Why We Spite

Over at Dr. Atrios’ place, Thers discusses why lefty blogs love to pile on and make fun of people like Jonah Goldberg:

If the question is, “how come the left blogosphere is so reflexively derisive whenever they encounter an argument from people like Goldberg and [Clifford] May,” I think that May actually puts his finger on exactly why this is so:

It’s because so many conservatives want to argue things like global warming is fake and that there were significant ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

These aren’t arguments: they’re conspiracy theories (as is another foundational conservative myth, that the media has a partisan liberal bias). They have the same basis in fact as the notion that “9/11 was an inside job.” And so, consequently, such “arguments” are treated as conspiracy theories deserve to be treated: with derision and scorn.

In response, Jonah insists that he isn’t crazy and that he deserves to be Taken Seriously:

I don’t think I’ve ever said there was a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda — even when I suspected their might be one, I don’t think I ever wrote it. And I’ve never said that global warming is fake. I’ve said that the alarmism is over done, a view that is hardly unique to conservatives.

Jonah, let me remind you that this is the cover of the book that you’re allegedly writing:

goldbergcleaned.jpg

If the cover of this book is any indication, you are arguing that fascist dictator Benito Mussolini was actually a liberal, and that Hillary Clinton is his natural ideological successor.

Think I’m being unfair? Then check out the book description posted on Amazon.com (my emphasis):

Since the rise and fall of the Nazis in the midtwentieth century, fascism has been seen as an extreme right-wing phenomenon. Liberals have kept that assumption alive, hurling accusations of fascism at their conservative opponents. LIBERAL FASCISM offers a startling new perspective on the theories and practices that define fascist politics. Replacing conveniently manufactured myths with surprising and enlightening research, Jonah Goldberg shows that the original fascists were really on the Left and that liberals, from Woodrow Wilson to FDR to Hillary Clinton, have advocated policies and principles remarkably similar to those of Hitler’s National Socialism.

Goldberg draws striking parallels between historic fascism and contemporary liberal doctrines. He argues that “political correctnessâ€? on campuses and calls for campaign finance reform echo the Nazis’ suppression of free speech; and that liberals, like their fascist forebears, dismiss the democratic process when it yields results they dislike, insist on the centralization of economic decision-making, and seek to insert the authority of the state in our private lives–from bans on smoking to gun control. Covering such hot issues as morality, anti-Semitism, science versus religion, health care, and cultural values, he boldly illustrates the resemblances between the opinions advanced by Hitler and Mussolini and the current views of the Left.

Jonah, buddy, I gotta tell you: this is argument is, in the words of the great Eros, “STUPID! STUPID!!” You’re actually arguing that this:

…is the same as this:

Now come on, man. Do you really expect me to engage this argument and waste hours of my life pointing out the various logical and factual flaws in your thinking? Or do you expect me to continue doing what I’ve been doing, i.e., laughing my silly white ass off at your expense.

Think about it, man. Think really hard.

UPDATE: Ah, it seems that Jonah has disavowed the Amazon.com description. Mea culpa.

However, I still win, because it’s quite likely that Jonah is completely full of shit, and that his book is exactly what is described on Amazon.com.

 

Comments: 133

 
 
 

Could it be beacuse their twisted logic and hipocracy deserve our derision?

 
 

And here I thought the subtitle was “The Art Of The False Equivalence”.

By the way, did you know that Israelis and Shi’ite Muslims are the same? No really! See, Israelis don’t like Sunnis, and Shi’ites don’t like Sunnis. Viola! It’s just that simple!

 
 

Goldberg updates the Amazon book description, sort of:

My book isn’t like Dinesh’s latest book. It isn’t like any Ann Coulter book. It isn’t what the Amazon description says or what the Economist claims it is. Or what Frank Rich imagines it is. It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

 
 

Somehow, I think his book will be “Replacing [old] conveniently manufactured myths” with new ones. Because, you know, Liberal Fascism is all about those pesky “facts” and stuff.

I love it when he tries to defend himself. He gets goofier every time, topping his previous attempts of stupidity. It’s like he’s a giant black hole of stupidity, destroying any molecules of intelligence, leaving only the dark, dense matter of stupidity around him.

 
 

It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

Gad, that gets funnier every time I read it.

 
 

Weird. I’ve read extremely long ‘arguments’ that the Nazis and/or Mussolini were leftist, and they all boil down to:

1. Fascists practiced eugenics, liberals want to abort black babies!
2. Fascists believed in state control of the economy, just like liberals!
3. National Socialists!
4. Hitler raised taxes, just like Hitlery will!
5. Nazis hate Jews, and so do liberals, because they want Iran to nuke Israel!

Another that I’ve only heard once was “Hitler and Mussolini disagreed on elements of their programs. It’s common for leftists to engage in sectarian debate. Thus, Hitler and Mussolini were leftists, because they didn’t agree.” No fucking kidding.

I would be tremendously amazed if Goldberg’s book has a single argument that isn’t just a variation of one of the above. They will be well-padded with semantic games and quote-mining, I’m sure. But the ‘fascists are liberal’ argument has been made by just about every right-winger out there, and it’s never been made in anything but a transparently laughable manner.

What Goldberg is purporting to prove is essentially the right-wing Holy Grail. If he’s actually able to even slightly convincingly argue that the Nazis were left-wing, he will be canonized forever and ever among the ranks of authoritarian reactionary cultists. Which is why it’s just so strange that he’s been so slow to unveil his great opus and so evasive about its actual contents.

 
 

We had a contest over at World o’ Crap to write Jonah’s book for him. Check out the entries in the comments to this post:

http://tinyurl.com/2nrh52

You’ll find serious, thoughtful parodies of the Pantlodian Paradigm that have never been made in such detail or with such care.

 
 

I’m sure this has been said before … but if this were a research project, it would ethically dodgy to decide what your outcome is going to be before you embark upon the research. Not even a face-saving “I will explore the similarities between X and Y.”

Shoddy. Absolutely shoddy.

 
 

For fuck’s sake, for whatever reason for the book’s delay, as far as I can tell Pantload is still comparing Hillary Clinton to Mousillini and Hitler ON THE COVER.

Advantage: Reality-based non-pantloads

 
 

This is from the wikipedia entry on fascism:

“Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, and opposition to economic and political liberalism.”

Let’s run these down one by one.

1. Nationalism. You know those “Support the Troops” magnets you right-wing fucktards love so much? The over-the-top patriotic Toby Keith country songs? The American flags flying in every goddamn possible place? That’s the right wing’s trip, not ours.

