web analytics
Currently viewing the tag: "Stupidity"

I want to like Conor Friedersdorf, I really do. But after he starts a post with this, I really don’t know what to think:

One of the most thoughtful right-leaning talk radio hosts is Dennis Prager

Really, Conor? I must disagree. Prager is easily one of the stupidest, most poorly-informed and least creative talk show hosts imaginable. Granted, the article Friedersdorf cites isn’t bad, but dear Lord, this is such an ignorant whopper I feel I have to lay down some justice.

Here’s Prager’s thoughtfulness in effect (link):

If you love liberty, you must target the left and put its totalitarian tendencies in your cross hairs. We must shoot down political correctness and wage a crusade for truth and liberty. All those ladies and gentlemen who cherish personal and societal freedom must fight like great Indian chiefs, braving secondhand smoke if need be, in affirming a masculinity that has been under relentless attack. And yes, we must even endure the taunts of our foes and, at the appropriate time of the year, wish fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas.”

Then, and only then, will we be able to vanquish lies, defeat the foes of liberty, and once again be able to proudly sing a national anthem that affirms that “the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.”

If we don’t, that line in “The Star-Spangled Banner” will go the way of “Merry Christmas.”

Just so that you don’t accuse me of cherry-picking something he wrote years ago, he posted this last week. Violent rhetoric post-Arizona? Not cool, man (though the Christmas references make me think he might have written this in December, to be fair). Keep in mind, I didn’t even have to go looking for this. It finds me (or, more accurately, it finds my significant other Elizabeth and she sends it to me). But, still: LAST WEEK!

See, I don’t get how Friedersdorf could possibly think that Rush Limbaugh is awful while praising Dennis Prager. Limbaugh is preferable to Prager by a mile in my opinion, by making points (loathsome as they often are) and being entertaining sometimes. Here’s something else to savor by Prager (this was around the time that health care passed, I believe) and you tell me what you think:

I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

It saps energy just read it, doesn’t it? It’s just uninspired, tired rhetoric of the sort that nearly anyone on the right throws around. Could be Coulter or Hannity just as easily. Not what I would consider thoughtful stuff. But this is about as thoughtful as he gets, and I’m not sure it’s an improvement (here’s a link):

Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled.

Yeah, Obama’s just like Pinochet! Oh, wait, Pinochet’s economic program in Chile is indistinguishable from what Republicans advocate for! Never mind.

I’m not even sure what to make of this:

Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.

Why?

Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black will gravitate to liberalism, and liberalism will in turn make him unhappier by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.

I guess this is part of this “Why Obama is angry” bullshit that Dinesh D’Souza is pushing. But the black conservatives I’m aware of tend to be angry yellers like Allen West and Herman Cain, so I guess I don’t agree here.

And, if you’re really a glutton for punishment, go ahead and read though some of his large, patronizing op-eds for TownHall. Most of his writing takes the form of long lists of long, leading, weaselly questions addressed toward liberals that only really allow for his particular answer, like this (I swear, this is supposed to be one question):

Given how much you [lefties] rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

This isn’t a question, it’s a damn soliloquy! Warblogging makes a comeback! And much of his “deep thinking” is really meant to emotionalize and shut down debate, not to get it going, which is exactly you see here. If you’re a torture opponent, as I am, how do you even respond to this? (I made an attempt at the time here.) The premises are so idiotic that it’s hard even to know where to start from. Keep in mind this was written in 2009. As in, after the years of deaths fighting for what will wind up a vaguely theocratic strongman state. Tens of thousands of dead civilians, U.S. troops and God only knows how many victims of ethnic and religious cleansing, and Prager has the nerve to act as though it’s an argument for torture! By this point, I can’t even tell the bullshit from the lies.

Before I stop (and believe me, I really have to), let me just point out a factual inaccuracy in his recent column about how the left libels the right:

For example, most Americans want to retain the man-woman definition of marriage. Even most voters in liberal Californians [sic] want to. The left has not been able to convince even Californians to redefine marriage to include members of the same sex. So what the left did was to declare as “haters” all those who wanted California to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 became “Prop. Hate.”

