I see you work in the agricultural sector, Retardo. What impact has the Bush shrub administration had on your crop prices?

Wow, that looks just like Jerry Cantrell. Yowza!

I see you work in the agricultural sector, Retardo. What impact has the Bush shrub administration had on your crop prices?

Um, negative. There was one spike in late 2004 that helped, but otherwise, prices have been stagnant. Also, production costs have skyrocketed.

But then commodity prices have been stagnant for as long as I’ve been alive; my grandfather got more out of a bushel of soybeans than people do now. Neoliberals of course will say that my loss is the third world farmer’s gain, but then they are liars and fools. We’ve all been fucked, producers first and third world alike, meanwhile Cargill, ADM, et al., pocket the gains and consumers get less of a bargain than they believe.

But then again when efficiency is one’s mantra, and efficiency becomes the utlimate objective of one’s policies, humanity is just going to land in the trash can.

I was against free trade before I was for it and now against it again.

I thought I was smarter than all the grown-ups when I was 17. I was right, including being smarter than I would be some 12 years later when I supported Clinton.

In retrospect it has all been downhill since the PATCO strike.

Don’t feel bad. The fact that Republicans (oh wait, is this about neo-liberals?) keep calling people commies just shows how backwards they are. They’re stuck in the 80s.

I thought I had libertarian ideas, but I’m certainly not one of those SERALWEWPS (Statist, Ex-Republican, Asshole Libertarians Who Enjoys Watching People Suffer).

But, you know, if a bunch of individuals decide to get organized with a clear goal in mind, that’s their business. If a society creates an unsustainable welfare state: fine. If they create a sustainable one: whoop-dee-do. If they create a fascist state; well, later on that’ll end up biting them in the ass.

I don’t support creating a massive, phony “free-market” designed to prevent individuals from reaching their goals. But if a society supports the creation of that free-market system, then they can go for it. I hope they make it work in the long run.

Ah, yes — if you criticize the idea that the economy exists to maximize corporate power and profit, then you’re a “command-economy commie.” Right.

Is there, like, some breakfast cereal these people eat that keeps their minds full of such sub-logical goodness? Hayek Charms?

False Dichotomies!
Straw Men!
Red Herrings!

I’ve not read the book yet (so I’m not going to vouch for or defend it in any way), but Debunking Economics seems to be an attack on neo-classical economics from a scientific and mathematical perspective, as opposed to the (more traditional) social one.

Waco (yes, Waco pushed me Left)

That, of course, makes perfect sense in the policy world. In the blog world “Left” sometimes means “thinking Democrats are teh awesome and hating the Rethuglican brownshirts who disagree”. For people of that mindset, nearly any criticism whatsoever of the Clinton administration is “objectively pro-Republican”. (In the 90’s they’d go further and accuse you of sympathizing with McVeigh.)

Funny you say that, though. What inspired this post is my attacking Clinton’s economics advisors, and their ideological fellow-travellers, from the Left, which is the one aspect of Clintonism that you defend.

Libertarians — what stange creatures!

Anyway, though I get a few Buchanan comparisons from neoliberals trolls, most of the correctly recognise me as to their Left (but not so far to their Left that I’m communist, as some accuse).

Actually, the problem with a “leftist” defense of the government’s actions at Waco is… well, sorta like the problem with a “leftist” defense of the War on Iraq: it cant see beyond its superficial and therefore deeply flawed calculation that the US government in both cases represents secular enlightenment (good), while the opponents in both cases represent reactionary religious nuts (eeeevil).

Actually the reactionary religious nuts represent problems that must be properly understood first (as philosophically unsavory at best, but also mostly harmless as far as threats go), and then dealt with in a patient way. But no, in both cases the fascistic hotheads, so secular and enlightened, won, and people were murdered with tanks and fire on TV for all to see.

I would so totally love it if we could bring back the use of the small-s “socialist” term like it was used in the nineteenth century. For a brief, fascinating window, everyone who thought about politics but was neither a liberal nor a conservative was a socialist….there was a big, cantakerous tent for everyone from Marxists to anarchists to anarchosyndicalists to trade unionists. Had there been Social Democrats and Communists at the time, they would’ve been welcome, too.

It’s how I think of myself, at least….a “small-s socialist”. Sort of like a small-d democrat. Or even a small-r republican.

Let’s add to your list free-market gems, Enron and Worldcom; upstanding corporate humanists who put honest accounting, workers pensions and the supply of electricity to California before profits. I credit those two for pushing me left all over again.

How did Waco push you “left”? What does “left” mean in this context?

Read Gore Vidal’s article on Timothy McVeigh if you haven’t. The only truly reasonable thing ever written by anyone about anything, ever.

Small-s socialism?

Is this the same country that produced “The Grapes of Wrath”, the Bonus Army, FDR, the New Deal and the civil rights movement?

They say America sneezes and the UK catches a cold. In Britain we’ve been in thrall to a crowd of Thatcherites for almost thirty years, treated to ever more intrusive privatisations of essential public services, and it’s not going to stop until the political class recognises the damage this is doing.

You might know there’s a huge anti-Blair backlash going on here – Britain is a country waking up from a car crash, and all we can remember is that a woman called Maggie was driving and there was a man called Ronnie in the back seat shouting “Go right, go right!”

Call me selfish, but our political class takes its cues from the prevailing winds of Washington. Neo-liberalism is the unquestioned doctrine of British politics and our attempts at protest have singularly failed for the last twenty years – I know it’s sad that I have to ask you to help us out, but anything you can do would be greatly appreciated.

Well, considering that the BATF had been run exclusively by republicans for the 12 years up to the date of the attack, and teh FBI that screwed up the negotiations and seige was likewise, that makes some sense.

For bonus points I would add that the main reason we had an incompetent AG under Clinton authorizing the final raid was because the republicans in the senate, out of pure bad faith, blocked two or three perfectly competent people for frivolous reasons.

By “small-s socialism”, I mean a term which embraces everyone to the left of the Liberals – Big-S Socialists would be people who embrace a Socialist political philosophy. That excludes anarchists, and possibly (depending upon how you define things) also Communists and Social-Democrats. The reason I think of myself as a “small-s socialist” is that I struggle with where on the socialist continuum I think I rightly belong. I read, and I study, and I try to engage critically with the ideas of authors who have thoughtful things to say on the subject.

I mean it much in the same way that people in America can support republicanism without being a Republican.