2. Authoritarianism. Perhaps you’re familiar with a thing called the Patriot Act. A love for authoritarianism is the absolute hallmark of the modern Republican party.

3. Militarism. This one kind of speaks for itself. Isn’t it kind of strange that the people that Jonah calls “fascists” actually want to END the war rather than keep it going indefinitely?

4. Corporatism. Again, this one speaks for itself. Last time I checked, corporate America was pretty solidly in favor of the ReThugs. Dubya was suppoed to be the “CEO President.” Remember that?

5. Collectivism. Vertical collectivism is a staple of fascist socieities, and stresses the integrity of the “in-group,” which in America’s case would be White Guys. ReThugs are all about keeping Whitey on top by any means necessary.

6. Totalitarianism. Who’s been reading my e-mails and doing illegal warantless wiretaps? Must be those fascist Liberals. Oh, wait. It wasn’t them at all! But it was the liberals who founded the gulag at Guantanamo Bay, right? Oops.

7. Anti-communism. This one is a little bit dated, since Teh Commies have been replaced by Teh Brown People as the big enemy. Still, the wingnuts’ claim to fame of the last half-century is that Saint Ronnie “won the Cold War” against the Commies.

8. Opposition to economic and political liberalism. Yep, us liberals hate us some liberalism!

 
 

The Corner recently added a new feature: a game show.

 
 

Jonah’s disavowal of the Amazon description doesn’t mean diddly-squat. Amazon didn’t write that description, the publisher did. Publishers check with the author before they send out advertising copy. This mean before the publisher sent it out to the catalogs and booksellers and websites they ran it by Jonah and he signed off on it.

So, while Jonah wants to claim that the Amazon copy doesn’t accurately describe the book and that he isn’t responsible for it, he should not be believed.

 
 

Brad: The fun with Jonah continues. Apparently he’s been spanked by emailers and his pals for backing off on the Saddam/Al Qaeda fairytales in his response to me, and now is saying this:

I should have been more clear last night. In my dyspeptic jihad against some of my critics (now that I’ve slept on it, you won’t be seeing a lot more of that sort of thing, btw) I said, essentially, that I didn’t believe there was any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. What I should have said was that I didn’t believe — and never said — that Saddam had any connection to 9/11. That was the implied charge in that lefty’s complaint and that’s what I was referring to.

That bit about the “implied charge” is absolutely priceless. So is the later Andy McCarthy post over there: “For the record, I continue not to understand why people are so quick to absolve Saddam of any involvement in 9/11.”

There’s always another clown tumbling out of the car…

 
Hysterical Woman
 

That’s unfair! You know that despite the cover, the inside will be Cheetos prints and notes about the Simpsons.

 
 

And of course if Jonah doesn’t want it to be defined by what the publishers told Amazon, he could always, you know, write the book already.

 
 

Jonah’s latest round of engagement with his his critics is approaching Yakety Sax level.

 
 

Another book update from Goldberg! From this morning:

Just thought I’d let folks know that the publisher (Random House/Doubleday) has formally accepted the manuscript for my book. This means the official writing phase is over and the unofficial rewriting phase has begun. I’m sending off chapters to a few friends and other trusted folks for feedback. Though a few folks have seen discrete parts (Ramesh, JPod and a few others) now’s the time when I get to find out how far off my rocker I am — at least in the eyes of people I trust.

 
 

Except 9/11 WAS an inside job.Though there is a shitload of disinfo out there about EVERYTHING related to 9/11 and any other major conspiracy. Which is the plan, make it all so confusing that people want to throw their hands up and say “it’s all so complicated!”, thus they will grab at any credible “expert”

— except you people should know that the media lies all the time to cover people in power

 
anangryoldbroad
 

Jesus, his defense of how”unique and really special”his book is only needs short pants,a foot stomp and a pouty lip before it matches something I’d hear from a really spoiled child. My Sweet 16 is horrific enough when the child is 16,but it’s just fucking pathetic when the kid is 30 somethingish. Malkin is another one,but there’s a whole swarm of these idiots on the loose. They’ve got money,access to power and no sense and the insideous need to find fault and fuck with people relentlessly,not a great combo.

That said,excellent take down.

 
 

Personally, I mock Jonah because he is plainly a silly and shallow person of average-at-best intellect who has not the sense to keep it to himself. A person whose qualifications for a position in which he helps influence national policies that get people killed are in their entirety his mother, his willingness to say anything he’s told to think, and a complete refusal to examine, in any way, his own existence. He is casually meanspirited and congenitally intellectually lazy, and while intellectual laziness does not bother me in the man on the street, lazy people should not be feted as though they were brilliant wits.

If nothing else, I mock him because he believes–or pretends to–that dead Iraqi children make him safe, and is willing to let other people kill them but not to get his own conscience dirty.

 
 

Let me clear up, very simply, the argument that Mussolini was a Socialist. Mussolini began as a “Socialist,” and then he became a Fascist. He went from Left to Right.

(1) Socialists & Communists generally held that there was in every nation a division of classes which necessarily would get sharper: the Working Class (i.e. proletariat) was in conflict with the Capitalist Class (bourgeoisie).

(2) The Working Classes of each nation would eventually overthrow the Capitalist Classes of each nation, and then there would be an international Working Class, and each nation and then the world would transition to some sort of Working Class-run political economy.

(3) Mussolini said, Aha! How about we lift up the nation above all, and treat the nation like it was really like an individual, and let’s turn the Marxist rhetoric on its head:
— (a) Conflicts between classes INSIDE a nation are minor or counterproductive. All must unite together into the STATE.
— (b) What’s *really* happening is that there are Proletarian NATIONS struggling against Bourgeois NATIONS, and Italy & Germany are the ‘Proletarian’ nations, and Britain and France are the ‘Bourgeois’ nations.
— (c) So the ‘Proletarian’ nations need to revolt and overthrow the ‘Bourgeois’ nations, and we’ll have a happy new international system.
— (d) By the way, this happens to mean we will force all social groups WITHIN our nation into State-Controlled groups called ‘Corporations’, but not like the word for ‘Companies’, but like the word for ‘Body’, corpus.

There: is that so hard?

Mussolini argued (not intellectually, he didn’t really care, he was just luring in the socialists since they were popular) that there was no inherent conflict between working & capitalist classes WITHIN nations.

Sure, it wasn’t a serious argument, like most fascism it was based on crappy metaphors and weird overgeneralizations and a nearly religious belief that nations were living organisms. But somebody as smart as Mussolini didn’t care, if the speeches worked, they worked.

