The Goldberg Principle

First there was Godwin’s Law. Then we had the less noticeable Kevin’s Law and Cole’s Law. Now, after reading the Jonah Goldberg interview in Salon, our commentariat has come up with the “Goldberg Principle”:

You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words.

Read the Salon interview and tell me that isn’t a perfect description.






256 replies
  1. 1
    Billy K says:

    First there was Godwin’s Law. Then we had the less noticeable Kevin’s Law and Cole’s Law.

    Not Laws. THEORIES.

  2. 2
    cmoreNC says:

    Didn’t Humpty Dumpty say to Alice:
    “When I use a word”…it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less”?

    The idea is hardly original with Jonah Goldberg.

  3. 3
    Krista says:

    Read it. I will never get that time back. What a shifty, prevaricating, dolt of a man — this book is just a pathetic attempt to be able to re-brand fascism so that the right-wing can say that all bad things are liberal, while all that is good and pure is conservative.

    I’m waiting for Goldberg’s sequel, explaining why tornadoes, gangrene and Jocelyne Wildenstein’s face are all inherently liberal, but sunshine, puppies and Jessica Alba are all the epitome of conservatism.

  4. 4
    crayz says:

    Now I know why John Cole posted this. Obama is a fascist:

    I see fascism as a political religion…. I think it is a religious impulse that resides in all of us — left, right, black, white, tall, short — to seek unity in all things, to believe that we need to all work together to go past any of our disagreements and that the state needs to be, almost simply as a pragmatic matter, the pace-setter, the enforcer of this cult of unity. That is what I believe fascism is.

  5. 5
    cleek says:

    `When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty Jonah said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    `The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    `The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty Jonah, `which is to be master — that’s all.’

  6. 6
    montysano says:

    Well, color me impressed that anyone clicked over to Salon and slogged through that load of bullshit. I made it half way through the second page before I gave up.

    When I read the quote:

    The quintessential Liberal Fascist isn’t an SS storm trooper; it is a female grade school teacher with an education degree from Brown or Swarthmore.

    That told me all I needed to know.

  7. 7
    r€nato says:

    my favorite was this:

    [Mussolini] said a lot of stuff. He was sort of a buffoon in that sense; he was constantly changing his definitions of fascism and talking out of one side of the mouth, then out of the other side of his mouth, largely because of the sort of pragmatic idea he had about politics.

    Indeed, why would history’s most famous proponent of Fascism, know more than Jonah Goldberg – who has exactly zero degrees in history – about the ideology and roots of fascism???

    Hoo boy. And there are rightards who still defend Doughy’s ‘scholarship’.

  8. 8
    caustics says:

    He says this about Mussolini:

    And he said a lot of stuff. He was sort of a buffoon in that sense; he was constantly changing his definitions of fascism and talking out of one side of the mouth, then out of the other side of his mouth, largely because of the sort of pragmatic idea he had about politics.

    Res ipsa loquitur.

  9. 9
    Dreggas says:

    in the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    Funny how every single thing we see today can be seen in movies of the 80’s.

  10. 10
    caustics says:

    Eh, r€nato beat me to it. Curse my metal body.

  11. 11
    cleek says:

    That brings up something else I wanted to ask you — if I’m reading this right, one of the things you’re saying about the student radicals in the 1960s is that they were essentially fascist even if they might have called themselves Marxist.

    Yeah.

    But isn’t it easy to distinguish, since Mussolini repudiated the central doctrine of Marxism?

    Well, I mean, I bet you if you gave me an hour I could find places where he once again says nice things about Marxism in 1933 or 1937.

    in other words, Mussolini was apt to say any damned thing that popped into his head. and that makes him perfect for a quote-mining charlatan like Goldberg.

  12. 12
    r€nato says:

    It’s clear that Jonah is really talking about authoritarianism, not fascism; using the word, ‘fascism’ is mere sensationalism, plus three syllables is about all his fans can handle in a single word.

    Of course, a book which pointed out that leftists can engage in authoritarianism would not be very remarkable; that point is nearly self-evident and I don’t think anyone with any credibility asserts that authoritarianism is a strictly right-wing phenomenon.

    A book about ‘Liberal Authoritarians’ also wouldn’t have made quite as catch a title and cover illustration.

  13. 13
    The Other Andrew says:

    Goldberg’s definition of fascism sounds a lot like constitutional democracy. That explains a lot about the last eight years…

  14. 14
    gypsy howell says:

    Salon saved me the pain of reading past page 1. Pages not loading is a fascist liberal plot!

    Seriously, did any of that drivel mean anything?

  15. 15
    Jen says:

    Read the amazon.com tags for this book. Pantswettingly funny.

  16. 16
    r€nato says:

    Eh, r€nato beat me to it. Curse my metal body.

    well, not really. Same quote, two different points; you pointed out the nearly head-exploding projection, I pointed out the towering arrogance.

  17. 17
    gypsy howell says:

    A book about ‘Liberal Authoritarians’ also wouldn’t have made quite as catch a title and cover illustration.

    Not to mention, he would have been hard-pressed to find any in this country.

    stupid douche.

  18. 18
    Johnny Pez says:

    I’m proud to say that I have been able to distill nearly 500 words of Goldbergian prose into a single image. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Liberal Fascism: The Venn Diagram.

  19. 19
    Jim says:

    “He points out that this organic food movement, the whole-grain bread operation, the war on cancer, the war on smoking, that these things were as fascist as death camps and yellow stars.”

    My God, if I never post again it’s because my head will have exploded. Odd how the war on cancer is fascist, but things such as the Bush Administration’s attempts to evade the 4th amendment at every turn aren’t. The only unfortunate part of pointing out Goldberg is a supreme dolt is that it has raised the sales of this insipid book. Just as O’Reilly found out that complaining about Franken’s book just propelled sales. It would have been best to simply ignore the book and the Doughy Pantload.

  20. 20
    Johnny Pez says:

    Er, 500 pages. Blast.

  21. 21
    gypsy howell says:

    And there are rightards who still defend Doughy’s ‘scholarship’.

    Wasn’t it in fact those self-same Doughy Rightards who provided him the ‘scholarship’ to begin with? I seem to recall him asking for his readers’ help a while back at The Dunce’s Corner (“Has anyone here read Hegel?”)

  22. 22
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    Also, you need to be able to expand and contract definitions as needed. For the purposes of including leftists in the definition of “fascism,” he expands the definition of the word so much as to render it completely meaningless–if it’s not defined that broadly, then he simply can’t shoehorn liberals into the mix. But when confronted with actual writings of Mussolini and the like, suddenly “fascism” has a very specific definition that only refers to a small segment of people. Funny how that works.

  23. 23
    Johnny Pez says:

    (“Has anyone here read Hegel?”)

    Nitpick: Spencer.

  24. 24
    Thomas Allen says:

    Mmmm… coleslaw…

  25. 25
    r€nato says:

    Second favorite passage from the interview:

    But he repudiated historical materialism, dialectical materialism.

    Yeah. But I think the problem is you get into one of these sort of overly doctrinal, “let’s go to the text” approaches where words get confused for things.

    Gee, that didn’t stop Doughy from quoting in his book, the 19 frickin’ 20 Nazi party platform – you know, when the Nazi party was just a handful of nutcases meeting in the back of a beer hall, rather than being the ruling regime in Germany – as proof for his thesis that Nazis were really leftists.

  26. 26
    Xenos says:

    Any corollaries to the Goldberg Principle could be known as the ‘Goldberg Variations’.

  27. 27
    r€nato says:

    [O]ne of the biggest distinctions between what I’m calling liberal fascism … and classical fascism, is that classical fascism was masculine and violently oppressive and today’s liberalism is feminine and not oppressive but smothering with kindness.

    OWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!! THE STUPID!!!!!! IT BURNS!!!!!!!!!!

  28. 28
    Svensker says:

    Why isn’t Jonah Goldberg in a breadline somewhere?

  29. 29
    r€nato says:

    …indeed, universal health care is every bit as oppressive and fascistic as throwing Jews in the ovens.

  30. 30
    r€nato says:

    Why isn’t Jonah Goldberg in a breadline somewhere?

    Mommy haz kinekshuns.

  31. 31
    Jake says:

    You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words your mom gets you a book contract.

    But even if we give “prove” a definition wider than Jonuff’s dough load, he fails to do that much. Not only in the book, but when he’s called on to explain some of his drooling he either can’t do so or blames the publisher for cutting out the crucial parts of his manuscript that would have made everything clear.

    And what happens when a student writes a thesis but can’t defend it?

    FAIL.

  32. 32
    Thomas Allen says:

    Svensker Says:

    Why isn’t Jonah Goldberg in a breadline somewhere?

    Because Mama Lucy would instantly cut off the wingnut welfare to anyone who fired him.

  33. 33
    garyb50 says:

    [Mussolini] said a lot of stuff. He was sort of a buffoon in that sense; he was constantly changing his definitions of fascism and talking out of one side of the mouth, then out of the other side of his mouth, largely because of the sort of pragmatic idea he had about politics.

    Doesn’t this kind of describe the Pantload himself?

  34. 34
    Jay says:

    Two of my favorites:

    [Mussolini] says, for example, “Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right ‘, a Fascist century.

    “Yeah, I’m perfectly willing to concede there’s a lot of stuff Mussolini says, but you’ve got to remember, by ’32, socialism is starting to essentially mean Bolshevism. And if you get too caught up in the labels, rather than the policies, you get yourself into something of a pickle.

    Measured by today’s standards and today’s issues, Nixon would be in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

    To paraphrase Kristofferson “He’s a walking contradiction getting caught on his own fiction”.

  35. 35
    r€nato says:

    And you say you’re not calling liberals Nazis, but…

    I must say it 25 times in the book.

    Yeah. But the cover has the smiley face with the Hitler mustache. Does that undermine that message and lead to some of these reactions?

    Well, I’m perfectly glad to concede that people who do judge books by their covers or think it’s more important to read a title rather than read a book will be confused and jump to conclusions. But these are people that I don’t generally respect. The cover was Random House’s invention, and I’m still sort of ambivalent about it, but you make covers to sell books, you make titles to sell books, even though my title comes from a speech by H.G. Wells … The cover, the smiley face with the mustache, is a play on something I explain on basically Page One of the book, and it’s a reference to what George Carlin and Bill Maher call smiley-face fascism. And if you can’t get past the cover and the title, then you’re not a serious book reader and you’re not really a serious person.

    I can see why Abe Foxman refuses to criticize Goldberg. They are cut from the same cloth.

  36. 36
    gypsy howell says:

    Nitpick: Spencer.

    Oh, like Jonah would know the difference.

  37. 37
    myiq2xu says:

    Do I get a royalty everytime the term is used?

  38. 38
    Gus says:

    Goldberg is a buffoon. Ridiculously shallow and out of his league when he attempts history.

  39. 39
    Krista says:

    Doesn’t this kind of describe the Pantload himself?

    How did he get that nickname anyway? It’s delightful!

    And you say you’re not calling liberals Nazis, but…

    I must say it 25 times in the book.

    I’m not calling Jonah an asshole. I just think that he’s small and smelly and full of shit. And so I will create the entire premise of my book about what he happens to have in common with an asshole. But call him an asshole? No sir, that I will not do!