And I wish we could do more to help you out, but our electoral system, which never worked well to begin with, is completely broken at this point. I am just about completely disillusioned with the idea of voting in America….and just to drive home what a big shift that is for me, I can tell you that in the firsrt election I was old enough to vote in, I waited outside for an hour to cast my ballot. In the rain. And I had the flu. And a fever over 100 degrees. And I didn’t care.

America is broken, and I don’t know if I even think it’s fixable anymore.

What inspired this post is my attacking Clinton’s economics advisors, and their ideological fellow-travellers, from the Left, which is the one aspect of Clintonism that you defend.

I don’t think I ever defended Clinton on trade except maybe in comparison to Bush 43. Clinton supported so much execrable intellectual property policy (see here) that it’s hard to pick out stuff I’d really agree with.

How did Waco push you “left�? What does “left� mean in this context?

For the same reason as the event described in the link in the post: Fascist police actions are the apotheosis of rightwing “Law & Order” policies. Now the sort of “law & order” that means “attack the niggers and fags and hippies” has a two-pronged modern ancestry: Richard Nixon on the Rethug side, and Richard fucking Daley on the Dem side. Both, personally and politically, were rightwing. In the link, a 16 year old girl is held down — yes, by pigs, there is no other fucking word — while they swabbed mace into her eyes with q-tips. This girl and her friends were protesting on precious corporate property, peacefully a la Gandhi or Dr King.

One may think this is a lot different than religious nuts, with guns, holing up on their own property but I dont think so at all because it’s irrellevant to the point. What matters is that while the former could have never been a threat though the latter could have been one potentially, both were abused by law enforcement in a Nazified sort of way. No matter the nature of the victim, to oppose this on the grounds that a government has no fucking right to treat its citizens in this way is a leftwing position.

Jillian,

Your electoral system is still a thousand times more democratic than ours, and no matter how fucked it looks, it’s never so bad it can’t be fixed.

Our system is basically driven by big personalities, like Blair, who can act as the Paris Hiltons of politics, as a draw for the crowd. It’s less about policies than it is about image.

But it doesn’t have to stay that way. If people articulate a desire for politicians who act on principle rather than the diktats of focus groups, if the politicians realise that sound policy wins more votes than fearmongering the culture will change overnight. It’s a matter of creating a demand for such a change.

What we need is the public demand for the politics of hope, not the politics of fear, of which current opposition is just as much a part as the ruling administrations. We need leaders and activists who are willing to articulate a positive vision of the future, and a coherent strategy for getting there.

Where they’ll come from, I don’t know, but I can’t believe that we’ve reached a stage where the populace are incapable of demanding a more egalitarian society. Most of the people I speak to every day are intelligent, politically savvy and able to tell the difference between shit and shinola.

Here’s a question that’s been bugging me for a while. Suppose the libertarians did get their perfect state–free market, no taxes, privitization out the wazoo and rights for individuals superceding that of the state.

What happens when a group of employees decide to unionize?

Would the libertarian government swoop in and arrest them? Isn’t that a violation of individual rights? But by leaving the union in place, the movement spreads to others and undermines the state.

And don’t tell me “no one would ever want to unionize”. A libertarian state doesn’t alter human nature (unless everybody’s a transhuman or something).

If someone could honestly convince me that the ’00 and ’04 elections on our side of the pond were not decided by dirty tricks, dear Flying Rodent, I’d be a happy, happy lady.

As long as those nagging doubts of mine cannot be completely shaken, however, how am I supposed to have any confidence in American democracy?

I’ve always been the sort of person who believes that if you are unhappy because you suspect that your beloved is cheating on you, then the problems in your relationship go far, far deeper than any infidelity, whether real or imagined. If you cannot trust your partner, then you ultimately have no relationship, and if your doubts over their faithfulness make you unhappy, then you do not trust them.

I fear my own beloved democracy has whored herself out, and if the doubts have soured me on the relationship, then it’s time to reconsider whether we should be living together anymore.

And most Americans I run into are so lacking in critical thinking skills that they would buy shit and spread it on crackers if it got a celebrity endorsement on television.

The politics of hope would be great…if you find any reason to hope, let me know. I can’t remember seeing any in a while.

And as far as the democratic principles of American elections….remember, people become president in this country even after LOSING the popular vote. I refer you to Federalist #10 if you really want a good background on just how much America hates, and has always hated, what most people think of as “democracy”.

I don’t think I ever defended Clinton on trade except maybe in comparison to Bush 43.

Yes, the “principled” Clinton who signed NAFTA and GATT, as compared to the awful Rethug, so much worse on other matters, but only negligibly in this context. While the hypocrisy of Bush’s steel tariffs is noteworthy, it’s not in the way that I think you think. It’s not noteworthy because it’s inconsistent to a useless economic principle, it is noteworthy because the man is personally a hypocrite. Were Bush’s inconsistencies wrt trade done in favor of non-yuppie, non-wealthy americans, you’d be just as vehemently opposed to them — principles, precious principles! Of course his inconsistencies are instead in favor of corporate campaign contributors, which shows how much of a corporate whore he is, so bash away, but your position isn’t much better.

Read Gore Vidal’s article on Timothy McVeigh if you haven’t. The only truly reasonable thing ever written by anyone about anything, ever.

Shhh, careful, now. Praising Vidal too earnestly might bring another round of tongue-clucking and eye-rolling from sensible, respectable bloggers, and I’m worried we might lose Retardo to an aneurysm if that happens again.

Jillian,

I may whine as a foreigner about the current crop of belligerent idiots that occupy the White House, but that doesn’t mean I disbelieve the articles on which the system of American governance was founded.

The world has always been going to Hell in a handbasket, that’s the nature of the 24/7 news culture we’ve created. But to abandon all hope of a better future is insane, it neglects the lessons of history – that for every Stalin there’s a Roosevelt, every Pol Pot is answered by a Martin Luther King.

People have always been simple and minded to see the world in black and white. It’s the human condition.

But I think we’ve shown in the past that we can create far better realities for ourselves than simple Hobbesian dog-eat-dog societies, and the fact that lunatics have taken over the asylum is no reason to assume that the political culture can’t be changed. It was only a few short years between the Gilded Age and the New Deal, after all. Hopefully financial catastrophes aren’t required to effect political change.

I think the internet distorts our perception of democracy, since by its nature it tends to amplify the positions of extremists. The great majority of people are reasonable and inclined to look after their own interests – I can’t think of any reason why a reasoned argument that their being ruled over by a clique of millionaires bent on war and self-enrichment is bad for them should fail to connect. If the lunatics were able to persuade the populace to eat shit on crackers I see no reason why it shouldn’t be possible to persuade them to change their views.

