As Dennis notes with mordant laughter, probably stroking a silken-haired cat and drinking an espresso with pinkie finger extended at full Eurovillian attention, the ease with which the progglesphere will hitch its skirt and spread its legs is the envy of every prom-night virgin left on this abstinent earth. Dear sweet Jesus, how they cried to the heavens, hosannas and hallelujahs and thanks and burnt offerings. Greenwald's boyfriend is going to be hours scrubbing the stains out of his boxers, and Atrios is ready to immanatize his Eschaton against we defeatists. All this after a 76-10 loss on the initial cloture vote. All this when it's perfectly clear, to quote Dennis, that for
Harry Reid and his cronies, it takes a hot issue off the front burner for the holidays, allowing them to focus on other ways to skull fuck the public.Thank you sir, may I have another.
Atrios ingeminates wildly:
One of my pet peeves has long been a certain strain of defeatism. Understandably we all feel defeated at times, but there's a certain kind of defeatist out there on the internets, people who spend most of their time chastising others for thinking it's possible to have any influence and attacking the "stupidity" of those who even bother to try. Maybe those people are right. Maybe there never is anything to be done. But if that's the case, get a new goddamn hobby. It's rather odd to spend all your time following political news and blogs if the only reason to do it is to provide justification for your view that All Is Lost. Just go out and have some fun instead.It's a long, wild leap from "it's useless to pray to Democrats for deliverance" to "there's nothing to be done," yet Mr. Black and company make it routinely, for in their, you'll pardon the expression, eschatology, the End Times and Kingdom Come are delivered on the wings of a "populist" and looks like The New Deal . . . Now with Blogs! To be clear, then, it isn't that we attack those who try. It's that we attack you, ya big meshugah, and not because you do try, lord knows, but because, motherfucker, you don't.
28 comments:
I saw that yesterday and wondered if you'd resemble that remark! ;-)
I don't even want to see if that inspired a 10,000 word diatribe from Arthur...
Of course. As many of you here seem to believe, length per se is axiomatically bad. Greenwald=length=bad. Silber=length=bad. Identically bad.
Christ, you are a bunch of vicious, nasty assholes, to almost everyone it seems -- save for a very few vicious, nasty assholes of whom you approve. Primarily, it would seem, because they are vicious and nasty -- but exhibit these traits in brief fashion, in a manner that comports with everything you already think (correct or not).
Of course, you should feel free to say whatever you choose in response. I won't see it, for I will not be back. In a different way, I find most of those who inhabit these parts to be just as repellent as the prog bloggers.
Buh-bye, assholes.
Except that Atrios doesn't revere the Democrats (the party or the politicians) and his writings show him to be one who has very little faith that they will do anything of substance.
This from someone who blogs on and on and on (AND ON) about the supposed lack of reading comprehension on the part of popular liberal bloggers.
Ah my friends, and oh my foes! "Atrios doesn't revere Democrats." Well smell you, miss thang.
An honest question, then -- if they were actually trying, what would it look like?
What gives with Silber? Did I miss something or he did he just go off over a tiny jab from an anonymous commenter (who wasn't me for the record)?
It's a long, wild leap from "it's useless to pray to Democrats for deliverance" to "there's nothing to be done,"
d00d, correct me if I missed something, but your own recommendations as regards "what is to be done" include (1) drive slow in the fast lane, and (2) that's it. Surely I did miss something, since I've only been dropping by these parts for the last few months--and let me say a belated, thanks for the free content!--and I'd be pleased to read your more detailed recommendations. (In other words: What cb said.) From the ones I have seen, the conclusion that you're in the "nothing to be done" boat does not seem obviously wrong.
(In fact, I did assume Atrios was addressing you with the remarks you quoted. So did anonymous #1 above. So did you. Something made us all think those words applied to you--or at least, that reasonable persons would think so.)
Incidentally, anonymous #2; did [Silber] just go off over a tiny jab from an anonymous commenter...?; well, Silber's first comment was a response to anonymous #1, but I take his 2nd paragraph to be directed to IOZ, in particular to his characteristically high quality invective. ("vicious, nasty asshole[ery]", as Silber puts it.) So no; Silber just went off over a lot of larger jabs from a pseudonymous blogger!
this thread is a doozy.
first, to the anonymous who imagines atrios to be some sort of renegade, he's not. his critiques lack depth, and he spends most of his time jabbing at underlings like joe klien. you said that he 'has very little faith that [the democrats] will do anything of substance.' this is common sense. he fails in that his prescription remains, 'MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS'
cb asked what trying would look like. well, it might involve mobilizing one's gigantic readership to hold the majority party's feet to the fire and perhaps force an end to these dang occupations. as chris floyd noted today, the victory over the telecom bill shows just how easy it would be to actually DO SOMETHING. yet no one filibusters war spending, no one proposes cutting off funds, and no one with any influence offers articles of impeachment. still, MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS.
finallly, arthur, whose writings i adore, seems to have overreacted to what was, in my opinion, a friendly joke. while he'd surely find me 'repellent' as well (i do have a job, after all), calling someone a 'vicious nasty asshole' for a joke that was, at worst, poorly worded is unbecoming of such a gifted intellect.
re: molloy
d000000d, driving slow in the fast lane was a fucking metaphor. the advice hinged on the fact that societies such as ours (y'know, empires) thrive on obedience. thus, disobedience, on whatever scale possible, is an effective (and nonviolent) way to voice one's discontent. but it's understandable that folks such as yourself, who cruise the internet for 'detailed reccomendations' on what to do, might not be down with this.