How NOT leftist can you get?
How more RIGHT WING can you get?

There is no conflict between working & capitalist classes? We have to force all groups to obedience to the State? We must subjugate class differences to national differences?

Why is this so hard to understand?

 
a different brad
 

Oh christ. Can we please maintain this as a “loose change” free zone?
No, the official story doesn’t add up. But that doesn’t mean BushCo. did it. They could simply be, and in fact are, incompetent and opportunist.
But so are these conspiracy theorists.
A plane hit the Pentagon, plenty of witnesses saw it. There was a diesel fuel pump in WTC7 which kept pumping after the building was damaged by debris from the Towers and flooded an entire floor with gasoline. And steel loses its structural strength at half its melting temp. I’m not an engineer, I don’t know if it all makes true sense, but neither do these theorists. Most of them are probably well-intentioned, if in need of a gf, but some of them are manipulating people’s emotions and fears to advance their own agenda, which makes em no better than BushCo.

 
a different brad
 

As for Jonah, I’m writing a book about how right wing Jews have become Nazis, only that’s not really what the book is about so nobody freak out. Just because the title is Zionist Means Nazi doesn’t mean you know what the book is about.

 
 

You’re giving El Pantalones con Loado too much credit, El Cid.

Its not about understanding or examining anything. Its about saying “Liberal” and “Fascist” over and over in the same context often enough to create a false conceptual blend between the two in the mind of readers already hot to make such a connection. Not coincidentally, this is exactly how Bush “connected” Hussein and Iraq to 9/11 without ever having to explicitly say that they were connected.

 
 

There’s always another clown tumbling out of the car…

I thought Golberg never graduated from clown college.

 
 

“Loose Change” types are way too eager to embrace the conspiracy theory without asking the really tough questions. They will also just ignore evidence that contradicts their claims. The case they make is very unimpressive. Sorry, but I for one don’t believe that George W. Bush and cronies were able to pull off the most sinister and needlessly complicated Black Op in the history of the world. These people don’t even know that e-mail gets archived to servers.

“See, here, we’re gonna pretend to hijack four planes and crash ’em into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, except the one that’s gonna crash into the Pentagon is really gonna be a missile. Then we’re gonna set off a controlled explosion in the World Trade Center buildings, because we won’t get our complete police state if the Towers don’t collapse. Especially Tower 7.”

Yeah, I suppose it went something like that.

 
 

To take kingubus thought a little farther, Goldberg isn’t writing this book (that may be a true statement all by itself) to convince the liberal left that they are actually fascists. He knows that cannot be done. He is playing for the band, preaching to the choir, proselityzing to the converted. Like coulters and malkins books, it is intended to reinforce the beliefs and prejudices of the 30 percenters club. They will be bought up and given away by right wing foundations, and they will be quoted and referenced in the echo chamber, and used in future circle-jerk link fests as further evidence of the evil and mendacity of “The Left”.

As such, the arguments and positions stated do not need to hold together logically, they do not to even be reasonable. They will be the same old series of ad hominums, straw men and false binaries that make up the arguments of the right. From cheney’s refusal to accept reality about iraq and al quaida to bushes insistence that if the troops AREN’T funded he will have to leave them in iraq LONGER (huh?), this is the only methodology for political argument left to a completely discredited movement. They retain power only due to the vagaries of the american political system and the political cowardice of the Democrats. But make no mistake, it is good news for rational people all over the world. It means they have finally lost, and have nothing left to prop up their ideology. The horror continues, but the clock ticks.

Tick tock, motherfuckers…

mikey

 
 

It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care

Of course. I knew it immediately when I saw the smiley-face Hitler on the cover.

 
 

Well said, mikey.

 
 

There is no book. There never was a book. There will never be a book.

Whatever Goldberg (or his ‘research’ intern) has ‘written’ is, or will be, unpublishable. Also unintelligible and irrelevant.

The publisher (shame be forever on their heads) will keep pushing the publication date further and further into the future, in the hope that people will forget the whole stupid thing.

Let’s not. Tee hee.

 
 

‘wheuuuuu, I just stumbled on this site. Talk about bile, bitterness and hate speech, the tone is just like the angry impotent raving on the right. Get a grip folks. No one is going to take shit like this seriously except other clueless wonders like this bunch.

 
 

Gosh, lilybloom, how perceptive. You’ve got some real insight going there. Please elaborate…

 
 

‘wheuuuuu, I just stumbled on this site.

Yes, I’d agree that it is unfortunate that you stumbled upon this site.

Talk about bile, bitterness and hate speech,

Yes, apparently mocking someone who (supposedly) wrote a book entitled “Liberal Fascism: The totalitarian temptation from Mussolini to Hillery Clinton” is hate speech.

the tone is just like the angry impotent raving on the right.

Yes, I too remember our hilarious “rope tree journalist some assembly required” t-shirts. I also remember us justifying the internment of the Japanese or insisting that the solution to Iraq is that we haven’t been ruthless enough.

Get a grip folks. No one is going to take shit like this seriously except other clueless wonders like this bunch.

I think you misunderstand humour. We don’t take Jonah Goldberg seriously. That’s the point of this post. What appalls us is that so many people take Jonah and people like him VERY seriously as if they haven’t been repeatedly and consistently wrong.

 
 

But, Lilybloom, we come here for the bile, and stay for the bitterness. I’m in a rush, though, so could ya’ll gimme a side order of hate speech to go? Put it on my tab.

 
a different brad
 

Please note:
Swearing does not equal hate speech.
Thanks for playing, here’s some parting gifts.

 
 

Jonah disavowing his own Amazon listing reminds me of nothing more than Charles Barkley’s claim that he was misquoted in his own autobiography. Amazon didn’t make that thing up out of whole cloth; Jonah’s publisher sent them the blurb that they used. His editor – you know, the person who knows about the book than anybody but the author – almost certainly wrote it and sent it out as part of the book’s pre-publication marketing.

His “It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care” reminds me of every crank and kook who has ever stood up at a town council meeting or posted to sci.physics or mailed a bundle of handwritten notes to an academic with a high profile declaring that he has discovered the key to the universe that will totally upend science as we know it (usually featuring numerological analysis of bible chapters). I had a friend who used to work in Carl Sagan’s office as an administrative aide in college who said it was an unusual day when then didn’t have to throw someone’s “brilliant discovery” in the kook file. Jonah sounds like a slightly upmarket version of Dr. Archimedes Plutonium, which is at least preferable to his usual running crowd of bargain basement Himmlers.