This is Prager in a nutshell to me. You see, I worked for the No On 8 campaign, so I can speak to this. I can say authoritatively that we were told never to use the word “hate” in the same sentence as Prop 8, or ever. All the literature I handed out did not have “hate” in it. Perhaps he’s referring to “the left” as people holding signs by the side of the road, and I did see one or two signs saying to “Stop the hate” by voting No on 8, but if that counts, then the Tea Party should be considered racist because a couple of their people had signs that said “nigger” on them. God, he’s stupid. It’s not like a quick search on the Internet Archive wouldn’t let you see what the No On 8 page looked like in 2008.

Oh, I can go on and on. Ultimately, if you want to hear a pompous ass spouting off about the “myth of heterosexual AIDS” and gender role claptrap that would make Dr. Laura say to ease off, then Prager’s your huckleberry. Other than that, stay away!

Man, that was exhausting. Oh, and if you liked that “bullshit from the lies” crack, it’s not mine:

I want to like Conor Friedersdorf, I really do. But after he starts a post with this, I really don’t know what to think:

One of the most thoughtful right-leaning talk radio hosts is Dennis Prager

Really, Conor? I must disagree. Prager is easily one of the stupidest, most poorly-informed and least creative talk show hosts imaginable. Granted, the article Friedersdorf cites isn’t bad, but dear Lord, this is such an ignorant whopper I feel I have to lay down some justice.

Here’s Prager’s thoughtfulness in effect (link):

If you love liberty, you must target the left and put its totalitarian tendencies in your cross hairs. We must shoot down political correctness and wage a crusade for truth and liberty. All those ladies and gentlemen who cherish personal and societal freedom must fight like great Indian chiefs, braving secondhand smoke if need be, in affirming a masculinity that has been under relentless attack. And yes, we must even endure the taunts of our foes and, at the appropriate time of the year, wish fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas.”

Then, and only then, will we be able to vanquish lies, defeat the foes of liberty, and once again be able to proudly sing a national anthem that affirms that “the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.”

If we don’t, that line in “The Star-Spangled Banner” will go the way of “Merry Christmas.”

Just so that you don’t accuse me of cherry-picking something he wrote years ago, he posted this last week. Violent rhetoric post-Arizona? Not cool, man (though the Christmas references make me think he might have written this in December, to be fair). Keep in mind, I didn’t even have to go looking for this. It finds me (or, more accurately, it finds my significant other Elizabeth and she sends it to me). But, still: LAST WEEK!

See, I don’t get how Friedersdorf could possibly think that Rush Limbaugh is awful while praising Dennis Prager. Limbaugh is preferable to Prager by a mile in my opinion, by making points (loathsome as they often are) and being entertaining sometimes. Here’s something else to savor by Prager (this was around the time that health care passed, I believe) and you tell me what you think:

I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

It saps energy just read it, doesn’t it? It’s just uninspired, tired rhetoric of the sort that nearly anyone on the right throws around. Could be Coulter or Hannity just as easily. Not what I would consider thoughtful stuff. But this is about as thoughtful as he gets, and I’m not sure it’s an improvement (here’s a link):

Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled.

Yeah, Obama’s just like Pinochet! Oh, wait, Pinochet’s economic program in Chile is indistinguishable from what Republicans advocate for! Never mind.

I’m not even sure what to make of this:

Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.

Why?

Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black will gravitate to liberalism, and liberalism will in turn make him unhappier by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.

I guess this is part of this “Why Obama is angry” bullshit that Dinesh D’Souza is pushing. But the black conservatives I’m aware of tend to be angry yellers like Allen West and Herman Cain, so I guess I don’t agree here.

And, if you’re really a glutton for punishment, go ahead and read though some of his large, patronizing op-eds for TownHall. Most of his writing takes the form of long lists of long, leading, weaselly questions addressed toward liberals that only really allow for his particular answer, like this (I swear, this is supposed to be one question):

Given how much you [lefties] rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

This isn’t a question, it’s a damn soliloquy! Warblogging makes a comeback! And much of his “deep thinking” is really meant to emotionalize and shut down debate, not to get it going, which is exactly you see here. If you’re a torture opponent, as I am, how do you even respond to this? (I made an attempt at the time here.) The premises are so idiotic that it’s hard even to know where to start from. Keep in mind this was written in 2009. As in, after the years of deaths fighting for what will wind up a vaguely theocratic strongman state. Tens of thousands of dead civilians, U.S. troops and God only knows how many victims of ethnic and religious cleansing, and Prager has the nerve to act as though it’s an argument for torture! By this point, I can’t even tell the bullshit from the lies.

