, please post your name, address and telephone number and I will fedex you some info.
Oh, on bunions. I had occasion to conduct some research on the topic recently. (Why? Hell, why do I read poetry every day?) Anyway, turns out the most common bunion is the result of a problem with the big toe bones. Could be serious in some cases, apparently.
You have friends who are English profs? There you again. You and LaSalle still don't understand the poem. Your friend may well understand it, but in case you did not know, foolish one, Wordsworth is not a British modernist.
hartal, I'll take it slow. Conrad is a British Modernist. He wrote Heart of Darkness. Wordsworth was a Romantic. I did not "interpret" the passage LaSalle quoted, I simply disagreed, politely, with your interpretation. My posts are still up on LaSalle's blog, I think. Yours (hostile and unrelentingly tin-eared, I'll bet) are not.
hartal, you are a troll. A troll who likes to post prolix screeds stuffed full of other people's ideas. You should look into therapy.
No my posts were very short, and I made the point that you never responded to. Wordsworth is talking about memory and preservation in the face of loss while LaSalle was taking a modernist position to cultural production--that is, he is embracing the creative destruction of cultural production. The attitudes to loss are quite different. There was nothing abusive in what I said. I quoted the lines of the poem to show the difference. You did not understand the point because you don't understand modernism of which LaSalle's post was an expression. Wordsworth was simply out of place. Now this point is elementary, but since you could not speak to it, you began to abuse me.
Just a little aside on these arguments: one does not declare oneself the winner. That's not determined by the Great Arbiter Yogi, either. No, it seems the "winner" is whoever makes the last post on the subject, the "loser" being the one who tires of the argument first.
Well to resolve the arguments about Conrad (and you have to understand that xootsuit's admission that he is taking Achebe seriously means that he is revising his previous position which mocked the concern that Conrad may have been partially implicated in the colonialism that he decried) and about whether Wordsworth was misunderstood by LaSalle all xootsuit has to do is ask his English prof friends to come watch him make an ass of himself in the blogosphere.
Are you suggesting that I simply ignore another poster's inanity and dishonesty just because this is Ferrett's blog? Well, not a bad idea.
That's right. Run along xootsuit. You have nothing to say.
But truly the most pathetic thing about xootsuit is that he wanted the host to excise my criticism of him as abusive after he had just heaped terrible abuse on me. Crying to the all monitor. The bully is a wimp. Yogi is right.
I don't want anyone to excise your angry, childish posts, hartal.
You're a troll. Nothing more.
Oh my goodness your memory is in serious decline. You just wrote: "I bet LaSalle enjoys flushing your juvenile posts. Unfortunately, FH does not." So you're saying that you were not expressing a desire to have my counterpunches eliminated from public view? And you still have not spoken to why I said Wordsworth's words were not expressive of what LaSalle was trying to get at. But you can say the same abusive things over and over.
Your tin ear betrays you yet again, little harry.
See, there were two things going on there. Most important, it would be unfortunate if FH decided that she had to delete your posts, because, as a matter of principle, she dislikes doing so. Or so I gather. But it may be that you leave her no choice.
Whether or not your stuff stays up on this thread is irrelevant to me. It's not to FH.
Can you appreciate that distinction, harry? She's your host, remember?
Still running away from the fact that you don't understood why Wordsworth's verse did not express what LaSalle was trying to say. Still have nothing to say about the poem, about LaSalle's use of it, about the differences between Romanticism and Modernism in terms loss, change and creation. Nothing.
At least say something about this job as property idea rather than repeat the name of Gould.
Why don't we talk about our children? I have one daughter, Lisa. She arrived today for a visit. She is 33, an artist doing website design to pay the bills and impressionist watercolors to feed the spirit. She married last year and now lives in Great Britain with her unemployed but landed husband... my Mother, sister, and one of my brothers are here also. Mom made her cottage cheese dumplings, and we're having a pear clafouti later. Then I'm going to make everybody watch Shane again... .
twinfan - when am I getting that recipe? You said that I would change my mind about cottage cheese if I had them, and since you failed (yet again!) to invite me to dinner, I'm going to have to make them myself.
I didn't know Lisa got married. Congratulations! Sorry that she lives so far away...
Jean, I believe I said something about having to get it out of Mom. I think she likes to leave a key ingredient or step out when she shares her recipes. My aunt was always frustrated because she could never duplicate them. Mother seemed to have just the suggestion of a smirk at these times...
I swore I wouldn't read anything posted by hartal. And I've been able to avoid but...oops.
I did.
And I've avoided everything else.
But curious.
Is English a second language for you? hartal?
Just curious. Is it?
TedSpe, you've got to figure out why you need people to confirm what you already know about yourself--but,ok, I'll play along: "you're stupid, and probably a racist." But you knew that.
Post a Comment