PDA

View Full Version : The National Review is an embarassment


nikkibong
06-05-2009, 09:02 PM
Still waiting for that "conservative renewal"

http://www.feministing.com/archives/015898.html

bjkeefe
06-05-2009, 09:21 PM
Still waiting for that "conservative renewal"

http://www.feministing.com/archives/015898.html

At least they're consistent (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/04/wingnuts-and-class.html).

dkschwartz
06-05-2009, 09:57 PM
the nation is an embarsment. sotomayor is an embarsment.

NR and conservtives are not the ones who call math tests racists, who want racial quotas in the public and private sphere, who hold double standards for whites, who want to uphold and exspand racist laws, who sue banks for not giving enough loans to blacks, who don't give a damn about the constuition and who want to make it illegal for blacks to not get high enough scores.

you don't even make a case.

bjkeefe
06-05-2009, 10:01 PM
the nation is an embarsment. sotomayor is an embarsment.

Nuff said.

bjkeefe
06-05-2009, 11:15 PM
Yglesias nails it (http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/nrs-sotomayor-cover.php) (emph. added):

It seems that what happened was that, as conservatives are wont to do, they tried to do something that would be racist, but also arguably not racist. Hence, instead of depicting a Latina with a racist stereotyped image of a Latina, they depicted her with a racist stereotyped image of an Asian. It’s hard to know exactly what to make of that. But National Review editor Rich Lowry seems to have known exactly what to make of it since as this post makes clear (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2E4NGY2OTQ0NTFiNWYxNmMwMTkwMTcwNTUzZmZhYjk=) he was anticipating people criticizing the imagery.

At any rate, then he waited around a bit, got the accusations of racism he was waiting for, and then got to engage in every white conservative’s favorite passtime of wallowing in self-pity and calling his accusers humorless (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGM5OTFjMmY1NWQ2YmQzYzc4MDUyNjQzOWNlZjYwYTM=).

Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior. “Racism” doesn’t, I think, capture it. But there’s this deranged fascination with walking up to the line and dancing around there in hopes of getting called on it. Then you get to become indignant. Because, again, the contemporary right’s main view on race is that actual racism against non-white people is only a tiny problem compared with the vast social crisis that allegedly exists around people being vigilant against racism.

He's right -- wingnuts looooooooove to play the victim, even when (especially when) they get what they ask for.

uncle ebeneezer
06-06-2009, 12:23 AM
Aah, but how can we trust anyone with a name like Yglesias?! ;-)

Great post. I love the outrage when wingnuts get called out on their racist images.

dkschwartz
06-06-2009, 12:30 AM
i don't complain about Ricci's plight because i feel victimized but because i and most of the black people i know feel it's unfair. I feel blessed in life. You sterotype all of us pro-Ricci people as white racist rednecks in there trailers working at a gas station and overwieght which makes sence cause most liberals like you become dem's because you want to be cool and see poltics as the cool people vs. the hicks and than you aqcuired the partyline without thought.
But actually am from Evanston,ill. an affluent college town thats entirely liberal, i go to Wesleyan Unviersity also ultra-liberal. My family is liberal. I have alot of friends and i like actually do like Wilco, the velelvet underground and like reading the ny times magazine and the new yorker.

So am i not your sterotype so stop pretending i am and stop calling me a racist.

also on my spelling errors. sorry i have a life and had to go out and don't spend my life spellchecking comments. But ofcourse rather than making a point in regard to my point (which you never do) you talk about my spelling and make other ad hominem attacks LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO.

like i said you and most liberals have yet to come out and exsperrsed what you believe in the Ricci case. euphimism is where liberals work.

dkschwartz
06-06-2009, 12:34 AM
oh also i'm a jew and many of my friends are black and hispanic. I grew up half my life with blacks and at certain ages most of my friends were black. And b/c of that i don't support racial quotas and Rev. Wright's and there misquided white lilberal fans like you who think your helping blacks and think white racism is faced everyday by blacks and think hip hop culture doesn't hold blacks back but white racism does.

plz actually tell me why those points are wrong!

bjkeefe
06-06-2009, 12:49 AM
i don't complain about Ricci's plight because i feel victimized but because i and most of the black people i know feel it's unfair. I feel blessed in life. You sterotype all of us pro-Ricci people as white racist rednecks in there trailers working at a gas station and overwieght which makes sence cause most liberals like you become dem's because you want to be cool and see poltics as the cool people vs. the hicks and than you aqcuired the partyline without thought.
But actually am from Evanston,ill. an affluent college town thats entirely liberal, i go to Wesleyan Unviersity also ultra-liberal. My family is liberal. I have alot of friends and i like actually do like Wilco, the velelvet underground and like reading the ny times magazine and the new yorker.