Before I stop (and believe me, I really have to), let me just point out a factual inaccuracy in his recent column about how the left libels the right:

For example, most Americans want to retain the man-woman definition of marriage. Even most voters in liberal Californians [sic] want to. The left has not been able to convince even Californians to redefine marriage to include members of the same sex. So what the left did was to declare as “haters” all those who wanted California to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 became “Prop. Hate.”

This is Prager in a nutshell to me. You see, I worked for the No On 8 campaign, so I can speak to this. I can say authoritatively that we were told never to use the word “hate” in the same sentence as Prop 8, or ever. All the literature I handed out did not have “hate” in it. Perhaps he’s referring to “the left” as people holding signs by the side of the road, and I did see one or two signs saying to “Stop the hate” by voting No on 8, but if that counts, then the Tea Party should be considered racist because a couple of their people had signs that said “nigger” on them. God, he’s stupid. It’s not like a quick search on the Internet Archive wouldn’t let you see what the No On 8 page looked like in 2008.

Oh, I can go on and on. Ultimately, if you want to hear a pompous ass spouting off about the “myth of heterosexual AIDS” and gender role claptrap that would make Dr. Laura say to ease off, then Prager’s your huckleberry. Other than that, stay away!

Man, that was exhausting. Oh, and if you liked that “bullshit from the lies” crack, it’s not mine:

I want to like Conor Friedersdorf, I really do. But after he starts a post with this, I really don’t know what to think:

One of the most thoughtful right-leaning talk radio hosts is Dennis Prager

Really, Conor? I must disagree. Prager is easily one of the stupidest, most poorly-informed and least creative talk show hosts imaginable. Granted, the article Friedersdorf cites isn’t bad, but dear Lord, this is such an ignorant whopper I feel I have to lay down some justice.

Here’s Prager’s thoughtfulness in effect (link):

If you love liberty, you must target the left and put its totalitarian tendencies in your cross hairs. We must shoot down political correctness and wage a crusade for truth and liberty. All those ladies and gentlemen who cherish personal and societal freedom must fight like great Indian chiefs, braving secondhand smoke if need be, in affirming a masculinity that has been under relentless attack. And yes, we must even endure the taunts of our foes and, at the appropriate time of the year, wish fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas.”

Then, and only then, will we be able to vanquish lies, defeat the foes of liberty, and once again be able to proudly sing a national anthem that affirms that “the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.”

If we don’t, that line in “The Star-Spangled Banner” will go the way of “Merry Christmas.”

Just so that you don’t accuse me of cherry-picking something he wrote years ago, he posted this last week. Violent rhetoric post-Arizona? Not cool, man (though the Christmas references make me think he might have written this in December, to be fair). Keep in mind, I didn’t even have to go looking for this. It finds me (or, more accurately, it finds my significant other Elizabeth and she sends it to me). But, still: LAST WEEK!

See, I don’t get how Friedersdorf could possibly think that Rush Limbaugh is awful while praising Dennis Prager. Limbaugh is preferable to Prager by a mile in my opinion, by making points (loathsome as they often are) and being entertaining sometimes. Here’s something else to savor by Prager (this was around the time that health care passed, I believe) and you tell me what you think:

I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

It saps energy just read it, doesn’t it? It’s just uninspired, tired rhetoric of the sort that nearly anyone on the right throws around. Could be Coulter or Hannity just as easily. Not what I would consider thoughtful stuff. But this is about as thoughtful as he gets, and I’m not sure it’s an improvement (here’s a link):

Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled.

Yeah, Obama’s just like Pinochet! Oh, wait, Pinochet’s economic program in Chile is indistinguishable from what Republicans advocate for! Never mind.

I’m not even sure what to make of this:

Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.

Why?

Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black will gravitate to liberalism, and liberalism will in turn make him unhappier by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.