  40. 40
    caustics says:

    Any corollaries to the Goldberg Principle could be known as the ‘Goldberg Variations’.

    In Pantload’s case, it should be the Goldbrick Variations.

  41. 41
    myiq2xu says:

    And there are rightards who still defend Doughy’s ‘scholarship’.

    You don’t think they really read the book, do you? Can they read? They probably thought that it was a comic book.

  42. 42
    gypsy howell says:

    Do I get a royalty everytime the term is used?

    Of course you do!

    Let’s see now (licks pencil)… 5% of gross sales minus bad debt minus returns… scribble scribble scribble… times selling price equals….

  43. 43
    Sinister eyebrow says:

    I think Dave Neiwert also made a very good point that the fascist regimes of the Nazis, Mussolini, etc., were shameless liars and propagandists and basically said anything and everything they thought people wanted to hear in order to gain power. In their early stages, they included lots of nifty sounding populist and socialist appeals to the middle and lower class. Of course, all that was abandoned once they attained power and they ruled by deception, terror, and repression. Sadly, Jonah is so catastrophically dense and willfully stupid that he fell for and is now repeating the same 75-year-old propaganda as if it were true.

    That Jonah is hanging his hat on the misdirection of long-dead propagandists says more about him than it says about anything else. It reminds me of the high-school term paper when you were desperate to find something, anything that propped up the inane thesis statement you came up with the day before it was due.

  44. 44
    gypsy howell says:

    crap, how’d I screw up those tags?

  45. 45
    gypsy howell says:

    sinister, you’re overlooking the part where you said:

    the fascist regimes of the Nazis, Mussolini, etc., were shameless liars and propagandists and basically said anything and everything they thought people wanted to hear in order to gain power

    Isn’t that as good an explanation for Jonah as anything?

  46. 46
    Jake says:

    Crap. I scanned through the interview (to avoid overload of the pantload) but the reporter didn’t ask him about his Gay Nazi gibbering.

  47. 47
    gypsy howell says:

    How did he get that nickname anyway?

    Krista, this may have something to do with it.

  48. 48
    myiq2xu says:

    Isn’t that as good an explanation for Jonah as anything?

    There is no good explanation for Jonah.

  49. 49
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    I love it!

    It’s tautologically false, but I’ll still use it.

    (Can’t prove something in the actual world model with an invented wordset, only the real wordset. Invented wordsets only work in associated invented world models)

  50. 50
    gypsy howell says:

    There is no good explanation for Jonah.

    Maybe, but this is a start…

  51. 51
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Krista:
    Read it. I will never get that time back. What a shifty, prevaricating, dolt of a man—this book is just a pathetic attempt to be able to re-brand fascism so that the right-wing can say that all bad things are liberal, while all that is good and pure is conservative.

    Did you see the interview he did for the book?

    He thought intelligent people were going around believing the opposite, that smart people thought right-wing = everything bad, left-wing = everything decent. So he thinks he needs to fight against it, instead of alter perceptions like an adult.

    I seethe with anger that cheetos don’t kill quicker.

  52. 52
    ThymeZone says:

    I am surprised by the surprise. I have had conversations with more or less ordinary people fifteen years ago that sounded exactly like this shit. This isn’t new, it’s not even original.

    It’s no more original than any efforts to demonize a perceived (or needed) enemy, throughout history. The strategy, and the tactics, are thoroughly tested and proven.

    Jonah Goldberg sounds, I am saddened to tell you, exactly like by brother, to whom I no longer speak. I love the guy, but …. anyway.

    Goldberg is just another failed wag using something like this to make a buck. Fuck him.

  53. 53
    W says:

    Goldberg in Salon: “classical fascism was masculine and violently oppressive and today’s liberalism
    is feminine and not oppressive but smothering with kindness.

    Does Jonah really think mothers are liberal fascists?
    Was Lucianne a Liberal Fascist? Is Johah by writing this book trying to cut his ties with her?
    What a Freudian mess.

  54. 54
    myiq2xu says:

    (Can’t prove something in the actual world model with an invented wordset, only the real wordset. Invented wordsets only work in associated invented world wingnut models)

    Fixt

  55. 55
    Sinister eyebrow says:

    I was trying to be generous. I shouldn’t have. He’s a liar with an agenda and it is a disgrace that he repeats and reinforces the propaganda of the Nazis in order to try to paint his perceived enemies as inheritors of the totalitarian mantle.

    There, fixed.

  56. 56
    Gus says:

    Didn’t norbizness come up the the DPL nickname?

  57. 57
    myiq2xu says:

    Goldberg is just another failed wag using something like this to make a buck. Fuck him.

    I pity all the college and university instructors that will be grading term papers that cite Jonah as a “scholarly” reference.

  58. 58
    Gus says:

    I also love the Editors’ (can anybody tell me what happened to the Poorman blog?) “Doughbob Loadpants.”

  59. 59
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    myiq2xu Says:

    (Can’t prove something in the actual world model with an invented wordset, only the real wordset. Invented wordsets only work in associated invented world wingnut models)

    Fixt

    Oh, in that case, it would be

    Invented wordsets may or may not work well when your model is invented by a 5 year old with an imaginary best friend and a “NO, YOU ARE!” tick.

  60. 60

    Jonah Goldberg is the son of two CIA assets, one of whom worked for Murray Chotiner to plant stories against McGovern back in’72. Lucianne was also Mark Fuhrman’s literary agent and Linda Tripp’s “friend.” If you’re the son of two disinformation specialists lying is second-nature to you. Maybe first-nature.

    Why would anyone think that they could find anything of substance from Jonah Goldberg? Shame on Joan Walsh. Again.

  61. 61
    Krista says:

    Did you see the interview he did for the book?

    He thought intelligent people were going around believing the opposite, that smart people thought right-wing = everything bad, left-wing = everything decent. So he thinks he needs to fight against it, instead of alter perceptions like an adult.

    I seethe with anger that cheetos don’t kill quicker.

    I was talking about having read the interview. Oh goodness, do you think I read the actual book? If I wanted to read a book that ridiculous and unrealistic, I’ll go pick up something with Fabio on the cover. At least with the latter, you get some entertaining sex scenes.

  62. 62
    gypsy howell says:

    I pity all the college and university instructors that will be grading term papers that cite Jonah as a “scholarly” reference.

    I should think that would, in fact, make their lives quite a bit easier. Automatic F.

  63. 63
    gypsy howell says:

    can anybody tell me what happened to the Poorman blog?

    No, but if you find out, can you let us all know? First TBogg is assimilated into the FirePupBorg, and then ‘The Editors’ disappears.

    2008 is not starting off too well for me.

  64. 64
    myiq2xu says:

    I should think that would, in fact, make their lives quite a bit easier. Automatic F.

    Yeah, but then there would be the inevitible office conference where the professor has to explain for the umpteenth time the difference between scholarly authorities and make-believe.

    “But professor, it’s a real book! There aren’t even any pictures in it!”

  65. 65
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Oh goodness, do you think I read the actual book?

    Yeah. I’m not running on all brain cells today.

    At least with the latter, you get some entertaining sex scenes.

    Hey, you do what you want, but I would find a Goldberg sex scene VERY entertaining.

    Especially if it involved him “defeating fascism” with his “Sword of Freedom”. How could you not laugh at that?

  66. 66
    Krista says:

    Hey, you do what you want, but I would find a Goldberg sex scene VERY entertaining stomach-turning.

    Especially if it involved him “defeating fascism” with his “Sword of Freedom”. How could you not laugh throw up a little in your mouth at that?

    Fixed

  67. 67
    myiq2xu says:

    Hey, you do what you want, but I would find a Goldberg sex scene VERY entertaining.

    I gotta go rinse out my brain.

    Ugh!

  68. 68
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    “But professor, it’s a real book! There aren’t even any pictures in it!”

    “Ok, son, turn to the back, just before the Index. There should be something called a ‘bibliography’ there.”

    “Bubbly- Bibly- Biblygrahpee?”

    “Just go there”

    “… um, there’s nothing here.”

    “There’s your proof. Now shut the fuck up and clear off the chalkboard for me; you obviously need someone directing you for the rest of your life. And for chrissakes don’t hurt yourself with the eraser”

  69. 69
    libarbarian says:

    And there are rightards who still defend Doughy’s ‘scholarship’.

    Absolutely – they defend it like the defend the logic behind: “All fish live in water + Sharks live in water = Sharks are fish”.

    Sharks are fish so the statement is obviously true and anyone who says it contains logical errors is just clearly trying to cover up and divert attention from the fishy-ness of sharks.

  70. 70
    dslak says:

    Sharks are fish. I think you meant to use dolphins.

  71. 71
    Robert Johnston says:

    I should think that would, in fact, make their lives quite a bit easier. Automatic F.

    Yeah, but then there would be the inevitible office conference where the professor has to explain for the umpteenth time the difference between scholarly authorities and make-believe.

    “But professor, it’s a real book! There aren’t even any pictures in it!”

    That’s why the automatic F would come along with an automatic restraining order. Any student citing Goldberg as authority is far too unstable to be allowed anywhere near an office conference, even in a janitorial capacity.

  72. 72
    maxbaer (not the original) says:

    There’s this idea that the further right you go the closer you get to Nazism and fascism, and the further left you go the closer you get to decency and all good things, or at least having the right intentions in your heart.

    He didn’t make it through the first answer without resorting to strawman bullshit.

  73. 73

    That would be the L. Ron Hubbard principle, I’m afraid. No surprise that Jonah is following in his footsteps, though.

  74. 74
    myiq2xu says:

    Any student citing Goldberg as authority is far too unstable to be allowed anywhere near an office conference, even in a janitorial capacity.

    I guess we really need wingnut welfare then.

  75. 75
    dslak says:

    The American left repudiated communism by and large after WWII, so of all the Western countries Goldberg could have chosen to make his point about a connection between liberals and left-wing totalitarianism, he went for the worst one. His book is about scoring political points rather than history, so there’s no point in letting facts get in the way.

  76. 76
    caustics says:

    Hey, you do what you want, but I would find a Goldberg sex scene VERY entertaining.

    I imagine it would look something like this.

    But I’m guessing his ‘Sword Of Freedom’ is better acquainted with ‘The Invisible Hand’.

  77. 77
    Cassidy says:

    Okay, given that Goldberg is a hack, why do you think parallels like this can be drawn? As TZ, said it isn’t old.

    The real question becomes, when did the liberal left become a movement that espouses authoritarianism as the answer? Despite the premise, the parallels, and not illogical ones, can be drawn. That doesn’t mean that liberals are gonna start lining people up for the gas chamber, but there should be concerns about where the Democratic Party is going.

  78. 78
    Robert Johnston says:

    I guess we really need wingnut welfare then.

    Oh, I absolutely would support wingnut welfare if it’s close enough to the type of welfare decried by wingnuts. Anything that successfully drives a wingnut out of the employment pool and public view is a positive, almost regardless of cost. The world would be a better place if Jonah had no source of income other than getting paid $2,000/month to sit on his ass, alone at home, and in effect be a Cheetoes test subject.

