Matt Welch vs. Radley Balko vs. Ace on the Ron Paul Newsletters
I haven’t written anything yet about reason magazine’s reaction to the Ron Paul newsletter scandal, but with Matt Welch coming online today with his piece, I thought I’d add my two cents.
Readers here will not be surprised that I find Matt’s take on it to be much more rational, insightful, and appropriately skeptical than Radley Balko’s reaction, which was pretty much taken apart by Ace of Spades here.
Radley’s piece is not altogether nonsensical. Much of his piece rejects the bile in Paul’s newsletters and criticizes Paul for not taking a strong enough stance rejecting them. That’s fine, as far as it goes.
The parts of Balko’s piece that irritate me are the parts where he is credulously willing to impute good motivations to Paul right now, based on the fact that Radley likes Paul’s policies. No kidding. For example:
First, a few caveats. I think Paul’s prone to nutty conspiracy theories, but I don’t think he’s a racist, at least not today. Perhaps there was a time when he held views that I and many people reading this site would find repugnant. But I certainly don’t think that’s the case now. Paul’s temperament and demeanor in public does not suggest he’s the kind of person capable of writing the bile Kirchick quotes in his article. Paul’s position on the drug war alone—which he has acknowledged disproportionately affects minorities—would do more for blacks in America than any proposal any of the other candidates currently has on the table. Paul has also recently rescinded his support for the federal death penalty, also due to its disproportionate impact on blacks. Those two positions alone certainly don’t indicate a candidate who fears “animal” blacks from the urban jungle are coming to kill all the white people.
Look, just because Radley Balko thinks that the repeal of drug laws would help blacks doesn’t make it a) true or b) what Ron Paul thinks in his heart of hearts. I have seen plenty of violence committed against minorities by people on drugs — and I haven’t seen anyone make a convincing case yet that repealing drug laws would decrease usage. I believe the contrary to be true, and most opponents of the drug law acknowledge that increased usage is likely to be a side effect of decriminalization, at least at first. So, repealing drug laws would spring some minority drug dealers from prison — don’t worry, Radley, here in California, Arnold is going to spring them early anyway — but would probably end up getting more innocent minorities killed. Radley might be comfortable with that trade-off, but I’m not. (I’m not sure he recognizes that there would be a trade-off, frankly.)
But put all that aside. My question for Radley is simple: were you shocked by the content of these newsletters? Because you seem to be — and there are a lot of us who just weren’t. The fact that you seem a little taken aback suggests to me that your love of Paul’s policies blinded you to the reality of Paul’s unsavory associations and what it said about him.
For a good explanation of the difference between Balko and Ace, check out this exchange. Balko says:
Any time you’re a fringe candidate cobbling together support from those who feel disaffected and left behind by the two-party system, you’re going to end up bumping elbows with a few weirdos.
And Ace responds:
True enough, but when you’re cobbling such support from Stormfront, Alex Jones’ Prison Planet lunatics, Truthers, etc., perhaps you ought to step back and ask if this is the sort of coalition you’re comfortable associating yourselves with. I haven’t seen such a motley collection of mutants and malcontents since the Cantina sequence in Star Wars.
For a much more skeptical take, see Matt Welch’s piece today. Matt sets emotion aside and goes straight for the facts, as revealed by Nexis:
Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and “taken moral responsibility” for, these “Ron Paul” newsletters “for over a decade”? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.
Matt gathers together a lot of damning quotes that collectively show that Ron Paul knew about the problem over the years and refused to disassociate himself from it.
My message to libertarians is simple: now you know about the problem with Ron Paul. If you similarly refuse to disassociate yourselves from the problem, despite this knowledge, I will feel no pity for you if your movement gets tarred by the stain of this event.
Even if you think that decriminalizing drug laws would be the greatest thing for black people since the end of slavery (a proposition I find highly dubious), you should follow Matt’s lead and not Radley’s. Don’t defend this guy. Not now.
UPDATE: Christoph points to a newer Balko post that is more critical of Paul.