I guess this is part of this “Why Obama is angry” bullshit that Dinesh D’Souza is pushing. But the black conservatives I’m aware of tend to be angry yellers like Allen West and Herman Cain, so I guess I don’t agree here.

And, if you’re really a glutton for punishment, go ahead and read though some of his large, patronizing op-eds for TownHall. Most of his writing takes the form of long lists of long, leading, weaselly questions addressed toward liberals that only really allow for his particular answer, like this (I swear, this is supposed to be one question):

Given how much you [lefties] rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

This isn’t a question, it’s a damn soliloquy! Warblogging makes a comeback! And much of his “deep thinking” is really meant to emotionalize and shut down debate, not to get it going, which is exactly you see here. If you’re a torture opponent, as I am, how do you even respond to this? (I made an attempt at the time here.) The premises are so idiotic that it’s hard even to know where to start from. Keep in mind this was written in 2009. As in, after the years of deaths fighting for what will wind up a vaguely theocratic strongman state. Tens of thousands of dead civilians, U.S. troops and God only knows how many victims of ethnic and religious cleansing, and Prager has the nerve to act as though it’s an argument for torture! By this point, I can’t even tell the bullshit from the lies.

Before I stop (and believe me, I really have to), let me just point out a factual inaccuracy in his recent column about how the left libels the right:

For example, most Americans want to retain the man-woman definition of marriage. Even most voters in liberal Californians [sic] want to. The left has not been able to convince even Californians to redefine marriage to include members of the same sex. So what the left did was to declare as “haters” all those who wanted California to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 became “Prop. Hate.”

This is Prager in a nutshell to me. You see, I worked for the No On 8 campaign, so I can speak to this. I can say authoritatively that we were told never to use the word “hate” in the same sentence as Prop 8, or ever. All the literature I handed out did not have “hate” in it. Perhaps he’s referring to “the left” as people holding signs by the side of the road, and I did see one or two signs saying to “Stop the hate” by voting No on 8, but if that counts, then the Tea Party should be considered racist because a couple of their people had signs that said “nigger” on them. God, he’s stupid. It’s not like a quick search on the Internet Archive wouldn’t let you see what the No On 8 page looked like in 2008.

Oh, I can go on and on. Ultimately, if you want to hear a pompous ass spouting off about the “myth of heterosexual AIDS” and gender role claptrap that would make Dr. Laura say to ease off, then Prager’s your huckleberry. Other than that, stay away!

Man, that was exhausting. Oh, and if you liked that “bullshit from the lies” crack, it’s not mine:

I want to like Conor Friedersdorf, I really do. But after he starts a post with this, I really don’t know what to think:

One of the most thoughtful right-leaning talk radio hosts is Dennis Prager

Really, Conor? I must disagree. Prager is easily one of the stupidest, most poorly-informed and least creative talk show hosts imaginable. Granted, the article Friedersdorf cites isn’t bad, but dear Lord, this is such an ignorant whopper I feel I have to lay down some justice.

Here’s Prager’s thoughtfulness in effect (link):

If you love liberty, you must target the left and put its totalitarian tendencies in your cross hairs. We must shoot down political correctness and wage a crusade for truth and liberty. All those ladies and gentlemen who cherish personal and societal freedom must fight like great Indian chiefs, braving secondhand smoke if need be, in affirming a masculinity that has been under relentless attack. And yes, we must even endure the taunts of our foes and, at the appropriate time of the year, wish fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas.”

Then, and only then, will we be able to vanquish lies, defeat the foes of liberty, and once again be able to proudly sing a national anthem that affirms that “the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.”

If we don’t, that line in “The Star-Spangled Banner” will go the way of “Merry Christmas.”

Just so that you don’t accuse me of cherry-picking something he wrote years ago, he posted this last week. Violent rhetoric post-Arizona? Not cool, man (though the Christmas references make me think he might have written this in December, to be fair). Keep in mind, I didn’t even have to go looking for this. It finds me (or, more accurately, it finds my significant other Elizabeth and she sends it to me). But, still: LAST WEEK!