  79. 79
    myiq2xu says:

    Actually, this really isn’t a joking matter. It seems to me that the Right Wing is trying to do to history what they have done to science in the area of global warming and to medicine in regards to tobacco.

    They are trying to create a body of faux-scholarship that they can cite as a basis to rewrite history in their favor.

    Jonah’s first words in the interview:

    It’s a revisionist history. It’s an attempt to reconfigure, or I would say correct, the standard understanding of the political and ideological context that frames most of the ideological debates that we have had since, basically, World War II.

    You can’t call that a dishonest answer.

  80. 80
    Ed Drone says:

    Sharks are fish. I think you meant to use dolphins.

    No, it works with fish, too. The logic is:

    All fish live in water.
    Sharks live in water.
    Therefore, sharks are fish.

    This is an example of “true, but not logical.”

    The primary premise, as you are aware, is not complete — there are things that live in water that are not fish. Dolphins, for example. Like some of the ‘proofs’ of ‘intelligent’ design, the major premise is limiting; living in water is only ONE of the characteristics of fish. Living in water is not enough to make a creature a fish (“You can raise puppies in an oven, too, but it don’t make ’em biscuits.”).

    The kind of logic in this example would lead to the corrollary:

    All fish live in water.
    Dolphins live in water.
    Sharks live in water.
    Therefore, dolphins are sharks.

    This is an example of “Not logical, not true.”

    Now, to make the example logical, you would have to say,

    Only fish live in water.
    Seaweed lives in water.
    Therefore, seaweed is a fish.

    That is an example of Rightard thinking — logical, but untrue (the major premise), and more than a little scary.

    Ed

  81. 81
    gypsy howell says:

    The real question becomes, when did the liberal left become a movement that espouses authoritarianism as the answer?

    It hasn’t. SATSQ.

  82. 82
    Jake says:

    They are trying to create a body of faux-scholarship that they can cite as a basis to rewrite history in their favor.

    Fine. If the best tool they have is an inarticulate matress stain like Joburg we’ll just have to sit back and watch while they self-destruct.

  83. 83
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Actually, this really isn’t a joking matter. It seems to me that the Right Wing is everyone has been trying to do to history what they have done to science in the area of global warming and to medicine in regards to tobacco, as well as everything else.

    They are trying to create a body of faux-scholarship that they can cite as a basis to rewrite history in their favor.

    History revisionism is a flaw in all meat-based calculators. It has to be accounted for. I, personally, take all things said by people more than 100 years ago with a grain of salt, in regards to the mindset the of people speaking. More than 200, the intellectual rigors; and more than 300 years, the actual facts involved.

    I personally thing the study of social history, in order to actually learn from it (rather than hobby), is a little overkill. It’s far too hard to employ serious fact-checking.

  84. 84
    Grand Moff Texan says:

    His book is about scoring political points rather than history

    Then he’s an even bigger loser than I thought.
    .

  85. 85
    myiq2xu says:

    The real question becomes, when did the liberal left become a movement that espouses authoritarianism as the answer?

    Judging by yesterday’s unity pony thread, when Obama becomes the Democratic nominee.

  86. 86
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    If the best tool they have is an inarticulate matress stain like Joburg we’ll just have to sit back and watch while they self-destruct.

    QFT. This is the upside of these books. It’s a infectious litmus test. It allows us to see who take intellectual efforts as sacred, and those that see it as a club to earn privilege, friends, and pats-on-the-back.

  87. 87
    Robert Johnston says:

    Jonah’s first words in the interview:

    It’s a revisionist history. It’s an attempt to reconfigure, or I would say correct, the standard understanding of the political and ideological context that frames most of the ideological debates that we have had since, basically, World War II.

    You can’t call that a dishonest answer.

    Well, yeah, I can call it that. Even Jonah doesn’t overestimate his importance that much. Jonah’s out to make a buck off the suckers who already believe, not revise general historical understanding. What Jonah’s put out there is so over-the-top stupid that it can’t even budge the Overton window. He’d do a lot less name-calling and complaining about vegetarians and he’d cut about 300 pages if he wanted to revise political and ideological understandings. Jonah’s book is third rate snark designed to sell to forth rate minds with a fifth rate grasp of reality; it’s not intended to be read by anyone capable of understanding how to use a toilet, much less capable of having any sort of understanding about politics.

  88. 88
    Jake says:

    Okay, given that Goldberg is a hack, why do you think parallels like this can be drawn?

    Because some people will draw a parallel between owning a pet and killing children if they think it will get them attention/money.

  89. 89
    caustics says:

    Okay, given that Goldberg Cassidy is a hack

    Fixed.

    That doesn’t mean that liberals are gonna start lining people up for the gas chamber, but there should be concerns about where the Democratic Party is going.

    Enhanced.

  90. 90
    John S. says:

    Okay, given that Goldberg is a hack, why do you think parallels like this can be drawn?

    Because even the Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

    The real question becomes, when did the liberal left become a movement that espouses authoritarianism as the answer?

    Here we go again…same old bullshit, different day.

    Despite the premise, the parallels, and not illogical ones, can be drawn.

    A person can draw parallels – and not illogical ones – between just about anything. That doesn’t mean those parallels are realistic or even valid.

    there should be concerns about where the Democratic Party is going.

    True. Except those concerns have nothing to do with totalitarian urges or fascist tendencies.

    If there are enough rubes like you out there, Cassidy, Goldberg may actually make a nice little profit from this piece of shit.

  91. 91
    Tim F. says:

    Okay, given that Goldberg is a hack, why do you think parallels like this can be drawn?

    Parallels can be drawn by making up new meanings for words. Harder questions please.

  92. 92
    Robert Johnston says:

    Because some people will draw a parallel between owning a pet and killing children . . .

    George W. Bush has killed tens of thousands of children in Iraq. George W. Bush owns a dog. Therefore dog owners are all pedocidal maniacs. QED. Kan I now haz pantload skollurship?

  93. 93
    dslak says:

    D’oh! I didn’t read the rest of libarbarian’s post, so I missed the point he was making about the use of fallacious reasoning. I can’t figure out the name of that form of fallacy though. What’s this called:

    All A are C.
    All B are C.
    Therefore, all A are B.

  94. 94
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    D’oh! I didn’t read the rest of libarbarian’s post, so I missed the point he was making about the use of fallacious reasoning. I can’t figure out the name of that form of fallacy though. What’s this called:

    Tool!

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

  95. 95
    Cassidy says:

    And once again, you guys prove me right. No discussion, only a willingness to insult.

    “If you don’t think like me, you must be an idiot”…the mantra of the modern Liberal. It is sad to see what my party has become.

  96. 96
    Graeme says:

    I found it amusing that he says he’d like to hear serious criticisms, but he sidestepped every interesting question. When asked about the War on (Some) Drugs, he claimed today Nixon would be a left-leaning Democrat. Then he dodged talking about Reagan’s revival of the Drug War completely. I don’t consider that serious or intellectual at all.

    In that vein, I don’t understand why the Right’s defense of waterboarding and other SS tactics didn’t come up.

    He also dodges the religious roots of the purity he claims for lefty-fascism. It may be there, and some of it did, indeed, come from Germanic pagan movements. However, there’s an undeniable Catholic tinge to the Italian and Spanish variations that Goldberg doesn’t even attempt to wrestle with in the interview.

    There’s also the dolchstoss argument that sounds suspiciously like ‘support our troops’ arguments coming from the Mission Accomplished 2.0 crowd that aren’t discussed.

    Whatever. It’s not serious scholarship. It’s a serious attempt to make some money at a time when the GOP base needs some serious cheerleading to unite ’em. At least he timed the book’s release well…

  97. 97
    dslak says:

    Tool!

    I know the major fallacy websites. I just can’t find the name for that particular one (maybe it doesn’t have one). Just thought I’d see if anyone else knew, off the top of their head.

  98. 98
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    And once again, you guys prove me right. No discussion, only a willingness to insult.

    Stoppit. Even if that was a 100% potshot, just suck it up. I told you your sins follow you.

    You know if you don’t, they’re going to keep poking you. It’s the same thing going on with Hillary. Don’t dance for them

  99. 99
    Punchy says:

    That doesn’t mean that liberals are gonna start lining people up for the gas chamber, but there should be concerns about where the Democratic Party is going.

    That doesn’t mean that Cass is going to start fucking lobsters, but there should be concerns about his many trips to the grocery store seafood section.

    Ah…guilty by comparative association, fallacious or not.

  100. 100
    ThymeZone says:

    but there should be concerns about where the Democratic Party is going.

    Nah, not really. Not right now, anyway. First thing it’s doing is providing the mechanism for defeating the GOP beast, which is well underway, and completely necessary for the survival of the country.

    Second thing is that it keeps moving away from the ideas that I will describe as being represented by, um, you. Or that is, the you that you want us to think you are, since I am convinced that you are doing a persona. Since I am doing one myself, I can say that with some degree of informed conceit. But all seriousness aside, the party needs to be moving toward a Government Is For People idea and away from the right’s Government Is Against People idea.

    That basically is the liberal-conservative distinction, right there. For more on that, see Ronald Reagan.

    government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.

    That’s the concrete foundation (now cracked and with weeds growing up through it, since no real house was ever built on it) of the so-called “conservative movement.”

    But anyway, after we crush the GOP this November, and take a year or so to try to restore some sanity to government next year, then talk to us about where the Democratic party is headed. Right now, we are headed for Washington.

    Toodles.

  101. 101
    dslak says:

    Shorter Cassidy, the Perpetual Victim: All I did was call Democrats authoritarians, and they insulted me without provocation!

  102. 102
    John Cole says:

    And once again, you guys prove me right. No discussion, only a willingness to insult.

    Because what you said was so fucking stupid it didn’t merit anything but an insult.

    Seriously, if you think liberals are a hotbed of authoritarianism, you either don’t know what liberals actually think or what the word authoritarianism means. or you are just trolling.

    Yes, there are some people on the left who would like to use the power of the state to keep you from eating meat. About 8 of them, and most of them live in Hollywood and have already appeared nude in a PETA commercial.

    Seriously. Switch parties. You will fit right in with the brand of morons currently running the GOP.

  103. 103
    Jake says:

    “If you don’t think like me, you must be an idiot”…the mantra of the modern Liberal people who don’t waste time reasoning with the unresaonable.

    Fixt.

    You made a dumb comment and got smacked. Suck it up and quit whining.

  104. 104
    Cassidy says:

    That doesn’t mean that Cass is going to start fucking lobsters, but there should be concerns about his many trips to the grocery store seafood section.

    And another one…yes, you are all mighty open to the exchange of ideas. God, I want my party back from these ignorant, emotionally hysterical, dogmatic leftists.

  105. 105
    John S. says:

    And once again, you guys prove me right. No discussion, only a willingness to insult.

    Oh my god!

    Jonah Goldberg, is that you?

  106. 106
    dslak says:

    Flaming to commence in three, two . . .

  107. 107
    Cassidy says:

    Nothing dumb about it. It was a legitimate question regarding the pet policies of modern liberals and the belief that the nanny gov’t will fix everything, we just have to sit back and trust them.