I hate to say it especially because I think I’m the one who pointed out Radley Balko’s objectionable January 8th article to you on these threads, but I think to be fair to Balko you have to consider he’s had a few more days to think about things and has revised his position on Ron Paul considerably.
He goes to write quite a devastating and I believe heartfelt critique of Paul, so much so it prompted me to leave these two comments (at Reason):
and:
With this new information, I’m sure you’ll update your post and cut Balko some slack.
Ace’s piece was indeed a devastating critique of Ron Paul and to a degree Balko’s January 8th article. It’s worth reading alongside Balko’s January 11th article for how completely they both demolish Paul — to the benefit of political and moral decency.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:17 pmI’ve been a Libertarian since before I could vote. I must add a disclaimer that I’m not sure I can use that affiliation anymore, the way the Libertarian movement has been going.
I rejected Ron Paul when he started to align with the “Truther” movement, and his repeat association with Alex Jones helped cement that. (Side note – Alex Jones is one of those people that can go from “interesting critique of the surveillance society” to “Chuckie Manson Eyes paranoia” in about five seconds flat, and it’s not really a surprise that a number of the more vocal RP supporters would follow that model.)
The amount of excusing the Paul supporters have done kind of puzzles me, but it looks like that’s past the peak now. Well, we can hope.
Ron Paul (or “Professor Science” as Ace has now dubbed him) has lied himself into a corner – he can’t address the content of these newsletters without stopping to unravel a series of lies. If he did stop and unravel it, it would be the end of his campaign but he might salvage his career and garner a little sympathy through a sincere apology.
On the other hand, he could continue to string denials into a chain that’s about to break and drop his campaign in a flaming mass that would probably take his public service and possibly even medical careers down, fairly or not.
I guess we’ll have to see what happens this weekend.
Merovign (4744a2) — 1/11/2008 @ 11:48 pmAt first I thought the whole business about the L.A. riots being quelled by welfare checks was kind of racist, but Bill Quick set me straight!
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:28 amhttp://dailypundit.com/?p=29157
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:29 amMerovign,
I’m a Libertarian too. Sadder and (I hope) wiser. What happened to us is no different than anyone else who has high hopes for a candidate who claims to represent libertarianism (or Christian evangelicals, or whatever), and turns out to have feet of clay up to his neck.
Don’t let your heart overrule your head. Don’t get too emotionally invested in one candidate.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:43 amBradley, you’re completely right. I’m more libertarian than most here, but I’ve never got behind Ron Paul because I support Israel (as the freest country in the middle east, it is also the most libertarian, albeit not very; however it has a right to exist and this requires strength), I believe in a strong national defense and America suffered great blood losses when it tried to withdraw from the world after WW1, and I despise antisemitism and racism… now that this man is being marginalized even before his previous intellectual backers and writers, I hope a libertarian movement can spring up in your country and mine, Canada (trends in your country definitely effect mine), based more on ideas and less on a personality cult.
Let it be a movement that can dump a leader, regroup, and gain momentum based on convincing people of its positions… I don’t think it will ever govern per se, but it can move the goalposts an get positive changes in legislation and culture if it plays its cards right.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:00 am*and
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:01 amAs one who leans libertarian on a number of issues, I was quite interested in Dr. Paul when he first was running. I even got on the net and looked up his site and read what he had to say and was quite impressed. Then he appeared in a debate and it didn’t take me long to figure out that I wanted no part of him. So I had ruled him out due to his words long before I learned of his newsletters. What I find sad is that there are people who will still try to defend him when it is quite clear he does not deserve it. While I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know what was in his newsletters, I might believe that if he would have condemned the writers when the bigotry in them was brought to his attention back in the 90’s.
It may be true that he is not a bigot as people will often take positions they don’t believe in for reasons of political gain, but even if that is true, in this case it still condemns him. So I think Balko has it very wrong and even his second piece on the subject is not sufficient. Ace tends to be somewhat colorful of speech, but he comes the closest to expressing my opinion of Dr. Paul. Originally I merely thought him a nut, now I think him either a bigoted nut or a very stupid nut. Perhaps both.