So am i not your sterotype so stop pretending i am and stop calling me a racist.

also on my spelling errors. sorry i have a life and had to go out and don't spend my life spellchecking comments. But ofcourse rather than making a point in regard to my point (which you never do) you talk about my spelling and make other ad hominem attacks LIKE YOU ALWAYS DO.

like i said you and most liberals have yet to come out and exsperrsed what you believe in the Ricci case. euphimism is where liberals work.

i go to Wesleyan Unviersity

Whatever your parents are paying for tuition, it's too much. And no, I don't just mean the spelling.

dkschwartz
06-06-2009, 02:19 AM
i don't know how old you are, but i'm 19 and i grew up with spellcheck so me and my piers never needed to learn how to spell perfectly, sorry.

but jesus you are pathetic. you can't make arguments you just talk about my spelling.

whats with you guys you don't argue at all?

bjkeefe
06-06-2009, 03:24 AM
i don't know how old you are, but i'm 19 and i grew up with spellcheck so me and my piers never needed to learn how to spell perfectly, sorry.

Well, use it then. On-the-fly spell-check is built into browsers these days, at least the good ones. If you're not seeing red underlines all over the place when you're pounding out one of your tantrums, check the settings under Tools -> Options or Edit -> Preferences or something along those lines.

But really, this is no excuse. You should know how to use the medium. This is a text-based forum. We communicate here through the written word. Your lame excuse about your technology-swamped upbringing impresses me not at all. If you're in college, you ought to be able to spell, period. You should know that piers (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A&q=pier) are structural elements and peers (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A&q=peer) are what you call your illiterate friends. This is junior high school stuff.

You should also be willing to put in the small amount of extra time to get it right.

I'm not talking about the occasional fat-fingering or that one pesky word that always seems to slip through -- we all do that. But posting half a dozen sentences polluted with twenty mistakes is an insult to everyone who bothers to read them. One immediately wonders, if you can't be bothered to clean up your mess before clicking Submit, why should anyone believe you have put any more effort into forming your thoughts?

Which brings me to my next point.

but jesus you are pathetic. you can't make arguments you just talk about my spelling.

whats with you guys you don't argue at all?

You haven't offered anything thoughtful or reasonable to discuss. Your petty grievances -- whose lack of originality is surpassed only by their lack of taste -- are of no interest to me or anyone else on this board. That you start multiple threads and post multiple comments to repeat the same things, when it's clear no one was interested in taking you seriously the first time, suggests you're little more than a troll.

If all you're here to do is piss and moan about how hard it is to be a white boy these days and how much you hate some cartoon version of liberals, you're not going to get any satisfaction. Hard as it may be for you to believe, yep, there are some people older than you here, and (this'll really amaze you) we've heard your brand of sophomoric sputtering before. You might get a pat on the back from a fellow cretin, someone else who is equally shrill about not being a racist and equally blinkered in his impressions of Teh Left, but apart from that, you're going to get mocked to the extent that you're not just ignored.

If you're genuinely interested in discussing other topics, then I suggest you cool down, read a few of the the threads, and get a sense of how people converse here and what they're interested in discussing. Stop demanding that everyone immediately pay attention to whatever bug you have up your butt, just because you got it into your head the other day to sign up for an account.

In short: grow up, and learn some fucking manners.

bjkeefe
06-06-2009, 05:23 AM
"National Review Cover (Fixed) (http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/21934.html)"

JonIrenicus
06-06-2009, 05:04 PM
It actually doesn't seem that bad to me, and the line poking at past comments seems fair game.


I think there would be less controversy if the face caricature was less uglified (not a word) as that is a bit of a low blow and never nice to do.



But it does not matter, she will be confirmed with virtually no resistance, and for the most part she seem like a decent left leaning judge.

bjkeefe
06-06-2009, 06:10 PM
It actually doesn't seem that bad to me, and the line poking at past comments seems fair game.


I think there would be less controversy if the face caricature was less uglified (not a word) as that is a bit of a low blow and never nice to do.

Actually, I think in the spirit of caricature, the uglification is not such a big deal. The problem is context -- that the cover was produced after so much racist and crypto-racist talk has already been hurled at her.