    And you all called me a bigot. That’s the most laughable thing ever.

  108. 108
    ThymeZone says:

    Jonah Goldberg, is that you?

    You fascist fucker!

    (Sorry, had to.)

  109. 109
    moondancer says:

    Most amazing to me is how serious he takes himself. Unaware that his scholarship is GED quality, he only “scores” as a master of sophistry.

  110. 110
    John S. says:

    That doesn’t mean that Cass is going to start fucking lobsters, but there should be concerns about his many trips to the grocery store seafood section.

    And another one…yes, you are all mighty open to the exchange of ideas.

    Why aren’t you being more open-minded about the possibility that your trips to the seafood section stem from your desire to copulate with shellfish?

  111. 111
    ThymeZone says:

    the belief that the nanny gov’t will fix everything,

    Man, you are so 1982. Don’t you have some new material?

  112. 112
    Cassidy says:

    Disappointed in you John. You used to be so objective. Now you’re just the white Oliver Willis. How soon can we expect our daily Jessica Alba?

  113. 113
    Punchy says:

    God, I want my party back from these ignorant, emotionally hysterical, dogmatic leftists.

    Here’s a tissue. Wipe away.

  114. 114
    Tim F. says:

    Goldberg:

    You don’t have conservative groups talking about what kind of condoms you should use or what positions you can be in. That kind of thing doesn’t really go on.

    Lawrence V. Texas. What a doofus.

  115. 115
    Cassidy says:

    Don’t you have some new material?

    When the liberal left gets some new shit, we’ll talk. It’s still the same old, tried and failed, thing.

  116. 116
    Jake says:

    Kan I now haz pantload skollurship?

    Fascist! True patriots scorn the opium-daubed organic milk filled teat of scholarships and get their parents to pay the full bill.

  117. 117
    dslak says:

    I don’t know about you, but when I think of authoritarianism, prominent liberal theorists like John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, and Ronald Dworkin immediately spring to mind.

  118. 118
    Tim F. says:

    Cassidy, seriously consider whether the quality of your input influences the quality of the output. You continually smear with the broadest possible brush, use hasty generalizations to categorize people and then denounce the category, you toss the fascist label like a beach ball. Laughing you off is the appropriate response when you make laughable statements.

  119. 119
    ThymeZone says:

    It’s still the same old, tried and failed, thing.

    Ah yes, the tried and failed dominant policies of the 20th century, pretty much across the entire industrialized world.

    Seriously, you need some new material. We fought battle of liberalism vs conservatism, and conservatism not only lost, it really never even showed up on the field. It sent out a bunch of crazy goon fuckers to beat up the opposition, and they pretty much ended the “conservative movement” for ya.

    In the words of RedState, we won, get over it.

  120. 120
    Cassidy says:

    Yes, more close minded liberal dogma. You have learned your lesson from your social conservative brothers, very well.

  121. 121
    Tony J says:

    DP’s book is just a money-making spin on that old Righty line;

    “The Nazi’s were National-Socialists. See? It sez so in their name. Socialists are on the Left, aren’t they? So the Nazis were a leftwing movement. End of hiztory lesson, so STFU.”

    Which is just as full of BS as this;

    The real question becomes, when did the liberal left become a movement that espouses authoritarianism as the answer?

    For the simple reason that the ‘liberal left’ doesn’t do authoritarianism, and never, ever suggests it as an answer to anything. The ‘liberal left’ are the people who get exiled, arrested, imprisoned, tortured and/or executed by authoritarians. It’s just one of those historical constants that I thought, quite wrongly as it turns out, that serious, rational people with an interest in the history of the planet might have picked up on.

  122. 122
    Cassidy says:

    And we see another reason why I think citizenship should be earned, instead of decreed by where your mother’s vagina spit you out.

  123. 123
    John S. says:

    I’m officially convinced.

    Cassidy is Jonah Goldberg.

  124. 124
    Jake says:

    I’ve decided Cass is just demonstrating the [Rube] Goldberg Principle. In Cass’s comments he attempts to define “open discussion” as “putting up with me even when I’m taking the piss.”

    Well done Cass.

  125. 125
    Face says:

    When the liberal left gets some new shit, we’ll talk. It’s still the same old, tried and failed, thing.

    This always cracks me up. As if he’s forced to come here, and we’re obliged to accept his bad (and some good) comments.

    95% of the commenters here are fair and objective. If they’re trashing your opinion, there’s probably a good reason for it. No reason to get all bent.

  126. 126
    dslak says:

    Goons going around beating up the opposition isn’t something that was limited to conservatives.

  127. 127
    Robert Johnston says:

    I’m officially convinced.

    Cassidy is Jonah Goldberg.

    I don’t think anyone would bet against that proposition without exceedingly good odds being offered. I can smell the Cheetoes™ on Cassidy through the intertubes.

  128. 128
    Cassidy says:

    95% of the commenters here are fair and objective.

    Sure…that’s completely evident…

  129. 129
    Cassidy says:

    I can smell the Cheetoes™ on Cassidy through the intertubes.

    Never cared for cheetos. Chips aren’t my thing. They aren’t good for you.

  130. 130
    Tim F. says:

    Example.

    It was a legitimate question regarding the pet policies of modern liberals and the belief that the nanny gov’t will fix everything, we just have to sit back and trust them.

    One good way to identify a serious person is to see whether they can honestly restate the opposing position. Do you honestly see this as a fairminded attempt at “discourse?” If so that’s pretty sad. Rather than believe you to be a moron, I prefer to think that you actually know that almost nobody actually thinks that a) the government solves every problem and b) public accountability is a bad thing. But if you know that then you were trolling. Neither vapid nor dishonest statements demand a particularly serious reply.

    See also your habit of reducing everybody whom you dislike to a category. If I had to come up with a never-fail indicator that somebody has precisely the fascist tendencies that you constantly rail about, that would be it. Heal thyself.

  131. 131
    Cassidy says:

    You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words.

    And the award for Most Ironic Post goes to…

  132. 132
    John S. says:

    And the award for Most Ironic Post goes to…

    You.

  133. 133
    Cassidy says:

    the fascist tendencies that you constantly rail about,

    You’ll notice my question was regarding the authoritarian trend of the liberal left, which is where people are able to draw the fascist parallels.

    When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and “umption”.

  134. 134
    Zifnab says:

    Shorter Cassidy: Pie. It’s fucking delicious.

  135. 135
    Krista says:

    Cassidy Says:

    And once again, you guys prove me right. No discussion, only a willingness to insult.

    I think you’re cherry-picking, Cassidy. I saw more than one person respond to you by basically saying that any parallel can be drawn between two completely disparate objects or ideas, if one really wants to draw that parallel and is willing to perform the mental gymnastics to do so. Is there an element of authoritarianism to liberal thinking? No more so (and many would argue even less so) than there is in conservative thinking. There is a lot of vitriol directed towards the idea of the “nanny state”, but a lot of people who throw that idea around conveniently ignore the idea of the “daddy state” — the state that sets the rules based on its own sense of right and wrong, and pays no heed as to what would actually benefit its citizens.

    So for that, I call Goldberg a hypocrite, as his argument is so absurdly partisan as to render it utterly useless.

  136. 136
    dslak says:

    I think there’s a word for someone who hijacks every discussion and tries to make it about themselves or their pet issues. Can anyone remind me what it is?

  137. 137
    ThymeZone says:

    I think citizenship should be earned

    We await your bold Constitutional Amendment proposal!

  138. 138
    caustics says:

    And we see another reason why I think citizenship should be earned, instead of decreed by where your mother’s vagina spit you out.

    Oooh. Vagina. Dirty. Bad.

  139. 139

    And we see another reason why I think citizenship should be earned, instead of decreed by where your mother’s vagina spit you out.

    I agree. How the hell did you ever gain citizenship?

  140. 140
    ThymeZone says:

    I think there’s a word for someone who hijacks every discussion and tries to make it about themselves or their pet issues. Can anyone remind me what it is?

    Yes, it’s Chris Matthews.

  141. 141
    libarbarian says:

    Sharks are fish. I think you meant to use dolphins.

    No I meant “Sharks are fish” because I wanted a correct conclusion nonetheless based on faulty reasoning. Robert Altemeyer used that exact example in his book on authoritarianism.

    The point is that to many people who already think they “know” that “liberals are fascists” allow themselves to believe that any argument that concludes that “liberals are fascists” must therefore be correct. Errors in logic or the fact that the same rules of evidence would condemn their own heros as “fascist” don’t matter. To them it’s all about the “correctness of the conclusion” and they are unable to see that some arguments are faulty and inane even when they “get it right” at the end.

    Of course, I don’t think his conclusion is correct but to someone who thinks it is then “defending” this book is easy – Their defense is “its true”. The numerous errors in basic thinking don’t matter to them as long as the answer is something that they already agree with.

  142. 142
    Cassidy says:

    Heal thyself.

    No reason to. If anything it’s this thought police mentality that is fucking up the Democratic Party. Way to go, you’re just like conservatives. Momma Pelosi would be proud.

  143. 143
    Face says:

    Anyone see this link and picture? Good lord, what an unpretty woman. Comments are a riot.

    These guys are seriously the Kingz of Funnah.

  144. 144
    dslak says:

    No I meant “Sharks are fish” because I wanted a correct conclusion nonetheless based on faulty reasoning.

    I already admitted my mistake upthread. Do you want my blood, too?

    Otherwise, yes, you were right on point.

  145. 145

    And we see another reason why I think citizenship should be earned, instead of decreed by where your mother’s vagina spit you out.

    So anyone born by caesarean is stateless?

  146. 146
    Jake says:

    Shorter still: Waaaah!

  147. 147
    Grumpy Code Monkey says:

    Okay, let’s start from this statement:

    The real question becomes, when did the liberal left become a movement that espouses authoritarianism as the answer?

    What the hell are you talking about? I’d like some specific examples here. Who among the left espouses authoritarianism as the answer? Answer for what?

    Despite the premise, the parallels, and not illogical ones, can be drawn. That doesn’t mean that liberals are gonna start lining people up for the gas chamber, but there should be concerns about where the Democratic Party is going.

    Again, what do you mean, “where the Democratic party is going?” Where do you see it going? What are your specific concerns?

    You make vague statements about “nanny-state-ism”, but that’s not the same thing as authoritarianism. The Republicans aren’t quite there yet, but they’re damned close. They’ve employed the tools — domestic spying, suspension of habeas corpus — but currently only in the name of fighting terrorism (allegedly). Once they start using those tools to fight any form of political dissent, then we can comfortably start calling them authoritarian.

    Several people I know are genuinely afraid that under future Republican administrations, they will be arrested and jailed for no other reason than being Democrats/gays/whatever.

    Do you honestly fear that the Democrats are going to engage in the same practices?

  148. 148
    libarbarian says:

    I already admitted my mistake upthread. Do you want my blood, too?

    Otherwise, yes, you were right on point.

    Itd all good man :).

    1) I did intend to convery a snippy tone so sorry if I did.
    2) I wrote that in bits over the last 2 hours and so I never saw the other posts before I hit “send”.
    3) I would actually like some blood. Maybe a pint or two. Would you mind shipping it overnight because I like it fresh too?