Anyway, how did Jonah’s New Year’s pledge to eat 100 boxes of twinkies in 100 days turn out? What? There was no such pledge? He always looks like that? Huh.

 
Incontinentia Buttocks
 

Mocking the Goldbergs and Althouses of the world is important because powerful, supposedly non-ideological institutions continue to treat them seriously. Jonah Goldberg has a gig writing for the LA Times. The Lesser Perfesser had a fill-in gig writing for the New York Times. Policies like the Iraq War were made possibly by two decades of taking such ridiculous people and their outrageous ideas seriously. Constant, well-grounded mockery is the starting point of reversing this process.

 
 

I’m sure Seb and the Boyz are deeply troubled that random cobags might wander into last year’s winner for “Best Humor Blog” and find the content somewhat unserious.

Mind yer Emily Post, you mexislamohomocommienazis; we have company!

 
 

My only request – can we kill the fiction that Authoritarian assholes are ‘left’ ‘right’ or ‘moderate’? It’s just a different package for the same flavor of shit.

(Do you want your big brother controlling state entity in loose runny stool form, or hard compacted nugget form?)

 
 

Check out World O’ Crap, for exerpts. And a great contest!

 
 

They may mock, but the fact is that Hillary will make the trains run on time.

 
 

“Whatever Goldberg (or his ‘research’ intern) has ‘written’ is, or will be, unpublishable. Also unintelligible and irrelevant.”

Doesn’t mean it won’t be published. Have you read any of Regnery’s output? It is bizarre that Doubleday are publishing this, but then again most of their books are fiction.

 
 

I take Jonah’s book to be one of guiltier pleasures we sinister benders will enjoy over the next two years. Can you imagine what kind of idiotic epigrams will come from this thing?

What I can’t stand about the book and the pantload from which it dropped is the subtitle: From Mussolini to Hillary Clinton. Have some balls, Jonah. C’mon, if you’re going to whole hog about “liberal fascism,” then come out with it: it should be “From Hitler to Hillary Clinton.” But he won’t do that, because he knows that THAT subtitle (the real subtext) sounds like a Daily Show satire, in addition to linking Hillary to the Holocaust. So he softens it into pseudo-seriousness with Mussolini.

This is cartoon-level crap (and I mean Fred Bassett/ B.C. cartoon-level, not Maus and The Sandman) amplified by the culture wars and media mavens like his mom, and we should all be ashamed that a member of our species has produced it.

Other than that, I have no problem with the book.

 
 

The political spectrum is less of a straight line from left to right, and more like a Valentine’s Day heart, with extreme right and extreme left curving downward to meet at a common totalitarian nadir. Nazi Germany and Maoist China equally subjugated the individual to the state, and the state to the party. Which pretty much sums up the Gop’s one-party rule, right down to the placement of cadres in every govt office. Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Ein Partei.

Besides, it’s the People’s REPUBLIC of China. That proves Gop republicans are really commies.

 
 

I’ll have none of the Pol-Sci, more left = more authoritarian.

B-Fin-S. It’s not a continuum. It’s about methods of achieving power and how power is wielded. Not about policy choice.

 
 

Goldberg is the one wingnut welfare queen for whom I feel some sympathy. I don’t know If I would have the balls necessary to generate enough velocity to escape the centripetal/oedipal force he grew up under either and every once in a while he makes little noises indicating that he’d like to break through the wall but his fellow Corner creatures and others on the right quickly reign him in.

Sorry if someone’s already done this especially if it was done better:

Hush, my Doughy, Doughy, don’t you cry.
Momma’s gonna make all of your nightmares come true.
Momma’s gonna put all of her fears into you.
Momma’s gonna keep you here ‘neath her right wing.
She won’t let you fly, but you will score some bling.
Momma’s gonna keep Doughy lazy and wrong.
Oooo Doughy.
Oooo Doughy.
Ooo Doughy, of course Momma’s gonna help build the wall.

 
 

No one is going to take shit like this seriously except other clueless wonders like this bunch.

Isn’t that cute? annie has another sock puppet. Let the others come and play so we can have a funny sock puppet show!

 
 

It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care

Having spent some undergraduate time padding papers with “detail” and taking great care to subtly equivocate within the specifications of a word-count I would barely breach, I think I understand the detail and care spoken of here.

 
 

It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care

i think that saying that the left are inherently fascist has never been made in any detail by anyone under any circumstances. i would further argue that only a ranting schizophrenic who has been off his meds for weeks would make such an argument, given the direct opposition of such an argument to ontological, teleological, fuck any logical, reality.

oh, you say that someone is writing such a book? and they blog where, at “The Corner”?

huh.

 
 

It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care

One of the farthest right, corporatist, militant, anti-liberal states in the 20th century does not even approach the same spectrum of political thought as Hillary, who is one of the most boring, middle-of-the-road Democrats in the United States.

American liberalism is basically classical liberalism. Only a few years ago, Republicans liked to claim they followed those principles (btw, they never did). I guess Jonah and the boys want to distract and confuse the tribe lest they become infatuated with Mussolini’s actual writing. They already support his platform, they’re just reluctant to adopt the label.

Except old nooner Noonan. He’s bound to make the jump.

 
 

Liberalism equals fascism in the same way that noting Christian hypocrisy equals the Holocaust.

 
 

Or criticizing the Israeli government over the treatment of the Palestinians equals anti semitism…

mikey

 
 

Oooopppss. I guess posting under “clueless wonder” IS kinda redundant…

mikey

 
 

but… how can you just dismiss an argument which has never before made with such seriousness or such care?

 
 

Anybody reading this who is not watching Rachel Robinson on the Dodgers Padres national ESPN broadcast is missing something so warm and special you’re just gonna be sorry if you don’t see it…

mikey

 
 

Anybody reading this who is not watching Rachel Robinson on the Dodgers Padres national ESPN broadcast is missing something so warm and special you’re just gonna be sorry if you don’t see it…

Oh god, liberal tyranny. Fascist scum. Trying to tell me I’m going to be sorry if I don’t watch something “warm and special”? Whatcha gonna do? You gonna bust my kneecaps, Il Duce? Credere, Obbedire, Combattere? You can’t stop us!

 
 

when my kid brings me a fingerpainting i ooh and aah and then throw it in a box in the garage. i don’t try to hang it up on a wall at the national gallery. this putz is as delusional as the rest of the bushian fringe. he really thinks his feelings are facts. how much mussollini do you think he’s actually read for this book? hint: the wikipedia entry at best.

 
 

Mr Green, as a ranting schizophrenic who’s been off her meds for weeks, I take offense at the suggestion that I would ever try to argue something that patently pathetic. I have my pride, sir. Also, a bathtub full of owls playing Scrabble, but that’s neither here nor there.

