What Ticks You Off?

You are wise in the ways of online communities, for anything other than "No Comment" had the potential to start a political war.

As a veteran of several political wars on the New York Times message boards, I have learned that it is wiser to keep a civil tongue in one's head.

PS. Maureen Dowd's nose looks like a 30 foot long dugout canoe.

__________________
Pigsnie, Vicar of Fries!

Well, I'm always up for a friendly debate. So long as people treat my side of things with a reasonable amount of respect, I have no problem doing the same with theirs (unless they're crazy. ).

Maureen Dowd - I know the name, I can't place the face.

Ms. Dowd, NY Times Pesky Pundit/ Writer of Obnoxious Epistolae, used to date Michael Douglas before the scales fell from his eyes and he started dating Catherine Zeta Jones.

Just call me the "Movie Connection."

Ah, I see. Thanks I feel smarter already.

1. When the neighbor's volcano erupts and the lava flow blocks the road. This is very inconvenient.
2. Psychic Hotline commercials. Also Tarot Cards.
3. When my crack squad of No-Daichi Samurai gets slaughtered by the enemy Daimyo.

__________________
Blonde Klingons: Because it was a good day to dye!

Since we seem to be in the political spirit, I'll add some of my own annoyances:

1. The people who inhabit the FreeRepublic forums (FReepers). You'd be hard pressed to find another board so full of invective as this one. Since liberals rarely ever post there, there is no intellectual debate whatsoever. Basically, one of the ultraconservative members will post a thread about how evil "The Left" is, and there will be a thousand knee jerk replies about how correct the person who started the thread was. Since there is no debate there, it's just a place where arrogant conservatives can go to get support from other members of the conservative community. They talk about how smart they are (yet never prove it), and how evil/dumb/Nazi-like/Communist-like "The Left" is (which is a logical fallacy, since there is no conscious, monolithic entity called "The Left" which moves, speaks, and inhabits 3D spacetime).

Every once in a while there will be a thread with a different topic, such as the time someone posted his experience with Ayn Rand and how he broke into tears when he heard that she died. He talked about how he went through life as a super-smart person, who always finished his tests way before the other people in his classes in school. Yet he would always wait for someone else to turn in their test before HE would turn in his own, because he didn't want to look like a nerd/geek/dork/teacher's pet or whatever. Then, his life took an unexpected turn when he started reading Ayn Rand's "philosophy". From this he saw that he was an "individualist" (and always had been), and from that day forward he turned in his tests as soon as he finished them (without caring what anyone else thought). Following this original post was a flurry of replies agreeing with this and claims to having had the same experiences. This thread was truly a PATHETIC spectacle. First of all, these so-called "individualists" needed the works of Ayn Rand to validate their existence BEFORE they could actually start practicing their so-called individualism. Ergo, these people are NOT individualists at all. I also finish my tests before everyone else, yet I didn't need the works of the crackpot pseudo-philosopher Ayn Rand to tell ME to not care what anyone else thought. Secondly, Ayn Rand was not a conservative; in fact she HATED conservatives. So why do ignorant conservatives believe she is on THEIR side? Oh well, they can keep her.

2. David Horowitz (neoconservative pundit who writes columns for Salon and Front Page magazine). You won't find a columnist more self-righteous (well, maybe Camille Paglia), hypocritical, and whiny than Horowitz. He once wrote an entire Salon article complaining about how two (!?) reviewers at Amazon.com gave one of his books a one-star rating. He then proceeded to call these people "political snipers" and called what they did a political tactic of The Left (once again the hypostatic fallacy rears its ugly head). Horowitz must have his head so far up his own *** to notice that "political sniping" is practiced by conservatives just as much as liberals. A cursory glance at the reviews of books written by liberals would prove this easily. So Horowitz is either completely ignorant (didn't do any research), or he is a willing demagogue (knew the truth but hid it anyway just so he could push his own little agenda). Horowitz also whined about not being as well-known or well-respected as Noam Chomsky and Cornel West. I'd like to know what makes him think he SHOULD be as well-known (has he written any books revolutionizing the science of Linguistics? Didn't think so). The rest of Horowitz's articles are the same sort of self-serving tripe as indicated above. He is one of those people who believes the Cold War is still going on, using terms like "fellow traveler", "comrade", "fifth columnist", "Stalinist", etc. to describe anyone to the left of him.