Not sure what you mean about "the line poking."

As to "not a word," interestingly enough, the built-in spell-checker in my copy of Firefox does underline uglified but does not underline uglification. I just checked persdict.dat, to confirm that I did not add the latter word. More data: {uglification (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A&q=uglification) | uglify (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A&q=uglify)}. So, I'd say you're wrong: you were right to use the word, and Firefox's spell-checker (my personal dictionary for it, anyway) needs an update.

But it does not matter, she will be confirmed with virtually no resistance, and for the most part she seem like a decent left leaning judge.

You're probably right, which is another reason to object so strenuously to the approach some on the right are using. The upside, from a lefty point of view, is that it's just doing them more harm in the long run.

kezboard
06-07-2009, 03:25 AM
Dude, being from Evanston and going to a fancy-pants university does not give you a free pass out of being obnoxious and wrong. I'm sorry if the cool liberal kids are mean to you in class, but why don't you think of some real arguments against them instead of throwing around ad-hominems.

Lyle
06-07-2009, 04:26 AM
Ba... no it's not. They're just playing ball.

bjkeefe
06-07-2009, 07:13 PM
Another National Review embarrassment. (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/stay-classy-ed-whelan.html)

Lyle
06-07-2009, 10:36 PM
Totally bogus and simple minded argument by feministing. Lumping all white males together in to one heap of the "dominant". I know hardly anyone who's seriously perturbed by Sotomayor.

The National Review is making hay out of her perceived "liberalness" and the whole empathy argument President Obama has talked about using to determine who he picks for the court.

She's qualified, being Hispanic and a woman brings diversity to the court, and she's not all that liberal on every issue. Plus she's got character and strong opinions, which every court can use. Our justices need to do intellectual battle with one another and every indicates that she's strong-minded.

kezboard
06-07-2009, 11:10 PM
I like that "Jonah Goldberg's Response to his Critics" headline. I'll bet that's going to be illuminating.

bjkeefe
06-07-2009, 11:14 PM
SEK at Edge of the American West takes a closer look at the artwork (http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/photo-reference-at-the-national-review/).

bjkeefe
06-07-2009, 11:18 PM
Totally bogus and simple minded argument by feministing. Lumping all white males together in to one heap of the "dominant". I know hardly anyone who's seriously perturbed by Sotomayor.

A textbook example of the argument from personal incredulity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), a fallacy.

We know you hate evidence, Lial, but this is getting out of hand, even for you.

Lyle
06-09-2009, 03:41 AM
The National Review, just like President Obama did with Roberts and Alito, has the right to criticize judicial picks. How terribly awful to poke fun at her views. Do you eve poke fun at people because of their views?

You're as partisan as the National Review bjkeefe.

bjkeefe
06-09-2009, 03:54 AM
The National Review, just like President Obama did with Roberts and Alito, has the right to criticize judicial picks.

When did I ever say they didn't? You've moved from the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity to the fallacy of the straw man.

What I question about the National Review, and the overwhelming majority of the other loud voices opposing Judge Sotomayor, is what they're saying and how they're saying it. Generally speaking, the approach has amounted to three things: quote-mining a couple of sentences and harping on them out of context, an obsessive focus on the Ricci case (where almost no one seems to understand (or admit) what was really at hand), and a bunch of despicable racist and cryptoracist personal attacks.

How terribly awful to poke fun at her views.

That is far from all they're doing. See above.

Do you eve poke fun at people because of their views?

All the time. But, as noted, that is far from what the NRO and other big names in the conservative media have been doing.

You're as partisan as the National Review bjkeefe.

You say partisan like it's a bad thing. I have no problem with partisanship, and that has nothing to do with the problems I do have with the attacks on Judge Sotomayor.

Lyle
06-09-2009, 09:43 AM
Basically, bjkeefe, if the National Review is an embarrassment so are you. You're simply the flip-side of them. The tug of war you have going with your beloved "wingnuts" is frankly boring and un-intellectual.

Oh my God... Republicans criticized an Obama Supreme Court pick. Oh my God... the horror, the horror. Look away from the light... look away from the light. Ahhhh!!! Ahhhh!!!

bjkeefe
06-09-2009, 03:34 PM
Basically, bjkeefe, if the National Review is an embarrassment so are you. You're simply the flip-side of them. The tug of war you have going with your beloved "wingnuts" is frankly boring and un-intellectual.