Fritz (89333b) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:06 amHear, hear.
Ditto.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:07 amPatterico, you may find Radley Balko’s former employer, the Cato Institute’s, position on Ron Paul more savory… they are libertarian, but have supported Fred Thompson over Ron Paul largely because of queasiness over Paul’s associates. I’d say this shows much better judgment over at Cato than at Reason.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:30 amI know Welch is your friend, but come on. He’s been promoting a candidate who anyone but the very blind and/or very prejudice knew was unsavory. If the proverbial shit had not hit the fan, Reason would still be promoting Paul.
tired (ef0bcc) — 1/12/2008 @ 3:19 amNothing to be concerned about; Paul has no chance of becoming POTUS and we are guaranteed to remain on course for the iceberg.
Just about everyone is aware of the basic facts, but for some reason only “weirdo” (or maybe remove the quotation marks) candidates deviate from the braindead Pol-Speak that assumes we can continue pretty much the way we have or makes laughably pretentious and vague promises of some impending utopia.
icr (004797) — 1/12/2008 @ 5:11 amI Ron Paul to Libertarians what Joseph Stalin is to Communiest ie. “Hey — he’s not one of ours! Who brought him in here? Not me! Let’s change the subject.”
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 6:43 amI must say the sight of Ace quoting Umberto Eco has made my morning!
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 6:44 amRon Paul supporters will say “so what if he’s a neo-Nazi who’d like to rid the nation of blacks, jews and gays…he hates George W Bush and the evil neo-cons”.
Paul attracks a lot of Leftists who aren’t forthright about their socialistic ambitions.
syn (9c2583) — 1/12/2008 @ 7:02 amJim #3,
I don’t know why Bill Quick even had to go there. I guess the promise of legal drugs and prostitutes is too much for some people to resist. I prefer bread and circuses, myself.
nk (dda711) — 1/12/2008 @ 7:13 amWhat “Lefties”? Anyone who so much as considers Ron Paul for a nanosecond is in no way shape or form on the left.
Of course all you pople consider Hillary Clinton to be a letist so there’s nothing rational about this discussion to begin with.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 7:14 amGreat, David, you’ve added variety to your logical fallacies by mixing in some “No True Scotsman”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2008 @ 7:21 amSo happy you’re pleased. But don’t you think it’s time Libertarians fessed up about their penchnt for White Supremacisim?
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 7:42 amOh, look, a threadjacker. Yawn.
Merovign (4744a2) — 1/12/2008 @ 8:34 amOh, look, a Ron Paul apologist. LOL!
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 8:42 amDavid E.
This is what your “Ron Paul apologist” said earlier in the thread:
I rejected Ron Paul when he started to align with the “Truther” movement, and his repeat association with Alex Jones helped cement that. (Side note – Alex Jones is one of those people that can go from “interesting critique of the surveillance society” to “Chuckie Manson Eyes paranoia” in about five seconds flat, and it’s not really a surprise that a number of the more vocal RP supporters would follow that model.)
Sorry to confuse you with facts, David E.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/12/2008 @ 9:46 am🙂
Not at all confused.
The Libertarian movement deserves a thorough top-to-bottom investigation.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 9:51 amPatterico, I know you have issues with Radley, but I do think you need to cut him more slack than just that update.
You seem to want him you declare, on his employer’s site, that Ron Paul is a racist. I’m sure you can see how a bit of caution there can avoid a lot of pain (or do you regularly brand politicians with a lot of money racists on your employer’s site?)
The case against Paul is pretty obvious to everyone who isn’t a Paul nut. Radley’s repudiation is all the more heartfelt, I think, because he wanted to support the guy, and as he learned the facts on what a shameful, at least opportunistic kook Paul is, he publicly repudiated his former endorsement, and indicated that he felt embarrassed by it. He’s being very stand-up here, and I think your pit-bull instincts are getting the better of you by not recognizing that.