As for the skullduggery of recent elections, that can be eliminated from the political process, but it will take a popular government with a real mandate to do so. After all, we’re not talking about altering the Constitution.

And I don’t think that’s too idealistic for a 28 year old – I think it’s about right.

I was still pretty idealistic at 28, too.

‘course, that was only five years ago. The world changes quickly nowadays.

Damn, I feel spatial..go get em Ricardo..I’ll flush them, you shoot them. Just stay out of the highballs at lunch.

I always liked the term “gas and water socialist” myself.

Shhh, careful, now. Praising Vidal too earnestly might bring another round of tongue-clucking and eye-rolling from sensible, respectable bloggers, and I’m worried we might lose Retardo to an aneurysm if that happens again.

Cause and effect is tricky. Keep plugging, you’ll get there!

Shhh, careful, now. Praising sensible, respectable bloogers named Earnest might bring an aneurysm to Gore Vidal, and Retardo might get lost.

The “free market” has brought us three straight years of severe shortages in influenza immunizations. The “free market” brings us rapidly increasing gas prices whenever a supply “crisis” occurs but very sticky and slow to decrease gas prices when the crisis ends. The “free market” has brought us slightly less expensive goods made in cheap labor countries while pushing down on the wages of working Americans. The “free market” has brought us increased income disparity and stagnant real wages. The “free market” is certainly not free, it works in favor of the powerful.

Look, I think a lot of our political problem are directly traceable to the winner-take-all system of our political process, we’d probably be better served vis a’ vis a proportional representation systerm. Proportional representation of course presents its own problems, primarily in its coddling of special interest and its inability to address large problems quikcly due to the cooperative nature of the system.
On trade, I think what those who defend Internationalism on liberal grounds fail to realize is that workers in the 3rd world aren’t a level playing field to begin with (they don’t have the same labor rights, or enviromental regualtions hey must obey,etc. thus the logical equalization of labor costs will never occur. That is not to say I’m in favor of a command economy, I personally feel that regualted capitalism (with a certain bare minimum level stadard of living ensured by the governmnet via social services and healthcare) is the best balance of freedom and benefits currently achievable, the trend toward corruption/collusion and or stagnation in a command economy is just too strong for it to succeed for any significant length of time. Obviously in America today we have gone too far towards the unregulated side of things (Reagan’s dereg. surge in the 80’s, something mirrored of a state level in 80’s is to blame for this), and we would be best served to rereggulate certain key industries aswel as establishing a single payer healthcare system, however for as to move entriely to a command economy would be a mistake. Frankly its not fair to compare the growth rates achieved in China, India, Germany and Japan in the second half of the 20th century to our own, all of those nations were developing economies either just becoming, or in the case of Japan and Germany re-establishing modern industrial economies at the time; all NIE (Newly industrialized economies ) will achieve extraordinary growth rates for their inital phase regardless of the mechanism by which the industrialize (hell the Soviet Union had a much higher growth rate than the U.S. from the 1930’s through the 1960’s– hence Kruschev’s boast that they would beat us at our own game) the real measure of an economic system’s success is how it does against equal competitors (the slowdown in the American eocnomy as of late is directly attreibutable to over dereg. which alows collusion and removes capitalisms prime advantage– motivation). A command economy works wonders in the NIE phase (perhaps even outperforming a capitalist one due the centraliztion of resources) however it lacks the flexibility to adapt and succede once it has reached a certain level (see Japan in the 90’s, reunifiaction makes Germany kind of a wild card) unless it maintains other advantages (see China which has comparitively few labior and enviromental laws).
Finally on Waco, I honestly back the government here; Koresh was a child-molesting fucktard (basically Warren Jeffs but only for himselfand for 10 yr olds), who directed his people to open fire on government personnel who attempted to serve a lawful warrant (frankly one of the very few times you can actually blame the press on endagering american people). Waco was not Ruby Ridge, it wasn’t the Black nationlaist thing in Philly in the late-70’s, early -80’s. The waty it ended was horrible, no doubt, but it was self-inflicted, I honestly don’t see how it could have ended peacefully without the U.S. governemnt allowing a child molester, and now killer of U.S. agents to go free, something which would not just have been morally wrong, but alos philosphically suicidal (the government must maintain a monoply of justifiable viiolence for the social contract to stand). I guess what i’m wondering Retardo i what country you’d view as a model for the U.S. to emulate (again I think our system is highly flawed due to deregualtion, and that we would be well served to move to a Canada-style single payer system with some changes to it.)?

To clarify on Waco:
I’m not sure we could have negotiated a successful conclusion with them anyomre than we can now negotiate a successful conlsion to the WoT with Al Queda (note: I’m no saying they attacked us because they “hate our freedoms” obvioulsy if that were true then with apologies to David Cross, N. Europe would be a smoking crater. Honestly they are mad at us for perfectly justifiable reasons for the most part and many of those reasons we could change with little detriment to ourselves, but to negotiate post-9/11, just like negotiating a end to Waco after the shootin of the ATF agents would quite literally embolden our enemies). I guess what I’m trying to say is that if it had been possible to get the non-combatants out of the compound in Waco obviously that would have been preferable, however ot seems that for the most part they weren’t going to leave and I’m unsre as to how we could have acheived a better outcome than we did.

Wait, so is Retardo really trying to argue that Janet Reno isn’t worse than Stalin?

“For the same reason as the event described in the link in the post: Fascist police actions are the apotheosis of rightwing “Law & Orderâ€? policies.”
There is a huge freaking difference form the event depicted in the link and Waco. I mean if the protesters had sarted out by gunning down a couple of cops then you might have an equivalency.

The link does raise an interesting question though, what can you do when the people who use non-violent tactics are in the wrong (not the case in the link obviously, they were doing something I agree with)? That is to say what happens if some Operation Rescue Jacktards do their “block the clinic entrance” thing but do it in away that can’t be defeated with a lock smith and some wire cutters. (Okay this exampole wilethe most realistic case on right-wing non-violent resistance, with the exception of Terri Schiavo, is probably kinda crappy because force could/would be justifiable do to the rights of the women impaired by the protesters actions)? Or to use a better example what do you do if Labarbera and company do the whole chain-blocking thing at Disneyworld on “Gay Day” / A hotel holding a pride conference?

I’m not tryiong to be critical here, I’m honestly curious if anyone has a good solution (full disclosure: My mother is the CEO of Planned Parenthood for a large Western state, and she succeded in pasing a “buffer barrier” law keeping protesters 100 feet away from any clinic, a restriction which even applies to sidewalks around the clinic, while this is something I agree with– the fuckers take pictures of clients and other sick,intimidating shit– it does present obviopus free speech issues, similar to those presented by the “protest/ free speech areas/cages” used a major political events by both parties).