Yeah, I've never perceived any "there's nothing to be done" strain here that some folks are attesting to. Seems to me that an overarching point is that the problem is the system, the machine, and the only tactic any of us has as individuals is to disengage from that machine as much as each of us can.
"More and better Democrats" is a terrific slogan (which has worked out superbly, btw), but as was pointed out, 76-10 against cloture tells us everything we need to know about how this works. Whether this corporate shill is more congenial than that one is orthogonal to the fact that the naked corporatism of both sides is bleeding us dry. Shit, they don't even bother concealing it anymore, if they ever really did.
But in a nation where seasonal shopping is literally considered a patriotic act by many, it's hard to know where to start. It's too easy to figure that it's an exercise in futility -- but if it is, that's an even better reason to disengage.
Ohferfucksakes. Anonymous at 4:11 here.
I'll address you anyway, Arthur, even though you claim you won't be back (and I'm sure you are, blushing as you read this, but not wanting to admit you're here). If anything, I was gently poking at your (self-acknowledged) dramatic tendency to treat everything you don't like as THE GODDAMN END OF THE WORLD YOU SICK BASTARDS WHAT'S WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU. The fact that you tend to go on at some length about it is secondary. Sorry if that's too tender a spot on you. I still value your writing and hope you're not about to delete your blog again (from the sounds of it).
And seriously - did I miss something? Is he pissed at IOZ or some commenter besides me, or both?
As someone who frequently and admittedly succumbs to the temptation of excess verbiage -- there are a lot of us who post long posts on the Internets, both on our own blogs as well as comments, not to mention e-mails to friends, because we think we have something interesting and trenchant to say. When we are faced with a constant barrage of "I don't wanna read posts this long," not addressing facts or viewpoints but only length, it can be hard for us, who spend time and research effort on our writings and take pains to try and make them accurate, to avoid interpreting such comments personally. I suspect Arthur falls into this category. His irate reaction above might have been the accumulation of other comments elsewhere. It can really weigh on you if you hear that several times in one day.
Which is not to say that my own writings are unflaggingly interesting nor the appropriate length. But for crissake, not every important point can be summarized in a clever 3-line haiku. This country recently started a trillion-dollar war because the President and ninety million voters preferred to cherry-pick two or three juicy sentences out of longer intelligence reports, rather than "read the whole thing". You'd think Americans would someday learn a little bit of patience, and you would always be wrong.
I will never understand the mentality of people who act like it's easier to think up and then write out a catty comment about the length of someone's post, than to hit the frikken' PAGE DOWN button (on a browser, or DELETE button, from one's In-Box). I don't like to be ignored, but I do prefer it to being told that my logic is invalid simply because it doesn't fit some undefined and arbitrary page limit.
oh god, please, no, not again. oh. oh well...
B..B..BBBLOG!
what is the sound of one hand typing?
re: trying
since the critique here in IOZ-land has reached the depths of, and from what I can tell - internalized - the anarchist analytical framework, and given the horizon beyond the state has yet to breach, and likely won't in any peaceful manner, I'd say not much can be done. calling it like it is is a great start. but, and I might be alone here, the work Radley Balko is doing is some of the best I've seen in the actual 'freeing' aisle of the liberty department from a blogger.
there are more I am sure that I am forgetting or have missed.
blogging itself? heh.
on the Dem side, you have the pathetic and maudlin pandering to politicians. on the Rep side, you have the attacks on the MSM straw-men. blogging as a tool for fighting the powers that be? ugh.
blog
(nobody introduce Msr. to Oliver Willis, ok?)
Oh man, I hope he or one of his little munchkins reads this and pushes him to engage in an ill-advised dick measuring contest with you. Now THAT would be putting a blog to good use, namely, my entertainment.
I think Silber's reacting to a tangential remark that I made a while ago.
As far as Dodd goes, I guess I'm glad he's doing the right thing. On the other hand, he made one of the very few remarks (actually, I think the *only* remark) that I remember from this whole grim cycle of "debates" -- back when I bothered to watch or listen to snippets of them. The media gasbag's question was something like, "Out of your entire political career, what action do you regret most?" Dodd's answer was at least specific: He said that he wasn't happy about his vote to put habeaus corpus on ice. Nice.
Thing was, that vote had been cast only **months** before, when the agenda and tactics of the Bush gang should have been pretty goddam obvious to any sentient. I think the Dems used up the supply of Golly, sorry I fucked up and sold you out AGAIN a long, long time ago. So I'll hold off before I start swooning over Dodd. I note, though, that Jim Henley's impressed by Dodd's action, and Henley's a sharp guy and has pretty good judgement.
