…but if you’re going to snark over my criticism of the lame-o Voice piece, could you at least snark about what I actually wrote?
Here’s Scott, one of the Wiley Coyote super-geniuses at ‘Lawyers, Guns & Money‘:
What the Democrats really need, apparently, is to enthusiastically support a decision to waste hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars replacing a dictatorship that poses no significant security threat to the United States with an Islamist quasi-state allied with Iran. Now there’s electoral and policy gold!
Hang on, let’s go look through the post about the Voice, and then the one about Bittergate, and then the one about Hillary…hmmm…Iraq, nothing, war, nothing, Islam, nothing, Middle east – nothing.
Here’s what I did say, in the Bittergate post:
I think that the grandparents of these voters voted solidly Democratic because they remember that they got electricity from a Federal program, and paved roads from a Federal program, and home, business and farm loans guaranteed by Federal programs. They might not have been comfortable with elitist East Coast politicians, but they had some concrete sense of what they got for voting for them.
I’ve asked for a long time what, exactly the Democratic Party has done in the last 20 years for a typical 35-year-old single mother who works as an administrative assistant in a big city. The answer: not a hell of a lot. Not anything I can think of.
To that I’ll add the question of what the Democratic Party has done in the last 20 years for the 35-year-old son of a factory worker who manages to get temp manufacturing jobs, alongside his wife, and tries to support his three kids doing it. He’s getting by because his dad had a great retirement plan and equity in his house. To him, the government wants to close his hunting areas to protect spotted owls, let his 14 year old daughter get an abortion without his consent, and charge him more and more for the privilege.
Not so much about Iraq…
Here’s what I said in the Hillary post, citing Judis (one of those right-wing thinkers, you know – the co-author of ‘The Emerging Democratic Majority’):
If you look at the upcoming presidential election in this light, the Democratic prospects do not appear to be good. McCain is an acceptable Republican–a war hero and a reputed moderate. (His greatest inherent liability, which could make him unacceptable regardless of his ideas or background, is his age.) Both Democratic candidates, whatever their protestations, are seen as coming out of the party’s liberal wing on guns and abortion.
and then citing that known crypto-fascist, Bill Clinton:
I know how you feel. I understand Hillary’s sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They’re the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.
And in the Voice post?
We’re in an election cycle where the GOP candidate should be staked out like a sacrificial goat waiting for the knife. Instead, we get Democratic thinkers worrying – appropriately – that the Democratic candidate is going to actually lose in November. And one of the big reasons is that the public voice of the Party is cranky, smug yuppies.
So Scot, my man – did you forget your glasses? Monitor too dirty from the outraged spittle? Help a blogger out…
And while Edroso and Tbogg think it’s kinda silly that they singlehandedly might be placing the election at risk – and I agree, the issue isn’t about them, personally, or the hundred and hundreds of people following the debate about his article – the attitude they express so perfectly is what’s at issue, and it is one that’s pervasive through the progblogs (in fact, I’d say having that attitude is necessary for playing there) and, sadly it’s spreading out into the real world.
In my spare time, I’m just going to keep doing my part in kicking it, both in the hopes that I can help push it back just a little to make room for a saner form of Democratic discourse – and, bluntly, because it’s just so much damn fun.
“Help a blogger out…”
Always happy to oblige. The clue is in the sentence just before the two sentences you quoted: “Evidently, this is doubly funny coming from Danzinger.” This is a hint that Scott is familiar with your work. So he has a larger sample to draw on than the three posts you refer to. He surely knows, for example, that you never had a good word to say about Joe Lieberman until he was marginalised within the Democratic party, and eventually elbowed out of it, largely because of his support for the Iraq war. (Lest you have forgotten, JL was a “Skybox Liberal” before the epiphany which made him your kind of guy. You made it very clear that you didn’t intend that description as a compliment.)
Kevin, I slagged Lieberman even as I slagged the Kossaks for chasing him out of the party. My examiner piece on the subject was all about the fact that the Party would be weaker without him than with him…
And yes, I stand pretty far from the cool kids on the subject of the war, but none of this criticism is about that (I reserve the right to add new criticism about that later, though).
None of that changes the simple fact that the issues I’m raising are being (and have been) raised by serious core Democrats – even ones who oppose the war – and that they are being handwaved away by you & your buds.
A.L.
“…none of this criticism is about that…”
That doesn’t affect Scott’s point in the least. What’s “doubly funny” in his eyes (mine too) is that you warn Democrats that a freelance writer is a threat to their election prospects, despite the fact that, if you had your way, they would be endorsing a war which is not only costly in blood and treasure (as wars mostly are) but also quite unpopular. That’s what makes your anguish about the Voice so comical. It’s like criticising a man for wasting a few dollars on lottery tickets while urging him to book into a Las Vegas hotel for the rest of the year.
