No, but…

Technorati Tags: Mary Whitaker-Bono-Baxley-Mack,Conor Friedersdorf,Barbara Ehrenreich,Political Protests

There’s a mild brouhaha brewing, Dear Gentle Reader(s), over a passage or two by a writer in the the U.S.  It seems a woman named Barbara Ehrenreich wrote this:

Why are Americans such wusses? Threaten the Greeks with job losses and benefit cuts and they tie up Athens, but take away Americans' jobs, 401(k)s, even their homes, and they pretty much roll over. Tell British students that their tuition is about to go up and they take to the streets; American students just amp up their doses of Prozac.

In response, Conor Friedersdorf, subbing for Andrew Sullivan this week, wrote this:

Is someone taking away the 401(k)s of Americans? Would street protests somehow salvage the jobs of those who've lost them in the recession? For that matter, have street protests done anything to improve the lives of the Greeks engaged in them?

We’ll probably never know if the lives of the Greeks have been improved by street protests, but we’ll also never know if the very people who caused the mortgage mess here in the U.S., which, arguably, caused the Great Recession, would right now be looking forward to enjoying the extension of the Bush-era tax cuts which they should, in the name of fiscal prudence, never have been given.

We can certainly imagine the scene if the tens of thousands who did not vote for Representative Mary Whitaker-Bono-Baxley-Mack in November of 2010 would’ve shown up in front of her offices in downtown Palm Springs in protest against her promised vote for the tax extension.

Maybe the U.S. would be hundred of billions ahead on deficit reduction today if we’d marched in all the Republican House districts in December.

Sphere: Related Content

"lol"?

Over at Ol' Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish, a mini-insurrection is brewing.

It has to do with Andrew's penchant for loquacity, and then some.

In an effort to cut down on the verbosity in some of his postings, Andy (I don't know him well enough to call him that, but he'll never read this, so...WTF) has decided to post a couple of paragraphs, then send his readers on to the complete posting through 'a "Continue reading ..." link to the full version.'

The response has been less than overwhelmingly positive. It seems as though most of us are too lazy to "hit the link(s)!" The complaints resulted in this from Andrew, "Screw you, guys. Seriously, I'm going to keep it but use it sparingly - when a post is more than two paragraphs long." (No doubt in my mind, the screwing is meant as a jocular metaphor.)

I sent TDD the following email under the subject of "...continue reading..." : Maybe you could be less verbose.
gene
(screw you back)
To which I appended a cutesy smiley face.

Imagine my surprise when I received this from "Andrew": "lol"

The question, dear virtually non-existant reader, is What does lol mean? Lots of luck? Lots of laughs? Look out, Loser?

And surely Andrew is too busy (at least I hope so) writing to respond to all the cutesies he receives during the day. So, did a factotum respond? Is it really Lots of luck, meaning, "Andrew, shorten? Edit? Cull? lol!"

Or not?

Keep writing, Andrew. You're a credit to us all.

Sphere: Related Content

Stalemate? Probably. Let's Move On.

Over at GayConservativeLiberal's blog, I've been engaging in a teensy teapot tempest, which I thought I'd share.

Here's the first entry (actually, in the middle of a rather interesting exchange, but I'm cherry picking) from a young man named James Henry Bailey: "Liberals can NEVER support their idiotic assertions with facts. I don't think they even try anymore. The more facts get in the way, the louder they yell "Bush lied, people died!!"

Here is my riposte to his entry: "Is it not a fact that the Bush administration did not plan adequately for post-invasion Iraq?

Is it not a fact that none of the 9/11 murderers were Iraqi?

Is it not a fact that all of the proffered meetings between Al Qaeda and Hussein were based on doubious intelligence to begin with but were touted as proof of collusion?

Is it not possible that, no matter how many "facts" liberals may offer, supporters of Mr. Bush will not believe them? So, what's the use of engaging in a barrage of "fact"?

Out of interest, however, might one ask for a "fact" which will prove that liberals give "a pass to real theocracies and the fanatic Islamo-fascists who fight to instill it."

Painting people's attitudes with a broad brush is never wise. That is true. One is best advised to avoid it.

To which he riposted (?): "Is it not possible that, no matter how many "facts" liberals may offer, supporters of Mr. Bush will not believe them?"

I for one have never suggested that Iraq was the right war to fight after 9/11. However, like it or not, it has become a very important battle that should not be under-estimated.

However, I can't believe the hypocrisy with which the left attacks this president and I am determined to expose it as much as possible. Don't forget that most of the anti-war rhetoric coming from the democrats is coming from people who VOTED FOR THIS WAR. They saw, or should have seen, the same intelligence that the president saw. (in fact, almost none of them bothered to read it).

I think you will find there are PLENTY of conservatives who do not support this war.

what's the use of engaging in a barrage of "fact"?Indeed! why even bother with it, eh??

Guess what's next. Yes! My "final" riposte:

Not supporting the war does not speak to the "facts" of the Bush Administration's mis-steps.

If anyone is underestimating the importance of this current battlefield, they should stand corrected. Who, specifically, is doing this underestimating; and if we're going to assign culpability for underestimation, shouldn't we, again, go back to the post-invasion planning of the administration?

There are, indeed, PLENTY of conservatives who do not support this war. Isn't it fair to say that most of that particular plenty have become anti-war after the administration's mis-steps? Is it possible to identify a major conservative voice opposed to the invasion pre-March 2003?

I cannot believe the senators and representatives who voted for the authority to use force against Iraq after certain conditions had been met saw the "same" intelligence as did the President. You may be correct, but such sharing flies in the face of the Executive authority of which this administration has been so jealous.

The facts have been offered. They have not been refuted. Why continue?

The meme (not simply here, but elsewhere also) has become a stalemate. Nothing new is being offered. The surge will play out; it will be successful or not.

I certainly hope it is successful.

Agape.

And then, in a spirit of hospitality, I added

(If any of you guys are coming to Palm Springs for the White Party, give me a call.)

Now, I'm wondering if I didn't accidentally hit on a bit of clarity. This Iraq battlefield meme has reached a stalemate. I haven't seen any movement on either side of the argument. Maybe we should just let the surge work itself out.

In the meantime we should also be planning for our next "theatre of operations" in this battle against religious extremism.

(If you go to GCL's blog, you can find links to Mr. Bailey's blog.)

Moderates of the religious world, Unite!
Gay Conservative Liberal
James Henry Bailey
War on Terror

Sphere: Related Content

"I'm entitled!" "Oh, yeah?"

One of the more interesting effects of the recent growth in monetary entitlements and of ego-boosting self-esteem is the sense of being entitled to be taken seriously.

Over in one of my favorite blogs, Gay Conservative Liberal, a couple of people who engage with GCL, and who are not very liberal, constantly ask questions about proving this or that assertion made by another commentor (actually, commentor doesn't appear in my dictionary, but commentator seems a bit too formal for somebody offering a comment in the "comment" section of a blog; any suggestions?).

It seems a clash of the entitlements is inevitable.

You want me to respond to your question? I choose not to respond.

You insist? Feel free.

Prove your entitlement--your own self-esteem and personal rage don't count. My own entitlement trumps your entitlement.

That's my answer.

GayConservativeLiberal
Blogging
Entitlements

Sphere: Related Content