Pretty much as I predicted, except that… (Part x of a series)…
Suzanne Fields goes to Germany, talks to some Germans, and assumes she’s got the whole place figured out:
All “official” religious bodies must pay taxes to the state, and in return receive subsidies from the state.
Right, if by “religious bodies must pay taxes” you mean “religious bodies” and by “receive subsidies from the state” you mean “receive the contributions of their members collected on their behalf by the government” (or, as the kids say, Sadly, No!:)
Germans pay 8 to 9 percent of their income tax if they are members in one of the recognized religious communities. […] The German state agreed long ago with the Catholic and Protestant Churches that it would collect the levy and pass it on to them, and the state’s right do so is even laid out in Germany’s constitution. Other religious communities can also claim a piece of the pie, as long as they are registered as statutory bodies and recognized by the individual German states, which are responsible for collecting the tax.
Always nice to have you over, Suzanne.
Creators-dot-com? A syndicate of talent? Seriously?
I was so happy just moments ago, for although I have been cursed by knowledge of Noonans for years, I was until just this moment blissfully unaware of Suzanne Fields.
I do like the way the justified margins make her first graf look/read like a very bad poem, though.
The omnipresent Stasi, the government’s efficient secret police, lurked behind every cross, a symbol of the free society the communists hated.
Did they hide with their arms outstretched?
No, the Stasi are just really skinny.
I guess she didn’t get that vibe from the Germans either. Imagine that, people who think that religious institutions are out of touch with reality.
She probably missed the fact that Germans also have a much better quality of life than Americans do.
Well, sure they do, with their socialist health care and all.
It’s just like college over there, with the free food and such.
A church strangely out of touch? The catholic church strangely out of touch!?!?
Thank the gods that doesnt happen in America!
It might be worth having an opt-outable church tax in the US if for no other reason than to further the split between the Club For Growth wing and the Jeeeeebus! wing of the GOP.
If the US were to institute a church tax, we’d find out right quick exactly how much those Jesus-loving Republicans actually love Jesus.
Just think how delicious it would be to watch conservative lip service to God wrestle with conservative hatred for taxation. It would be like the book of Job, only in this case instead of Job being the spiritual Astro-turf in God and Satan’s bitchslapfest, the playing field for God vs. money would be the GOP.
Kind of like the whole Huckabee vs. Guiliani/Romney/McCain thing is shaping up. Heh heh.
It’s not always a bad thing to live in “interesting times”.
The menorah shares space on the square with a beautiful Christmas tree — Mitt Romney would love it — as well as the sight of Jewish and Christian children singing and dancing together with glee, warmed by the flickering lights glazing the winter raindrops falling all around them.
Wha? Mitt Romney? WTF?
Obviously, Ugluks Flea and I just experienced an intertoobz mind-meld.
Germans enjoy neither freedom of speech nor separation of church and state as we know it. Germans are free to say whatever they like, as long as they don’t say anything forbidden by the government such as anti-Semitic Nazi slogans.
Am I imagining things or is she making that sound like a bad thing.
Obviously, Ugluks Flea and I just experienced an intertoobz mind-meld.
Cigarette?
If the US were to institute a church tax, we’d find out right quick exactly how much those Jesus-loving Republicans actually love Jesus.
Not only that but American churches might start to get fat and lazy like those in Europe.
Notorious stole my idea. I was just going to say that maybe we should give the religious right what they want, a marriage of church and state. With state churches, maybe they would be as poorly attended and believed in as the churches of Europe.
Hey Suze, thanks to Bush’s benevolent interference there are no longer any Christians left in Iraq, care to comment?
[Tumbleweeds]
Whatevs.
I know I am not the only who is bazooka-barf sick of people who are shocked, SHOCKED to discover not every country in the world is a carbon copy of the US and (worserer still) the countries involved are largely populated by non-brown people who don’t speak English! O noes, teh gognisive nisodance maded my hed assplode.
SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Sorry. Just had to get that out there.
Fat and lazy?!! But they’re liberals, and therefore fascists, meaning they eat healthily and exercise non-stop.
Oh, and she may be nutty now but I loved her in “The Flying Nun”…
Unfortunately, the religious right’s idea of marriage between church and state is to have the police enforce Biblical law and herd everyone into churches at gun point.
What’s pissing me off most on a personal level is that since the conservatives (CDU – Christian Democratic Union) took over in my state you have to pay a 30 Euro fee if you want to leave the church. A compensation for procedural costs and blah blah….
So what exactly was her point in that article anyway, besides trying to show off her own ignorance of the tax laws? That many Jews in Germany are religious? Wow, what an insight!
Next up, OMG, the pope’s a German too!
Hitchens uttered the same “all germans pay taxes to the churches” crap on Real Time some time ago. But then, he’s an asshole anyway.
(And it explains how he gets to his opinion re: WMDs in iraq, etc.pp…)
Germans are free to say whatever they like, as long as they don’t say anything forbidden by the government such as anti-Semitic Nazi slogans.
It’s so much better here in America, where you’re allowed to say all the anti-Semitic Nazi slogans you want, even in advertising (“Arby’s Macht Fries”). Unfortunately, you’re not allowed to say things like “Psyllium gel will cure cancer, which is really caused by liver flukes anyway”. And if you think you’re generally allowed to practice your religion, try practicing a religion that requires you to marry underage children, or sacrifice people. Then it’s all, “law” this and “human rights” that. Forget it, Freedom-stapo, we’re on to you.
Did you also know the Pope is Catholic as well? And did you know that a bear shits in the woods?
Seb, is that you??
Is Seb still alive?
Don’t be ridiculous. The Pope shits in the woods.
A bear wears a funny hat.
Free The Editors, dang it!!
I too wonder what the heck happened to them……..
They taste so great, you’ll forget all about the bad taste of their name!
The fact is, the liberals forced churches in Europe into this arrangement to defund and destroy them. Here, where we have a free market and non-compulsory support system for religion, we have much more and much bigger churches. God has blessed us.
You liberals think that the more you talk talk talk about Germany and Europe that we will just become like them all of a sudden but over a long period of time so that in order to get medical care you got to show which church you go to and if you paid your TV tax that month until they make them give you free food and by then it is too late.
Dammit, El Cid, you’ve just given me witlash. Fascist.
The first question a German woman asked me when I moved there was, “What is your confession? Are you Catholic or Protestant?”I felt like saying, “I’m Jewish,” but that would have been a lie. I think now I would have said that, just to see her reaction.
When we lived there, we never paid the church tax, and no one ever bothered us about it.
You all think it is funny to talk about Germany and Europe without understanding that it is a trap to make you one of them.
Many of you probably think that there is no such thing as a program to turn you into a German via the internet that is part of the state supported liberal fascist media.
But I warned you. Doubters may visit The Germanizer.
Speaking of internet traps...
Here in the Heartland of America we don’t need Church taxes, those of us who love God willingly tithe 10% of our income to our Church. You liberals who hate God and hate America would have the Churches pay taxes to the state so you can bankrupt them. We in the Heartland are on to you godless liberals.