Kevin, Kevin, Kevin – the attitude that freelance writer expressed so well in his article – an attitude widely dispersed through the lefty blogs, and one that appears pretty frequently in media and policy circles – the attitude that Judis and Clinton criticize in my cites – is the problem.
And yeah, if the Democrats had a clue about policies what to replace Bush’s war with they’d be a lot stronger as well. Note that it doesn’t have to be a war; ideally it won’t be. But it’s got to be something, and today the core of Democratic foreign policy is a gaping void.
A.L.
Mr Donoghue:
bq. you warn Democrats that a freelance writer is a threat to their election prospects
You really can’t read? Or you just think AL is lying when he explains the intent of his communication?
Which is it?
Here’s AL:
bq. the issue isn’t about them, personally, or the hundred and hundreds of people following the debate about his article – the attitude they express so perfectly is what’s at issue, and it is one that’s pervasive through the progblogs
Are you just too busy to actually read all the way through the top post? Gee… I got it the first time; you’re not even getting it in plain English. What’s up with that?
NM: “You really can’t read?”
I think I can. Also, I can follow a simple chronological sequence. Scott wasn’t responding to this post. We know this because this post is a response to Scott’s post. Are you following me so far?
Now, AL asked a question about Scott’s post. I answered that question. Whatever you may think of my answer, you cannot reasonably complain that it neglects a point made by AL in this post. After all, AL wasn’t asking for help in interpreting his own post. I hope you can see that. If you can’t then I’m afraid I’m unable to help you.
BTW, what’s with the “Mr Donoghue” stuff? Such formality sits oddly alongside the suggestion that I am illiterate.
The post you wrote yesterday was inane, AL, and you were justly mocked for having written it.
As someone worded it elsewhere, “Concern troll is concerned.”
I wouldn’t call it “justly mocked”. I’d call it being toilet-papered by a lot of people who are inferior to even Roy Edroso in wit, and who also fall below the abysmal standard he sets for originality, insight, subtlety, and tact.
I guess this affirms the point of AL’s original post, which is that the True Believer is an unlovely sight, especially when he’s trying to be funny.
And these hecklers have proved their point, too. “No matter how many times this is explained to me, I’m going to insist that this all about a Village Voice article being a bigger threat than the Iraq war. And I’m going to say it over and over and over, just to show you how angry you’ve made us by daring to disagree. Just to show you how deeply-held our spite is.”
bq. NM: “You really can’t read?”
bq. I think I can. Also, I can follow a simple chronological sequence. Scott wasn’t responding to this post. We know this because this post is a response to Scott’s post. Are you following me so far?
From the original post in question: AL mentions
bq. [T]he smug arrogance that’s so proudly on display.
bq. [U]rban intellectuals feel … disrespected as a class, and … have such a chip on their shoulder.
bq. [T]he public voice of the Party…
By which he clearly does not mean Edroso specifically, unless you crane your neck really hard…
bq. …is cranky, smug yuppies.
“Are you following me so far?” He was using Edroso as emblematic of a class or group. That fact is evident in the original context, and reiterated in the top post here.
I make no claim that he is correct in that assessment. But you’re not following the simple meaning of his original utterances, however well you think you are following the chronology. Bad root, bad branch, or so it seems to me.
You did not say so-and-so says AL is saying Edroso is a huge influence. You said he is saying it:
bq. What’s “doubly funny” in his eyes (mine too) is that you warn Democrats that a freelance writer is a threat to their election prospects {emphasis mine}
Which appears not to be the case; he {says he} was speaking about a class of people and their behavior. Thus my comment. Your post was not responsive to his clear counterclaim in this entry, and you did not use the past tense — not “you warned” or “you appeared to warn”, but “you warn…that a freelance writer…” {my emphasis}.
So it appears you either lack the patience to read to the end of the post (and in that sense “can’t read”), or you are repeating a judgment made before AL explained himself. Which seems rather wilfully ignorant or intellectually dishonest. This is the source of my response. Perhaps there is another explanation that has not occurred to me.
bq. BTW, what’s with the “Mr Donoghue” stuff? Such formality sits oddly alongside the suggestion that I am illiterate.
Do I sit oddly? Sorry if you are somehow insulted by politeness. Can’t win that one.
“To him, the government wants to close his hunting areas to protect spotted owls”
Well, considering that the behaviour of American settlers made the passenger pigeon extinct and very nearly did for the American bison and the California condor, and is still responsible for the American bald eagle being in doubt, perhaps a bit of restriction in the right of American hunters to kill anything that moves is in order?
“let his 14 year old daughter get an abortion without his consent”.
Hmmm… does the 14-year-old get a say in this?