See, I don’t get how Friedersdorf could possibly think that Rush Limbaugh is awful while praising Dennis Prager. Limbaugh is preferable to Prager by a mile in my opinion, by making points (loathsome as they often are) and being entertaining sometimes. Here’s something else to savor by Prager (this was around the time that health care passed, I believe) and you tell me what you think:

I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

It saps energy just read it, doesn’t it? It’s just uninspired, tired rhetoric of the sort that nearly anyone on the right throws around. Could be Coulter or Hannity just as easily. Not what I would consider thoughtful stuff. But this is about as thoughtful as he gets, and I’m not sure it’s an improvement (here’s a link):

Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled.

Yeah, Obama’s just like Pinochet! Oh, wait, Pinochet’s economic program in Chile is indistinguishable from what Republicans advocate for! Never mind.

I’m not even sure what to make of this:

Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.

Why?

Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black will gravitate to liberalism, and liberalism will in turn make him unhappier by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.

I guess this is part of this “Why Obama is angry” bullshit that Dinesh D’Souza is pushing. But the black conservatives I’m aware of tend to be angry yellers like Allen West and Herman Cain, so I guess I don’t agree here.

And, if you’re really a glutton for punishment, go ahead and read though some of his large, patronizing op-eds for TownHall. Most of his writing takes the form of long lists of long, leading, weaselly questions addressed toward liberals that only really allow for his particular answer, like this (I swear, this is supposed to be one question):

Given how much you [lefties] rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

This isn’t a question, it’s a damn soliloquy! Warblogging makes a comeback! And much of his “deep thinking” is really meant to emotionalize and shut down debate, not to get it going, which is exactly you see here. If you’re a torture opponent, as I am, how do you even respond to this? (I made an attempt at the time here.) The premises are so idiotic that it’s hard even to know where to start from. Keep in mind this was written in 2009. As in, after the years of deaths fighting for what will wind up a vaguely theocratic strongman state. Tens of thousands of dead civilians, U.S. troops and God only knows how many victims of ethnic and religious cleansing, and Prager has the nerve to act as though it’s an argument for torture! By this point, I can’t even tell the bullshit from the lies.

Before I stop (and believe me, I really have to), let me just point out a factual inaccuracy in his recent column about how the left libels the right:

For example, most Americans want to retain the man-woman definition of marriage. Even most voters in liberal Californians [sic] want to. The left has not been able to convince even Californians to redefine marriage to include members of the same sex. So what the left did was to declare as “haters” all those who wanted California to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 became “Prop. Hate.”

This is Prager in a nutshell to me. You see, I worked for the No On 8 campaign, so I can speak to this. I can say authoritatively that we were told never to use the word “hate” in the same sentence as Prop 8, or ever. All the literature I handed out did not have “hate” in it. Perhaps he’s referring to “the left” as people holding signs by the side of the road, and I did see one or two signs saying to “Stop the hate” by voting No on 8, but if that counts, then the Tea Party should be considered racist because a couple of their people had signs that said “nigger” on them. God, he’s stupid. It’s not like a quick search on the Internet Archive wouldn’t let you see what the No On 8 page looked like in 2008.

Oh, I can go on and on. Ultimately, if you want to hear a pompous ass spouting off about the “myth of heterosexual AIDS” and gender role claptrap that would make Dr. Laura say to ease off, then Prager’s your huckleberry. Other than that, stay away!

Man, that was exhausting. Oh, and if you liked that “bullshit from the lies” crack, it’s not mine:

I want to like Conor Friedersdorf, I really do. But after he starts a post with this, I really don’t know what to think:

One of the most thoughtful right-leaning talk radio hosts is Dennis Prager

Really, Conor? I must disagree. Prager is easily one of the stupidest, most poorly-informed and least creative talk show hosts imaginable. Granted, the article Friedersdorf cites isn’t bad, but dear Lord, this is such an ignorant whopper I feel I have to lay down some justice.

Here’s Prager’s thoughtfulness in effect (link):

If you love liberty, you must target the left and put its totalitarian tendencies in your cross hairs. We must shoot down political correctness and wage a crusade for truth and liberty. All those ladies and gentlemen who cherish personal and societal freedom must fight like great Indian chiefs, braving secondhand smoke if need be, in affirming a masculinity that has been under relentless attack. And yes, we must even endure the taunts of our foes and, at the appropriate time of the year, wish fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas.”