Socraticsilence said,

To clarify on Waco:
I’m not sure we could have negotiated a successful conclusion with them anyomre than we can now negotiate a successful conlsion to the WoT with Al Queda

Fun fact- we never technically declared war on Al Quaeda, Al Quaeda isn’t a country, and reading just that part of your massive block of replies has led me to the scientific conclusion that you are probably dumb, even if you support single-payer healthcare (Hilary Clinton once supported this as well).

In all of this, I find the funniest part to be that right wingers are still reduced to red-baiting fucking 50 years after Unca Walt named names. And they say the left has no new ideas.

Jillian-
I don’t think ’04 was decided by dirty tricks in the classic “vote early and often, get the corpses too” way or even in the purge the voter rolls very lossely thus invalidating good as well as bad (aka Florida style) like ’00 was (though this may have been the case I haven’t seen any evidence that enough people were knocked off in Ohio to push the state), much through Diebold (which while defintely worrisome, and something whihc needs to be changed, is i’m convinced something of a red herring), I do however think it was pushed (especially in Ohio, though almost assuredly to some degree in other places as well) much in the way you described your first vote: bymaking people wait in long lines (misallocation of voting machines–not completely eliminating them or anything) thus discouraging many voters in a country which already is mostly lackadasical about exercising its right of franchise. Personally I think the easiest and most widely acceptable thigns we can do to change our system (proortional rep. would be to radical a departure formour political.l heritageregardless of its merits) would be make elction day a national holiday, make Sec.of State a nonpartisan position (much the judges are in most states) and to push for public funding of elections. More radical changes such as party blind redistricting (which admittedly eliminate some minority representation in congress and thus would be at least at this point, uncontitutional on 14th amendment grounds) which is freaking necessary to make elections effing have point in most places (fuck the power of the office/fundraising, gerry-mandering is the real reason for the low rate of turnover in Cong. elections) or at the very least the elimination of the electoral college (which would not just be unconstitutional due to judical interpaetation but rather requires an actual amendment, much like direct election of senators did in the early 1900’s) and finally prop. rep. which would basically change our enitre political structure and is thus perhaps a bridge too far.

Travis-
Dude, I’m not redbaitng, and to say I’m a right winger is a fucking laugh- and-a-half, hell I’d be cool with a law enforcment solution to Al queda, to be honest thats my fucking preference. I’m ot sure what in the little screed I wrote is either questioned or answered by your fun fact. I mean what does it matter if we declared war on Al Queda? Frankly, the only thing I can even think that you might be implying is that the use of military force in Afghanistan was unjustified, a position for which you’d probably find more support on the right (among the Pat Buchananites) than the left (except for the far, far left pacifist). Honestly if you are aguing that we should not have used force in Afghanistan, I ‘m hard pressed find a place where it would have been justified Travis, I mean while Al queda wasn’t the government of Afghanistan they surely had the support of said government, the Taliban’s offer post-9/11 of Bin Laden while nice would not exactly have solved the problem (ti would have been like stopping at Ramsi Yousef after the first WTC attacks instead of doing what we actually did and getting what at the time we believed was the entire organization). Look, travis unless you arguing for complete pacificism ( a noble but ultimately unsustainable postion) I’m not sure what it is you’re getting at.

I just wanted to pipe in this conversation that I think “Comrade Retardo” is a great name, and supercedes “Retardo Montalban” in greatness. Artistically. Really, you should metamorphise into “Comrade Retardo”. !!!

Socraticsilence said,

Travis-
Dude, I’m not redbaitng, and to say I’m a right winger is a fucking laugh- and-a-half, hell I’d be cool with a law enforcment solution to Al queda, to be honest thats my fucking preference. I’m ot sure what in the little screed I wrote is either questioned or answered by your fun fact. I mean what does it matter if we declared war on Al Queda?

One could argue that the redbaiting segment of my comment was a seperate thought, not directed at you. Also, that you are at least partially insane.

Case in point:
I mean what does it matter if we declared war on Al Queda? Frankly, the only thing I can even think that you might be implying is that the use of military force in Afghanistan was unjustified

I was implying that referring to a “conlusion” to the “WoT” (I presume meaning “War on Terror”) is silly, as there is no actual war being fought.

Besides the war on the middle class, that is- but that’s a different rant altogether.

Cause and effect is tricky. Keep plugging, you’ll get there!

One could say the same about those who should actually read someone’s work before undertaking an ignorant, philistine attack on them.

You’re no where near there yet.

the American fake center, which is often objectively pro-wingnut, and by historical and international standards not centrist at all

Daylight!!!! I see daylight!!!

Travis-
War on Terror, is a rhetorical flourish, much like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs, or hell the Cold War (which actually did have some ancillary declared and undeclared Wars), yes its incorrect, and non-specific but just it is a well-recognized rhetorical technique in American political discourse.

-Sorry for misreading you on the red-baiting topic.

Ah, yes, the social democrats, taking on the task of trying to keep capitalism from overextending itself and imploding. Perhaps instead we should lay the foundations for something better.

This begs the question– what should the foundations be for?

Social democrats, by stabilizing society and maintaining protections for the weakest, at least can minimize social devastation. And has the assumption of power by the extreme right been a failure of those social democrat programs, or more more fundamental political and cultural failure?

Cause and effect is tricky. Keep plugging, you’ll get there!

Yes, swee’pea; well, tracing the many links in a causal chain, all the whos doing what and when they do it, is bedeviling work, to say nothing of the additional problem of ascertaining the motives behind such actions.

Goodness knows that I’ve seen some of the best minds of my generation terribly confused (wanking hysterical naked, perhaps?) after grappling with it.

But seriously – the reference to your tongue-clucking and eye-rolling was meant in reference to your, shall we say, dramatic impatience with those swine among your readers who fail to appreciate the pearls of wisdom you selflessly cast before them (e.g. your response to King of Pants in the thread I linked to earlier). I mean, really, this seems to be a frequent thing lately, and it’s a little worn out, don’t you think? I imagine the burdens of genius are tremendous, but take a load off, Atlas. We can’t all be rocket scientists.

Thanks for the encouragement, though!

“I mean if the protesters had sarted out by gunning down a couple of cops then you might have an equivalency.”

Read more than the government’s account of events to reduce temporary smugness resulting from chronic inflammation of the skepticism gland. Repeat as neccessary.