“charge him more and more for the privilege.” Point conceded.
perhaps a bit of restriction in the right of American hunters to kill anything that moves is in order?
American hunters have no such right, and haven’t for a long, long time. Apparently you’re as unjustifiably arrogantly completely unacquainted with the concept of seasons and licenses, and take limits, as you are on everything else concerning Americans, hunting, and guns? Not to mention, the Constitution and the Founders?
I see that you don’t restrict the flaunting of your ignorance to my blog, Fletcher. I suppose that I should be happy that you’re spreading the “wealth.”
Ah, it turns out that the closing of forests isn’t because the spotted owl was directly threatened by hunting but by loss of habitat – which almost certainly threatens several other species as well. Therefore, even if nobody is shooting them, the disturbance (and spreading of disease organisms) caused by people wandering around the forests they live in might further threaten them and even lead to their extinction – and hence closing those forests might well be reasonable. Especially as it’s largely the same people doing the hunting who originally cut down most of those forests as well. A bit of inconvenience for a few people compared with the survival of a species? No contest.
Rand, I am quite well acquainted with seasons and take limits; also hunting licenses. We have them in Britain as well, believe it or not; however, in Britain the threat to various endangered species is a bit different. The main forms of hunting with weapons in Britain are grouse, pheasant and deer-hunting – and in all three, the animals involved are virtually farmed, and gamekeepers kill prey species, several of which are endangered, to keep up their numbers for the pleasure of gun-wielding aristocratic yahoos. Despite the fact that such killing is against the law.
Incidentally, what happens if one of those noble hunters accidentally kills something on the proscribed list? Does it get reported so that the game wardens (or whatever they are called)can keep up their records and adjust quotas? I doubt it. Does the death of a spotted owl, for example, of starvation caused by the lack of prey species displaced from their homes or by some hunter killing said prey, get reported? I doubt it even more.
The Founders and drafters of the constitution that you seem to have an almost religious respect for (or their descendants) are responsible for the enslavement and death of millions of people and the virtual extinction of another race of humanity; for the extinction of at least one species of animal and the near-extinction of several more; for the conversion of millions of square miles of virgin forest and prairie into a wasteland with less biodiversity than my back garden; and for ongoing carnage in a region of the world that is absolutely none of their business. And, through the careless drafting of part of a legal document, for carnage in their own city streets as well. Pardon me if I don’t show enough respect.
Rand, I am quite well acquainted with seasons and take limits; also hunting licenses.
Ah, then you were only pretending to be ignorant with your needless hyperbole? Well, whatever spins your turbine…
Pardon me if I don’t show enough respect.
I don’t give a damn whether or not you respect the Founders. As has been noted, not being a US citizen, your opinion on the Constitution, and them, is of zero moment.
I’m just asking you to stop flaunting your ignorance about them on a daily basis. For all of the sins of the nation that they founded, and they are many, it remains the oldest and most durable republic in the world, and the last best hope for the preservation of the values of the Enlightenment (having had to shed a lot of its young mens’ blood on your behalf over the past century).
And it’s a shame that your own nation, from which the US was born, is apparently now willing to surrender to the medieval and misogynistic forces of the dark ages. The time may come, sooner rather than later, when you wish that Englishmen still believed in, and retained, the right to bear arms, as they once did.
_”Especially as it’s largely the same people doing the hunting who originally cut down most of those forests as well.”_
It is? Most hunters are lumberjacks? Do you get your information about Americana from ESPN2 at 2 in the morning? Hardly fair, i dont think all Scandinavians spend their days hurling beer kegs and pulling buses.
Given America’s British provenance, I’m curious when exactly the guilt passed from British to American blood?
Most hunters are lumberjacks?
Apparently Fletcher is also unaware that the US is more forested now than it was during colonial times.
Do you get your information about Americana from ESPN2 at 2 in the morning?
Likely nothing that scholarly, based on the majority of his posts.
Given America’s British provenance, I’m curious when exactly the guilt passed from British to American blood?
What are you talking about? Didn’t you know that not a single noble native American was killed, or black African enslaved, until 1789, by those evil Yanks, who had, prior to that date, failed to exist?
Rand:
Hear hear! to your last point, regarding our glorious leaders’ apparent willingness to become dhimmi. However, it’s a little difficult to do anything about it, given that I’d probably end up in jail – for something like “inciting religious hatred”.
Regarding the right to bear arms; well, the right to bear arms is also a responsibility, to be able to use them properly and bear them in safety. I am quite convinced that, given the present social environment in far too much of Britain, allowing the bearing of arms (without requiring extensive training and possibly some sort of compulsory militia service a la Switzerland) would turn our city streets into an abattoir. There are too many shootings in our inner cities as it is!