 
 

Dear steve_e,

Is that snark? It’s so hard to tell these days. You can joke around, pretend to be a conservative, be as dumb as possible, and there is some real conservative being even dumber, expecting to be taken seriously and it’s on the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times.

And it’s usually Jonah Goldberg.

 
Qetesh the Abyssinian
 

Jonah, whining about Tim Noah, whining about Jonah’s book (isn’t that getting close to incest or something?):

Noah, who hasn’t read it, is invested in a theory and simply imagines facts to substantiate his usual sneering schtick.

…the damned copycat!

Transl: it’ll never be finished.

My book isn’t like Dinesh’s latest book. It isn’t like any Ann Coulter book. It isn’t what the Amazon description says or what the Economist claims it is. Or what Frank Rich imagines it is.

My book is written in crayon. Theirs weren’t.

It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

Roll up, roll up, See! the nevah-before-seen thoughtful argument! Heayah! the never-before-heard cayare! (Yes, sir, right between the pinhead and the siamese twins, mind how you go). Marvel! at it’s seriousness! Gasp in awe! at its thoughtfulness! Be amazed! by its detail! Roll up, roll up, roll up!

To sum up: Cool your jets Timmy, there’ll be plenty to get your panties in a bunch about later when you actually have the opportunity to know what you’re talking about.

Yes, it’ll be chock-full of even more breathtakingly stupid assertions than my column!

Though I’m sure your review will be as careful and unbiased as we’ve come to expect you.

Unlike my book…

 
 

My book isn’t like Dinesh’s latest book. It isn’t like any Ann Coulter book.

Is he implying there might be something WRONG with books by these two geniuses?

Cause, if so, he has a lot of damn gall.

 
 

What do you call a book-length manuscript which relies entirely on blegs for its content?
A: A Doughy Pantload.

 
 

“…and seek to insert the authority of the state in our private lives…”

what’s the difference between a democrat telling me i can’t smoke inside, and a republican telling me that i can’t fucking go shopping before one pm on a sunday?

while liberals do tend to be socially intrusive, republicans are morally intrusive, and since their fucked up “morals” are based on a work of fiction, instead of, you know, actual science, i’d tell jonah goldberg to start polishing his fucking swastika.

 
 

I know this is off topic, but your title for the Kurt Vonnegut post broke the RSS syndicator…

 
 

I suspect, as others above had already suggested, that the content or publication or even existence of the book is irrelevant. The point is to use the words “liberal” and “fascist” together as often and as publicly as possible. Sure, Mikey, the content will preach to the choir and convince nobody but themselves that they are right. For the even larger group of people who don’t even know what the words actually mean, they will become equivalent. I think THAT is the “book’s” intent.

It’s the same demonization of the word “liberal” that they’ve been doing for close to 30 years. That’s long enough that there’s a whole new generation of unwashed hillbillies who need to be indoctrinated. Either it’s the same old, same old, or else they’re taking it to a whole new level. I’m ambivalent about which; it depends on my personal level of paranoia at any given moment.

El Cid: that’s a great summary of Mussolini, btw. Hope you don’t mind, I’m saving that for the next dufus who pukes up the “liberals are fascists” goat-vomit.

DJEscher: Have some balls, Jonah. C’mon, if you’re going to whole hog about “liberal fascism,� then come out with it: it should be “From Hitler to Hillary Clinton.� But he won’t do that, because he knows that THAT subtitle (the real subtext) sounds like a Daily Show satire, in addition to linking Hillary to the Holocaust.

I don’t know; I think the Hitler mustache on the smiley face gets that point across nicely. I honestly did think it was satire the first time I saw it at World’O’Crap. (Anyone who hasn’t yet read the “excerpts” there must, I don’t care that it’s been said twice already!)

The graphic on the cover has the added advantage that the Hitler=Hillary meme won’t appear in any reviews, catalogs, or references. Slick, that.

 
 

“My book isn’t like Dinesh’s latest book. It isn’t like any Ann Coulter book. It isn’t what the Amazon description says or what the Economist claims it is. Or what Frank Rich imagines it is. My theory goes as follows and begins now.

All liberals are fascist at one end, much more fascist in the middle and then fascist again at the far end.

It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.”

There. ya go, Jonah baby, I fixed ya post for ya.

 
 

eyeball: when my kid brings me a fingerpainting i ooh and aah and then throw it in a box in the garage. i don’t try to hang it up on a wall at the national gallery.

Well, if you ever do, you should at least insist that the kid actually finish the danged thing.

 
 

Hey, you just try walking through a mall as a ranting schizophrenic off your meds and see how people react. It’s kind of fun, actually.

 
 

It is bizarre that Doubleday are publishing this, but then again most of their books are fiction.

I smell a Producers-esque way to write off the advance at 150% in their taxes. And Brooks’ characters did it with Hitler, too.

 
Disinterested Observer
 

“My book isn’t like Dinesh’s latest book. It isn’t like any Ann Coulter book. It isn’t what the Amazon description says or what the Economist claims it is. Or what Frank Rich imagines it is. It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.”

This is an exact description of my next book as well – although I have not yet decided what the topic will be.

 
Herr Doktor Bimler
 

My book, in contrast, will be like Dinesh’s latest book. It will be like any Ann Coulter book. It will be what the Amazon description says and what the Economist claims it is. And what Frank Rich imagines it is.
I reckon I’ll make a fortune, after all this advertising from Amazon and the Economist.

 
 

On the free speech issue, at least, we must admit that Mr. Goldberg has a point. After all, it is just in the nature of things for the rich to have more speech, freer speech if you will, than the proles.

It should also be noted that Mr. Goldberg’s critique does not apply to such luminaries as Daniel Pipes, who argues that universities which permit pro-Palestinian protests be denied federal funding. This is because, as everyone knows, Zionists speak for all Jews (look it up — it’s a fact! Unless you’re a self-hater, of course), and Jews were victims of Fascism, so Zionists ipso facto cannot advocate fascism.

The preceding argument was brought to you by the Why We Spite Foundation. In the movie “My Dinner With Andre,” Andre Gregory points out that his family sometimes get defensive when he acts mad at them. “Why are you annoyed with us?” they ask him. “Because you’re annoying” is, of course, his response.

 
ned fucking flanders
 

what’s the difference between a democrat telling me i can’t smoke inside, and a republican telling me that i can’t fucking go shopping before one pm on a sunday?