Oh, good, the Retardo/Editors beef is still going on.

Hooray for the intertubes! Motto: “Eventually everyone will have a reason to hate everyone else“

I’m a fan of both you guys precisely because of your shared tendency to treat the most gossamer wisp of disagreement with the merciless derision usually reserved for the truly egregious, but I wish you wouldn’t fight in front of the kittens and photoshopped wingnuts.

They’re our future, after all.

I was living very near Humboldt in 1997, I was in my 20’s, and I had lots of friends.

Remember, the wacko-fascist environmentalists are probably next.

Don’t you mean eco-TERRORISTS!! mdhatter?

You’re doing good work over here Retardo, and your commenters are good too.

I wish I had time to keep track of all the conversations on all the blogs I read.

If you’re interested in the perceptions of an organic consumer, I write a few things about libertarians and their thinking because I used to be one.

One could say the same about those who should actually read someone’s work before undertaking an ignorant, philistine attack on them.

You’re no where near there yet.

It’s funny how you always find your testicles in the last place you look.

Please enlighten your readership by specifying the minimum number of historical fictions one must read before earning the right to call one of the silliest conspiracy theorists on the planet an embarrassment. As Mr. den Beste apppears to be in permanent retirement, I believe this leaves you as the go-to autodidact in such matters.

The Wingnut All-Stars are no match for the Keyboard Kommandos.

Is that a real soldier from AOG? Right here?

Wow…..this IS a red-letter day!

It’s funny how you always find your testicles in the last place you look.

Was Mark Steyn holding them or Jeff Goldstein, or Glenn Reynolds, or den Beste and Lileks? But better them, I suppose, than “ever-embarassing” “conspiracy theorists” and “lying assholes” or anyone else decent, for that matter.

By the way, you never said if Perrin was right or not on Chomsky in the piece you linked to, or did you not read it except for the part on Sidney Zion?

Burn!

NEEEEEERD FIGHT!

Found someone’s soft spot. That was easy.

Tell us all, Retardo – this professor act of yours, with the “philistine”s and the bwa-ha-ha’ing – what is it in aid of, precisely? I’ve met many people who are very intelligent, well-read, competent, respected and so on, and none of them have ever felt the need to respond to an off-handed comment about a third party (and was it the “autodidact” which did it? Because Mr. Vidal is without question the autodidact’s autodidact) with such – well, I’m not sure what you call this sort of patomime intellectual act, exactly. But I’ve observed the authentic breed in the wild, and I have never observed such a person puff themselves up in this peculiar manner. You may be a unique example of the species, then. There may be other explanations.

I have witnessed a similar case, once – a fairly clever fellow, if not “successful” in the classical sense. Educated, to a point, although largely self-directed, with all the shortfalls that such a course of study so ofen implies. Free time to burn, too, taken up holding forth learnedly on subjects half-learned and less-understood, and on cultivating endless, rather obsessive, flame wars, with the attendent bwa-ha-ha gotcha link-mining. Anger issues, to put it mildly, for reasons transparent. Shares your current obsession, too. You may have heard of him. And I’ll answer your question afterr you’ve answered mine.

[Comment lurker drinking game: Every time Retardo’s response contains the word “neoliberal”, “The New Republic”, “”sensible”” in irony quotes, or dredges up four-year-old heresies to distract attention from the fact that he’s a desperately insecure blowhard, drink the sweat of people who spend their lives usefully.]

Wow.

I wasn’t the one to bring up missing testicles; Goldstein’s law is kinda like Godwin’s, first one there is a rotten egg.

Sorry if I sorta ran with it and showed that, while if you aren’t quite “ever-embarassing”, you sure manage to embarass sometimes.

Oh, lovely. The nazi infestation has spread. I was wondering what that smell was. Oh, wait–that’s no nazi–it’s a Dominionist cretin! The confusion is understandable, though. There are more similarities than differences.

Jesus. Goldstein could not have said it better himself. Tell me: does this whimper imply we’re back to being the obsequious Retardo, having put the Great Iconoclast Intellectual Halloween mask away – under the old boxes of ZMag – for a more socially acceptable occassion? Or are we going to seeth quietly on this for a few more months, and then burst forth – like the mighty Phoenix of myth! – to smite the impure ones with the righteous fury of our All-Usenet Intellect? So, stop me if you’ve heard this one: Chomsky’s a bit of a dick, Vidal is a fraud and an embarrassment, and you’re a bit of both – but whatever complaints I might have about the first two, they will at least stand by their words. This, from them, you could learn.

Testy testy.

What words have I not stood by? Did I not ask you about the Perrin thing first? I can’t help it if you’re blind-stupid to the irony of absolving that DEMON CHOMSKY in your haste to attack Vidal and even the Hitchens of a better era (like a good illiterate, you imply in that post that not only is Hitchens no good now, which is true, but that he never was any good to begin with, which is stupid, but from you, Mr. Year Zero was 9/11, par for the course).

The “time to burn” thing is precious. Thanks. I’m so prolific here, obviously. Wait — I get it! You’re saying I have no life! no job, no schooling, no gf, my dog died! Plainly I should post kitten pics double pronto so that I can disabuse people of that fact of my nature! I really will become the poor man’s Poor Man! Yes, that will show them. Plus, periodically, to show what an even-handed wanker I am, I will slag people who were more right than me about the war, and about whom I proudly admit I know little more than nothing. Because I too have a life! Oh, yes. Because with my stellar record on the events of the last few years, I’m in a perfect position to smear my betters. Now where’s that asshole RFK, Jr.? I’m really gonna show him.

“Even-handed wanker”?

Is that like being unfaithful to your right hand?

That’s better.