Social and family breakdown and legal guns are an extremely toxic mix, especially when combined with lax laws.
As a matter of fact, I do believe in the right to bear arms. However, the bearers need to be a) self-disciplined and b) properly trained in firearms discipline. I know that b) is necessary, having almost killed someone by accident on a rifle range in my youth. The person in charge walked in front of a line of shooters, including me, none of whom had had more than about half an hour’s training with live ammo and whose firearms discipline training was obviously inadequate. (School cadet force.) A .303 Lee Enfield at five feet wouldn’t have left much.
Lurker; I said “American settlers” which more-or-less covers it. Sure, Britain was implicated in slavery. However, we were also the first to stop – and paid with our sailors’ blood to stop others, starting thirty years before the USA decided to stop keeping slaves, after having a civil war over the issue (among others, of course).
Regarding reforestation: well, maybe. However, millennia-old virgin forest is not quite the same as a plantation. The same applies to Britain, in fact; but broadleaf woodland with many species has been replaced with endless ranks of pine trees. Not quite the same.
Cudos for ending slavery and even more so for Amazing Grace. Really. It never fails to bring the tears, making it perhaps the best English export ever.
So for the British balance of guilt, should we just subtract the 30 years off the end and then add in all those years of slavery before there was even any such thing as an American?
Seriously, a Brit hectoring Americans over slavery is more than a bit absurd.
_”There are too many shootings in our inner cities as it is!”_
And that has increased in Britain since the handgun ban, oddly. But gun grabbers have never let logic get in the way of keeping the streets safe for criminals to operate without fear.
Since this thread has derailed, might as well loot the wreckage …
Fletcher, the biodiversity of the central American plains was once limited to two things: bison, and bison manure. Their Britain-sized herds crowded out almost every other species, and they deforested vast regions by eating the saplings. When they ruled, you could go hundreds of miles without seeing a tree.
Today the region is filled with trees, and many species, including an incredibly rich bird population. And the bison is still around, too – he makes tasty hamburger. Thank God for the Spencer Buffalo Rifle, which we of course invented.
even more so for Amazing Grace. Really. It never fails to bring the tears, making it perhaps the best English export ever.
Agreed. With bagpipes no less. That’s the musical equivalent of crossing the Atlantic on an inner-tube.
Re “Amazing Grace”:
Thanks. But it isn’t English – at least, usually thought to be. It’s Scottish, or at least the bagpipe version is. Given that my real surname is Campbell, that matters to me.
I would really like to think the best of America; after all, the Battle Hymn was sung at the funeral of Winston Churchill, the greatest leader the West has had since Charles Martel.
You make it difficult, though.
Regarding reforestation: well, maybe. However, millennia-old virgin forest is not quite the same as a plantation.
I’m not referring to a plantation. It is natural regrowth. Much of New England, that was being farmed in the 18th century, has gone back to woodland, since many headed west for better soil as the continent was opened up.
Mark:
Yes, shootings in British inner cities have gone up since the handgun ban. However, this is not enough to prove a connection.
Carrying of weapons in public has been illegal in Britain for a very long time – since at the latest 1969 and effectively a lot longer than that – up until then it was possible to keep a licensed gun in your house, but not to carry one around, since the 1920s. So what’s happened since 1969, with gun-carrying illegal the whole time? That’s right – the rate of armed crime has gone up, and up, and up.
The reasons for this are debatable, but probably include social and moral breakdown – for example, the ever-growing number of young males with no male role model, or a bad one. By now, in some “families” this is probably in the third generation. Illegal drugs are another major one, as is the easy availability of illegal guns – which is exacerbated by the huge number of guns available for illegal export from the USA. Another extremely important reason is lenient laws, laxly enforced.
Personal possession of pistols (I hate the term “handguns” by the way) has been illegal in the UK for 11 years. But carrying them on the street has been illegal for a lot longer than that, and neither fact is relevant.
Fletcher, that’s all well and good. But you premised the idea of gun control on its effectiveness, right? IE- the streets would run with blood without it. How can you point the the British example as evidence of that? If you are claiming the British example proves lawful gun ownership would make the situation worse, well you’ve created a nonfalsifiable test, right?
If you look at the US, areas with the strictest gun control have continued to have the highest shooting rates (despite declines across the board). Witness the spree here in Chicago this weekend (handguns are completely banned for normal citizens). Meanwhile there is now tons of data from around the country where right to carry laws have been instituted in most states. Crimes, including shootings, have gone done far more than in places with gun prohibition or more nuetral gun laws (this despite myriad predictions of old west style shootouts on every corner).
Australia and Canada provide more data yet. No gun control scheme i’ve ever heard of has even correlated (even accidently) to lower crime or violence.