There are other people who annoy me as well, but I don't have the time right now to expound on each of them. So here's a list of some more:

3. Camille Paglia (traitor...)
4. Rush Limbaugh
5. Tony Snow
6. Pat Robertson
7. Jerry Falwell
8. Paul "Spanker" Johnson
9. Dr. Laura "I posed nude for my boyfriend" Schlessinger
.
.
.
etc.

Pigsnie, I would like to know why you don't like Hitchens? IMO, he's the best pundit out there. I love his book, For the Sake of Argument, which is a selection of some of his best essays from The Nation and other newsmagazines. True, his Clinton tirades got a little tiring, but I thought Clinton deserved most of it anyway. The only thing I'm disappointed in Hitchens for is the Sidney Blumenthal debacle. I still don't understand why he did that. But I still don't think it's any excuse for his one-time friend Alexander Cockburn to call him a "Judas" and a traitor.

George Will I don't really mind, because he's not nearly as obnoxious as the neoconservatives (Horowitz, O'Rourke, Podhoretz, et. al) or the "I call myself a liberal but I'm really a conservative" conservatives (Camille Paglia). Will is one of the only conservative pundits I can stomach (along with my favorite American conservative, William F. Buckley).
[Edited by Arthur Dent on 05-02-2001]

Sorry, but I think Limbaugh and Snow are fabulous. I don't like Dr. Laura -- sometimes I agree with her, but she's rude, and far too sure of herself. Limbaugh is simply a brilliant man who could, mentally, beat the snot out of anyone on this board -- you included. Don't feel bad, you could probably mentally beat the snot out of me.

As for the little nicknames, I'll say this: screwing up and telling others not to does not make you a hypocrite.

Oh, and when people say "the left", there is nothing wrong with it. They are referring to all people who's political beliefs are too the left, but specifically those that are public and zealous about them. I don't see a single thing wrong with using this term.

Re: individualists: I tend to agree, although I don't care what your political affiliation is. Individualism should not be stated or STRIVED for.

You could be right about Limbaugh mentally beating the snot out of me, but I don't know. What are his qualifications? I heard that he dropped out of college, and all he's done since then is write two books and have his own radio show and TV show. Nothing he has done has shown that he has extraordinary mental abilities. I'm not saying he isn't highly intelligent, as it is possible, but I haven't seen proof that he is.

When those pictures of Dr. Laura first appeared on the internet, she claimed they were fakes. Later, she admitted they were real. I just pointed out this fact because people tend to believe liberals are morally repugnant, while conservatives are moral saints, and that just ISN'T true.

Claiming that "The Left" does or says something is an example of the hypostatic fallacy. Not everyone to the left-of-centre holds the exact same opinions or has the exact same influence or adheres to the exact same lifestyle. The same also applies, obviously, to people who are right-of-centre.

About individualists; I'm saying the term has been misused far too much. I like to think of the term "individualism" as referring to lifestyle, NOT to political systems. And I'm sick of people claiming that if you do not like Ayn Rand you are automatically an anti-individualist.

I can't stand Hitchens because I know this vain little alcoholic personally. Met him many times over the course of my career -- we even went to the same college, Balliol, Oxford -- although he is older than I by a good 15 years. So my contempt for this sorry excuse of a man is mostly personal. (Of course, being a Clinton admirer & a Catholic, his hysterical untruthful screeds against your former President and Mother Teresa didn't help.) As for the Blumenthal affair, it was pretty clear to the rest of us journos why he did it: he thought he could bring down Clinton single-handedly and get written up by Bill Safire as the Hero who saved the World from the "Arkansas Mafia's" Pernicious Influence. What does Hitchens care about loyalty to friends if he gets the intoxicating national attention? Cockburn (with whom I do not agree all that much either) rightly calls him a Judas and a traitor. (Altho' I must apologize to Judas. )

Quite agree with you about Horowitz though, Arthur, although he inspires in me amused laughter rather than utter loathing. (I save that for Hitchens & Will & Safire, who is a good writer but can be amazingly wrong-headed.)