FTW, I wanted to like Paul too. I’m pretty deeply libertarian, and at first it seemed like the guy was one, too. I could even consider some of the goofier stuff that came out at first (gold standards, abolishing the Fed, etc.) as more performance art than realistic planks. But the more you learn about the guy, the creepier he gets. I didn’t think this was possible, but he’s even worse than Rudy in that respect (Note: I’m a New Yorker. Many of us hate him for reasons unrelated to national policy, or his apparent 9/11-related tourette’s syndrome) .
I guess I’m just saying that you do a disservice by smacking people for honestly reassessing positions in light of new information.
fishbane (fbe4d4) — 1/12/2008 @ 9:54 amI agree. We need to get rid of the despicable neocons who have infiltrated the libertarian movement.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/12/2008 @ 9:56 amMy comment @25 was to David E. @23.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/12/2008 @ 9:57 amLeaving this in a separate comment, so as to keep the topics distinct.
I have seen plenty of violence committed against minorities by people on drugs — and I haven’t seen anyone make a convincing case yet that repealing drug laws would decrease usage.
I have seen plenty of car wrecks, and haven’t seen anyone make a convincing case yet that allowing more people to drive would decrease car wrecks.
You also make an implicit argument for bringing back prohibition. Alcohol fuels plenty of violence. Are you making a stand as a prohibitionist?
There may well be good arguments about some of the harder drugs like meth, but I simply can’t agree that pot should stay illegal, when it is in fact safer than alcohol, use is accepted pretty widely (I’ll bet you know a stoner, Patterico), and it does have medical uses.
If you want a different comparison, shall we outlaw nutmeg, because idiot highschool kids get high on it? That’s actually far more dangerous than either pot or booze, and yet a potentially dangerous dose (~30g) is sitting in most every spice rack in the country.
fishbane (fbe4d4) — 1/12/2008 @ 10:09 amLeaving aside bomb/poo throwers, the real issue here is anyone who had talked to the “old skool” libertarians would have known about the unsavory aspects of some of Dr. Paul’s supporters and that nasty newsletter of his.
The very impressive and always reasonable Virginia Postrel has a good take on the subject:
http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/002696.html
As for “investigating” entire movements, perhaps we should also investigate the GOP for giving New Hampshire to Hillary? Nasty old Diebold is involved, after all.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/01/12/snows-astonishment-maher-suggests-gop-stole-nh-hillary
Yeah, it’s Newsbusters, but you HAVE to read how incredibly paranoid and bizarre Bill Maher has become.
Did he write for Dr. Paul’s newsletter a few years ago?
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 10:22 amThanks for that link “George.” What Postrel found is pretty funny —
I wonder if it’s ‘the thing” now to put “cosmopolitan” on your Restricted Covenants.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 10:35 amYou never do change, “David.” Predictable as always.
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 10:50 amI’m amazed that these old issues seem to stick better than the outrageous things Paul says in every debate concerning national security, the economy, Iraq, and the Constitution. His tirades are strings of ignorant garbage that would put Democrats to shame.
It’s a commentary on our society that values race and gender politics more than actual policy.
Amphipolis (e6b868) — 1/12/2008 @ 11:28 amnk,
Because he’s way smarter than us, silly!
Jim Treacher (592cb4) — 1/12/2008 @ 11:36 amI don’t know if you attended any of the gazillion anti-war rallies held over the last several years but many of the Ron Paul supporters say the same thing the Leftist paraders do about ‘evil Zionists in the white house controlling the world’ crap.
I have no doubt those upper-middle class yuts dressed in all black, wearing bandanas acting like they’re really tough anarchists do not cross-dress between the anti-war Leftist and the anti-war Ron Paulites.
To be honest, I’d prefer CodePinkers to Ron Paulites…the pink crowd contains their rage against politicians, the Ronulans go after private citizens.
You must admit David, both Ron Paul and the progressive Left consider America as an evil hegemonic imperialist out to destroy the world on behalf of Zionist domination; Ron Paul sounds like a Leftist to me.
syn (9c2583) — 1/12/2008 @ 11:42 amI have seen plenty of car wrecks, and haven’t seen anyone make a convincing case yet that allowing more people to drive would decrease car wrecks.