We Southerners are the true patriots who were willing to break away from the Union in order to preserve our godly traditions. You Heartlanders are just trying to copy us Southerners whose music means patriotism and you have a bunch of weird religions based on immigrants from Sweden and other weird places.
I’m from Texas which is both Southern and Heartland. We broke from the Union also.
Well then you need to make a decision and come up with a term that is either both or neither. This is not a world safe for indecision.
I propose Heathern. Although Shartland also works well.
Note to liberal fascists and Liberal Fascism fans: David Oshinsky’s New York Times review of Goldberg’s oopus is now available.
”Arby’s Macht Fries”
My laptop is exceptionally grateful that I wasn’t drinking anything when I read this.
…
OK, I started to read the Oshinsky review online, but choked when, in a discussion of the National Recovery Administration, the abbreviation N.R.A. was turned into a link to “More articles about National Rifle Association.” The Times uses either a very stupid autolinking feature or a very stupid intern.
Modern Germany: more fascist than fascist Germany.
Suzanne Fields
I don’t know about you but to me it all most sounds like she is trying to say the Germans shouldn’t feel guilty about the Holocaust. Maybe that is just me.
Bah. Oshinsky lets Goldberg off easy.
J–, that was far kinder to to the Pantload than was merited. Sure Mr. Oshinsky picked a bit at the morass, but he also larded it with blurbs that we’ll be certain to see again.
Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults — no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.
Yeah right.
The final chapters of “Liberal Fascism” are a rant, often deliciously amusing, against America’s numerous liberal-fascist elites.
Spy Magazine used to parody this review style perfectly, via Walter Monheit.
By the way, the NYT is alleged to be hiring Bill Kristol.
Because he’s always right about everything.
Yeah, I just finished the review and also found it disappointing.
Well, in Oshinsky’s defense, Jonah is wittier than Sean Hannity.
But that’s about as meaningful as saying Thomas Sowell is smarter than George W. Bush.
Nope. I too caught a whiff of “Look at those big pusses in Germany, trying to make up for that Holo-thingy by being nice to teh Jews.”
The idea of making amends to people one’s country once tried to eradicate makes certain Americans really uncomfortable.
Hey, I actually know David Oshinsky personally. I went to HS with his son and David actually pulled a string for me at Rutgers to get me into a slightly better program than the one to which I’d been excepted. (Don’t worry; I deserved it!).
He’s a rather respected historian, and they try to remain as neutral as possible. He had to acknowledge some positive points of the book. A historian saying that parts of an alleged history book are “deliciously amusing” rants, however, is actually scathing criticism. Also, in the mind of an intellectual like that, pointing out that Jonah missed the single most “facist” thing Roosevelt did other than internment camps (court pcaking) is basically an uppercut to the face.
It’s like how I snicker when my dad asks me what LOLcats are.
I’m gonna suggest armored bears.
Just seems right to me….
mikey
You liberals are a bunch of fascists who want to silence Religious Conservative Americans such as myself, and seek to impose your secular world view using the courts on an unwilling majority of the American public 90% of whom believe in God and 84% of whom are Christians.
You liberals are a bunch of fascists who want to silence Religious Conservative Americans such as myself, and seek to impose your secular world view using the courts on an unwilling majority of the American public 90% of whom believe in God and 84% of whom are Christians.
Liberal fascists wanna make the baby Jesus cry.
Attention Rupperto/Sol/Booger/Kevin:
El Cid is running rings around you as far as wingnut talking points. You should really take a cue from him and junk your “fact is” and “bottom line”s, and that worn-out “Heartland” buzzword that everyone here has pretty much shown is BS anyway.
The jokers are dead; long live the King!
Brings a tear to the eye, don’t it? Why it’s almost as touching as watching the Gramscian Marxist and Trotskyite Syndicalist children up the street dancing joyfully with those Keynesian and Monetarist kids from across the tracks.
Mitt would love it.
I’m gonna suggest armored bears.
They’d be blow-aparter than the average bears.
A conservative, getting a country’s Constitution wrong? Wow, never seen that happen.
And if you think you’re generally allowed to practice your religion, try practicing a religion that requires you to marry underage children, or sacrifice people. Then it’s all, “law” this and “human rights” that. Forget it, Freedom-stapo, we’re on to you.
I was listening to an interview with an anthropologist and the conversation segued into relativism and he brought up the example of tribes in the Philipinines that dealt with the death of a loved one by finding an enemy tribe and killing them and lopping their heads off. His point was the only way that you could be coolheaded and sit around and point out that the rage is a stage of grief and be non-judgemental is to not be an enemy tribesman or have children that are enemy tribesman and live a half a planet away and keep a massive state apparatus that makes goddamn sure that such a person is never, ever, gonna get anywhere near you and yours.
I was thinking the whole time that relativism or not that the rage explanation makes a whole lot of sense in explaining why we had to invade Iraq. It doesn’t excuse it. I concede the point on why you don’t just sit around and feel the grieving folks pain, I didn’t like where what anyone else watching our actions and deciding on a response would go.
But we always snuggle when we’re done.
You liberals are a bunch of fascists who want to silence Religious Conservative Americans such as myself
If we did you wouldn’t be able to be here blathering up a storm would you? Unlike your pissy blogging brethren who routinely ban liberals and screen comments.
Nutellaontoast:
He’s a rather respected historian, and they try to remain as neutral as possible.
No, we don’t. Real historians, when confronted with flaming paper bags filled with dogshit, tend to say, “Hey, look! A flaming bag of dogshit! See how it hasn’t the slightest clue who Hitler really was? See how it misrepresents virtually everything that’s been written about Mussolini since 1921?”
Like that. Only more cromulent.
Whoops! Historians are also legendarily incompetent at finishing their blog comments before hitting “enter.”
If you want to see how a real historian reviews total and utter crap, you could do worse than revisit Robert O. Paxton’s scathing review of Miller and Molesky’s disastrous opus Our Oldest Enemy: A History of America’s Disastrous Relationship With France. Remember the heady days of 2005, when any old garbage could get spewed onto paper and bound by a prestigious press, just because it had a steaming pile of France-hate inside? Good times.
The Oshinsky review is pretty damn dismissive, but it’s tone is absolutely wrong, in part because he refuses to acknowledge why Liberal Fascism was published in the first place. Oshinsky places Goldberg in a long history of partisan political invective (it’s “political revenge” for a half century of liberals calling conservatives “fascist”), but ignores the current political environment that made this book possible and in which it will play its odious, though with any luck minor, role
To take one example: after taking Goldberg to task for his “absurd” arguments about the NRA and the CCC, Oshinsky adds:
It seems pretty damn obvious why Goldberg fails to discuss FDR’s increase of executive power: Goldberg is part of a movement that favors turning the presidency into a semi-elective dictatorship. And one of the principal political functions of Liberal Fascism is to make people think of foodstamps rather than dictatorship when they hear the “f” word.