Well, the obvious difference is that if you smoke inside and I happen to be there, then I have to breathe that shit as well, and I don’t want to. I don’t want to smoke not just because it’s disgusting, but because my family has a history of cancer, and nobody has the right to put me at additional risk simply because they like to smoke during dinner.

While the times at which people decide to go shopping has no impact on anyone beyond the shopper and the people who work at the store. No harm inflicted on innocent bystanders there.

 
Worst. President. Ever.
 

Besides Hitler and Mussolini being liberals, what other components of the right-wing Holy Grail remain to be proven?

-global warming- not!
-cows cause more pollution than factories
-lower taxes bring higher government revenues
-abstinence-only sex education- it works!
-USA! home of the world’s finest health care system
-corporate hiring practices: completely not responsible for illegal immigration
-Richard M. Nixon: the 20th century Washington
-George W. Bush: the 21st century Washington

 
 

Every time I see a swastika, it reminds me of a liberal peace sign…

 
 

“Well, the obvious difference is that if you smoke inside and I happen to be there, then I have to breathe that shit as well, and I don’t want to. I don’t want to smoke not just because it’s disgusting, but because my family has a history of cancer, and nobody has the right to put me at additional risk simply because they like to smoke during dinner.

While the times at which people decide to go shopping has no impact on anyone beyond the shopper and the people who work at the store. No harm inflicted on innocent bystanders there.”

either way, you’re telling a private business owner what they can and can’t do within their building, even though both cigarettes and shopping are legal. it’s wrong no matter how you look at it.

 
 

Damn right jenni. Smoking is legal. And I should be allowed to drive my car on the sidewalk. So what if my behavior puts other people at risk? Driving is legal so fuck ’em. I should also be allowed to take a dump in the public pool.

 
 

either way, you’re telling a private business owner what they can and can’t do within their building

Yes. I believe you’ll find a whole bunch of things private business owners can’t do, and rightly so.

 
Incontinentia Buttocks
 

HTML Mencken,

Will we get back your rant that was, briefly, the next Sadly, No! post? I was about half way through reading it, had to go to work, and now it’s gone.

 
 

Damn right jenni. Smoking is legal. And I should be allowed to drive my car on the sidewalk.

Driving on the sidewalk is already plainly illegal. Anti-tobacco moralism sure brings out the wingnut logic in lefties.

Nonsmokers can go to the many many smokefree establishments. Smokers can go elsewhere. Why is this so tough to understand? Blanket bans are antifreedom and just the sort of fascist silliness the left usually stands against. They’re also the product of DARE-style campaigns of overhyped information on the risks from secondhand smoke (which plainly exist, but a look at the research shows an awful lot of media exaggeration, like conflating brief exposures with stewing in the shit all day).

The campaign is not pro-health, it’s antismoker– otherwise nonsensical things like outdoor bans wouldn’t exist. It’s part of the great American sport of demonization. Child molesters were first–they got us to agree to scarlet letters! Now drunk drivers are smacked around, then smokers, and now onto the obese.

Heck you can argue that the danger to society posed by fat people merits harsh persecutory regulations a la smoking bans (which is like making a someone sit in a restaurant all day without letting them eat). Fat people use more fuel and produce more greenhouse gas, they eat more food (which increases the gas and greenhouse effect), take up more space, use more resources, and so on.

Heck, if one can only make the best possible choice (for health or whatever) then you don’t HAVE a choice, do you? Everyone does something unhealthy because they like it, for fuck’s sake. And as for being “subjected” to seconhand smoke– if you go to a smoking establishment, you’re subjecting YOURSELF to it, so quit whining.

Freedom is not being free to be just how you want me to be.

One might be edified by looking through some of the writings of medical skeptic Petr Skrabanek. He’s a bit rosy on some things, but from the personal freedom standpoint, he’s right on. He’s really good on how public health campaigns can mutate into — or carry water for — fascism. And as an Eastern European in the 20th century with close-up views of fascism and communism, he would seem to know what he’s talking about.

 
 

Well, I want smokers to smoke all they want. I’m not worried about second-hand smoke. Others are, so they support those bans. Whatever floats you boat, man.

Bans can easily get out of hand. We’ll just have to see how they turn out. I don’t support those legislative actions at all, but I’m only one person, so…whatever.

 
 

Wow, today’s exercise in serious, thoughtful, detailed, and careful argument—on underage drinking—is a tour de force. Plus, the clarification.

 
 

Child molesters were first–they got us to agree to scarlet letters! Now drunk drivers are smacked around, then smokers, and now onto the obese.

WTF? WAH, WAH, WAH, I should be able to smoke anywhere I want and fuck everybody else!!! If I can’t blow smoke around in a confined space, molest children or drive drunk then you’re all a bunch of fascists!

Nonsmokers can go to the many many smokefree establishments. Smokers can go elsewhere. Why is this so tough to understand?

There were almost no smoke free restaurants and no smoke free bars before the ban in NYC so that choice did not exist for diners or restaurant employees. Smokers, like me, can go stand on the sidewalk for 5 minutes. What’s so hard to understand or accept about that? And I should feel justified in saying fuck you to the non smokers because some doctor you know of says it might not be so dangerous? Even before the ban I felt like a dick for smoking in a restaurant so I didn’t but some people are loud and proud about being dicks so the laws are necessary. Get over it.

And as an Eastern European in the 20th century with close-up views of fascism and communism, he would seem to know what he’s talking about.

They’ve had a lot of problems in Eastern Europe over the years but onerous public health initiatives have not traditionally been among them.

 
 

MobiusKlein said,

My only request – can we kill the fiction that Authoritarian assholes are ‘left’ ‘right’ or ‘moderate’? It’s just a different package for the same flavor of shit.

Lemme ‘splain how we do things over here in Secular Liberal Land when a well-posed request such as yours is clearly posed: We go to the research.

It just so happens that academic researchers such as Dr. Bob Altemeyer have applied themselves to elucidating the answer to the very question you raise here, and published their results in peer-reviewed journals.

So what does the science tell us, is it just a fiction? Sadly, No!

 
 

And as an Eastern European in the 20th century with close-up views of fascism and communism, he would seem to know what he’s talking about.