  149. 149
    John S. says:

    If anything it’s this thought police mentality that is fucking up the Democratic Party.

    Undoubtedly so.

    Democrats should be more receptive to the notion that they are authoritarian thugs that secretly love Adolf Hitler and want to drink the blood of people that don’t agree with them. In fact, they should hold a national forum on how they can be less like the Nazis. You and Jonah Goldberg yourself can co-host it. I’m sure it will improve the party tremendously.

  150. 150
    ThymeZone says:

    this thought police mentality that is fucking up the Democratic Party

    Yeeaahh, we’re hurtin fer certain!

    The four Democratic candidates last night drew about 270,000 votes among them, while the larger G.O.P. field drew about 210,000, or about 60,000 more votes for the Democrats than the Republicans. Maybe this sounds like a small difference to some, but given that fewer than 700,000 New Hampshirites voted in the last general election for president, a 60,000-vote differential in that small state is quite significant.

    Goldberg’s book is just the thing to reverse this trend.

    If I were him, Cassidy, I’d hire you to front my book tour.

  151. 151
    Robert Johnston says:

    Do you honestly fear that the Democrats are going to engage in the same practices?

    Pantsload Cassidy is only concerned that in the future Democrats will give the FDA the power to regulate, tax, or even ban junk foods as a public health menace. That’s 99% of his quality of life out the window in an instant, so he has the right to be concerned even if it’s only a slim-to-moderate possibility.

  152. 152
    Robert Johnston says:

    Do you honestly fear that the Democrats are going to engage in the same practices?

    Pantsload Cassidy is only concerned that in the future Democrats will give the FDA the power to regulate, tax, or even ban junk foods as a public health menace. That’s 99% of his quality of life out the window in an instant, so he has the right to be concerned even if it’s only a slim-to-moderate possibility.

  153. 153
    dslak says:

    What has even happened in this threat that remotely resembles the actions of “thought police,” anyway?

  154. 154
    Tim F. says:

    No reason to.

    Of course not. By your reasoning, sitting as you do in a self-defined middle excuses all lazy thinking, unsupported assumptions and dishonest argumentation. Because you’re not Teh Left.

    In other words you precisely embody the attitude that you claim to hate more than anything.

  155. 155
    John S. says:

    Thought police – Ungood.

    Police – Plusgood.

    Military police – Doubleplusgood.

  156. 156
    ThymeZone says:

    sitting as you do in a self-defined middle

    Sort of Extreme David Broder?

  157. 157
    Dreggas says:

    Cassidy Says:

    “If you don’t think like me, you must be an idiot”…the mantra of the modern Liberal. It is sad to see what my party has become.

    No Cass, in this case you really are an idiot. However being we are compassionate liberals who believe in not abandoning the weak and feeble minded to fend for themselves we let you in the big tent, that doesn’t mean we have to like you.

  158. 158
    ThymeZone says:

    However being we are compassionate liberals who believe in not abandoning the weak and feeble minded to fend for themselves we let you in the big tent we will pay for your abortions, that doesn’t mean we have to like you enough to keep your feeding tube inserted.

    Just tightening up your prose a little ….

  159. 159
    HyperIon says:

    ok, wtih fear and trembling i try to link to a post which answers the question: “whence doughy pantload moniker?”

  160. 160
    Tim F. says:

    Example:

    You’ll notice my question was regarding the authoritarian trend of the liberal left, which is where people are able to draw the fascist parallels.

    Those “people” are cassidy and Johah Goldberg. Since I just drew an analogy between cassidy and authoritarians’ tendency to hastily lump people into pejorative categories, ‘people’ are drawing that parallel as well. Address the question, counsellor.

  161. 161
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    the authoritarian trend of the liberal left authoritarians, which happen to infest various parties to their liking, which is where people dishonest or stupid jerks are able to draw the fascist parallels to whoever they damn well please.

    Another FIXD for the pile.

  162. 162
    TrumanDem says:

    Hmmmmm. Making up your own definition of words. Didn’t I read this somewhere in high school once. Hmmmmm. Now where did I read that.

    Oh, yeah.

    Animal Farm.

    What a blowhole.

    TrumanDem

    Truman’s Conscience
    “The Buck Stopped Here”

  163. 163
    Ed Drone says:

    I can smell the Cheetoes™ on Cassidy through the intertubes.

    Never cared for cheetos. Chips aren’t my thing. They aren’t good for you.

    Great! Now you’re going to go all police-state on us to ban chips? Some anti-authoritarian you are!

    Ed

  164. 164
    ThymeZone says:

    go all police-state on us to ban chips

    { voice of Charlton Heston — rasp }

    Not unless they pry them from my cold, dead, greasy, cheese-stained fingers!

    /Heston

  165. 165
    Punchy says:

    we let you in the big tent

    Fine, Dregs, but he sleeps on your side of the tent and must start the campfire in the morning. otherwise, no dice.

  166. 166
    Zifnab says:

    I can smell the Cheetoes™ on Cassidy through the intertubes.

    Never cared for cheetos. Chips aren’t my thing. They aren’t good for you.

    Yup. He’s definitely a pie man.
    Get Cassidy a slice, before he drools all over the boards.

  167. 167
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    Seriously, Cassidy, maybe that Psyche-Brownback-Fluffer dude made me think you were tolerable, but you seem like your brain is working but your comments are inflammatory, so I think you’re more reading gospel than you are observing what we’re observing.

    I think, as constructive criticism, I’d say, on separating the media and real-life:

    Rule #1) The media is an extract of all things extreme: leftist, wingnut, sappy, twisted, stupid, and brilliant. It may only function as a measurement of the extremities possible in real life; and must never be used as a sample to a population of anything.

    The media has been happily displaying to us resultant authoritarianism as a result of sloppy left-wing programs. This says absolutely nothing about the intentions of the people that built, designed, wished for, or witnessed to said program.

    Seriously: Just because someone did it, does not necessarily mean they meant to get that result.

    Proof: Iraq War. We hope.

  168. 168
    ThymeZone says:

    The media is an extract of all things extreme in the business of selling tickets to a cock fight, and ….uh…..that is …. er ....

    Two on the aisle, please.

  169. 169
    ThymeZone says:

    The thread is getting worn out, so …

    You just gotta love this.

    Go, Mitt, go!

  170. 170
    jcricket says:

    That’s the concrete foundation (now cracked and with weeds growing up through it, since no real house was ever built on it) of the so-called “conservative movement.”

    Thanks for the Reagan quote – I think it quite well shows why Republicans have failed as a party. If you, a priori and universally, define government as the “problem”, it’s no surprise when you are in charge you will fuck up said government, and moreover fail to articulate any positive new uses of governmental power.

    Despite the rest of the industrialized world having sometimes raucous, but pragmatic debates about the limits of government we have one party being asked to debate another whose primary premise is “government sucks rocks” and “cronyism and corruption solve themselve”

  171. 171
    myiq2xu says:

    Two on the aisle, please.

    You do realize it involves roosters, don’t you?

  172. 172
    Caidence (fmr. Chris) says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    The thread is getting worn out, so …

    You just gotta love this.

    Go, Mitt, go!

    On Hewitt’s desk, there is a Hallmark card, written on it “Kos, I wish to graciously thank you for your best efforts…” and so on.

    In the other room, Hewitt is nursing a bottle of Zima, wondering whether his symbiont is worth selling out this far.

  173. 173
    Zifnab says:

    The thread is getting worn out, so …

    You just gotta love this.

    Go, Mitt, go!

    If I lived in Michigan, he’d have my vote. Run Mittens!

  174. 174
    ThymeZone says:

    Despite the rest of the industrialized world having sometimes raucous, but pragmatic debates about the limits of government we have one party being asked to debate another whose primary premise is “government sucks rocks” and “cronyism and corruption solve themselve”

    I don’t know why but this just popped into my head while reading your post.

    There were arguments in front of SCOTUS this week about voter ID laws, and I think the case is grounded in Indiana, where a voter ID law was supposed to prevent voter fraud of the sort where a voter fraudulently claims to be somebody else.

    The Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union went to court seeking to block the law, noting that there is not a single recorded case of voter-impersonation fraud in Indiana’s history

    (Nina Totenberg, NPR Radio)

    Really, isn’t it just time to round up the Republicans and put them in camps?

    No, really, I mean it.

  175. 175
    Punchy says:

    ok, I’ll bite. why is it so gud that kos endorses Mitty?

    and no, i cant link to dkos at work, so please dont say “read it!”

    TIA

  176. 176
    John S. says:

    Really, isn’t it just time to round up the Republicans and put them in camps?

    I dunno, but Michelle Malkin would agree. As long as you replace ‘Republican’ with ‘Japanese-American’.

  177. 177
    Pb says:

    Goldberg in Salon: “classical fascism was masculine and violently oppressive and today’s liberalism is feminine and not oppressive but smothering with kindness.

    Does Jonah really think mothers are liberal fascists?

    Pink Floyd should sue for royalties:

    Hush now baby, baby don’t you cry
    Mama’s gonna make all of your nightmares come true
    Mama’s gonna put all of her fears into you
    Mama’s gonna keep you right here under her wing
    She won’t let you fly but she might let you sing
    Mama’s gonna keep baby cozy and warm
    Oo, babe, oo babe, oo babe
    Of course mama’s gonna help build the wall

  178. 178
    Zifnab says:

    ok, I’ll bite. why is it so gud that kos endorses Mitty?

    and no, i cant link to dkos at work, so please dont say “read it!”

    TIA

    We want Mitt “Marched with MLK” Romney to stay in the race as long as he can, because he’s got this giant stash of money to bash his opponents with. Mitts a Corp-Con, McCain is a Neo-Con, and Huckabee is a Theo-Con. So the longer all three stand around beating each other senseless, the nicer it is for everyone who’s sick of getting slimed by any one of them individually.

    Basically, the enemy of my enemy needs to stick around until they’re both dead.

  179. 179
    Pb says:

    Punchy,

    Kos’s reasoning is that by keeping Mitt in the race, he’ll have more time to keep running attack ads against his fellow Republicans, which will waste their money and keep them divided, sowing chaos in their party, mwahahahahah. Or something like that.

    And apparently this is getting some coverage on cable news, too–go figure. Check it out later when you can get to Daily Kos, and tell us what you think.

  180. 180
    Xenos says:

    We want Mitt “Marched with MLK” Romney to stay in the race as long as he can, because he’s got this giant stash of money to bash his opponents with.

    Also, for every dollar that Mitt spends, that is one less dollar for his smarmy sons to inherit. Go to zero, Baby!

  181. 181

    Mitts a Corp-Con

    I thought Mit was a Decepticon.

  182. 182
    Jess says:

    Actually, there is a point at which the extreme left begins to act like the extreme right (see some of the ridiculous antics of the PoMo crowd, for example), but that has more to do with the nature of radical politics than with where they are on the political spectrum. Anytime you have ideology trumping human decency and compassion you begin to see the sort of behavior so vividly exemplified by the fascists.

    What annoys me about this whole argument is the assumption that there is only The Left and The Right, when the reality is that the political landscape is made up of a myriad of political positions.