My preferred method when I’m in a debate is to try to state what my opponent’s position is, to his satisfaction, so that we are debating issues and not wasting a lot of time accusing one another of mischaracterizing each other’s point.
I take your point to be this: driving has good and bad aspects, and drug legalization/decriminalization would have good and bad aspects. The fact that I point out a negative aspect of decriminalization (increased usage and violence) doesn’t automatically mean there aren’t positive aspects.
If that’s your point, I agree: people analyzing the issue should take both positive and negative aspects into account. I believe I have done that in my post.
You also make an implicit argument for bringing back prohibition. Alcohol fuels plenty of violence. Are you making a stand as a prohibitionist?
No. And I agree, it’s not a simple issue. Alcohol does indeed fuel a lot of violence. But its effects aren’t as strong as that of the worst drugs: crack, meth, PCP, and the like.
There may well be good arguments about some of the harder drugs like meth, but I simply can’t agree that pot should stay illegal, when it is in fact safer than alcohol, use is accepted pretty widely (I’ll bet you know a stoner, Patterico), and it does have medical uses.
The potion of my post wasn’t really about pot. The men to whom Balko refers are overwhelmingly men in prison for dealing crack and PCP and similar drugs.
If you want a different comparison, shall we outlaw nutmeg, because idiot highschool kids get high on it? That’s actually far more dangerous than either pot or booze, and yet a potentially dangerous dose (~30g) is sitting in most every spice rack in the country.
I’d rather keep the focus on the most dangerous drugs. My question to people who advocate legalization or decriminalization is: what exactly are you proposing? Does your proposal encompass crack, PCP, meth, heroin, and similar drugs? Will a prescription be required? Will the drugs be taxed? Will minors be allowed to buy them?
My point is that unless you’re prepared to say that there will be no such restrictions — no taxes, no age requirements, no exempted drugs, and no prescriptions — there will continue to be some sort of black market. The extent of the black market will depend on the extent of the controls, but the fewer controls, the more usage — and the more violence.
My main point whenever I discuss this is to convince people that it’s not a simple issue. To say that decriminalizing drugs would be a tremendous boon to black men is a simplistic analysis that doesn’t take into account the black men (and women and children) who will be robbed, raped, and killed by people on drugs. That’s all.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 1/12/2008 @ 11:46 amThat’s because you have a tin ear, syn. These efforts to connect a baltant white supremacist to outer fringe elements of the left reeks of desperation.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 11:52 amWhat about the white, Latino and Asian men (and women and children) who will be robbed, raped, and killed by people on drugs?
(crickets chirping.)
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 11:54 amWhat about the white, Latino and Asian men (and women and children) who will be robbed, raped, and killed by people on drugs?
Balko’s point was that decriminalizing drugs would be a boon for blacks. So I was pointing out the potential negative effects on blacks.
You didn’t understand that’s what I was doing, David? Really?
Patterico (4bda0b) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:06 pmBalko: “Paul’s position on the drug war alone—which he has acknowledged disproportionately affects minorities—would do more for blacks in America than any proposal any of the other candidates currently has on the table.”
Patterico (4bda0b) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:08 pmOf course I do, I was just teasing. That’s what balck gay men do, you know.
And this in turn brings up a “battlefield” this war has yet to recogniz — legal narcotics.
Every junkie with an ounce of savvy knows that Vicotin is WAY better than heroin.
Ask Winona Ryder.
Go ahead — ask her. I’ll wait.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:14 pmWant to go back to the question? That the libertarian right to smoke marijuana and consort with prostitutes is tied in with the libertarian right to the “property” you imported from Africa?
nk (dda711) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:38 pmOr do you think that there is any other rationale than “godbag” morality for objecting to slavery?
nk (dda711) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:40 pmBeing potential “property” I wouldn’t know.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:50 pmMy question to people who advocate legalization or decriminalization is: what exactly are you proposing? Does your proposal encompass crack, PCP, meth, heroin, and similar drugs?