Perhaps Oshinsky understands this and his “oddly” in the above quoted sentence is dryly ironic. Or perhaps Oshinsky just doesn’t understand the actual context for this book’s publication. Either way, a fine historian missed an opportunity to clearly describe what the Pantload is up to.
Testing for the 10th time.
I can’t believe I’ve been banned, though I will admit to never being funny.
It will tell you you’re banned; not ‘oops’ or ‘duplicate comment’ or ‘I think it’s spam!’
…Although those aren’t usually helpful, either.
Funny how they don’t understand tithing, or that it’s often supposed to be used to just keep the church around, pay for little old nuns, and not to put a BigOTron and laser light show behind the pulpit.
I suppose you’re one of those people who wail and moan and gnash your teeth about how bad it is to send people to death camps, but when it comes to giving out coupons for free generic food, then suddenly you look the other way.
I would do almost anything to get Paxton (author of the most cogent book I’ve ever read on Fascism, The Anatomy of Fascism) to review Jonah’s steaming pile. Seriously – almost anything. Sell an ovary. Convert to Christianity for a year. Give up ice cream for a year.
It would so be worth it.
Those of you who are proud of being in the Heartland are beginning to be annoying to some of us in the Kidneylands.
I just came back from a week in the heartland: rural Illinois. Even the most inertia-bound conservatives there despise Bush and his neocon handlers. Unfortunately, many of them also think Ron Paul has interesting ideas. In other news, Illinois is constructing a special Governor’s wing to the Stateville slammer because another one (Blagojevich, a Dem this time) is going down.
rising like a phoenix from the ashes of Auschwitz.
Was that *supposed* to be that crass?
Well, I admit I’m biased, but I still think you guys have Oshinsky pegged wrong. I mean, stickler says a “real” historian would do things David didn’t, but David is extremely famous. Also, he’s an expert on WWII, if I’m not mistaken. He gets interviewed for the History Channel. Pretty sure his merits are legit.
And Buttocks, it’s a book review. You could easily write 18 million pages on any writing, but he was given 1. Besides, academics are encouraged to embrace new ideas, even if they sound ridiculous. You and I can use our judgment and note that Goldberg is a blind, partisan, fucktard. It’s David’s job to consider new ideas. You know, academics do research into new ideas as well as reading the old.
He was a scathing as his point of view and professional code could allow.
Besides, academics are encouraged to embrace new ideas, even if they sound ridiculous.
No, really, they’re not.
He was a scathing as his point of view and professional code could allow.
No, really, he wasn’t. Well, to be fair, he may have been as scathing as his point of view allows — but there’s no professional code that says he has to give a pass to rampant dishonesty.
I mean, stickler says a “real” historian would do things David didn’t, but David is extremely famous.
The American Historical Association has over 14,000 members. They don’t all agree on how to write a book review, either for an academic journal or for a more widely circulated medium like the New York Times.
Besides, academics are encouraged to embrace new ideas, even if they sound ridiculous.
Tell that to Deborah Lipstadt.
He was a scathing as his point of view and professional code could allow.
You know him better than we, but his understanding of his professional code does not dictate or define other historians or academics understanding of theirs.
I think Jonah’s book was more flawed with omission and logical errors than it was in dishonesty. Which facts in the book did he make up? From what’s I’ve read it seems more like he jumps to conclusions than he does use lies.
And yes, academics do have to at least consider radical ideas because they know that many “absolute truths” have been proven wrong on both sides.
You guys represent the extreme view of Goldberg. You may be write, but chances are you pick any person at random and they won’t hold him in as much contempt. That’s just the law of averages.
Also, you may want to keep in mind that David was probably trying to convince people. I love this site, but you have to admit that it’s a circle jerk. None of us come here to learn anything new. We come here to laugh at people that make us feel justified in our strongly held beliefs. If he had just said “Golberg is a total idiot” no one would have listened for the same reason that no moderate or right winger, save the trolls, come here. If you make it clear you don’t respect someone when trying to shoot down their arguments, those who are trying to look at things a bit more objectiely aren’t going to listen.
Oshinksy knows he’s notgoing to change our minds, knows that he won’t change the extreme rights minds, and so writes something rational to appeal to the moderates. We know we’re write. Jonah knows he’s write. David may or may not know he’s write, but he knows enough to not write like he does becuase that’s the best way to convince the unconvinced. If you want to change the world, that’s pretty much the best startegy.
what did you want him to do? Call Jonah pantload to show what a great mind he was?
I think that Oshinsky was far kinder to a book accusing everyone and everything the nepotized author didn’t like as “liberal fascism” than merited.
But then, you would likely get the same sort of politeness from a real scientist who was asked by a major newspaper to “review” the scientific speculations of Charles Manson, particularly scientists who aren’t practiced in that sort of endeavor.
That’s one reason why most of the time scientists are advised not to debate creationists — firstly because a debate somehow seems to ‘legitimize’ their magical hypothesizing, and secondly because many scientists are only accustomed to debating in the fashion and environment in which they were trained, not in confronting carnival barkers with head injuries.
Also, Erich von Daniken’s insistence on his hypothesis that the lining up of the Egyptian major pyramids in a North-South orientation could only have been explained by extraterrestrial intervention was more flawed and ridden with logical errors, given the Egyptians’ abilities to line objects up with both the Sun and the stars, than it was dishonest.
Those of you who are proud of being in the Heartland are beginning to be annoying to some of us in the Kidneylands.
And to some of us down here in the Dangly-partsLand as well.
what did you want him to do?
See Incontinentia Buttocks’ comment above about the political, historical context within which the book has been produced. Also, Oshinsky’s review has no discussion of Goldberg’s sources—what they are and how they are used. Furthermore, Oshinsky fails to adequately identify and analyze the underlying ideological and political commitments of the author in question. Finally, as other have already noted above, considering “radical ideas” is not the same thing as giving them a pass once they have been inspected and found to be inadequate.
Nutella, there are many ways to be dishonest. “Making up facts” is one of them, and yes, Goldberg does do that when he asserts without foundation, for example, that FDR and Hitler were buds. The omissions you allow for are another sort of dishonesty, as is the “jumping to conclusions” that Goldberg engages in not out of ignorance but out of a desire to twist reality.
Are academics expected to “consider” new ideas? Of course. We could argue whether much of Goldberg’s book constitues either “new” or “ideas,” but even leaving that aside, there’s a gaping gulf between considering and embracing — your earlier assertion was that academics should “embrace” even those ideas that are ridiculous. This is simply wrong.
You may very well be right that the average person might not find Goldberg’s book as objectionable as many of us here do — but that’s largely because they won’t read it. And one of the reasons that we (or at least I) value the trust I place in thoughtful scholarship and commentary is that I fear living in a society where what’s reasonable is determined solely by how many uninformed people assume it is.
David may or may not know he’s write, but he knows enough to not write like he does becuase that’s the best way to convince the unconvinced.
You do realize you’ve just said that a respected scholar “knows enough” not to write what he sees as the truth because somehow that’s the best way to convince . . . someone . . . of something.