And Commish, surely you are not serious about Limbaugh & Snow's brilliance? Me lips twitch at the thought. I will say no more on this head for fear of starting a MovieForums Missile Crisis.

I have never been to the FreeRepublic forum. However, you might say the same thing about the New York Times political board ; that abattoir has likewise been overrun by ultra-conservatives. But I am pleased to say that we have a liberal refuge in SALON's Table Talk ; should a conservative dandelion poke its head in that liberal greenhouse, it would be swiftly beheaded.

There's a reason Limbaugh is who he is. Listen to his show -- he does his homework, and is eloquent enough to say what's on his mind. If you were to debate him on air, you know you'd be roasted beyond recognition -- even by your closest of kin.

Now, the majority of liberal talk show hosts could roast me as well -- but I know it, and readily admit it! Besides, it's only because I don't have time to do my homework.

Yes, Limbaugh is brilliant. I'm sorry, but I know no one who is eloquent, yet stupid. Who is clever, yet dumb. I'm not talking about political ideals, but rather, raw intelligence.

I think Clinton's ideas are stupid, but Clinton himself (while morally repugnant, as you used the phrase, and a sorry exscuse for a President) is obvoiusly a genuis.

Hey, if you want to say more, be my guest. I'll keep it civil. I just don't see how you can imply that Snow and Limbaugh are somehow stupid, or even average in terms of intelligence. Limbaugh is obviously very clever.

Arthur: The Left is a generic term. It is not meant to be taken 100% literally. If I say "China is more intelligent than the US", I obviously don't mean all inhabitants of China are -- but most of them have us out-educated. When Limbaugh says "The Left" are up to something, he means to the majority of those outspoken ones that are always rearing their head(s).

Wow--what did I stumble on --- am I still in Movieforums? This is really cool. Liberals vs conservatives. I like to read this but I'm not sure about jumping into the fray. My politics is on the immature side. Secession of Hawaii from the States. And I've been beaten up so much about it--its not even an issue anymore.

But do continue this thread. This is really fascinating. I may even venture an opinion eventually . . . I should reread Atlas Shrugged. I am familiar with George Will though. He's so into showing off his knowledge of history--he turns me off--no matter how llegitimate his position is.

Well, you may be right about Hitchens. I don't know if he's actually starved for national attention; I mean, he writes for The Nation, for god's sake. The Nation has a circulation of what, 100000? And if you don't like pundits who criticize Clinton, then who do you like? Even most of the liberal/left pundits have criticized him/voted against him at one time or another.

Commish, people can be eloquent and stupid at the same time. Ronald Reagan was certainly eloquent, yet I remember reading about how one of his staff had said that Reagan had below-average intelligence (I can't remember who said it; I keep wanting to say Sununu, but he was on Bush Sr.'s staff, not Reagan's).

Raw intelligence is best shown by IQ score. I don't know what Limbaugh's IQ is, so I can't say I agree that he necessarily has more "raw intelligence" than me. Possibly he does, but possibly not. As for debates, I most likely would be roasted on something like Firing Line, but I don't know about Limbaugh (in fact, I've never even seen or heard Limbaugh debate anybody on the air. His callers are pre-screened, you know).

Listen, don't take this personally, I'm not saying that Limbaugh is necessarily stupid. My list was of people who annoyed me, remember?

As for liberal talk show hosts, who is there? Rosie O'Donnell? While I've never seen her show, I somehow doubt she's super-intelligent. And I don't know of many other liberals who have talk shows (unless Phil Donahue counts).

The issue of Rush's intelligence is mostly addressed to Pigsnie.

Re: Reagan. I can't say if he was intelligent or not, but I honestly don't believe he was of below average. I think it's very likely that every single one of our 43 Presidents have intelligence that is/was above the average of their time.

Reagan, granted, was not as smart as, say, Clinton. But as we all know intelligence is not all that matters. Anyway, back to Rush: no, it does not always equal extreme brilliance, but I do not think, even in Reagan's case, that it amounts to below average intelligence, with VERY rare exceptions.

Re: staff member. I'm not sure -- was it Edwin Meese?