Then, and only then, will we be able to vanquish lies, defeat the foes of liberty, and once again be able to proudly sing a national anthem that affirms that “the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.”

If we don’t, that line in “The Star-Spangled Banner” will go the way of “Merry Christmas.”

Just so that you don’t accuse me of cherry-picking something he wrote years ago, he posted this last week. Violent rhetoric post-Arizona? Not cool, man (though the Christmas references make me think he might have written this in December, to be fair). Keep in mind, I didn’t even have to go looking for this. It finds me (or, more accurately, it finds my significant other Elizabeth and she sends it to me). But, still: LAST WEEK!

See, I don’t get how Friedersdorf could possibly think that Rush Limbaugh is awful while praising Dennis Prager. Limbaugh is preferable to Prager by a mile in my opinion, by making points (loathsome as they often are) and being entertaining sometimes. Here’s something else to savor by Prager (this was around the time that health care passed, I believe) and you tell me what you think:

I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one.

Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses.

After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.

It saps energy just read it, doesn’t it? It’s just uninspired, tired rhetoric of the sort that nearly anyone on the right throws around. Could be Coulter or Hannity just as easily. Not what I would consider thoughtful stuff. But this is about as thoughtful as he gets, and I’m not sure it’s an improvement (here’s a link):

Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled.

Yeah, Obama’s just like Pinochet! Oh, wait, Pinochet’s economic program in Chile is indistinguishable from what Republicans advocate for! Never mind.

I’m not even sure what to make of this:

Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.

Why?

Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black will gravitate to liberalism, and liberalism will in turn make him unhappier by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.

I guess this is part of this “Why Obama is angry” bullshit that Dinesh D’Souza is pushing. But the black conservatives I’m aware of tend to be angry yellers like Allen West and Herman Cain, so I guess I don’t agree here.

And, if you’re really a glutton for punishment, go ahead and read though some of his large, patronizing op-eds for TownHall. Most of his writing takes the form of long lists of long, leading, weaselly questions addressed toward liberals that only really allow for his particular answer, like this (I swear, this is supposed to be one question):

Given how much you [lefties] rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

This isn’t a question, it’s a damn soliloquy! Warblogging makes a comeback! And much of his “deep thinking” is really meant to emotionalize and shut down debate, not to get it going, which is exactly you see here. If you’re a torture opponent, as I am, how do you even respond to this? (I made an attempt at the time here.) The premises are so idiotic that it’s hard even to know where to start from. Keep in mind this was written in 2009. As in, after the years of deaths fighting for what will wind up a vaguely theocratic strongman state. Tens of thousands of dead civilians, U.S. troops and God only knows how many victims of ethnic and religious cleansing, and Prager has the nerve to act as though it’s an argument for torture! By this point, I can’t even tell the bullshit from the lies.

Before I stop (and believe me, I really have to), let me just point out a factual inaccuracy in his recent column about how the left libels the right:

For example, most Americans want to retain the man-woman definition of marriage. Even most voters in liberal Californians [sic] want to. The left has not been able to convince even Californians to redefine marriage to include members of the same sex. So what the left did was to declare as “haters” all those who wanted California to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 became “Prop. Hate.”

This is Prager in a nutshell to me. You see, I worked for the No On 8 campaign, so I can speak to this. I can say authoritatively that we were told never to use the word “hate” in the same sentence as Prop 8, or ever. All the literature I handed out did not have “hate” in it. Perhaps he’s referring to “the left” as people holding signs by the side of the road, and I did see one or two signs saying to “Stop the hate” by voting No on 8, but if that counts, then the Tea Party should be considered racist because a couple of their people had signs that said “nigger” on them. God, he’s stupid. It’s not like a quick search on the Internet Archive wouldn’t let you see what the No On 8 page looked like in 2008.

Oh, I can go on and on. Ultimately, if you want to hear a pompous ass spouting off about the “myth of heterosexual AIDS” and gender role claptrap that would make Dr. Laura say to ease off, then Prager’s your huckleberry. Other than that, stay away!