And if you really believe that saying something essentially meaningless in order not to offend the “moderates” is the best strategy to bring about change, you might want to see about finding even a single example of where that tactic has been successful.
A good point posted over at Roy’s about the NYT book review editor:
UPDATE. Commenter psuedonymous in nc points out that the Times Book Review editor, Sam Tanenhaus, is a self-proclaimed “Man of the Right.” Tanenhaus was recently appointed to edit the paper’s Week in Review, too.
I think Jonah’s book was more flawed with omission and logical errors than it was in dishonesty. Which facts in the book did he make up?
Well, I haven’t read it yet. Have you? I’d think an actual historian would have to spend more time that is merited to parse out any “facts that are made up.” And is the easily-proved factual error, which might then be corrected, really worse than omissions and errors of logic?
You guys represent the extreme view of Goldberg. You may be write [sic], but chances are you pick any person at random and they won’t hold him in as much contempt. That’s just the law of averages.
I don’t think “law of averages” is what you mean here, but at any rate, you are correct that most “random” folks have never heard of Jonah Goldberg, let alone care what he writes. That doesn’t excuse his promulgating dishonest arguments dressed up with scholoarly-sounding words and phrases that will find their way into the political discourse and remain there long after anyone’s remembered who spat them out, or why, in the first place.
Also, you may want to keep in mind that David was probably trying to convince people.
People already have their convictions. You probably mean Oshinsky is trying to “persuade.” But that aside: Persuade them of what?
I love this site, but you have to admit that it’s a circle jerk. None of us come here to learn anything new. We come here to laugh at people that make us feel justified in our strongly held beliefs.
Speak for yourself. I learn quite a bit from this site. It offers a keen ability to analyze the constant barrage of rightwing Internet hogwash. Some of us are able to keep our own perspective and opinions in check when reading the posts here. Take what you need and leave the rest.
Oshinksy [sic] knows he’s not going to change our minds, knows that he won’t change the extreme rights [sic] minds, and so writes something rational to appeal to the moderates.
Like others in the NYT’s stable of book reviewers, Oshinsky will be paid for his efforts. And why should he “write something to appeal to moderates”? Since when are book reviews, even those in the NYT, intended to mollify anyone’s sense of the political? That’s not the reviewer’s job, unless part of his agreement is to make what he writes palatable and squishy to as many people as possible in order to sell books, which with the NYT is always highly likely.
We know we’re write [sic]. Jonah knows he’s write [sic]. David may or may not know he’s write [sic] … what did you want him to do? Call Jonah pantload to show what a great mind he was?
No. I wanted a fuller, more precise, more accurate historical takedown of “Liberal Fascism” than the NYT gave me. Then again, perhaps it got the time and attention it deserved.
More on Tanenhaus.
The fact is, the NYT has had no problem with ‘balance’ when trashing books witten by liberals.
The fact is, the myth of the ‘liberal mainstream media’ is just a part of the Overton window that is moving this country towards actual fascism.
Billionaire heirs such as Pinch Sulzberger and Donald Graham have more in common with Richard Mellon-Scaife than they do with the people who gave the New York Times and the Washington Post the reputations they now have.
/garyspeak
Let me take you down, ’cause I’m reading Suzanne Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Suzanne Fields forever.
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It’s getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn’t matter much to me.
Let me take you down, ’cause my name is Suzanne Fields.
Nothing is real and nothing to get hung about.
Suzanne Fields forever.
with apologies to the Fab 5.
Michael Bérubé noted the weirdness — he’s being generous — of Tanenhaus’s assignment of reviewers for liberal books when his own book got a notice at the NYTBR.
Tanenhaus does seem to have a habit of sending out liberal books for hatchet jobs while ensuring conservative books get more respectful treatment.
Were Oshinsky asked to review the Doughpus Magnum for an academic history journal, one doubts he’d be as generous. But for the NYTBR, the presiding tone is different. Still, I’d be interested to know if he received any ‘editorial guidance’.
Another good discussion on Tanenhaus’s slanting of the NYTBR here.
And before the wingnuts start accusing us of sour grapes, that it was predicted that Libruls R Teh Fashists would get soft treatment by the Gray Lady’s Man o’th’Right.
You may be write[sic], but chances are you pick any person at random and they won’t hold him in as much contempt. That’s just the law of averages.
If I picked someone at random and read a couple of passages, they most likely would.
Billionaire heirs such as Pinch Sulzberger…
Did he fall asleep again? That never gets old.
Duros, I toss ’em out there so you can hit ’em out of the park.
~batting practice pitcher
Germans are free to say whatever they like, as long as they don’t say anything forbidden by the government…
I wonder, can they say “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” in Germany?
Ah yes, and here come the sics. Not directly ad hominem, but close enough. I’m generally only a commenter when rather sick. Currently I’m so lightheaded that standing takes me to the verge of syncope.
You guys are completely missing my point. I think Goldberg’s book, from the title alone, not to mention the choice passages posted here, is in fact a steaming pile of dog crap. I don’t think saying that in a public forum is going to get me taken very seriously by anyone who does staunchly agree.
I am aware that there are more ways to lie than to make up facts. David points those out. He addresses the dishonesty by pointing out the flimsy conclusions and relevant, omitted facts.
David was trying to be academic and cool headed because it makes him sound like less of a jackass. That’s not to call you a jackass, well it is, but I’m also a jackass. In this particular area anyway. The point is he wants to be taken seriously.
And yes, I chose the wrong word when I said “embrace” for radical ideas. the point is that it’s not wise to dismiss them out of hand just because they appear on the face ridiculous. Again not only because you may be wrong, but also because it makes seem biased and hence unconvincing.
I said earlier, of course there were more things he could’ve taken objection to. All of his criticisms were relevant and all of his praise was thinly veiled. He was limited in space and so made choices. They may not be, in you opinion, the correct choices, but that doesn’t change the fact that viewed in the proper context his review essentially says “Goldberg is a partisan, ignorant fucktard with at most a smidgen of respectability thrown into an otherwise pointless endeavor” He just leaves out the rhetoric. If you want scathing rhetoric. Just keep reading here. You want something a bit more intellectual, read Oshinsky.
Oh, and I tried harder on the proofreading this time. Does that make my points more valid?
Ah yes, and here come the sics. Not directly ad hominem, but close enough
OK I have no skin in this particular game, but I got a chuckle out of this. If you have a problem with the sics try a little proofreading before hitting that “Submit” button.
Please, can’t someone be fascist and bann Saul/Bastian/Gary.
My pie script can’t take much more of that shit.
The point is he wants to be taken seriously.
You miss by a wide margin our point. “Seriously” in the NYT Book Review means more friendly to right wing bs than same deserves.
“Seriously” also means free reign to attack anything slightly liberal without having to resort to use of facts.
Yes, you are making the point that if you read VERY CLOSELY, your professor has managed to criticize Jonah the Pantload.