You can make a fair argument for legalization of pot and heroin. Cocaine makes people hyperactive and paranoid, a bad combination. PCP and Meth make people crazy, also a bad situation. If I were to propose legalization, it would have to be limited to those drugs that tend to sedate people, pot and heroin. Would that work ? I don’t know and that is why the question cannot be answered. Countries that have attempted legalization have had a lot of trouble with social pathology. Since some of them, like the Netherlands, seem to be submerging in militant Islam, that may not be a permanent problem.
Will a prescription be required?
I would think some sort of registration would be required, as in England.
Will the drugs be taxed?
Yes, that is one of the ways to track usage and the sources.
Will minors be allowed to buy them?”
No and this would possibly be a weak spot but the theory is that the illegal dealers would fade away along with the incentive to push it to kids. I don’t know if that would be true. Right now in England, with legalization in place, alcohol is the biggest problem. They are seeing the same pathology that we see with inner city blacks only it is poorly educated whites doing the pathological behavior. Read Theodore Dalrymple’s books and essays.
Mike K (86bddb) — 1/12/2008 @ 12:53 pmBeing potential “property” I wouldn’t know.
Crap. There were black slave owners. A lot of them fought on the side of the Confederacy. The question is Conservatism or Liberalism vs. nutty Libertarianism. I have yet to see any Libertarian position which is not the world view (not to say the secret fantasy) of a teenage boy.
nk (dda711) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:03 pmAnd thus white racism gets a free pass!!
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:23 pmhey David
were your ancestors slaves?
Mine were.
So, how about getting rid of your “Moral Authority” card. ’cause it works as well as Mommy Sheehan’s.
Darleen (187edc) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:28 pmYes they were, and fuck you very much Darleen.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:31 pmThere we all go again: All Ehrenstein, all the time. As has been said before, that is the goal.
Patterico, I appreciated your comments on the drug legalization issue, and the way that debate should be framed (as opposed to mudslinging). Some ideas are great in the abstract, but the nuts and bolts would be a real challenge, and have unexpected (or ignored) negative outcomes. “Change” is not always the best policy….even if the current policy is not pleasant.
So many folks today demonize their opponents, go for cheap shots, overstate positions, misrepresent or overgeneralize, and generally produce more carbon dioxide gas than all the SUVs in LA. Thus, your post was a good reminder of what this site—your “electronic living room,” in a way—should be…and often is, based on my reading of many of your commenters.
Just my opinion. But it is always interesting to read what happens here!
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:33 pmDavid, you’re going back on “ignore” again.
BTW, did you know that white slave traders only bought slaves in Africa? They did not raid. The slaves had either been conquered in battle or were sold by their own chiefs. So go do something self-enjoyable to yourself. And, oh yeah, double-$%^& yourself, want to check around the world these days to see whether whites or blacks are being kinder to blacks?
nk (dda711) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:34 pmThe real questions circulate around the relationship between society and the individual. What are the drug laws there for? Who do they supposedly protect? Why are some drugs banned and others sold legally? Sould addicts be incarerated in prisons or sent to drug treatment facilities? Can money biy your way out of a narcotics charge?
These and a great many other related questions require answers. And none of them are simple.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:37 pmNot only a racist, but a coward as well.
Typical.
David Ehrenstein (649ee3) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:39 pmDear nk:
Do you know the saying about wrestling a pig? It wastes your time, gets you all muddy, and (most importantly) the pig LIKES it.
The goal the gentleman has is to get you angry. It could be calling you a silly name, or using vulgar language, or insulting you personally. It’s all part of the same thing. Some of the time, the person posts interesting comments, but it too often devolves as it has here.
“Nomina stultorum parietibus haerent” is anonymous, but true. As for me, I get irritated by this sort of thing, but Seneca advises “Nisi pariter, non pugnant.” The first sentence of your post is good advice.
Don’t let it annoy you.
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:44 pmWell, I think I preferred “No True Scotsman” logical fallacies to a return to vulgarity.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/12/2008 @ 1:52 pmfuck you very much Darleen.
No thanks, I like men.
Darleen (187edc) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:21 pmYour choice, Darleen, but do you really want to give that person a “straight” line like that?