Man, that was exhausting. Oh, and if you liked that “bullshit from the lies” crack, it’s not mine:

I want to like Conor Friedersdorf, I really do. But after he starts a post with this, I really don’t know what to think:
One of the most thoughtful right-leaning talk radio hosts is Dennis Prager
Really, Conor? I must disagree. Prager is easily one of the stupidest, most poorly-informed and least creative talk show hosts imaginable. Granted, the article Friedersdorf cites isn’t bad, but dear Lord, this is such an ignorant whopper I feel I have to lay down some justice. Here’s Prager’s thoughtfulness in effect (link):
If you love liberty, you must target the left and put its totalitarian tendencies in your cross hairs. We must shoot down political correctness and wage a crusade for truth and liberty. All those ladies and gentlemen who cherish personal and societal freedom must fight like great Indian chiefs, braving secondhand smoke if need be, in affirming a masculinity that has been under relentless attack. And yes, we must even endure the taunts of our foes and, at the appropriate time of the year, wish fellow Americans a “Merry Christmas.”
Then, and only then, will we be able to vanquish lies, defeat the foes of liberty, and once again be able to proudly sing a national anthem that affirms that “the bombs bursting in air gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.” If we don’t, that line in “The Star-Spangled Banner” will go the way of “Merry Christmas.”
Just so that you don’t accuse me of cherry-picking something he wrote years ago, he posted this last week. Violent rhetoric post-Arizona? Not cool, man (though the Christmas references make me think he might have written this in December, to be fair). Keep in mind, I didn’t even have to go looking for this. It finds me (or, more accurately, it finds my significant other Elizabeth and she sends it to me). But, still: LAST WEEK! See, I don’t get how Friedersdorf could possibly think that Rush Limbaugh is awful while praising Dennis Prager. Limbaugh is preferable to Prager by a mile in my opinion, by making points (loathsome as they often are) and being entertaining sometimes. Here’s something else to savor by Prager (this was around the time that health care passed, I believe) and you tell me what you think:
I write the words “civil war” with an ache in my heart. But we are in one. Thank God this civil war is non-violent. But the fact is that the left and the rest of the country share almost no values. The American value system and the leftist value system are irreconcilable. If the left wins, America’s values lose. If American values prevail, the left loses. After Sunday’s vote, for the first time in American history, one could no longer confidently believe that the American system will prevail. And if we don’t fight for it, we don’t deserve it.
It saps energy just read it, doesn’t it? It’s just uninspired, tired rhetoric of the sort that nearly anyone on the right throws around. Could be Coulter or Hannity just as easily. Not what I would consider thoughtful stuff. But this is about as thoughtful as he gets, and I’m not sure it’s an improvement (here’s a link):
Finally, and most important, by voting for Democratic Party candidates, you are voting for a type of government more like the ones most Latinos fled.
Yeah, Obama’s just like Pinochet! Oh, wait, Pinochet’s economic program in Chile is indistinguishable from what Republicans advocate for! Never mind. I’m not even sure what to make of this:
Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person. Why? Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black will gravitate to liberalism, and liberalism will in turn make him unhappier by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.
I guess this is part of this “Why Obama is angry” bullshit that Dinesh D’Souza is pushing. But the black conservatives I’m aware of tend to be angry yellers like Allen West and Herman Cain, so I guess I don’t agree here. And, if you’re really a glutton for punishment, go ahead and read though some of his large, patronizing op-eds for TownHall. Most of his writing takes the form of long lists of long, leading, weaselly questions addressed toward liberals that only really allow for his particular answer, like this (I swear, this is supposed to be one question):
Given how much you [lefties] rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.
This isn’t a question, it’s a damn soliloquy! Warblogging makes a comeback! And much of his “deep thinking” is really meant to emotionalize and shut down debate, not to get it going, which is exactly you see here. If you’re a torture opponent, as I am, how do you even respond to this? (I made an attempt at the time here.) The premises are so idiotic that it’s hard even to know where to start from. Keep in mind this was written in 2009. As in, after the years of deaths fighting for what will wind up a vaguely theocratic strongman state. Tens of thousands of dead civilians, U.S. troops and God only knows how many victims of ethnic and religious cleansing, and Prager has the nerve to act as though it’s an argument for torture! By this point, I can’t even tell the bullshit from the lies. Before I stop (and believe me, I really have to), let me just point out a factual inaccuracy in his recent column about how the left libels the right:
For example, most Americans want to retain the man-woman definition of marriage. Even most voters in liberal Californians [sic] want to. The left has not been able to convince even Californians to redefine marriage to include members of the same sex. So what the left did was to declare as “haters” all those who wanted California to retain the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. Proposition 8 became “Prop. Hate.”
This is Prager in a nutshell to me. You see, I worked for the No On 8 campaign, so I can speak to this. I can say authoritatively that we were told never to use the word “hate” in the same sentence as Prop 8, or ever. All the literature I handed out did not have “hate” in it. Perhaps he’s referring to “the left” as people holding signs by the side of the road, and I did see one or two signs saying to “Stop the hate” by voting No on 8, but if that counts, then the Tea Party should be considered racist because a couple of their people had signs that said “nigger” on them. God, he’s stupid. It’s not like a quick search on the Internet Archive wouldn’t let you see what the No On 8 page looked like in 2008. Oh, I can go on and on. Ultimately, if you want to hear a pompous ass spouting off about the “myth of heterosexual AIDS” and gender role claptrap that would make Dr. Laura say to ease off, then Prager’s your huckleberry. Other than that, stay away! Man, that was exhausting. Oh, and if you liked that “bullshit from the lies” crack, it’s not mine:

