Maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Give it a name, and Bob's your uncle.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Give it a name, and Bob's your uncle.

"maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?"

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Krugman lays down the law to commenters on his blog:

Notes to Commenters

1. Obscenity will get your comment deleted; I suspect that a fair number of commenters don’t even realize they’re doing it, because that’s the way many of us #$%^! talk these days. But think about it, and don’t waste your time or mine.

2. Stay on the topic of the post.

3. New rule, if you haven’t seen it: Nazi/Hitler references are out unless clearly relevant.

4. Get your insults right. There is, I believe, a fair bit of evidence against the hypothesis that I’m stupid. What you mean to say is that I’m evil.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Krugman lays down the law to commenters on his blog:

Hank - you sure you don't want to rethink your rethought position on the quoting of blogs? I'm thinking a a rethink of your rethink is in order.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Kinsley is pretty good here:

The false rush to cry 'balance'
By: Michael Kinsley
January 11, 2011 04:41 AM EST

When Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot and six other people — including a federal judge who was coming out of Mass — were killed at a shopping center in Tucson, Ariz., I was staying at a resort a few miles away. Among the guests, there were three immediate reactions: outrage, sadness and, if you’re headed to the airport, make sure to turn right at Tangerine instead of staying on Oracle to Ina, because traffic’s going to be a mess down there.

Life goes on incredibly quickly. No one is to blame for that — it’s inevitable. If you didn’t know the congresswoman or the federal judge personally, you still have a plane to catch. But it does seem that we absorb recurring episodes of political violence a bit more quickly than we used to because they’ve become more common. Indeed, they’re so common that everybody knows the script. First, we deplore the event and say we’re praying — and, in most cases, actually do pray — for the victims. Then we deplore the corrosive politics that may have contributed to the tragedy. Next, someone on the left will say that right wingers are more to blame, because they vilify people more than the other side. Then voices on the right will recoil in horror that someone is trying to politicize a national tragedy.

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, wrote on his website in time for Sunday’s papers: “While we need to take a moment to extend our sympathies to the families of those who died” — there; was that about a moment? Good. Where was I? Oh yes — “we cannot allow the hard left to do what it tried to do in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing. Within the entire political spectrum, there are extremists, both on the left and the right. Violence of this nature should be decried by everyone and not used for political gain.”

The “extremists of the right and left” formula generally appeals to newspaper editorialists and the media because it is balanced. And maybe I’m too ideologically blinkered to see the situation clearly. But it seems — in fact, it seems obvious — that the situation is not balanced. Extremists on the right are more responsible for the poisonous ideological atmosphere than extremists on the left, whoever they may be. And extremists on the left have a lot less influence on nonextremists on the left than extremists on the right have on right-wing moderates. Sure, NPR, despite denials, tilts to the left. But not the way Fox News tilts toward the right. Rachel Maddow is no Glenn Beck.

Here is how “balance” works. A front-page piece in The New York Times on Sunday is headlined: “Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics.” The piece says, “Democrats have ... pointed out cases where Republican candidates seemed to raise the prospect of armed revolt if Washington did not change its ways. But many Republicans have noted that they too are subject to regular threats and abuse from the public, and, during the health care fight, some suggested Democrats were trying to cut off responsible political opposition and paint themselves as victims.”

So Democrats have noted that Republicans have advocated armed sedition while Republicans have noted that Democrats sometimes attempt to portray themselves as victims in order to stifle debate. Neither side has a monopoly on virtue. Balance!

As I write, what we are learning about the man arrested in the shooting paints a portrait straight out of central casting: nutty ravings on the Internet, neighbors say he kept to himself and so on. There’s no evidence that he was influenced by anything Sarah Palin may have said — strictly metaphorically — about targeting Democrats. He may even be a Democrat for all we know. Furthermore, Republicans are right that you can’t run a democracy with people biting their tongue for fear of offending someone else. Perhaps harder to accept is the fact that you can’t run a democracy with everyone censoring themselves for fear of flipping some switch in the brain of a nutcase. Democrats should be cautious about flinging accusations at a moment when, because of a tragedy, they have the moral upper hand. It looks like unseemly exploitation.

People who work in the news media get used to the nastiness. The other day, exercising my First Amendment right to procrastinate by searching the Web for my name — a widely practiced secret vice of writers — I came across an anonymous posting on a website that I’d never heard of, asking, “Is Kinsley Dead Yet?” I thought of writing back, “Not yet. Sorry,” but lost my nerve. What if this guy, or someone else, decides to rectify that situation? I was a bit more unnerved a few years ago when Bill O’Reilly, who didn’t like an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, where I then worked, declared: “They’ll never get it,” referring to his gripe, whatever it was, “until they grab Michael Kinsley out of his little house and they cut his head off. And maybe when the blade sinks in, he’ll go, ‘Perhaps O’Reilly was right.’” O’Reilly has millions of followers — just ask him. Who could know whether one might decide to give him a present?