Seriously, his goal is to be rude to you and get you angry. I’ll bet your day was and is happier than his, you know.
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:27 pmNot only a racist, but a coward as well.
You asked for it. David, you’re neither Jewish nor black. You’re gay. Jews don’t like fegolas and blacks don’t like “the down low”. Neither group will accept you as one of their own. And you know it. You have no ethnic identity, you have a behavioral identity. The identity of a bitchy pastless and futureless outcast, flinging poo at any idea that involves more than a meaningless, hedonistic life.
But you do make a good, if annoying, foil.
nk (dda711) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:28 pmEric
David will read whatever he wants..and certainly his language didn’t make me angry. Infact, it was a real laughing moment because it proved he isn’t fooling anyone with his attempts to flog his color or sexual orientation in attempts to shutup people he cannot substansively argue with…
witness the fallout on the Leftside of the aisle post-NH-Hillary! win… Could it be the “Bradley” effect? Oh no! Dems aren’t racist! Did Hillary!s tears play a role? Couldn’t be, Dem women aren’t so sexist, but those Dems who have criticized….
It’s so furious in the Left Bounce House that when accusations that it was really the Eeeevile Rethuglicans that made Hillary! win one can do little more than laugh.
The Left is filled with juveniles. Hardly a man or woman amongst ’em.
Darleen (187edc) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:36 pmAnd here we go again….
Both nk and Darleen have had to deal with some pretty nasty stuff, so I am not surprised that they felt the need to respond.
But I hate to see another blogwar. Especially because that kind of sturm und drang is food and drink to you know who.
I think about how Patterico responded to Beldar getting insulted. And with you know who in the past, for that matter. We are all guests here, I think. Just my opinion….
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:37 pmMya father was Jewish. I was raised a Roman Catholic, which was my mother’s religion.And we all know how the Catholic church feels about “Teh Gay” don’t we?
Well probably not you, but a great many other people do.
As for African-Americans, here’s a Pop Quiz: Whose idea was it to stage the March on Washington? Who got credit for staging it, and why was the person actually responaible for the march uncredited?
David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:37 pmDon’t tempt me Darleen.
David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:39 pmYou have a nice blog, Darleen, and I have enjoyed your posts.
I’m glad you aren’t angry. Humor is a great strategy. And being happy should be the goal!
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:40 pmI thought the March on Washington was inspired by A. Philip Randolph.
DRJ (517d26) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:43 pmDRJ beat me to it. Randolph’s wiki entry. I don’t know why he wasn’t credited though, feel free to enlighten us.
qdpsteve (cd214a) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:46 pmEnlighten yourself.
David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:51 pmEric
It took many years for me to learn what is worth getting upset about …
I think raising teenagers had a lot to do with it!
It comes down a great deal to “listening underneath.” So much of the Left’s dogma is the equivalent of a youngsters “I want it, I want it now, and if you don’t get it for me you’re just an old meany who is unfair!” Too many people are so desperate to be loved, or at least liked, by everyone else such rants reduces them into pandering fools.
The mark of a good parent is someone who can hear their own child scream “I hate you” and not dissolve into a puddle of wimpering goo.
Darleen (187edc) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:51 pmHello Qster: you know that facts never trump emotion with this debate. Besides, you are white, and thus have utterly no right to any opinion on civil rights (irony alert). But like me, you had this portion of American history (rightly) drummed into you in middle school, am I right? FDR didn’t do the job he should have in 194 with the Fair Employment Act, did he?
DRJ, good to see your posts. I have been worried you would disappear forever.
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:52 pmSee this film.
David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:53 pmAnd read this book.
David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/12/2008 @ 2:55 pmI have two young children, Darleen, and I teach undergraduates. So I am wearily familiar with the veering approaches to consistency and logic in both age groups. It’s the hypocrisy that causes me to grate my teeth—an insistence on fairness yet with a desire for a “free pass” to do what they like. A flexible rulebook, mixed together with “no one understands me and my problems.”
It’s even less pleasant in people over 21. Oh well.