Could you notice our point? This is not (yet) the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, and managing to sneak a few criticisms past the censor, Sam Tanenhaus, does not merit acclaim as a masterpiece of Freedom™?
Or even a decent review…especially considering the topic.
Hard to believe, I know! But yes, yes I am and yes I is.
So why didn’t “Libruls R Fascists!!!” get the kind of smear-job NYT review Al Gore’s book got in the Washington Post?
What Al Wishes Abe Said By Andrew Ferguson Sunday, June 10, 2007; B05
You can’t really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, “The Assault on Reason.” It’s a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver.
The fact is that big corporations own the news media, they are mainly concerned with the bottom line, and their content far to the political right as they can get away with without creating controversy that might lead to controversy which could hurt advertising sales.
Those who sincerely want to find out the real truth about what’s going on need to go to websites like this one.
Personally, I couldn’t believe that Oshinksky —who is a historian???— didn’t call Goldberg on some of his more outlandish claims, like the French Revolution supposedly being fascist, while the American Revolution was conservative… I’m sure that “fact” was pulled straight out of Goldberg’s ass, like so much else about the book.
Duh. Because Al Gore is a snotty liberal fascist whose deepest desire is for everyone to be miserable and we all know he just pretends to care about stuff but really all he wants is for us all to have to sit around in tents without any modern technology and pray to pagan gods and be forced into homosexual marriages with animals. Plus everyone hates Al Gore just like everyone hates their grade school teachers who wouldn’t let them play all day and made them do stupid math and stuff.
You don’t need any proof for that because good American patriot conservatives know it.
Jonah Goldberg doesn’t have to say stuff which has to do with what happened. Jonah Goldberg just has to speak the truth and then find stuff in history that makes the truth interesting.
Idiot liberals.
And Buttocks, it’s a book review. You could easily write 18 million pages on any writing, but he was given 1. Besides, academics are encouraged to embrace new ideas, even if they sound ridiculous. You and I can use our judgment and note that Goldberg is a blind, partisan, fucktard. It’s David’s job to consider new ideas. You know, academics do research into new ideas as well as reading the old.
He was a scathing as his point of view and professional code could allow.
As it turns out, I am a tenured, academic historian.
And you’re simply wrong about this.
Oshinsky could not, nor should he have, written an S,N!-style snarkfest.
But what he could have done as a scholar was provide a contextually grounded evisceration of the book. Liberal Fascism is a poorly evidenced, tendentious bit of politically hackery. There’s no reason a scholar cannot say this…and do it with the care and knowledge that s/he brings to the table as a scholar.
For an (admittedly extended) example of what I’m talking about see legal historian Eric Muller’s takedown of Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment.
And thus, the wingnut welfare machine wins. Because it has the capacity to flood the market with ‘heterodox’ quasi-vanity tomes — Bruce Bartlett’s ‘Democrats Hate Blacks’ is next up — and it’s apparently impolite to describe them as propagandistic Grub Street turds in the punchbowl of public discourse.
As it turns out, I am a tenured, academic historian.
And this is another in our continuing series “Why Sadly, No! is a very good place.”
Tune in again for another edition of “REAL smart people address wingnut talking points”, brought to you by our sponsor, Teh REAL Big Shovel Company. Because out here, you’re gonna need a REAL Big Shovel…
mikey
It did not “turn out” that way, you did it on purpose so that you could prance around with your big title and try to scare people like Jopants Loadberg away from coming up with totally new ways of explaining big stuff to people who don’t know what happened.
“OK I have no skin in this particular game, but I got a chuckle out of this. If you have a problem with the sics try a little proofreading before hitting that “Submit” button.”
I commenting on a blog at near syncope because I had an epirdural steroid injection without anesthesia yesterday and today I am packing my car for a move to California. Forgive me if I neglect a bit of proofreading. You’re right, I should change my lifestyle to accommodate my critics without regards to my situation.
“You miss by a wide margin our point. “Seriously” in the NYT Book Review means more friendly to right wing bs than same deserves.”
Um, I think being taken seriously is about how you come off, not how right you are. See, people have to listen to you first before they even consider giving you respect. Being taken seriously and being right are not at all the same things.
As to the point that the criticism was veiled, well, I disagree. Read the last line of his review. That’s pretty damn snarky.
“As it turns out, I am a tenured, academic historian”
So is David, twice offer, and I’m going to guess he has considerable more academic heft. If you’re going to try a pissing contest with Dr Oshinsky, I’d like to see your CV please. I’m guessing his carries a deal more heft.
“For an (admittedly extended) example of what I’m talking about see legal historian Eric Muller’s takedown of Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment.”
How much text is in that take down? Does the NYT generally donate that much space to ANY book review.
I don’t think I’m missing your point. It seems to be that Oshinsky should’ve found nothing positive at all in an entire book and gotten as focused entirely on the negatives. If he had done this it would have (correctly or not) tarnished his reputation of impartiality by at the beary least appearing to be partisan. Is that fair? Maybe not. Do we live in a fair world? No. He was being smart and accurate. Sure, he could’ve done better. that’s universally true. But he didn’t fail by any means.
Why the hell are you wasting your time here? Go do your stuff. Are you nuts? This blog will be here when you’re done. Let. It. Go. Oshinsky’s career does not depend on you defending his review of this miserable piece of crap excuse for a book to be located in the friction section of the bookstore, which is where you find doorstops and stuff.
So is David, twice offer, and I’m going to guess he has considerable more academic heft. If you’re going to try a pissing contest with Dr Oshinsky, I’d like to see your CV please. I’m guessing his carries a deal more heft.
You’re right about this, of course. But I wasn’t going toe-to-toe with Oshinsky about anything, least of all our relative “academic heft” or historical skillz. I was pointing out that you were wrong in your assertion that as an academic historian he had to write the kind of review he did. Saying as much is in no way a criticism of Oshinsky as an academic historian, but rather a criticism of your knowledge of the professional standards of my discipline. FWIW, there is nothing whatsoever professional problematic about the review that Oshinsky wrote. It’s just not a very pointed review. Which brings me to your last point…
I don’t think I’m missing your point. It seems to be that Oshinsky should’ve found nothing positive at all in an entire book and gotten as focused entirely on the negatives. If he had done this it would have (correctly or not) tarnished his reputation of impartiality by at the beary least appearing to be partisan. Is that fair? Maybe not. Do we live in a fair world? No. He was being smart and accurate. Sure, he could’ve done better. that’s universally true. But he didn’t fail by any means.
Actually you are missing my point entirely. The problem is not at all that Oshinsky found some good things to say about the book. The problem is, as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, that he entirely failed to place the book in its political context. As it is a fundamentally political book, not doing so is to fundamentally misread it. It’s like writing a review of a campaign biography of a presidential candidate that fails to mention that the person in question is running for president and that the book is a document of his campaign.
Nutella, I do hope you feel better. Not trying to be snarky about the sics, but they are kinda funny.
Perhaps you could do us a favor and get Dr. O to stop by here on his way home or something, so we could more clearly get his opinion, away from the hustle and bustle of overbearing NYT book review editors.