    I’m a big fan of the political theories of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Our political system seems to me to be the most effective and viable anti-authoritarian system devised yet–if we do our part to govern ourselves. There are people on both the left and the right who don’t seem to understand or respect that whole balance of power thing, but right now it’s the people on the right who are in danger of destroying it, and so the moderates are shifting left–as they should do. When the left gets too arrogant the pendulum will swing the other way, as it always does.

    One more little detail the Jonahs of the right love to overlook: the radical left doesn’t support the Democratic party–it’s too conservative and capitalist for them. Nor does the Democratic party support socialism–only the occasional socialist-inspired solution when the capitalist solution fails.

  183. 183
    Robert Johnston says:

    I thought Mit was a Decepticon.

    Mitt’s a metamorph, not a transformer. He’s fluid in his shapeshifting, able to assume any possible shape on a moment’s notice. Think the T-1000’s retarded cousin.

  184. 184
    libarbarian says:

    New Book Idea: “The Mussolini Code”.

    Plot: A brave editor at the national review, and an expert on the “secret symbolism of Teh Left”, gets called in to help police with the mysterious murder of a fellow at the AEI. There he stumbles on a secret truth hidden for a hundred years, but revealed in the symbolism of the world fascist regimes. Throughout it all he is chased by a mysterious secret organization that is out to stop him from discovering the horrible truth behind Fascism and revealing it to all mankind.

    Excerpt:

    John examined the mural on wall. It displayed Hitler holding a flag aloft at the head of a crowd of thousands.

    “Megan. You probably look at the this picture and see it as rightwing propaganda.”

    “Well, of course. Shouldn’t I?”

    “Well, in some ways you should – after all thats what the artist intended for most people to see. However, what you don’t see, because you haven’t been trained to see it, is that this picture is filled with subtle signs and secret symbols that tell the real, secret, left-wing message – the message the artist truly wanted to convey!”

    “But, John, if the artist was a leftists then why didn’t they just convey their message more explicitly?”

    “Because that would have been dangerous. You see at one point the lefties did that but it backfired. Their message wasn’t popular and it aroused a lot of bitter resentment in the very masses they were trying to speak for. For a long time Teh Left has known that they are incredibly unpopular and that most people are decent, honest, hard-working conservatives who abhor their pernicious designs. Teh Left knows that if it openly proclaimed its message that they would be rejected and run out of the country by good patriotic people. The solution they came up with was quite ingenious. They disguised themselves as the members of the extreme right – so “extreme” that no one would every suspected they are actually far-left socialists – while using a secret language of symbols and words that is invisible to normal people but that their fellow travelers will be able understand.”

    “Really? That sounds far fetched.”

    “Maybe, but its true. I’ll prove it. Look at the Picture”

    “yes”

    “See the rays of light behind Hitler? What shape do they make?”

    “A pyramid”

    “Or more precisely, a two-dimensional pyramid which is also known as a…..”

    “A Triangle!!” she exclaimed.

    “Exactly. A triangle. Bear with me for a second. Now we have a triangle of light. Now the light is visible because of reflection and refraction in the atmosphere. What other phenomena is caused by the refraction of light in our atmosphere?”

    “Hmmmm. A rainbow?”

    “Exactly!” He shouted. “A rainbow. So you see, the light, which appears at first to have no purpose other than creating a pretty standard halo effect, is actually a two-tiered symbolic representation of both a triangle and a rainbow.”

    “Wow” she said breathlessly, unable to put her finger on a new awareness that she could feel rising within her.

    “Now, what modern movement uses the rainbow and the triangle as their symbols?” asked John.

    “The homosexuals!!!” she gasped.

    “Bingo! What, on the surface, first appears as a standard halo effect with no meaning is actually a secret symbolic language expressing the leftwing pro-homosexuality agenda of these supposed ‘rightwing extremists'”.

    “That is amazing. How did I go this long without ever knowing this stuff?”

    “Well,” replied John, ” the only place most people might ever learn this is in college and do you really think the liberal academic syndicate that runs the higher education system in this country are going to tell you the truth about it?”

    “No, I suppose they wouldn’t”.

    John looked at his watch. “We should be going. We’ve dallied too long and I’m afraid Michael Moore might be back on our trail by now. Grab some supplies and lets get in the car. While we are driving I will tell you more – including how, despite their apparent obsession with race and being a “pure white aryan” the Nazis were actually hardcore leftwing multiculturalists.”

    “Really?”

    “Of course. Why do you think they worse those brown shirts!”

  185. 185
  186. 186
    cleek says:

    Oh for crissakes.

    indeed

  187. 187
    Zifnab says:

    What annoys me about this whole argument is the assumption that there is only The Left and The Right, when the reality is that the political landscape is made up of a myriad of political positions.

    No no no! Stop it! Two dimensional thinking eroding! Cognitive thoughts emerging! Vapidness… thinning! Why would you expose me to such horrifying truths?!

    :p The whole DKos “More Better Dems” revolves around the concept that its not enough to be a “liberal” if you’re a Joe Lieberman liberal or a Harry Reid liberal. There’s more to the political spectrum than just the letter by your name, and it shows.

    How do you vote for a true pro-lifer anymore? You’ve got your abortionists on the left and your warmongering death-penalty advocates on the right. How do you vote for a candidate that’s progressive on taxation but still tough on immigration? How about an NRA sponsored environmentalist?

    Shades of gray aren’t allowed to exist in the current political spectrum.

  188. 188
    myiq2xu says:

    Oh for crissakes.

    I called it days ago! I said they would attack Obama as a racist, and they did!

    WTF am I not getting paid for doing this shit, while Tweety has his own goddamn television show?

    I’m not only smarter, I’m better looking than he is. (Okay, I admit that 73% of the country is too, but still)

  189. 189
    Dreggas says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    However being we are compassionate liberals who believe in not abandoning the weak and feeble minded to fend for themselves we let you in the big tent we will pay for your abortions, if you were not aborted it doesn’t mean we have to like you enough to keep your feeding tube inserted when you are old and collecting the social security we fought to keep for you.

    Just tightening up your prose a little ….

    even better yes?

  190. 190
    Robert Johnston says:

    WTF am I not getting paid for doing this shit, while Tweety has his own goddamn television show?

    I’m not only smarter, I’m better looking than he is. (Okay, I admit that 73% of the country is too, but still)

    It may be the case that 73% of the country is better looking than Tweety, but, oddly enough in context, only 1% of the country is uglier than he is, and that entire 1% has no more than 2 degrees of separation for Jonah Goldberg.

  191. 191

    And apparently this is getting some coverage on cable news, too—go figure. Check it out later when you can get to Daily Kos, and tell us what you think.

    It’s obviously proof of liberal fascism.

  192. 192
    Xenos says:

    Re. The Mussolini Code:

    A good friend of mine was Dan Brown’s English prof. This gives him pangs of sadness and regret every time he realizes that he was in a position to stop that atrocity, but failed to recognize the horror when he had the chance to do something like it.

    I expect all of Goldberg’s teachers are twisting in agony and shame for their lost cause, too.

  193. 193
    Robert Johnston says:

    It’s obviously proof of liberal fascism.

    The great thing about liberal fascism is that everything is proof of liberal fascism. Well, at least that’s the great thing about liberal fascism in the minds of people who can say “liberal fascism” unironically.

  194. 194

    What annoys me about this whole argument is the assumption that there is only The Left and The Right, when the reality is that the political landscape is made up of a myriad of political positions.

    You are wrong Jess. There are only two political positions.

    My position, and Everybody elses position. And obviously only my position is right.

  195. 195
    myiq2xu says:

    I expect all of Goldberg’s teachers are twisting in agony and shame for their lost cause, too.

    They are probably trying to figure out a way to revoke his diploma.

  196. 196
    Z says:

    Shades of gray aren’t allowed to exist in the current political spectrum.

    In the wingnuttia, its not that shades of grey don’t exist. It is that they are irrelevant. Being a conservative isn’t about any specific set of political or philosophical ideas. Those change by the day. It is about your identity.

    That isn’t as true, among more liberal folks, in my experience.

  197. 197
    Robert Johnston says:

    I expect all of Goldberg’s teachers are twisting in agony and shame for their lost cause, too.

    You really think that the guys who write the copy for Cheetoes™ bags feel badly about Jonah?

  198. 198
    myiq2xu says:

    The great thing about liberal fascism is that everything is proof of liberal fascism.

    Reminds me of a quote by Earl Warren:

    “The only reason that there has been no sabotage or espionage on the part of Japanese-Americans is that they are waiting for the right moment to strike.”

    Testimony before Congress on the Internment of people of Japanese Ancestry (1941)

  199. 199
    Robert Johnston says:

    Shades of gray aren’t allowed to exist in the current political spectrum.

    It’s more that simple people conflate two party systems with two position systems. Simple people, such as conservatives, can’t understand disagreement with party consensus.

  200. 200

    That’s awesome, libarbarian.

  201. 201
    Jess says:

    There are only two political positions.

    My position, and Everybody elses position. And obviously only my position is right.

    Isn’t that what we’re all saying, for the most part? Well, until we take a ride on Teh Magical Unity Pony, that is…

  202. 202
    Jess says:

    That’s awesome, libarbarian.

    ditto.

  203. 203

    Actually i meant to say.

    There are only two political positions. Mine, and the fascists!

  204. 204
    Robert Johnston says:

    There are only two political positions.

    My position, and Everybody elses position. And obviously only my position is right.

    Isn’t that what we’re all saying, for the most part? Well, until we take a ride on Teh Magical Unity Pony, that is…

    No. What most of us objecting to Teh Magical Unity Pony are saying is that legitimate compromise happens internal to the Democratic party, not between the Democrats and the Republicans. You can compromise with sane people with whom you happen to disagree; you can’t compromise with the severely reality challenged bugfuck crazy inbred horseshit that comprises Republican consensus.

  205. 205
    Pb says:

    That’s awesome, libarbarian.

    PotD, early nomination for PotY, and I’ll be sure to buy the book and see the movie!

  206. 206
    Zifnab says:

    No. What most of us objecting to Teh Magical Unity Pony are saying is that legitimate compromise happens internal to the Democratic party, not between the Democrats and the Republicans. You can compromise with sane people with whom you happen to disagree; you can’t compromise with the severely reality challenged bugfuck crazy inbred horseshit that comprises Republican consensus.

    If you don’t believe there will be a great deal of compromising necessary within the Democratic Party to get anything done, you need to get reacquainted with the Democratic Party.

  207. 207
    Robert Johnston says:

    If you don’t believe there will be a great deal of compromising necessary within the Democratic Party to get anything done, you need to get reacquainted with the Democratic Party.

    I’m pretty sure that’s quite explicitly what I said when I said “legitimate compromise happens internal to the Democratic party.” If you were trying to be funny or ironic, my bad. If not, I have no idea what you were trying to say.

  208. 208
    Jess says:

    You can compromise with sane people with whom you happen to disagree; you can’t compromise with the severely reality challenged bugfuck crazy inbred horseshit that comprises Republican consensus.

    You can’t compromise in a Manichean black-and-white universe. Until those on the extreme right and left are willing to admit to shades of gray, those of us in the middle need to be very cautious in our dealings with them, and realistic (but not overly paranoid) about their motivations.