Your task is simple. You have, for the past few months – hesitatingly at first, and now almost boldly – lied about me and insulted me, and then run away when confronted about it. The character of these attacks seem to be that I am an idiot, an illiterate, and a closet fascist; this is in contrast to you, being are brave and true and extremely clever and well-read and so on. It is on this last point that I am most sceptical, based largely on the fact that clever, well-read people have better things to do with their time than boast about how clever and well-read they are, bwa-ha-has on down the ages (cf. den Beste, Steven; and Goldstein, Pasty). I don’t particularly care if you think I’m clever and well-read or a fascist – I don’t post kitten pictures in order to impress faux intellectuals with how many sociology books I’ve read (or pretended to read), and I pay $45/month so that anyone can read shit I wrote in grad school and show that I’m wosre than Hilter. What at the moment interests me is humiliating you, and as you appear to be one of these people of no particular accomplishment who uses the internets to set themself up as a world authority on, well, all things – which is fine, some people go online and pretend to be 12-year-old nymphomaniacs, I don’t judge – that is the method I have chosen to use. The way I’m going to do this is by ignoring your questions, and repeating my request over and over again, until you answer mine: please share the fruits of your rigorous self-directed home-schooling, and tell everyone, to the nearest whole number, how many of Gore Vidal’s fiction novels one must read before you recognize that person’s moral authority to call Vidal – the primary creative force behind both Caligula (1979) and Myra Breck[i/e]nridge (1970); a guy so bitchily jealous of the success of his literary rivals (Capote’s In Cold Blood and Mailer’s Executioner’s Song) that he tries to go the same route with Timothy friggin’ McVeigh (the Vanity Fair article mentions the “overwhelming evidence” that Oklahoma City was a government conspiracy, naturally); a guy who argues that 9/11 was a government conspiracy to build a pipeline in Afghanistan; indeed, a guy who argues that Pearl Harbor was a government conspiracy, presumably set up to give the US Imperialists could build a trans-Pacific sake pipeline – an “embarrassment”. Edify us, do.

And, as you’ve so rudely ignored this question, you should allow me this follow up: what do you think it is about pointing out the clay clown shoes worn by, say, a Gore Vidal – a self-promoting, name-dropping aristocrat, arrogant to the point of self-parody, an extremely talented stylist who is eviscerated whenever he debates someone with actual expertise (an event which he carefully avoids), but fully convinced of his own genius – would cause you such personal discomfort? I’ve got a theory, but I’m sure everyone would love to hear yours.

Don’t hold anything back.

When have I boasted that I’m well-read, or anything about myself for that matter other than, by implication, that you were a fucking moron for a long time, and I was not so much so, in comparison.

I have not lied about you at all. The links speak for themselves. You were an idiot, and a snotty one at that — it’s no wonder Goldstein thought the world of you at one time, and you him.

Are you an illiterate? I have not commented generally, and have no opinion. But with regard to people you slag on your Left, yes, yes you are. I don’t see how my saying this is so bad, since you often admit it yourself, though such admissions never stop you from slagging again and again. Every pathetic sneer you wrote about Chomsky could have been recycled from Matt Welch. Also, the timing. You could have been bashing the wingnuts that got us into this shit, but no, that would have been too easy. Better to keep with the pretense of even-handedness. After all, as everyone knows, Noam Chomsky is more of a menace to humanity than the wingnuts who actually have power could ever be. Priorities!

What at the moment interests me is humiliating you, and as you appear to be one of these people of no particular accomplishment who uses the internets to set themself up as a world authority on, well, all things – which is fine, some people go online and pretend to be 12-year-old nymphomaniacs, I don’t judge – that is the method I have chosen to use.

This bit of beautiful bile just for me linking to your silly old posts? Touching! Especially the part bracketing me with people who pretend to be 12-year-old nymphomaniacs. That was a nice touch, made nicer by the weaselly disclaimer.

What kinda projection is this shit? I’ve never declared my expertise on anything, other than being expert enough not to take the word of agreed-upon experts on faith. All along, I’ve simply argued that you are stupid when it comes to Vidal and Chomsky (and now, it appears, old skool Hitchens, too). I lay off comparatively on your Chomsky-bashing because I’ve read less of him — a hint that I am not megalomanical as you accuse — but on Vidal, I’m on very solid ground wrt what I know and have read of his. An expert? No. But then I have not taken the Olympian perspective that so-and-so sucks total ass when I have not read so-and-so, which is more than I can say for you. (And I can say that you sucked total ass — I’ve read your archive, much of it in real time. Alas. But then I suppose this means that I have no life, having so much time to read what the accuser spent so much time writing.)

As for Pearl Harbor: it’s true he pushes the Stinnet book, which I’ve not read. But I’ve also heard him say that FDR only knew that there would be AN ATTACK — somewhere at some time, the President didn’t know where, though most in the cabinet suspected the Philippines. This is hardly scandalous. The pipeline thing in Afghanistan? Who knows? Did you ever check if it was built or not when you were a Bush cheerleader? How’s that Iraq thing coming along, btw? Oh, right, only cranks suspected dishonesty from the Dear Leader whose …expertise in truth-telling you accepted so gullibly.

As for Vidal’s not engaging “experts”, that’s very silly and of course ignorant of you to say. Look in the NYRB archive for the Lincoln debates, in which he takes on many a history don, and thrashes them. Second rate hacks who peddle conventional wisdom and recieved opinion, which ought to ring a bell for you. As for the first rate of academic historians, they have and had his back — David Herbert Donald was fact checker for his novel, and Eric Foner, IIRC, defended him against the hacks.

Caligula is not his fault, his suit to keep his name off it was successful after all; the Director (Brass, IIRC) and producer, Guccione, fucked his script up. But, dear expert on Roman history, if you’d like to read something decent that might just might change your opinion on Vidal the classical historian, read Julian. Is it is good as Mary Renault? I dunno; I’ve never read Mary Renault. But it is as good as Robert Graves, which is very very good indeed.

Now are you gonna admit that you hoped no one would remember your moronic Chomsky bashing when you posted that Perrin link? It’s really too bad that unintentional thigh-slapper cant be hidden underneath a basket of kitties.

As for his jealousy, I can’t answer it authoritatively in the Poor Man mode, but I can speculate. I doubt it; at least of the examples you give. Vidal won a libel suit against Capote, and not won in a bullshit way that WFB won against Esquire because of something Vidal wrote. I think the man had his reasons for disliking Capote. As for Mailer, bless him, but he was an asshole when it came to macho bullshit, given to the kind of homophobic and misogynistic rants that are guaranteed to infuriate someone like Vidal. The Executioner’s Song has nothing to do with it — by the time it had come out, Vidal and Mailer had been reconciled. Their feud ended by the early-mid70s, IIRC — a few years after the Cavett Show incident. IIRC, Executioner’s Song was published in 79 or 80.

Incidentally, the flailing sneers at autodidacts echoes the quasi-credentialed Pasty’s attacks on the uncredentialled TBOGG. Birds of a feather, as they say.

I have a confession to make: I haven’t actually read any of you responses. I realize that this is very bad behavior on my part, and I apologize, but – while I’m sure you call your mother regularly and have many nice qualities – you tend to write like old men fuck. Imagine my chagrin when I got to paragraph 45,825 of your latest response and realized that you were simply arranging random words into paragraphs, sprinkling in some punctuation, and seeing if I’d bite. And did I ever! A fine trick by you, Sir, but you’ve had your laugh, and now I must away. A few closing thoughts:

1. Outside of tweedy “pompous professor” characters in very broad film comedies, nobody has ever actually called anyone a “philistine”. That was a dead give-away.