In my (limited) experience, I tend to find the opposite; people with first-hand experience with fascism and communism early in their lives sometimes find fascism and communism where it isn’t later in life.

 
ichomobothogogus
 

Nice to know you’ve got a sense of proportion Jenni. shopping on sunday and smoking in bars are quite clearly the two most important issues of freedom facing America today. the growth of a huge unaccountable authoritarian police state is a pretty distant third

 
ichomobothogogus
 

MCH i dunno what your point is when you say driving on the sidewalk is plainly illegal. it’s plainly illegal because the government passed a law against it. and if the government passes a law against smoking in restaurants then it becomes plainly illegal too. that’s how laws work.
Also “you should listen to Petr Skrabanek because he’s eastern european” is a bit dumb. either his theories and opinions stand up to scrutiny or they dont. i can’t see what being Czech has to do with it.

 
 

Incontenentia Buttocks:

Here it is.

It sucks like its author, but thanks for being interested.

 
 

I don’t know what the dangers of second-hand smoke are, but I do know this: it’s not too difficult for smokers to step outside if they gotta light up. Some people (like myself) make their livings in bars and nightclubs and are subjected to second smoke night after night. Is it going to kill me? I don’t know. But it will make my eyes burn and it will make my clothes and hair smell like cigarettes, and maybe it will kill me. And it’s really, really not that hard to step the fuck outside if you need a smoke.

 
 

Oh good, more fat people jokes.
Fat people should go stand out on the fucking street because they are taking up my space, they should be banned, seriously, ever worked in a bar with fat people, or on an airplane with fat people? They clutter up the toilets and the aisles, fairly certain the chubbies are passing diabetes second-hand..

But back to the original post, Goldberg can be easily dismissed usenet style –
I don’t think
Damn right dumbass.

 
 

My book isn’t like Dinesh’s latest book. It isn’t like any Ann Coulter book.
Those books have been finished.
It isn’t what the Amazon description says or what the Economist claims it is.

Wait, hold on a sec…(furious typing)
Or what Frank Rich imagines it is.

Or even what I, Jonah Goldberg It is a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care.

On a topic that no one really gives a flying monkey crap about.

 
 

Oops, that got cut off.
Or what Frank Rich imagines it is.

Or even what I, Jonah Goldberg, imagines it is….(more furious typing)

 
Incontinentia Buttocks
 

Thanks, HTML.

You’re the best (when you’re not slandering the differently proportioned and the like, that is)!

 
 

So, why did Jonah put the state of Connecticut smack dab in the middle of that smiley face?

 
 

wow, i had no idea what i said would be completely miscontrued. firstly, the point i made about smoking and blue laws(this obviously encompasses more than just sunday shopping. if you lived in the south, you would know this) was simply to show that both liberals and conservatives legislate what i call “anti-freedom.” since i have to spell this out for some of you yokels, i will.
the smoking ban is not a good example to use on this site, clearly, so let’s use the trans-fat ban nyc is considering passing instead. this is fucking tyranny, plain and simple. i don’t give a fuck if some fatass can’t keep himself out of mcdonald’s and dies of a massive coronary. you and i have every right to stuff our faces with trans fat all day long, just like every random 16 year old has the right to throw up after every meal if she wants. like it or not, liberals have serious problems when it comes to social legislation. smoking is a part of this as well. sorry, but as long as smoking is legal, it should be able to be legal in private clubs, bars, and restaurants. if you don’t want to work in, or be around smoke, then don’t work in or eat at those places. the fact that non-smoking options weren’t available ten years ago is a moot point. most places are non smoking now. get a grip and let the smokers have a few bars, please.

the shopping on sundays thing is a larger complaint dedicated to ALL moral legislation, including and up to, all blue laws, bans on stem cell research, bans on abortions, legislation against flag-burning etc. obviously, since not every person in this country is a christian, forcing everyone to adhere to christian morality is wrong.

so again, to reiterate, i was in no way trying to say that these were really important freedoms. my point is that both sides pass legislation that restricts freedoms, and goldberg was way off by saying that liberals were the only group to attempt to do this.

 
 

if you don’t want to work in, or be around smoke, then don’t work in or eat at those places.

I agree with you on the trans fat ban, but the smoking ban is an apples and oranges comparison. The trans fats aren’t hovering in a giant gaseous cloud inside the McDonalds restaurant.

I’m a professional musician. Don’t I deserve a safe, healthy workplace? Is it too much to ask that smokers just go outside to smoke? I fail to see the great oppression happening here. Sometimes common sense trumps platitudes about “anti-freedom.” There is a very easy solution to the smoking problem that seems like a perfectly sane compromise: GO OUTSIDE TO SMOKE.

 
 

JK47, as a professional musician, clearly you have no right to work at all, let alone work in a “safe, healthy workplace.” That kind of commie talk will never get you into jenni’s good graces!

 
 

Trans-fats taste the same as other fats, they are just way worse for you (1 gram of trans-fat is as bad as 10 grams of saturated fat). The only people who really want them is industry, because they have a longer shelf and are cheaper than the alternatives. Small amounts of trans-fats are formed in certain cooking processes, but you don’t need to start out with trans-fats before you even start frying.

As with smoking, and not wearing seatbelts, the entire society bears the cost of these choices. If we would simply leave people who weren’t wearing seatbelts (or helmets in the case of motorcyclists) on the side of the road to die, instead of treating them, that wouldn’t be the case. But we do treat them, so it becomes our concern as a society for the selfish knuckleheads who run up the costs of healthcare and insurance for the rest of us.

It’s just so damn adolescent for people to insist on certain “freedoms” to harm themselves but then expect society to bear the cost of their choices. In the cases of second hand smoke, driving on the phone, or cooking with trans-fats because they are cheaper, you not only run up the cost for society, you actually are endangering other people, without their consent.

As far as the “if you don’t like smoke, go work somewhere else” argument goes, why don’t we extend it to all occupational hazards? Don’t like inhaling fumes at the chemical plant? Get another job, don’t go beggin’ for a respirator. Let’s do away with all OSHA regulations, after all, it would infringe on workers’ freedom to be required to wear gloves, hardhats, helmets, goggles, etc.