  209. 209

    It is not a matter of the redefinition of words. It is a matter of the predisposition to believe. Never look at the storyteller. Always look only at his audience.

  210. 210
    Zifnab says:

    If you were trying to be funny or ironic, my bad. If not, I have no idea what you were trying to say.

    Sorry. I’m trying to say that an Obama “Unity” Presidency would be nice even if it just unifies the divergent ends of the Dem Party. If he can rope in the Broderites and the Joe Kleins and (dare I dream) the Liebermans to vote for progressive legislation both domestic and foreign, the Dem Party won’t need Republican dead weight. They can let the 30-odd Senators and 150-odd Congressmen still wearing an (R) in their names to piss and moan about “liberal fascism” and “godless socialized medicine” till their throats ache.

    I don’t think Hillary can accomplish that nearly as well as Obama. Of course, I’ll be the first to admit that I haven’t seen Obama effectively unifying the party around a true progressive agenda as a Senator. But he has been far more receptive to the will of the people than Hillary (see: Iran Resolution, supporting Dodd’s telecomm filibuster).

  211. 211
    Robert Johnston says:

    You can’t compromise in a Manichean black-and-white universe. Until those on the extreme right and left

    There is no extreme left of significance in national American politics. About as far left as our politics gets is “government should regulate to correct market failures” and “teh gay is not teh evil.”

  212. 212
    myiq2xu says:

    If you don’t believe there will be a great deal of compromising necessary within the Democratic Party to get anything done, you need to get reacquainted with the Democratic Party.

    I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat” – Will Rogers

  213. 213
    Jake says:

    New Book Idea: “The Mussolini Code”.

    Things that are very sad:

    1. The wingars would fight for a copy of such a book and throw a tantrum for every day Hollywood failed to hand you a fat contract. Call Regenery. Or even DDay/Random House. I mean it, go.

    2. Your spoof of Dan Brown is better than the real thing by a factor of 12.

  214. 214

    Cassidy, have you ever read any fascist writings? Mussolini talked about destroying liberalism. Is it possible that the man who invented fascism was not a fascist?

    Well, it’s silly debating you past a point, but you really should go back and read what fascists actually said and wrote, who their allies were, and who they declared as enemies.

  215. 215

    Mussolini said:

    “Fascism now throws the noxious theories of so-called Liberalism upon the rubbish heap.”

    “Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary… does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal.”

    Maybe Mussolini was confused about what he meant about liberalism and fascism. Maybe Cassidy is just confused about what he doesn’t know. Maybe Jonah is talking out of his ass.

  216. 216
    libarbarian says:

    Your spoof of Dan Brown is better than the real thing by a factor of 12.

    I’m glad it provided a chuckle. Writing it was better than spending the last hour of the work day, you know, actually working.

    Well, it’s silly debating you past a point, but you really should go back and read what fascists actually said and wrote, who their allies were, and who they declared as enemies

    The problem is that people lie and therefore someone who wants to believe that Mussolini and Hitler were “lefties” can just cherry pick which parts of what they said & wrote were truthful and which were lies.

    Its easy if you try it:

    The expression “National Socialism” = truthfull.
    All the statements declaring their eternal hatred of socialism = lies.

    People who care about the truth, therefore, try to critically evaluate the truth/falsehood of such things by looking at the actions of the speakers. Hacks pick and choose what makes them feel good about themselves.

  217. 217
    Ted says:

    For way too much money, you can order Jonah’s book and have him sign and dedicate it.

    TBogg suggested paying the money and submitting the following for Jonah to write:

    I did the best I could. I am so deeply sorry.
    – D. Pantload

  218. 218
    Jess says:

    There is no extreme left of significance in national American politics.

    Not in politics–they’ve been effectively marginalized and/or have marginalized themselves–but they have quite a strong, albeit often superficial, presence in academia and the art world. I was seen as a reactionary conservative in grad school for trying to defend the principles of the Enlightenment and traditional liberalism. And the more “radical” they claimed to be, the more they behaved like little Hitlers. What’s particularly funny, in a warped sort of way, is that the neo-con scorn for the ‘reality-based community’ is right out of the radical post-structuralist handbook. I’m hoping that knocked a bit of sense into my former colleagues, but I suspect it didn’t.

  219. 219
    tBone says:

    2. Your spoof of Dan Brown is better than the real thing by a factor of 12.

    Only a factor of 12? If I were libarbarian I’d be deeply insulted. My 4-year-old can write 12 times better than Dan Brown.

  220. 220
    myiq2xu says:

    Only a factor of 12? If I were libarbarian I’d be deeply insulted. My 4-year-old can write 12 times better than Dan Brown.

    Really? What books has he/she written?

  221. 221
    Jake says:

    Your spoof of Dan Brown is better than the real thing by a factor of 1200.

    Fixed.

    In case libarbarian lands a book contract and needs someone to handle the money fan mail.

  222. 222
    TenguPhule says:

    Really, isn’t it just time to round up the Republicans and put them in camps?

    No, really, I mean it.

    Camps cost money, TZ.

    Bullets are cheaper. We can then bill the families for the expense.

  223. 223
    TenguPhule says:

    “If you don’t think like me, you must be an idiot”…the mantra of Cassidy

    Corrected.

    ‘SuperDuper Carrier’ Cassidy, Concern troll extraordinare.

  224. 224

    Regarding authoritarianism and left or right ideology, this is nonsense, authoritarianism is a mechanism rather than an ideology. It is the paternlistic “I know better” and “what law” in search of “solutions.” As for left authoritarianism I give you RICO and gun banning, for right – well hell almost everything BushCo. Obama would re-define the 2nd Amendment in support of gun banning (or just ignore it) which is the classic authoritarianism – Daddy knows best whatever else you may think or the law may be. Now if you’re going to tell me that a Harvard educated lawyer is ignorant of the Ratification debates, he needs to demand a refund of tuition. RICO was passed during Democratic Congress, and if you can’t understand the infringement of the 4th proscription of unreasonable seizure despite the Mafia slant of the legislation and see authoritarianism in that…

    Now those are probably the most egregious of “left” authoritarianism (sure see Rudi & Bloomberg on guns & RICO) and that surely doesn’t devalue the level BushCo has taken it to. It is simply that it exists and is the kind of precursor that gets unfortunately called “slippery slope.” That’s a generally mis-used term by the right making assisted suicide the precursor to genocide or Nazi euthenasia. (sp??)

    I’d block quote, but it’s buried in 223 comments & I haven’t the patience.

    For those that have little experience with me, I’m a bit to the left of most of those here. Edwards is too right for me, even though I support him. (Don’t worry, my guns are for paper, critters, real fascists and their plutocratic puppeteers)

    I made 2 1/4 pages of the interview before my eyes glazed over… Words have actual meanings and it’s always somewhat interesting to see who plays what games with them.

  225. 225
    Beej says:

    You just don’t get it, you atheistic, liberal, secular humanists. Demoncrats can compromise because their ideas and principles are atheistic and secular humanist. Republicans cannot compromise. Their platform and principles are manifestations of God’s will. You can’t compromise on that!

  226. 226
    Beej says:

    By the way, if Cassidy is still around, my post was intended to be satirical, not serious. Just wanted to make that clear.

  227. 227
    tBone says:

    Really? What books has he/she written?

    The Rainbow People of Duck Island, for one. It’s a searing psychological drama that lays bare the human condition by exploring the trials and travails of a race of rainbow people who live on an island with a bunch of ducks. Highly recommended.

    Tom Hanks will be playing the part of Chief Rainbow in the film, with a haircut that’s even better than the one he had in Davinci Code.

  228. 228
    dslak says:

    What’s particularly funny, in a warped sort of way, is that the neo-con scorn for the ‘reality-based community’ is right out of the radical post-structuralist handbook.

    You’ll also find postmodernists and relativists about knowledge and science (e.g., Steven Fuller) claiming that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory. A lot of educated liberals get suckered into relativist positions through a concern to always appear to be open-minded and considerate of other views. Couple this with their unyielding cynicism and the existential crisis a lot of people saw in 9/11, and it become obvious how easily the neo-cons could seduce them. Something like this happened in full public display with the press corps, as Glenzilla has been very good at pointing out.

  229. 229
    myiq2xu says:

    So far the “Goldberg Principle” has appeared on the front pages of Shakesville, The Carperbagger Report, and The Long Goodbye.

    John Cole gets the glory for the term, but that’s okay. We need to push this thing until it is common usage everywhere.

  230. 230
    Robert Johnston says:

    A lot of marginally educated people who aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are and who hold ostensibly liberal views for manifestly illiberal reasons and who therefore can’t fairly be characterized as liberals get suckered into relativist positions through a concern to always appear to be open-minded and considerate of other views failure to produce logically consistent results when put to the effort of thinking far over their heads on complex matters.

    Fixed. Pseudointellectualism is illiberal. It can be compatible with a leftism that’s all about end beliefs without regard to any basis for or consistency of those beliefs, but it’s fundamentally incompatible with liberalism. Liberalism is an intellectual reality based approach to forming beliefs in which empathy and tolerance are only factors weighed in the formation of beliefs rather than being universal commandments taking precedence over all other beliefs. Leftism might be compatible with the plainly self-contradictory beliefs of universal primacy of tolerance and empathy, but liberalism isn’t.

    The difference between liberalism and leftism is the difference between philosophy guiding one, perhaps imperfectly, to a set of beliefs and adopting any old post-hoc rationalization for inconsistent beliefs pulled out of the ether.

  231. 231
    John Cole says:

    John Cole gets the glory for the term, but that’s okay. We need to push this thing until it is common usage everywhere.

    Not sure why. I can’t get more specific than stating “our commentariat” and linking to the comment.

  232. 232
    ThymeZone says:

    It’s your blog, John, just take the credit.

    And let’s advance the lexicon another notch: Goldberg as a verb.

    As in: You’ve been Goldberged.

  233. 233
    myiq2xu says:

    Not sure why. I can’t get more specific than stating “our commentariat” and linking to the comment.

    I weren’t bitchin’

  234. 234
    Jess says:

    Liberalism is an intellectual reality based approach to forming beliefs in which empathy and tolerance are only factors weighed in the formation of beliefs rather than being universal commandments taking precedence over all other beliefs. Leftism might be compatible with the plainly self-contradictory beliefs of universal primacy of tolerance and empathy, but liberalism isn’t.

    Yes. Liberalism is a process more than it is an ideology.

    Regarding authoritarianism and left or right ideology, this is nonsense, authoritarianism is a mechanism rather than an ideology.

    Chuck, I think it can be both. There are people who want to be told what to do and who to be by an idealized leader as an end in itself as well as a method to make the trains run on time (see “Triumph of the Will,” for example). There are also those who resist all authority on principle, even when it’s clearly necessary for the common good (“Thou shalt not dump toxic waste into the water supply”). What I’m trying to get at is that when the mechanism becomes more important than the results, it becomes an ideology in itself.

    Okay, now I’m trying to figure out if I just contradicted my first comment about liberalism. I think what’s important is a sane correlation between methods and outcomes.