2. Generally, when someone accuses you of being a pompous blowhard, a good response is not 600,000 words of ur-pompous blowhardery. Again, live and learn.

3. “Bwa-ha-to-tha-hizzah” is, I believe, how the kids are saying it now. Ask Tacitus, he tends to be more up on this sort of thing than I.

How’s that for bullshit. You blab and blab goading me to answer DAMN YOU ANSWER!!! and then when I do, I’m a dick. Actually, I called your bluff, and this is the best ya got now. See ya in the funny pages.

Wait, wait, you answered The Editors question? I must have missed it— I was looking for an integer.

Could you give me a line number or something so I can go back and find it without having to read the whole damned thing over again?

Oh my fucking Oprah, couldn’t this have been conducted via email so we wouldn’t have to get bitchfight juice splashed all over us?

I mean seriously, monster yuks abounding, guys!

Brav-to-the-izzo!

Now is a good time to point out that the whole reason I started reading Retardo is because of the incredible flamewars he waged on a forum we both frequented.

If drafter I will not report. If inducted I will not serve.

/too much friendly fire

Hey ‘Tardo, remember that time a month or two ago when The Eds lured John Cole into a public spaz attack in his comments? And everyone was like, “Damn, where in heaven’s name did THAT come from?”

Why are the blogs I like to read picking on each other? Is it me?

There can be only one!

Won’t somebody please think of the children?

‘Vidal is a fraud and an embarrassment.’

Ok, no more Editors for me.

Just (everyone not an asshat) read Julian, or Williwaw or Lincoln. Any asshat who wants to shit on good novels because they think the author is, what, a conspiracy theorist? is not someone I need on my side in any politcal fight. The Editors need to grow up.

I thought wingnuts were the only ones who scanned art or entertainment for ideological purity before consumption.

Editors can fuck their kittens!

I would observe that The Editors have not claimed that Vidal’s novels aren’t any good. The closest he’s come to commenting on them, in fact, is to call the writer “a brilliant stylist.”

It is indeed reprehensible to read a work of fiction and judge it solely on the basis of the author’s politics. This is not, as the observant reader would realize, what The Editors are doing.

What The Editors are saying, instead, is that they believe that a) Gore Vidal’s politics and political writings are preposterous, and that b) one need not read the man’s novels to arrive at this conclusion. As to part b of their assertion, the Editors are entirely correct, regardless of whether or not you agree with part a.

Oh, look, it’s a grampaw troll.

Vidal cannot be entirely a fraud and an embarassment if his novels (which have strong political themes) are very good both in style AND in content.

The Editors can bite me. As can you, chump. Since you think I’m a commie, well, you probably don’t care. As I have said before, you’d rather live under your version of an authoritarian state than admit any legitimacy to those who disagree with your ‘version’ of ‘free trade.’ God bless The Pink ‘Un, eh?

Dear Max:

Have you ever read Celine? I happen to think that Journey to the End of the Night is a brilliant novel. I also think that the politics expressed in that novel, you know, the precious content you’re so worked up about, are shocking. And I think Celine’s politics were appalling outside the novel, of course.

I have a similar, though far less intense, response to CS Lewis and Mark Helprin and their novels. Good books, dull social ideas and apalling politics, respectively.

Has it occurred to you that you are telling me that if I enjoy a book with political themes, I must refrain from criticising the politics thus expressed?

Are you insane?

Or are you simply incapable of enjoying a work unless the politics therein conform to your own?

As to free trade, you are free to criticise my position, but you are not free from ridicule for showing no inclination at all to suggest improvements or alternatives. Just close your eyes tight, put your fingers in your ears, and hum, Max— it won’t do anything to alleviate trade injustice, but it will make it go away.

OK, who ordered the spare dick?

What an accomplished troll robotslave-grampaw is turning out to be. It must be terrible to not get satisfaction from trolling Atrios’ recent anti-TC threads. Gotta get his fix somehow!

Yes, Vidal’s politics are just so awful, as compared to The Economist’s! I love the sort of generosity dickhead fake liberals like grampaw and the Poor Wank can muster. Randroids at The Economist? Sure! Mark Steyn? Glenn Reynolds? Jonah Goldberg? Jeff Goldstein? Steven den Beste? Lileks? Plenty of nice shit to say about them! But dear god don’t allow anyone to go beyond Sensible Liberalism in their leftism. That is the real hanging crime.

The word “sensible” did not appear in quotes above. No pay.

I actually didn’t order a first dick, let alone a spare.

I think grandpaw needs to stop condemning all who oppose him as Reds. He’s confused as to decade, who’s in charge of the world, and what walls are being built where.

OOOOh, Celine! Hey, grandpaw, have you also read Rechy? Did you catch teh gay?

Lord, what fools these mortals be. My very simple point, for grandpaw’s pleasure, should be obvious: the Editor’s attacks on Vidal as ‘a fraud’ do not seem to me to be confined to his ‘politics’ which are, indeed, not seperable in their entirety from his novels. If the editors mean that they think his style is the ONLY thing that makes his novels worth while, then I dismiss them.

Celine (in my old and battered Peguin translation–sorry, I’m much too lowly and badly educated to read Celine in the orginal) is a brilliant and bleak author. His politics seem to stem from that dead zone. The comparision to Vidal is not apt. Celine is certainly horrifying in his politics, but is not a fraud. I don’t believe that a ‘fraud and an embarassment’ would be worth reading as a novelist, no matter how good a stylist.

The Editors can speak for themselves. Is grandpaw a poorman sockpuppet?

I’m a huge fan of

. . . fan-like things. Sigh.

Hmm. I plead guilty there, GoatBoy. Must have been Poor Wank’s jab that whenever I put such words in scare quotes, I’m being a leech on society or some such. I think he took too much to heart my posed picture above. But since it had that effect, I now start to wonder what he would have said if I were black.

Sorry, that nose-in-the-air “autodidact” thing really pushed my buttons.

Secret: Every school in every university has a dumbest student to receive the degree. Every year.

So mind the attitude, pricks.

Retardo:

Some day, you might learn how to read carfully enough to determine which positions a person has actually expressed, and thus how to avoid making yourself look like an enraged ass by assuming positions they haven’t actually expressed, but are more convenient to argue against in your little fits of blind fury. But you’re going to need to work on it. Here’s some homework:

Exercise: Using quotes from my own posts, show my opinion of Gore Vidal’s politics.