I promise we’ll be good and respectful, right y’all? (Resident trolls excepted, of course)
One last point, Nutella, before you go and take care of your health and your packing (which you really should do rather than getting all upset at the commenters here): I’m not sure precisely whom you’re referring to when you say That’s not to call you a jackass, well it is but since it appears between responses to a couple of points I made, I’ll go ahead and assume you were addressing me. And then I’ll ask you to re-read my comment and try to recognize that I treated you with nothing but respect and seriousness in my counter-arguments. No name-calling, no hysterics, not even any snark. You reacted badly because your points were proven wrong, not just by me but by several thoughtful, intelligent, careful and informed arguers. Oshinsky could have done the same to Goldberg’s book — but as your responses to criticism here have proven, such pointed and powerful argument appears to some people to be out of bounds.
I can understand Nutella’s position; s/he is defending a friend from what s/he perceives as an attack.
I can understand Dr. Oshinksy’s position as trying to remain objective, academic and non-inflammatory.
However, we as rational and sane people (i.e., liberal fascist abortion-monkeys) do not necessarily have to accept new ideas regardless of how bat shit insane they may be. Sane, well-balanced and rational people can tell the difference. When someone stands up and says that FDR and Hitler were pretty much the same ideologically, it is not unfair to stand up and say “that’s bullshit and you know it.”
I would have just liked the review better if he had delved a bit.
I don’t disagree, Duros, but a couple points.
First, who knows what Oshinsky’s position is? We don’t know why he treated Goldberg’s book as generously as he did — we’re taking Nutella’s assumptions as if they were supported with evidence.
Second, it’s fine that Nutella wants to defend his friend (who really doesn’t need to be defended from us, but OK) and it’s even fine that Nutella would like us to excuse sloppy argument because s/he isn’t feeling well and is preoccupied, etc. What’s NOT fine is the notion underlying Nutella’s comments here: that to address the dishonesty and bad faith in Goldberg’s book directly (not rudely, not obscenely, just directly) would be uncivil, unserious, and “jackass”y.
This is precisely the position that has kept the rightwing noise machine running so smoothly for so long — the minute someone on the left says “Hey, that’s a lie!” the only sound you hear for weeks is the shrieking of wingers accusing the left of lowering the discourse.
It kills me that someone like Nutella, who agrees that Goldberg’s book seems (hasn’t read it) to be worthless, still thinks the way to combat said worthlessness is through pleasant, constructive criticism with a healthy dollop of praise thrown in for “balance.”
Just a couple additional points to add:
First, I have great respect for David Oshinsky as an historian. Although my personal experience with him is limited to a single convention hotel interview years ago (which, incidentally, I really enjoyed, even though I didn’t get the job), my sense from the many people I know who knew him at Rutgers is that he’s also a very good person. No single book review, however bad (and this one is really not that bad) will change any of that. But I am, nonetheless, disappointed in the book review for the reasons already stated.
Second, as I think I’ve pointed out in a number of earlier comments on Pantload-related program activities here at S,N!, what’s wrong with Liberal Fascism is most certainly not that it’s ridiculous to compare the New Deal with its contemporary fascist European governments. A number of actual historians have done so judiciously. The problems with Liberal Fascism are that its poorly researched, incoherently argued, and delivered in bad faith. These problems were entirely predictable given the professional track record of its author. In a truly fair world, such a book would not receive a more negative review in the New York Times. Instead, it wouldn’t receive a review in the New York Times at all. Indeed, it wouldn’t have been published by a serious publisher.
Among the things that can be said about this situation, the thing that cannot be said — under any circumstances imaginable — is that Jo’berg has aimed to ‘raise the level of discourse’.
If there is anything we have seen, Goldbutt’s sole focus was on seeing if it was possible to lower discourse beyond the level at which gravity no longer clearly pulls toward the center of the Earth because you have come that close to the core, and to go any further would be to begin to ascend toward the other side of the surface, and thus logically contradicting your goals of bringing the discourse lower than any sort of low which any low-thinking people have ever considered.
El Cid is a genius and a poet and a visionary.
[/Dennis Hopper in Apocalypse Now]
What are they gonna say about El Cid? What are they gonna say? That he was a kind man? That he was a wise man? That he had plans? That he had wisdom? Bullshit man!
… now, if that’s a fact, tell me, am I lying?
Oh yeah. Here we go.
Do you know that ‘if’ is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you… I mean I’m no, I can’t… I’m a little man, I’m a little man, he’s… he’s a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas…
When someone stands up and says that FDR and Hitler were pretty much the same ideologically, it is not unfair to stand up and say “that’s bullshit and you know it.”
Indeed, that claim, among many others, were so fundamentally dishonest that Oshinksy should have been hooting them right out of the arena of political debate, which Oshinsky studiously avoided doing.
But the kind of dishonest cherry-picking Goldberg indulges in!!!
Look, Richard M. Nixon, whose policies I fundamentally disagreed 99.9% of the time, actually DID take some worthwhile steps to clean up pollution in the Great Lakes, in fact, I am sorry to say that he did more for the Great Lakes than any other president before or since.
Someone as dishonest as Goldberg would cherry-pick that one fact to create a deliberately misleading portrayal of Nixon as an “environmentalist”.
But this kind of deliberate dishonesty poisons the well of history in such a way as to make it totally false, much like the Nazis and their famous “stab in the back” history of Germany losing WWI because of socialist traitors.
As an actual historian, I would think that Oshinksy would be very concerned about that, and I’m disappointed that he wasn’t.
In two hundred years we’ve gone from “I regret but I have one life to give for my country” to “Fuck you!”?
Another good corporate-media-whores story.
http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/11802
darrelplant: Yeah, I noticed that too, and many others. Blame it on the epirdural [sic] steroid injection.
Now darrelplant. That might be amusing but apparently under the current rules of discourse it’s also dangerously close to an ad hominem attack. Such attacks are jackassy and unserious. Stop it. Wipe that smile off your face.
Boy, I’m late to this party but it seems to me that Nutella’s basic point is that scholars are ethically prevented from calling a liar a liar because doing so is impolitic. My question, then, is what the fuck are scholars for?
Of course academics should keep and open mind. New ideas that defy conventional wisdom always seem wacky and, thus, the frisson of wackiness should not be a barrier to consideration. But Goldberg’s wacky premise was “supported” by fallacious reasoning and its many evidentiary gaps papered over with vague generalities. It is apparent that he began with his conclusion and tried to work backwards from there; ignoring counter-evidence and resorting to the most transparent kinds of sophistry to “make” his points. In other words, regardless of whether you like or dislike his premise, it was terrible scholarship.
If a scholar cannot call out bad scholarship for fear of being called a big mean poopyhead then we are well and truly fiznucked.
Well, I have a tendency for hyperbole and I’m not that upset. I actually am taking care of my health by posting here because the rigors of packing require that I lay down and do something simple.
Also, I never defended my “poor arguments” with my health, merely my poor (nonexistent) proofreading.