-- sglover
In recent months Eye have seen Arthur erupt inappropriately around the blogoteria on more than one occasion. Eye venture that the long-term effects of his poor health have ground him down beyond his last nerve.
Immanentize.
"tendency to treat everything you don't like as THE GODDAMN END OF THE WORLD YOU SICK BASTARDS WHAT'S WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU."
I'll take Arthur at his word that he's not reading comments anymore or I wouldn't write this.
I love Arthur's writing and hang on his every word. I check his site multiple times a day hoping a new article is up and am always dejected when I don't find one. When I find one, it's like breathing pure oxygen in a world of smog. It's one of three sites in the whole blogosphere that has that effect on me, but he's the best.
I also understand every word Arthur writes on his site, despite the fact that most of the things about which he writes (the historical facts, not the perspective) are completely new to me.
Arthur doesn't treat everything like it's the end of the world. He's passionate about those things which pierce a humane person's heart. It certainly would be the GODDAM END OF THE WORLD, or feel like it, to the victims of the crimes about which he writes. Sitting at one's computer, if one is more concerned with being arch or witty, maybe those things aren't paramount. If the pictures from Abu Graib don't flash through your mind every day of your life, if the reports of torture and humiliation don't haunt you mercilessly, or the images of kids missing eyeballs and limbs, maybe Arthur's not your person.
Arthur's emotional because he cares about the value of individual human lives. Seems like a mutant gene these days and maybe it always was. My guess is he's bitter about those who don't, and my guess is he's especially bitter about those who, to paraphrase a sonnet, have the power to change, or try to change, the things that really matter, but will do none. Peronally, I would call such people SICK BASTARDS.
As for whether Arthur is mad at IOZ himself or not, I couldn't tell. Words like immanatize interfere with my ability to get the point so I really don't have too much of a handle on who Ioz is. Wasn't there a simpler word to convey the thought, or isn't the point to communicate effectively about ideas that matter?
If people find fault with Arthur's writing style, or his passion, or his rage, I'd stick them in the drawer just a little above AtriosCo. They're missing the whole point of Arthur's writing, or maybe they're lacking a heart. Stranger things have happened.
Over the years I have seen Arthur periodically throw himself a pity party of great extravagance and profess to quit blogging, only to quietly resume his great writing thereafter. I assume we all remember his Cold Fury days and their ignominious end. His genius is inextricably linked to his arrogant, insecure madness. One cannot exist without the other. He'll get over whatever slight he presently feels.
uticas,
So, I've expressed some concern that the slow-in-fast-lane stuff seems like nothing; you're telling me that (A) it's metaphorical nothing, and (B) it's a metaphorical way to voice one's discontent. d000000000000d, those Atrios and Digby posts with which IOZ has so much entertaining sport are, like, filled with the voicing of discontent. So I'm pretty sure that IOZ's idea of more-than-nothing goes beyond the said discontent voicing. But you disagree; you say that not only is the voicing of discontent more than nothing, the metaphorical voicing of discontent is more than nothing. I think you're mistaken; IOZ has something more substantial in mind, and I would like to know what it is.
(I look forward to uticas's next reply: "d000000000000000000000d: it's actually a simile for voicing one's discontent!!!11!". d00d: get back to me when you can formulate it as litotes.)
Maybe my request for more info came across as a sarcastic way of saying, "d00d, you really got nuthin'!". Well, I won't deny it seems like IOZ maybe has nothin here--he's not big on the specifyin more than nothin. But IOZ's a smart guy, and he seems like he may have somethin, and so I'm asking for information; the posts I've seen include a bunch of stuff that, as uticas notes, seems like a metaphor for something, and I'd welcome some info about what the non-metaphorical version is. I'm sure IOZ has addressed this before; a link to the appropriate place in the archives (or FAQ) will also be welcome.
you don't like metaphors, but you do like FAQ's? onward progressive soldier.
Mike,
Here's a really wacky, far out idea for IOZ to consider in case he decides to answer you. What if there were someone trustworthy who said he would do it, and could do it if he were in the right position, someone who would get out of Iraq pronto, refrain from starting any more pre-emptive wars, and use his leadership position to work to convince others to repeal the Patriot Act and the MCA---maybe a person could, like, throw a little support his way, even if he had that pesky R in front of his name which, if he didn't, he never would have had a shot at doing any of that?
Or is that not obscure enough a notion to have appeal?
Let's not speculate about Arthur, eh? It's getting rather tawdry, frankly.
Otherwise, I love you guys, especially Mr. Fundamental, who is right on.
BLAWWWG!
Tawdry? The internet? Blogs?
Aidez-moi!
Aux barricades!
Arthur's style might be called ethical pornography.
Words like immanatize interfere with my ability to get the point so I really don't have too much of a handle on who Ioz is. Wasn't there a simpler word to convey the thought?
No, there really wasn't.
http://tinyurl.com/yrqk5u
Re: the "tawdriness" of speculation about Arthur, I am a divorce lawyer...tawdry is, by necessity, my middle name.
All speculation about Arthur is with all due respect for his gift for writing. He truly is exceptional.
Post a Comment