This is pretty stupid:

As it happens that puts [John Boehner] in roughly the same position as House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, who as Majority Leader last year said all options — including raising the retirement age — should be on the table.

In a speech last summer about entitlements and deficits, Hoyer said, “We should consider a higher retirement age or one pegged to lifespan.”

At his weekly press availability on Wednesday, I asked him if he still stood by his previous comments, or if, like Boehner, he’d rather keep his powder dry.

“Unlike Boehner [who supported raising the retirement age outright], what I said is it ought to be on the table,” Hoyer said. “We ought to consider all options, including raising the age, but there are a lot of other options also that can be considered and I also indicated that whatever we do needs to be done prospectively. And I think all parties agree with that.”

Look, unlike many liberal bloggers, I’m not a reflexive Steny Hoyer hater. He’s not incredibly liberal, but reports of his awfulness are often exaggerated. Not this time! Maybe I’m the stupid one here and I’m misconstruing this (the link doesn’t have any amplified remarks) but how can you peg retirement age to lifespan without knowing the future? I mean, health changes pretty dramatically in older age, in ways that are hard to predict. Does this mean you get, say, ten years of retirement and then you’re cut off? Or do they figure, hey, he’s 65 and healthy, why not work a few more years? How do you avoid demographic factors when considering this? Does race/ethnicity get involved? How could it not be? All of a sudden, this is a complete damn mess, and the cure seems far worse than the original disease of a modest budgetary shortfall.

Steny Hoyer

The Minority Whip tries out his legendary Alan Partridge impression...

I’ve written on this before, but it’s hard to find a debate on an issue that’s more beside the point than the one we have on Social Security, which isn’t surprising since it’s one the Beltway crowd has inserted itself into most heavily. The only argument for raising the retirement age is to save money on Social Security, that’s it. The cleanest solution to the Social Security problem is to spend more money on it to guarantee benefits. You could do this by raising taxes, perhaps by just eliminating the cap on payroll taxes for the wealthy. You could make some headway on this on the cut side, too. I’ve never heard anyone actually propose phasing out survivor benefits, which strikes me as a reasonable change to make as we transition from a set of senior citizens where the women were generally homemakers who had little education to one where women were more independent and career oriented. But that’s a change that makes sense according to societal factors, not just because we’re treating the bottom line as sacrosanct. Ultimately, though, raising the retirement age is a political nonstarter and a stupid idea. From the perspective of finding employment, it’s silly because it’s extremely hard to find a job when you’re 59, let alone 69. From the perspective of why should someone have to keep working into their late sixties in the most wealthy nation in the world if they don’t want to? it makes no sense. Over the past two elections, Democrats have gotten just hammered among older voters. Standing firm on the retirement age seems like a decent way of showing this important bloc that Democrats are watching out for them. But Hoyer evidently seems more interested in charming the Beltway elites, which is why it’s such a shame that he didn’t get forced out of the leadership by Jim Clyburn.