Exercise: Using quotes from my own posts, show my opinion of The Economist‘s politics.

Exercise: Using quotes from my own posts, show my opinion of “Sensible Liberalism” (teacher’s note: remember that the Sensibles are characterized by their advocacy of military intervention for humanitarian ends, and not by any particular trade policy)

Exercise: Using quotes from my own posts, show my opinion of a) Mark Steyn b) Glenn Reynolds c) Jonah Goldberg d) Jeff Goldstein e) Steven den Beste f) Lileks.

Warning: one or more of these Exercises may be trick questions.

Failure to quote fairly and with context (if relevant) will result in a failing grade.

Oh, I understand completely. Especially coming from someone whose degree, unless I am mistaken, is not in any subject to do with political economy or literature, about which he blathers with no little bit of certitude. Tact.. forbearance.. what use are such things when someone to his Left can be stabbed?

We’re all autodidacts. But some are more diligent than others. For instance, some might refrain from quoting (with great cheer, relish even) a notorious homophobe when trying to bash a homosexual, just as they might not go to Steve Sailer, say, for ammo on brown people, or to Marty Peretz for ammo on muslims. Just sayin.

But for just sayin, I’m a pretentious prick, the one who has delusions of omniscience. Oh well.

Well, all I have to say is that I love you all.

But I won’t let you get past first base.

The way the rest of y’all are putting it out there, somebody around here has to be a tease.

Is this more of that “tweaking Retardo” thing that you’ve been bragging about?

Since the Poor Wank is your new pal, I lumped you in with him. You’ve been lauding the ideology of The Economist here for several days. As for the other people named, they are the Poor Wank’s responsibility, and a most hilarious cross to bear they are (to observe at least, for one with a conscience they must be unpleasant to bear, but then I don’t think conscience applies in this case). Links are above.

You did get me on the Gore Vidal thing wrt to your own opinion. Plainly that negates everything else I’ve said. Long live the reactionaries! Free Trade and Sensible Liberalism and Chomsky-hatred uber alles!

You can go brag to Poor Wank now.

What can I say, Jillian? I totally give it up on the first date.

Anyway, I heart you too!

Retardo:

Yes, you were, in fact, mistaken. I am not The Editors. I am robotslave, but robotslave is not The Editors, either.

You make a lot of mistakes like that in your rhetoric, where you lump together everything you disagree with in an argument, instead of paying attention to the views that are actually being expressed, and to who has said what.

For example: I have not been “lauding the Economist’s views for days here,” I have been pointing to The Economist as a source of pro-free-trade arguments from both rightish and leftish perspectives. If you were a careful reader, you’d also have discerned that I disagree with The Economist on a variety of political issues where they take a rightish stance. But you’re not a careful reader at all, are you? See, that’s why I told you to use quotes in the exercises.

Just to be sure:

robotslave did come here looking for his meaningful, dignified discussion, right?

‘Swhat I thought. Dickhole probably tries to order a frosty at Burger King, too.

So says the troll who called me and everyone else here not drinking the neoliberal Kool-Aid “command-economy commies”.

Sorry, that nose-in-the-air “autodidact� thing really pushed my buttons.

That’s what prompted me to mock him in the first place. I’m becoming resigned to his snide dismissals of Chomsky, et. al., but his schtick of being vague and cryptic and then responding to any criticism or requests for further explanation with exaggerated sighing and finger-drumming to make clear that he considers such things a needless drain on his precious time (and such people beneath his notice) is infuriating.

And I took the autodidact thing to be an attempt at intimidation, because hey, if someone’s dumb and full of shit, why not just call them an idiot? Specifically mocking their lack of a formal education (and whether Retardo has one or not, I don’t know, and I doubt whether the Editors does either) seems like a way of pulling rank and brandishing a degree as proof of…well, I’m not sure what, exactly. But then, I didn’t go to college, so what the fuck do I know about anything other than pumping gas and flipping burgers.

I was surprised to see the obvious self-consciousness in the remark about “shit I wrote in grad school”. As opposed to what, his current senior citizen status? It was all of four years ago, hardly ancient history.

Ah well. He’s still devastatingly funny and a good writer, but Jesus, what an imperious fucker.

GoatBoy:

I don’t see you holding yourself above the fray either, you know?

Retardo:

Reading comprehension again. Though I did use the phrase (hyperbolically, I might add, but we’re long past that), I did not apply it to you particularly. You did that yourself when you decided to take it personally. Now why would you do a thing like that that?

grandpaw at his most disinglennuous:

“Now why would you do a thing like that that?”

Because you meant it as a cheap-shot red-baiting insult of the kind used in authoritarian regimes to excuse death squads?

Infinity as a thoughtstopper, droolbot.

As I wrote above, frauds and embarassments, even if good stylists, don’t write anything much worth reading, including novels, at least in my view. Since this is what the Editors say of Vidal, I take issue with them.

Note that the Editors feel that pre-hawk Hitchens was also a fraud and embarassment. I certainly think that’s hyperbole as well.

I don’t see you holding yourself above the fray either, you know?

You rolled up in here throwin your signs. Gotta represent my set, yo.

The great thing is, none of this will EVER make it into a history book…er, i mean the SAD THING IS…

shit

Hmmm………..if I gave in and let you guys make it to second base, would you have a big ol’ lovefest then?

Sheesh….the things a gal has to do to spread love ‘n harmony anymore!

I’m still a tease, mind you.

Can we get some Mel De Mer up in this piece demandin we stop being so frivolous and shit?

My question is a simple one:

Why are we still feeding this troll? Not only does he want us to provide him with food, he wants us to cut it into small pieces and place it into his mouth. I don’t even do that for my cat, and she’s pleasant.

If a mouse wanders into your pleasant cat’s territory your pleasant cat’s going to fuck that mouse up.

And there’s your answer.

Mmmm, I lurve the smell of vitriol in the… um, post-midnight blackness. *sigh*

Retardo, The Editors, please! Think of the children!

Children, not having attained a degree from an accredited university and therefore unqualified as experts, are unworthy of consideration.

My love…Is that really you? I want a picture Retardo. You know how to reach me baby. A kiss …Muahhhhhhhhha
Your Marie

[…] of others. ‘Cause after all, such efforts help us stay on the side of decency (even if we do use a word like ‘philistine’ on occasion) rather than, say, come to decency (kicking and screaming) only after the most gigantic […]

I was seeking this particular info for a long time. Thank you and good luck. Charm Campaign http://sharethelove.cc/node/1#comment-411685