Oh my God... Republicans criticized an Obama Supreme Court pick. Oh my God... the horror, the horror. Look away from the light... look away from the light. Ahhhh!!! Ahhhh!!!

For someone who frequently protests that he's "not a conservative," that he voted for Obama, supports same-sex marriage, reads Salon, blah, blah, blah, it's pretty funny that you claim you can't see any difference between me and my attitude towards the truly unhinged of the far right and National Review and their attitude towards Judge Sotomayor.

But, whatever. It's not like I expect a lial to be able to keep his stories straight.

Thanks, though, for equating me in importance with the flagship magazine of the Right, though. I don't buy it, but I'll take the compliment.

bjkeefe
06-09-2009, 03:36 PM
Another National Review embarrassment. (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/06/stay-classy-ed-whelan.html)

This one, at least, has been somewhat mitigated (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2009/06/whoa.html) -- Whelan apologized.

[Added] An interesting bit of fallout: two other NRO contributors admitted today that their normal-sounding names are, in fact, pseudonyms. (Links in the above.) They did not reveal their meatspace identities (which is fine as far as I'm concerned).

[Added] Watching Doughy commenting on the matter and try to have it both (all?) ways is truly hilarious. First this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E2YWQ4NTcwZTJkYzAyNzMwNmQzODRlYjQzZTZhOWY=) (after pretty much everyone in the blogosphere had already weighed in, but before Whelan apologized) and then this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjYxOWY4NzRlOWM0MTBjNTA1MWIyY2MyMDY2OWJiMGQ=) (after Whelan's apology was posted).

bjkeefe
06-09-2009, 06:48 PM
Watching Doughy commenting on the matter and try to have it both (all?) ways is truly hilarious. First this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2E2YWQ4NTcwZTJkYzAyNzMwNmQzODRlYjQzZTZhOWY=) (after pretty much everyone in the blogosphere had already weighed in, but before Whelan apologized) and then this (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjYxOWY4NzRlOWM0MTBjNTA1MWIyY2MyMDY2OWJiMGQ=) (after Whelan's apology was posted).

Some observations from Sully on the Pantload's flailings. After the first (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/amateur-pundits.html):

Jonah Goldberg wrinkles his nose - and makes an ass out of himself defending the indefensible Ed Whelan.

Also (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/contra-jonah.html), after quoting Anonymous Liberal:

Actually, I think one can discern the likely endurance of Jonah Goldberg's professional work, as opposed to the "amateur" commentary of Publius. And it has gained prominence not because it pierces through the discourse despite anonymity, but because a ready frattish sense of humor, a dash of nepotism, a right-wing welfare state, and a team-player's mentality allow such a writer to prosper. All Jonah needed to know was that Whelan was on his "team". An argument in defense of him was thereby necessary, even if it is transparently stupid.

And, after (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/sorry.html) Whelan posted his apology:

Of course, one does have to be amused by the fact that some on the far right didn't get the memo. Poor Jonah covered himself in goo when he could have waited a day and avoided any comment.

popcorn_karate
06-09-2009, 07:04 PM
quote-mining a couple of sentences and harping on them out of context

i'll quibble with that one. the quote is worse in context, not better, since she explicitly rejects o`connor's quote affirming equality among the sexes, and then tosses in the racist bit as well.

The right howling about the quote is pretty understandable, the left would do the same if they could cherry-pick such a damning quote from one of the other side's candidates.

it is also quite clear from her record that she is in no way a racist or a sexist judge in her rulings.

Lyle
06-10-2009, 01:17 PM
I concur with this.

cognitive madisonian
06-11-2009, 07:41 PM
i'll quibble with that one. the quote is worse in context, not better, since she explicitly rejects o`connor's quote affirming equality among the sexes, and then tosses in the racist bit as well.

The right howling about the quote is pretty understandable, the left would do the same if they could cherry-pick such a damning quote from one of the other side's candidates.

it is also quite clear from her record that she is in no way a racist or a sexist judge in her rulings.

Yes, so I hope she maintains her separation between her personal racialism and her public judicial equanimity. Outside of one particularly grievous case (the firefighters' one), Sotomayor has handled herself relatively well, probably about the best that could be expected from Obama.

popcorn_karate
06-16-2009, 02:26 PM
yep, she's guaranteed to better than 4 of the sitting justices - so a damn sight better than anything we got from Bush.