A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.
|
Monday, January 20, 2003
The joy of liberal bloggers: Sometimes I miss good, old Jeffrey Hauser. Longtime readers of this blog will remember Hauser as a stalwart apologist/defender of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who regularly posted his views in the comments link -- usually attached to the appropriate item. (A time or two a particular piece apparently got him in such a tizzy that he would click and post on the wrong link, much to his chagrin.)
Hauser stopped coming around many moons ago. In explaining his vow not to visit or comment on anything on this page, he sent me a private letter with the big, bold words at the top: "NOT FOR PUBLICATION" -- a request I honored, and will honor still, mainly because that e-mail, among many others, was lost in what I like to refer to as the "Great harddrive formatting mistake of 2002."
After criticizing one of my (then-recent) posts, in which I denied having any desire to systematically murder gay people -- something he had accused me of in relation to my realistic stands on radical Islam (i.e. I don't believe that Islam is a religion of peace. I don't believe that Western culture [that is, tolerance, freedom of religion, etc.] can peacefully coexist with Islam as it is taught today throughout much of the Middle East).
Hauser ended his missive with a statement to the effect that his responding to my posts were henceforth beneath him, because my comments were too stupid to blog. (Makes me wonder if I should create an annual or semi-annual award by that name -- something along the lines of LGF's "Idiotarian of the Year Award.")
Anyway, with Hauser gone, I was feeling a little lonely.
But then comes along tbogg, one of an ever-increasing number of liberal bloggers. Tbogg, who eschews, for reasons that are perhaps not so mysterious, to identify himself, but he is certainly a prolific poster. (I'm certainly not against anonymity for bloggers -- but, for the record, I think it'd be a good idea to state somewhere on the Web site why you won't give your real name.)
Tbogg has recently discovered my little blog, and he has some sort of a following. Certainly more than Hauser ever had, but not a great number either (we're talking about 7-12 referrals a day from his blog to Hoystory -- Hauser averaged 1-4 at best).
Tbogg's opening blog post gives you a good idea from the worldview he comes from:
Welcome to my blog...it still has the new blogg smell...mmmmmmmmmm. After posting in Salon's Table Talk for the past two years I thought it was time to take my show on the road and quit interrupting intelligent discussions about important subjects with snarky commentary and tasteless asides. That's what this blog is for. An early warning: I am prone to using bad words, making fun of others misfortune, and generally ridiculing anything that I can think of. If you have delicate sensibilities, or even average sensibilities, maybe this isn't the place for you. If you think the Bush is the duly elected President, Peggy Noonan is sane, Dick Cheney is not a death-bound souless jackal who would sell his lesbian daughter into a Saudi harem for a quart of thirty weight...well, I'm probably not your boy. This blog is for bad thoughts, cruel putdowns, and nasty hit-and-run attacks on the rightwingers, evangelicals, crappy popular culture, drunken First Daughters, and anything that comes to mind.
Enjoy.
So, as you can see, we shouldn't expect a whole lot from Tbogg, but he's certainly an amusing read.
Tbogg's first post regarding Hoystory can be found here. Now, I assume he read my entire piece on Kristof -- since he quotes it nearly completely -- but, like any good sensationalist, blows my complaint completely out of proportion. Go back and read both pieces yourself -- Tbogg's assessment of me being "greviously wounded" runs counter to what I said in the piece itself:
Now, I don't really count Kristof's little jab as a serious slam against Christianity -- but it's one of those little things that I think is indicative of many in the liberal media. A little jab at the Christians is OK, and maybe even the Jews (those Israelis being so pesky and all), but a similar skewering of blacks, Latinos, gays, women? I seriously doubt would have made it past the Times copy editors -- if doing it had crossed Kristof's mind in the first place.
And Tbogg quotes that -- and he still doesn't get it.
*sigh*
Tbogg's latest argument is one that you're hearing a lot nowadays -- in short, racism is rampant everywhere and (apparently) affirmative action is the answer.
I argued that we've come a long way on race since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Tbogg uses this as an example that I'm wrong. Of course, the fact that this incident of a few college students being stupid makes the New York Times would be evidence that to the contrary (see "Dog bites man" axiom of journalism).
As far as Tbogg's movie history question: Does anyone really believe that "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?" didn't cause an uproar in the South when it was first released -- if it even played in theaters there?
10:49 PM
|
|