  235. 235
    Robert Johnston says:

    Yes. Liberalism is a process more than it is an ideology.

    . . . What I’m trying to get at is that when the mechanism becomes more important than the results, it becomes an ideology in itself.

    Okay, now I’m trying to figure out if I just contradicted my first comment about liberalism. I think what’s important is a sane correlation between methods and outcomes.

    Well, we all start with some core set of fairly specific beliefs. To the extent that we choose a philosophy, a process by which to decide whether other potential beliefs should be held, that philosophical mechanism can’t take precedence over the core beliefs that led to its adoption in the first place. Nor should one generally hesitate to admit to exceptions to that philosophy when it produces particularly distasteful results even if those results aren’t related to why the philosophy was adopted in the first place.

    At some point you have to just accept that any philosophy is going to be imperfect in application because none of us is perfectly logical or has perfect information. Don’t worry about exceptions to your philosophy. If, after questioning beliefs that depart from your philosophy you find that you still hold those beliefs, just acknowledge them and acknowledge that whatever philosophy to which you adhere isn’t perfect and can’t explain everything you believe or are going to believe. Philosophy is there to guide us in new or close cases and to enable arguments between people over what beliefs should be held. It’s not there to define what we believe.

    There is virtue to philosophical consistency, especially when you’re trying to convince someone else to adopt a belief, but consistency sometimes needs to take a back seat to usefulness. A philosophy that’s so complicated that it can accurately predict everything you believe is useless. So long as your actual beliefs aren’t obviously and inherently contradictory with each other, don’t worry over the fact that they occasionally contradict your chosen philosophy. On the other hand, if you find that your beliefs routinely seem to not be in accord with your philosophy then it’s time to check out a new philosophy.

  236. 236
    Jake says:

    And let’s advance the lexicon another notch: Goldberg as a verb.

    As in: You’ve been Goldberged.

    I could see this getting a lot of use in the LibroFascist Groves and Guilds and Ivory Towers of Academe:

    A tired professor starts to read a term paper and soon realizes it is the worst tangle of unsupported crap logic that he has ever encountered.

    It is at that point he throws up his hands and exclaims “Fuck, I’ve been Goldberged!”

  237. 237
    myiq2xu says:

    Liberalism is not a precise set of beliefs or a system of government, it is more of a state of mind.

    I’ve always thought of it as the idea that the power of government should be used for two purposes:

    1) To improve the general quality of life for everyone

    2) To protect the weak against the strong.

    I could write a book as to what those two things mean, but the shorter version is government should help us in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

    Last of all, we must always be vigilant that government isn’t subverted and it’s power misused.

    Okay, I’m done with the soapbox, who’s next?

  238. 238
    myiq2xu says:

    A tired professor starts to read a term paper and soon realizes it is the worst tangle of unsupported crap logic that he has ever encountered.

    It is at that point he throws up his hands and exclaims “Fuck, I’ve marks the paper with a large “G” meaning it’s been Goldberged!”

    “Goldberging” a term paper or essay would mean the professor didn’t even bother to finish reading it before giving it a failing grade and recommending the student for expulsion.

  239. 239
    Robert Johnston says:

    “Goldberging” a term paper or essay would mean the professor didn’t even bother to finish reading it before giving it a failing grade and recommending the student for expulsion.

    Is it really a Goldberging though if the professor doesn’t post excerpts to the internet and mock the student? Or is that just a variation called getting Sadly, Goldberged?

  240. 240
    jcricket says:

    Is it really a Goldberging though if the professor doesn’t post excerpts to the internet and mock the student? Or is that just a variation called getting Sadly, Goldberged?

    What happens when you “Golberg” a “Domenech”? Or “Swift Boat” a “Beauchamp”?

    Is it some sort of time/space paradox?

  241. 241
    grumpy realist says:

    I’m seriously starting to think we should have an Inquisition to deal with this sort of crap. Here’s how it goes: any work which is put forth by its author as a non-fictional, scholarly work, is fair game. If enough complaints about the “scholarship” of said work is received by the Standards committee, the author is charged to come forth by the committee and defend his work before a panel, just as if it were a Ph.D. thesis. The people seated on the panel would be a cross-section of known scholars in the area that the topic of the book purports to cover. The defense would be open to the public.

    If the author failed to convince the committee of the soundness of his work, he would be a) forced to withdraw the published work, b) fined a suitable amount, and c) banned from doing further work in the area until he had repeated his education.

    (Myself, I’m also into chopping heads off, but Americans are probably too squeamish about this.)

    Goldberg’s book is the equivalent–to a scientist–not only faking all your data, finagling your data curves, making the error bars whatever you like, but also shoving in a defense of Intelligent Design. And then whining because you’re not treated as “a serious scientist”.

  242. 242
    myiq2xu says:

    (Myself, I’m also into chopping heads off, but Americans are probably too squeamish about this.)

    That’s a little extreme, but the faux-scholar should at least have the cheetos beaten out of him.

  243. 243
    Robert Johnston says:

    (Myself, I’m also into chopping heads off, but Americans are probably too squeamish about this.)

    That’s a little extreme, but the faux-scholar should at least have the cheetos beaten out of him.

    Well, since John Yoo has told us that crushing even a child’s testicles has the DOJ seal of approval, shouldn’t that be the method of choice for Pantload’s humiliation? After all, Yoo’s a conservative, so there’d be nothing fascist about crushing Jonah’s balls in a vice.

  244. 244
    myiq2xu says:

    Well, since John Yoo has told us that crushing even a child’s testicles has the DOJ seal of approval, shouldn’t that be the method of choice for Pantload’s humiliation? After all, Yoo’s a conservative, so there’d be nothing fascist about crushing Jonah’s balls in a vice.

    A vise? Tweezers should do the trick. But I ain’t touching them.

  245. 245
    Robert Johnston says:

    Well, since John Yoo has told us that crushing even a child’s testicles has the DOJ seal of approval, shouldn’t that be the method of choice for Pantload’s humiliation? After all, Yoo’s a conservative, so there’d be nothing fascist about crushing Jonah’s balls in a vice.

    A vise? Tweezers should do the trick. But I ain’t touching them.

    Well, getting caught in a bizarre gay sex scandal is also conservative and therefore non fascist, so now that I think about it, it would be most appropriate to accomplish the crushing by hiring a willing male hooker and arranging for a teabagging accident for the Doughboy.

  246. 246
    myiq2xu says:

    Oh shit, I’ve been one-upped

    From Urban Dictionary:

    Fuckwad
    Someone who spuriously slanders an entire group of people using specious faux-scholarly arguments because he thinks that politics doesn’t have any real world meaning and is all a big game of who gets to call the other side a poopyhead the most. Counts double if said fuckwaddery gets reviewed in the New York Times because the fuckwad “author” has a famous mommy.

    “The white male is the Jew of Liberal Fascism” – Liberal Fascism, by fuckwad Jonah Goldberg

  247. 247
    Jake says:

    That’s a little extreme, but the faux-scholar should at least have the cheetos beaten out of him.

    That would take days. Weeks. MONTHS.

  248. 248
    myiq2xu says:

    That would take days. Weeks. MONTHS.

    It’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.

  249. 249
    Tax Analyst says:

    All the above and more…and the L.A. Times actually lets this obtuse, moronic mama’s boy publish an Op-Ed column every week. It’s beyond annoying just to see it every Tuesday.

  250. 250
    myiq2xu says:

    All the above and more…and the L.A. Times actually lets this obtuse, moronic mama’s boy publish an Op-Ed column every week. It’s beyond annoying just to see it every Tuesday.

    They don’t “let” him, they PAY him.

    There oughta be a law . . .

  251. 251
    Robert Johnston says:

    There oughta be a law . . .

    There is. It’s called the Second Law of Stupidynamics, and it states that the stupidity of a closed system can only increase over time. This law interacts with the phenominon known as the Stupidity Event Horizon, under which, once a critical mass of stupidity has hit the editorial pages it becomes no longer economically viable to publish anything that isn’t stupid.

  252. 252
    Bibblesnæð says:

    What the hell is wrong with that ass?
    Geez, what a boob. I know that when I resort to calling Goldberg names, that means “I’ve lost the argument”. But with Goldberg, really, what other reaction is there? When somebody is as much an idiot, a boob, an ass as he is, it just kind of shreds your credibility if people think you haven’t noticed it.
    As for his “argument”, well, he wants to tar liberals as fascists. I don’t think he makes much of a case, but that’s what he wants to do.
    I think a more serious charge is that American “conservatives” want to change the U.S. into a kind of pre-revolutionary czarist Russia.
    I think somebody could easily write a book about that…

  253. 253

    […] Apparently, Jonah Goldberg missed that lesson, and it has led to a dubious honour. Here’s John Cole over at Balloon Juice: First there was Godwin’s Law. Then we had the less noticeable Kevin’s Law and Cole’s Law. Now, after reading the Jonah Goldberg interview in Salon, our commentariat has come up with the “Goldberg Principle”: You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words. […]

  254. 254

    […] This very fluid definition of fascism is, again points to the Goldberg principle. Ledeen and Goldberg’s willingness to shift the definitions of what politically charged words mean is a time tested routine of the Right to throw up any infantile epitaphs at its political adversaries just to see if it sticks. If there are still serious Republicans that care about genuine Republican ideals this should be disturbing. How can anyone take seriously a movement that that adamantly refuses to be serious. Their juvenile exercises in name calling one upsmanship are something one would expect from a child with a personality disorder. Goldberg’s book and his supporters have created a real life enactment of a Stephen Colbert routine. […]

  255. 255
    Fledermaus says:

    No discussion, only a willingness to insult.

    ‘Tis no insult to call a stupid argument stupid.

  256. 256
    Boulder Dude says:

    And so it goes…

    So Monday, I managed to listen to an event horizon of a quantum singularity of pure stupid when Jonah Goldberg was on Glenn Beck talking about his new book. It was just….wow…picture the Skipper and Gilligan giving a lecture on…

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Boulder Dude says:

    And so it goes…

    So Monday, I managed to listen to an event horizon of a quantum singularity of pure stupid when Jonah Goldberg was on Glenn Beck talking about his new book. It was just….wow…picture the Skipper and Gilligan giving a lecture on…

  2. […] This very fluid definition of fascism is, again points to the Goldberg principle. Ledeen and Goldberg’s willingness to shift the definitions of what politically charged words mean is a time tested routine of the Right to throw up any infantile epitaphs at its political adversaries just to see if it sticks. If there are still serious Republicans that care about genuine Republican ideals this should be disturbing. How can anyone take seriously a movement that that adamantly refuses to be serious. Their juvenile exercises in name calling one upsmanship are something one would expect from a child with a personality disorder. Goldberg’s book and his supporters have created a real life enactment of a Stephen Colbert routine. […]

  3. […] Apparently, Jonah Goldberg missed that lesson, and it has led to a dubious honour. Here’s John Cole over at Balloon Juice: First there was Godwin’s Law. Then we had the less noticeable Kevin’s Law and Cole’s Law. Now, after reading the Jonah Goldberg interview in Salon, our commentariat has come up with the “Goldberg Principle”: You can prove any thesis to be true if you make up your own definitions of words. […]

Comments are closed.