My apologies -- raw intelligence is a bad word. I know two adults, one of which has an IQ significantly higher than the other, but the one with the lower IQ knows more -- hands down. Basically, all around education -- and by education, I mean a cross of intelligence and knowledge, not formal academics.

Maybe you don't want to take my word for it (no problem, I understand), but yes, Limbaugh would roast you. He's had liberal guests on the program, and I don't remember him doing any worse than a draw.

The guy is a master -- he's incredibly clever (I've certainly never known a clever person who was not intelligent. Rush obviously says many witty, funny things). Listen to his show sometimes -- you'll have trouble denying he's clever.

An interesting thing about intelligence not mattering: I read somewhere that in this century our dumbest presidents (relative to all the others, that is) were FDR, JFK, and Ronald Reagan. And our smartest presidents were Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. If you'll notice, out of our five smartest presidents, they were all either ineffectual or corrupt (or both). Our three "dumbest" were presidents that were great uniters and got the American people through hard times. So you are right about intelligence not really mattering when it comes to the presidency.

One thing to note is that Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Reagan all had super-intelligent people on their respective staffs. I know Roosevelt had Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., Kennedy had Adlai Stevenson, and Reagan had John Sununu (I know Sununu was mainly Bush but I consider him to be part of Reagan/Bush).

BTW, Wart: secession of Hawaii, eh? Are you looking to start another Civil War?

I should really be in bed right now, but the thing is I CAN'T STAND Television & Radio PUNDITS, even the liberal ones! They are all to a man (and the occasional rare female) a witless overpaid aristocracy of jackals, as far as I am concerned, with the above-mentioned humorless jackals taking first prize (and throw the traitor Stephanopoloser in there too). I will admit to some fondness for Joe Conason however.

Hey, did I ever describe Clinton as "morally repugnant?" It was not I, I assure you -- I admire Bill in spite of his imperfections.

Ahem, Limbaugh clever? I have heard his radio show several times and "witty" or "clever" weren't the adjectives that came shooting into my brain. [See, I am trying to be diplomatic here, Commish, ok? ] As for your current "President" ...

Bush is not stupid -- throw all the quotes you want at me, but he's not. He just can't talk his way out of a paper bag (and no, don't ask me to explain that last sentence either ).

Pigsnie: I meant that I was borrowing your phrase. Morally repugnant is something I might have used anyway, but you inspired it at that moment, as I believe it was in one of your posts. The only thing I admire about "Bill" is his intelligence and smooth talking ways -- I think he's a very bad man, and believe he has manipulated the IRS to his advantage, and knowingly lied under oath.

Sorry, Limbaugh is clever. He cracks me up. Feminazi -- now that's one funny word. Not nearly on this theme for the new specially funded sex change operations in California. If you don't consider him clever, then you must be hanging out with some REALLY clever folks.

I'm also fond of Joe Conason, though I've really only read one piece by him. It was a rebuttal to a Horowitz piece that stated that Clinton was the most cynical, corrupt, and criminal presidency in our history. Conason brilliantly refuted this, comparing Clinton to presidents such as Grant, Harding, Nixon, and even Reagan. The response Horowitz came up with was pretty lame: he spent the entire first third of the essay complaining that Conason was employing ad hominem attacks against him (when Conason did no such thing), and the last two-thirds talking about Al Gore's illicit fund-raising. No, he didn't address any of Conason's points about Clinton.

So, you don't like ANYBODY else? Including Gore Vidal, Noam Chomsky, and Molly Ivins? C'mon, you have to at least like one of them.

BTW Commish - *I* was the one who used the phrase "morally repugnant".

My mistake Arthur -- I don't know who the most corrupt President in history is, but I'll tell you this: Clinton is most definintely highly corrupt, and I feel he severely dishonored his office.

I know - I agree that Clinton was corrupt. But corruptness is not something that is tangible; it is hard to prove absolutely that someone is more corrupt than another person. And that was the point of Conason's article: he dismissed the "corrupt" and "cynical" aspects and focused on the "criminal" aspect. Because you can show how criminal a presidency is by looking at the scandals and the number of indictments in the staff. This is the standard Conason was using when comparing Clinton to other presidents.