Hey, I wonder why Rustin was the *most* important person in civil rights? A quick check of his bio explains why, at least for one poster. But you know the part I found most interesting? Rustin’s rejection of identity politics and his subsequent vilification by the Black Power movement. He was also a supporter of the Vietnam War, at least during the early part of LBJ’s regime (he did change his mind later).
Regardless of who was “most important” to the Civil Rights movement, these were brave people, worthy of study and honor.
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 3:06 pmThere are complex people worthy of study — Rustin very much among them. His support of the Vietnam war was a serious failing on his part.
“Honor” is indulgence in fantasy.
And yes he rejected the Black Power movement as did huge numbers of other African-Americans. By and large it served as a white masochistic fantasy.
David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/12/2008 @ 3:11 pmThank you for being polite.
You have a right to think that honoring civil rights leaders is an indulgence in fantasy, but I suspect you misunderstand me. Great leaders and brave people are shot through with defects. Honoring them does not excuse any of their defects—defects that all human beings have.
But I believe that the leaders of the civil rights movement had genuine convictions much removed from the bickering of today, and risked their lives for those convictions repeatedly during what I consider the most shameful portion of American history.
That is what I honor about their memories. They knew the danger, suffered for it, and kept going…because it was the correct thing to do. The only thing to do, for them.
And they did have many defects. My choice is to weigh the good against the bad, and honor the former.
That isn’t meant as a slight toward you, or misunderstanding them. Both bravery and honor are not much respected currently. In fact, many people demean those characteristics.
I don’t begrudge you your opinion nor do I think you foolish for those opinions. I only ask that you respect my opinion—particularly when you differ.
Eric Blair (31f4be) — 1/12/2008 @ 3:20 pmI consider questioning your opinions to be the highest form of respect. If I didn’t take you seriously I would ignore you.
David Ehrenstein (3e4fb8) — 1/12/2008 @ 4:01 pmEric
Honoring them does not excuse any of their defects—defects that all human beings have.
My choice is to weigh the good against the bad, and honor the former.
Hear hear.
But “weighing” means judging. Another concept rejected by some. “Who am I to judge?” “Who are we to judge?” Which is really an abdication of moral reasoning and responsibility.
As the Talmudic saying goes (paraphrased): “He who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful.”
Darleen (187edc) — 1/12/2008 @ 4:06 pmAs I have said before, there is a very large difference between debate and disrespect. Respect does not infer agreement or intellectual weakness. Thank you for your answer, and the spirit in which you posted it.
Eric Blair (414fd2) — 1/12/2008 @ 4:14 pmDavid E.,
I suppose this is semantics but if your point was who had the idea for the March on Washington, I give credit to Randolph. If your point was who organized it, that seems to be Ruskin. Your comment (whose idea was it to stage the March) seems to blend the two concepts, much like blurring the line between an architect and a building contractor. Both are vital components but only one can be the inspiration.
DRJ (517d26) — 1/12/2008 @ 5:46 pm“Plenty” is not a very useful statistic. To determine whether the trade-off makes sense, we’d need actual figures. Equally importantly, those figures would have to be broken down to somethign more specific than “people on drugs.” Four discrete categories come to mind:
The first is, of course, irrelevant; one could just as easily observe that “I have seen plenty of violence committed against minorities by people wearing red shirts.” The second group is the only one that could reasonably be expected to increase following legalization, while the third and fourth would plummet once the drugs in question were as “safe, legal and rare” as abortion.
Xrlq (739fa7) — 1/12/2008 @ 6:46 pm… once the drugs in question were as “safe, legal and rare” as abortion.
Heh!
nk (dda711) — 1/12/2008 @ 6:58 pm“The Left is filled with juveniles. Hardly a man or woman amongst ‘em.”
-Darleen
Barf. You have no idea how stupid that sounds.
Leviticus (6332d4) — 1/13/2008 @ 9:08 amDafydd ab Hugh weighs in. I like him, so I’ll just bug him as gently as I can at his site.
nk (dda711) — 1/13/2008 @ 2:03 pm