I never meant ot actually call anyone a jackass. That was hyperbole. I thought obviously so and meant no offense.
I think this discussion has gotten off track from the main point entirely. I don’t know you detractors intentions, and maybe I’m misreading. It just seems that you’re attacking this review for not toeing the line you feel is irrefutably correct. Again, that may not be what you think but it’s how it comes off.
I read the article and see David as being clearly disdainful and grasping at straws to come up with anything nice to say. I also see that he may have gone a bit too far, but I don’t blame him for erring on the side of caution. It’s a patently negative review.
Oh and darrel. What’s the implication there? I didn’t deserve it because I accidentally typed a homonym of the word for which I intended? I guess you’re right. I must’ve sucked dick into that 3.96 Rutgers gave me the two semesters I was there. Fortunately for me, there was woman in charge of transfers at Carnegie Mellon and so had the more pleasant experience of giving cunnilingus in order to garner my acceptance (the only accepted transfer student in the chem dept that year).
The next three years were a shameful and disturbing string of various debaucheries to which I submitted myself in order to obtain the 3.89 I got at CMU, along with a MS (in only 5 additional months). I found a competent and depraved biochemist to complete the NMR protein structure of a natural abundance 45 residue protein fragment along with binding studies (layman’s parlance = something hard to do). My Master’s advisor’s attempt to convince me to stay on for my PhD was mostly due to hallucinations brought on by the Ergot I’d tainted his matte with.
It was also really hard to find the time to start and get funding for an entirely new student run club as well as participate in many others, but when your as versed in the acts of getting what you don’t deserve as I do, you find a way.
Don’t even ask me how I managed to finagle an acceptance to the top ranked PhD program overall and specifically in chemistry in the nation. That’s a trade secret I take with me to the grave.
But all in all, your highlighting of a typographical error in a post has certainly led me to realize what a terrible student I was. How dare I pull strings to get shifted from one campus to another? I’m going to go and return all of my diplomas now and get the job at Walmart to which I’m truly suited.
I know, I know. It’s hypocritical of me to engage in a pissing contest. To stave off critics my point is not that I’m better than darrel but that I actually wasn’t lying when I said I deserved to be in the slightly more prestigious Rutgers College than the one to which I’d been accepted, Livingston College.
It is apparent that he began with his conclusion and tried to work backwards from there; ignoring counter-evidence and resorting to the most transparent kinds of sophistry to “make” his points.
Yup. And what really cheeses me off? I’m on vacation, dammit. I shouldn’t have to deal with this sort of anti-research reverse-argumentation crap until I meet my new batch of English 101 students next week.
I was very disappointed that Oshinsky, a real historian, did not address Goldberg’s magnum oops in the same way that PZ Myers and other real scientists address creationist attempts to pass their religion off as science — with a well-founded, meticulously supported, and unwaveringly derisive explanation of reality. Myers et al. do so, in part (I believe) because they are offended that these creationists are diminishing the value of science with their pseudo- and even anti-scientific stupidity. I would expect a historian to have a similar concern about the value of history as a study if jokers like Goldberg are allowed to mangle it so badly unchallenged.
Seriously, Nutella, waving your credentials around like that does nothing for me. Really, if your arguments have merit, they will have merit regardless of your GPA; and if not, your speedy MS in Chemistry won’t give them merit.
Nutella: No offense, but you’re behaving like a jackass. No hyperbole, either.
Somebody has either had too many or too few of their meds.
I never meant to imply that you were some sort of dick-sucking homonym.
All I’ve got is a BA in English Literature, but that was enough for me to understand the humor in a juxtaposition of the remark about your friend’s daddy getting you into a better program and your defensive claim that you deserved it. Really!
Personally, I’ve always found that the people who were most anxious to share their academic achievements were the most insecure about their capabilities. Ditto for claims of oral sex prowess.
Me, I had to work my way through college the old-fashioned way. No sex-for-grades scheme, just a bookstore job.
I was very disappointed that Oshinsky, a real historian, did not address Goldberg’s magnum oops in the same way that PZ Myers and other real scientists address creationist attempts to pass their religion off as science — with a well-founded, meticulously supported, and unwaveringly derisive explanation of reality.
Yes, but in the Catch-22 that is our 21st century, to do so only gives them undeserved credibility.
Yes, but in the Catch-22 that is our 21st century, to do so only gives them undeserved credibility.
Perhaps, but less so than a wishy-washy or insufficiently rigorous review from which Goldbrick and his publicists can quote-mine something positive.
I hope, Nutella, that when you’re feeling better you’ll be willing and able to check out this thread again and see that nobody here flamed you. We simply responded to what you posted (and yes, people addressed both content and form, as both are integral parts of communication) and argued in good faith. The only person who slid down the path to ill-mannered petulance was, well, you. If such is your general tendency in argument, I can see why you might project such a thing on others and I can even see why you would confuse avoiding legitimate criticism of Goldberg’s book with being civil. I know you’re young, but it’s a serious world out there. Focus on the important stuff. Learn. Resist the urge to be whiny when confronted with stuff you didn’t know or with your own mistakes — it doesn’t win any arguments or make the planet any better.
[blinks]
Wha? GPA flashing? Really?
Bwahahaahaa!
I’m going to make popcorn.
Damn it, someone’s pointed out that I’m insecure! I’m going to go have to cry now. Maybe if I give a psychiatrist head he’ll make me whole!
Why is that Nutter guy talking so much about insecurity and blow jobs?
the minute someone on the left says “Hey, that’s a lie!” the only sound you hear for weeks is the shrieking of wingers accusing the left of lowering the discourse.
Case in point: Remember when Big Dog went on Fox News a couple years ago, and one of their ‘winger “journalists” (ah-hem) tried to catch him a bogus RW talking point, and he called him on that BS? Ooooh my, how rude and partisan and undignified–how “unpresidential” he was being by calling the Fox puke out on his right wing talking points, instead of being quiet and the spin like a good lil Democrat.
And Nutella, I gather from your rather impressive academic career you would know that it is common practice that in sober discussion when someone quotes another verbatim, errors are denoted by bracketed sics, not some subtle conspiracy to make you look bad.
OK, I’m just gonna say it. Go outside, take a deep breath, and really…stop being an ass.
[munch, crunch, munch]
Huh? Oh…
Did someone call for a psychiatrist?
Hi, folks. I’m back. My heft brings all the boys to the yard. And they’re like, “It’s better than yours.” And I’m like, “Damn right, it’s better than yours.”
And because I am a jackass and proud of it: Accept and except are not homonyms. Say them out loud.
You’re right, they’re not at all homonyms. Seems no one noticed I meant to say homophone. Woulda thought the BA in English woulda caught that. Anyway, I’m not talking anymore as I’ve clearly been incoherent the whole day.
One day I should post when I have my capacities so I don’t look like a fool. (I hope)
Actually, maybe it’s better this way. You guys seem to be having a good laugh :).
G’night all.
They’re not homophones either. Say them out loud again.