In truth, I’m indulging here in “death-threat chic.” Far from being scared, I was delighted and flattered to be singled out for decapitation by O’Reilly. Maybe I’m going to have to rethink that cavalier attitude.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kinsley is pretty good here:

google image search "George Bush Target". although there seem to be fewer now that he is out. (and by that I don't mean to excuse the Palin/TeaParty targets, just to suggest that at least parts of both sides that might be behaving badly)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

google image search "George Bush Target". although there seem to be fewer now that he is out. (and by that I don't mean to excuse the Palin/TeaParty targets, just to suggest that at least parts of both sides that might be behaving badly)

I am looking for the sentence where Kinsley says there is no such thing as a left-wing lunatic, but I'm not seeing it.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I am looking for the sentence where Kinsley says there is no such thing as a left-wing lunatic, but I'm not seeing it.

"Rachel Maddow is no Glenn Beck". Duh. Everyone knows that lesbian Rhodes Scholars are dangerous, lunatic radicals and Kinsley is implicitly denying it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

google image search "George Bush Target". although there seem to be fewer now that he is out. (and by that I don't mean to excuse the Palin/TeaParty targets, just to suggest that at least parts of both sides that might be behaving badly)

It's painfully obvious that you did not actually do this Google search yourself.

But, wait, I know: You saw a lot of pictures of W in the crosshairs, back in the day. You just can't find them anymore, but you are really sure you were there.

Now, tell me: Which Dem candidate for VP posted them? Which Dem candidate for VP told people "don't retreat, reload?"

I remember when I was a hotheaded high school liberal, and I tried arguing with my father that Winnie Mandela couldn't be held responsible for the actions of a lunatic mob. Yes, she talked about "taking back the country with our necklaces and our matches," but she wasn't actually handing anyone gasoline and that was just rhetoric and there are always crazy desperate people who do crazy desperate things. And certainly there was as much or more incitement on the other side of the spectrum.

You sound as dumb and naive as I was when I was 16. Congrats.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You sound as dumb and naive as I was when I was 16. Congrats.

Can you quantify how dumb you are now, because it seems like you've approached absolute zero.
You may be a good test to go pure "no original content."

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

google image search "George Bush Target". although there seem to be fewer now that he is out. (and by that I don't mean to excuse the Palin/TeaParty targets, just to suggest that at least parts of both sides that might be behaving badly)

Here is Taibbi reflecting on his own part in amping up the rhetoric. And Packer doing something similar.

Is there any corresponding introspection on the Right, Hank?

[Gattigap]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Here is Taibbi reflecting on his own part in amping up the rhetoric. And Packer doing something similar.

Is there any corresponding introspection on the Right, Hank?

Well, I think there are some. It's a bit startling for Pat Buchanan to opine that things have gone too far, particularly given his piece-of-shit 1992 culture war rant, but still.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Here is Taibbi reflecting on his own part in amping up the rhetoric. And Packer doing something similar.

Is there any corresponding introspection on the Right, Hank?

Taibbi: "Is it ever right to just wind up and let someone have it with all you've got?"

Not only is it right, but I'd say it's something sadly lacking in our culture. Something deeply lacking on the part of decent moderates, and rational, sensible people.

The allowances we make for outright bulllshit, lies and spin are part of what's driven us into a ditch. We've a nation filled with infants because we won't treat them as adults. We'll let the pathetic fucks believe they can have tax cuts, health care expansion, easy credit and the books will magically balance. We'll placate them with shit like reality television. Nobody calls out all the corrosive shit in our culture or blasts the charlatans. We're all afraid. Those who could don't because it would hurt our business connections... Because most of us earn some money from some of the most corrosive forces.

The population can't absorb well-though out, surgical, brutal critiques. They'd prefer slogans - tea party horseshit, DailyKos liberal bromides. They want narratives. They want to "believe," not think. And the smart of us, knowing these dumb wretches can't live in grey areas - see that as "moral relativism" - sell them one-sided news that appeals to their biases. And corporations gladly line up behind the media to fund the spoonfeeding.

Could a strident moderate get a following? Hell no. Taibbi even realized this himself. Years ago he was more Libertarian than Liberal. Then he realized, like any smart firebrand needs to in this Idiocracy, that he had to pick a side. He trended Liberal. Good for him. He's made a few bucks at it. But I've no doubt, based on what I know of him, it probably bugs the guy a little that he can't be more centrist. That to sell in America one has to pick a fucking tribe.

We get what we deserve. Frankly, given the level of political intellect in the mind of the average American, we deserve a lot worse than even this. The meanest irony here is this woman was a decent moderate, and from all I've read on her, among the independent thinkers we need more of in the Capitol... one of the few politicians who didn't contribute to the atmosphere that causes this type of shit.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Here is Taibbi reflecting on his own part in amping up the rhetoric. And Packer doing something similar.

Is there any corresponding introspection on the Right, Hank?

Ezra Klein's.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Kinsley is pretty good here: "But it does seem that we absorb recurring episodes of political violence a bit more quickly than we used to because they’ve become more common"

Huh?