Why is it that trolls always feel the need to announce their departure? And then they usually don’t leave?
J—
Antonyms?
Actually, I think they’d also be considered homophones, even though they’re not pronounced exactly the same way.
ak’sept
ik’sept
But please don’t pay me much mind now. I’m being a total asshole because yes, they can sound very similar.
The fact is, liberals are more homophonic than conservatives.
You liberals are more than welcome to demand all states recognize homosectional marriages, but it is not the suite deal you make it out to be.
I liked this part best:
I mean, stickler says a “real” historian would do things David didn’t, but David is extremely famous.
Just file ’em away under “words commonly confused by people who aren’t really thinking,” like affect & effect. And no, J—, you’re not being an asshole. I’m actually rather impressed by how few of Nutella’s language gaffes people here pointed out. It’s not like there weren’t plenty to choose from.
Yeah, Bubba, I went back and looked at that and thought, day-um, a degree in chemistry at 13? This Nutella guy really *is* amazing!
Smiling Mortician: I like to think we took it easy on the poor kid because of his health problems and packing up to move and all. I choose to believe he was taking heavy painkillers.
I honestly was going to give up for the night but curiosity got the best of me.
Wow, I got labeled a troll.
I actually like this site, and I’ve commented here before. I’m fairly certain that I’m not a troll. I simply thought Oshinsky’s review wasn’t given a fair shake. I don’t know how it got turned into a fight. Prolly my fault. Like I said, it’s been a stressful day.
I agree you’re not a troll, Nutella and I don’t want to pile on but I must take exception with this:
I love this site, but you have to admit that it’s a circle jerk. None of us come here to learn anything new.
Everything I know about Australian punk rock bands, furries, the aerodynamic properties of gas grills, lolcat bibles, the drinking habits of Ann Althouse and advancements in the design of lego trebuchets I learned here. I have also learned a lot about microbrews and single malt scotches and just recently I found out I’m a Jew. I may have learned a little here and there by following the historical and philosophical arguments that other people sometimes have while I’m trying to think of something funny to say but I’m not going to admit that.
I don’t want to pile on but I must take acception with this:
Fixed.
Which facts in the book did he make up?
As the commentariat have pointed out in previous Jonah-related activities, on the very book jacket we find the claim that “Irving Berlin praised Mussolini in song”.
Not to mention “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” — two non-existent, contradictory concepts in a single comparison! Of course this is mere nit-picking, and only proves that the book jacket was never exposed to fact-checking, but if you ask for made-up facts then you must expect nit-picking.
Of course this is mere nit-picking
Hey, Jews get to nit-pick with GOD.
Take Johan LœdedHösen’s book (please). There is no question that the man has very poor writing skills. He simply can not express his ideas. But there is no question that if a person with similar writing skills produced a book titled “Conservative Fascism” it would be just as unreadable even if you agreed with every word (provided you could get through the whole thing).
So we focus on what the person says (or tries to say). If someone is being an ass, we react to the assery.
Plus, if I see someone really mangling things I assume English isn’t their first language. Since I can barely limp along in French and can’t even do that much in Swedish, mad props if they want to discuss politics in another language.
Provided they aren’t an ass.
I have no idea what you “meant” to say. If I was a mind reader, I certainly wouldn’t have had to work to get through college; I probably wouldn’t have bothered with an education at all, and certainly not a degree in English Literature.
And I haven’t nearly enough time to correct all your spelling or grammar mistakes. Just the funny ones.
Goldberg responds to Oshinsky’s review.
My translation of “I’ll definitely have some more thoughts later”: “Mom, what’s all this about Republican administrations and executive power? What is Oshinsky talking about? Mom!”
I haven’t read all of the comments but apparently whoever the author of the piece is does not understand the German Kirchensteuer, which is what she is referring to. Members of the Roman Catholie Church and ELKD (Evangelical Lutheran Church in German) are assessed an additional tax (actually, it’s a proportion of their income tax) that is dispensed by the government directly to the various establishments of religionn. (I believe that at least one Jewish denomination was added a couple of years ago.
If one doesn’t want to be assessed the tax, the course is obvious: don’t become a member of the respective establishment of religion.
And the idiots’ tertulia is now in full swing:
Ramesh Ponnuru, cornerista.
Post hoc ergo stupid fuck.
Superstitious thinking sold as logic. Seems there was a political movement that attracted and incited followers this way. Which one was it?
While I’m trying to think of the answer I’ll note that the fRightwingers have yet to refute my assertion that they regularly abuse inflatable dolphins. That there are a number of ways to interpret their silence is central to my point. Once I get one.
The Pantload is actually right to say that Oshinsky’s review was essentially nonresponsive. Oshinsky decided to review the book as if it were a flawed, but serious popular history, rather than a dishonest and tendentious piece of political hackery.
Ramesh Ponnuru’s entirely predictable attempt to spin the review instead as a covertly positive response to Goldberg’s ridiculous attempt to characterize fascism as a movement of the left (“I don’t think it’s unfair to say that his silence on this point constitutes a concession.”) is precisely why Oshinsky’s approach to reviewing the book was so wrongheaded.
…others who’ve actually read Liberal Fascism…
must suck for him to know that he won’t be able to use this “retort” much longer once the damned thing hits the book shelves.
Jonah owes his very livelihood to liberals, who had the wisdom to instill in our foundational documents. furthermore, liberals are normally the first victims when fascists take over. the nerve of someone to cynically articulate this oxymoronic title to liberally line his pockets is almost as boundless as his ignorance of the American liberal tradition.
That was an 800 word article that used “Jew”, “Jews”, or “Jewish” 25 times! That’s one more than she used “a”!
El Cid said,
December 30, 2007 at 6:16
You liberals are more than welcome to demand all states recognize homosectional marriages
I’d rather recognize the loveseat and ottoman empire.
“I have no idea what you “meant” to say. If I was a mind reader, I certainly wouldn’t have had to work to get through college; I probably wouldn’t have bothered with an education at all, and certainly not a degree in English Literature.
And I haven’t nearly enough time to correct all your spelling or grammar mistakes. Just the funny ones.”
I’ve already admitted twice that I said things that were better left unsaid and stated that it was from medical issues and extreme stress. Is continuing to pile it on your way of accepting an apology, or are you just an ass?
I once read a Church of Scientology document (on an anti-Scientology website) which said that Germany, unlike the US, had neither a written constitution nor a federal system of government. IIRC, it was an internal briefing on the German political system for Church of Scientology officials dealing with the issue of the German government’s decision not to recognise the Church as a religious body for tax purposes, which it claims is an assault on freedom of religion.
After reading Fields’ incisive analysis of German church-state relations, I was drawn to her article on European trees published a few days later:
Well, yes, I imagine an acorn from a chestnut tree would get a good price on eBay – there must be several competing sectors – both Jewish and Christian claimers of miracles, people wanting proof of the mutation of one species into another in a single generation, Ripley’s Believe-It-Or-Not Odditorium …
What template do you use in your blog