 
 

ok, except in cities like mine, there’s a ban on people congregating on sidewalks outside of bars. seriously. so i guess i should just go stand in the road to smoke, and get hit by a car, instead of there being just one bar i can smoke in, huh? i could list a million other inconvienences, like the fact that i can’t walk outside with an alcoholic drink in my hand, nor can i keep some hooligan from stealing my seat in a packed bar. so going outside is actually a pain in the butt. if i honestly couldn’t snoke in a bar, i wouldn’t go at all. i’m sure most people don’t feel that way, but I do.
anyway, you can’t go around banning things just because they’re unhealthy! you, as a musician, are worried about playing in smoky venues, because of the risks to your health, right? well, studies show that actually, stress is the number one cause of heart disease, which in turn is the number one killer of people in this country. know what stresses me out more than anything? screaming children. yes, screaming children may, through the stress they cause me in public, eventually cause me to have a stroke or heart attack. so thusly, since screaming children stress people out, and stress causes heart disease, then all screaming children should be banned from public places.
(n.b. i do not think screaming children should be banned from public places. just playing devil’s advocate to show what a dangerous, slippery slope “health bans” can turn into. )

 
 

“JK47, as a professional musician, clearly you have no right to work at all, let alone work in a “safe, healthy workplace.â€? That kind of commie talk will never get you into jenni’s good graces”

and that would be the first time in my life someone accused me of being something other than a socialist or communist. just because i don’t follow the liberal handbook word for word doesn’t mean i’m not a liberal. but when is comes to legislating health, you’re damn right, i’m conservative on that issue.
i personally think JK47 can find plenty of places to play that are smoke free. last time I checked, most states now have some restrictions on smoking indoors.

 
 

as a former smoker myself,

If you smoke, you may as well just quit and mail the money that you would have spent on cigarettes to the Republican party. Because that’s where your tobacco money ends up anyways.

 
ichomobothogogus
 

you’re right, the Trans-Fat analogy works a lot better, as i’m unlikely to get lung cancer from sitting next to someone eating a hamburger. I’m not actually in favour of smoking bans and i was opposed when my country introduced one in bars and restaurants, but i really don’t think it’s a major issue. The main reason i was opposed to it is i’m always worried about governments legislating these sorts of things, and it often makes it worse when the ban happens to be popular, as it creates a precedent and encourages more authoritarian meddling, but on the plus side it makes working in a bar a lot more pleasant. I know its a hassle and pisses a lot of people off but speaking as someone who’s been to jail for possession of socially harmless drugs, i can’t get all worked up on behalf of smokers who whine endlessly about being persecuted cos they have to nip out for a fag. (at least now they actually have something to complain about). Likewise, I’m in favour of legalising drugs, but it wouldnt really bother me if people werent allowed to shoot up in a bar and had to go outside to do it. The smoking ban is part and parcel of the governments creepy obsession with social authoritarianism and legislating morality, but i think its the least worrying part of it, and not really worth wasting time over.

But anyway, apologies for misconstruing you. I assumed you’d used that particular comparison deliberately as a false equivalence to make both sides look equally vile, as comparing a smoking ban to banning abortion would look a little silly. I’m glad to see it aint so. Liberals may often have problems with social legislation and a desire to meddle in other people’s affairs, but they’re rank amateurs compared to the Right.

 
 

The trans fats aren’t hovering in a giant gaseous cloud inside the McDonalds restaurant.

Have you been to a McDonald’s lately?

 
 

screaming children. yes, screaming children may, through the stress they cause me in public, eventually cause me to have a stroke or heart attack.

They’re not much more fun on message boards.

 
 

The interesting lesson here is that while we all pretty much consider ourselves liberals, or at least left of center, and yet we have lots of variation in our political and legislative positions. Me? I was totally for the smoking bans, and here in California they were starting them a long time ago, when I was still a smoker. However, I am opposed to motorcycle helmet laws. Oddly, I have less a problem with seat belt laws. My justification is somewhat involved, and I’m on a deadline, but neither should be the basis for being pulled over, ID’d and ticketed. Trans fats? Not sure if I care or not, but I certainly won’t miss them…

mikey

 
ichomobothogogus
 

oh please, not the “the liberal PC police is out to get me because i dont follow the party line” schtick. take a deep breath. look back at everything everyone said. you’re not being persecuted or excommunicated. Its a discussion between people who disagree. you must have had them before. as far as i know there is no party line on this particular issue (not being a liberal i couldnt say for sure) so, off the high horse please

 
 

The trans-fat ban is simply an acknowledgment that trans-fats are not really food, more a combination of poison and filler. Seems reasonable to me to ban the stuff when food does not actually require it.

 
 

Bubba – right. I think a lot of people confuse trans-fats with saturated fat. Trans-fats are not found in nature, and exist solely for the purpose of prolonging the shelf life of shortening. What’s wrong with good ol’ fashioned lard? It’s actually a lot better for you than trans-fat.
Nobody is proposing banning any method of cooking which generates trace amounts of trans-fats, just banning using trans-fat as your shortening.

Trans-fats are not neccessary, don’t taste any better, and are much worse for you. This wasn’t known until recently, and I think it’s a reasonable measure to get rid of them.

 
 

Oh boy, can the anit-smoking and anti-fattie set please just finally admit that their principal objection to smokers and fat people is thar personal distaste for the habits? You think fat people are ugly and that smoking stinks, please stop pretending that its more than that.

Just like with the Winger anti-choicers, if you want to convince me that people’s health and well being are your principal concerns, start by advocating things that will help and encourage people to make good choices rather than running to social shunning and bans as your first resort. Absent that, you’re just trying to legislate your personal morality and you deserve a GIANT SAMMICH to the head for your lame-ass Puritanical ways.

 
 

he smoking ban is not a good example to use on this site, clearly, so let’s use the trans-fat ban nyc is considering passing instead. this is fucking tyranny, plain and simple.

Yeah, and food providers should be able to cut the flour with arsenic to save money and control pests, too!

God, and don’t get me started on the fascism of requiring people to list the ingredients of their food products!  If you don’t like what’s in a product, don’t buy it, but don’t expect the company to waste money *listing* them for you!  Do some fucking research, you liberal fascists!

Next thing you know, they’re gonna put a ban on me swinging my fists in a circle and slowly walking towards you.  Fucking fascists!  It’s not my fault if you don’t get out of the way!

 
 

Oh boy, can the anit-smoking and anti-fattie set please just finally admit that their principal objection to smokers and fat people is thar personal distaste for the habits? You think fat people are ugly and that smoking stinks, please stop pretending that its more than that.

Right, right, people who think it’s not a bad idea to say if you want to smoke do it outside so you don’t infringe other people’s rights must just be motivated by a hatred of smokers. Even those of us who are smokers. We couldn’t possibly just think it’s a perfectly reasonable restriction that allows smokers to smoke and non smokers not to have to inhale their smoke. We must be just like wing nut anti choicers. No other explanation is possible.

 
 

“oh please, not the “the liberal PC police is out to get me because i dont follow the party lineâ€? schtick. take a deep breath. look back at everything everyone said. you’re not being persecuted or excommunicated. Its a discussion between people who disagree. you must have had them before. as far as i know there is no party line on this particular issue (not being a liberal i couldnt say for sure) so, off the high horse please.”

you see how i quoted you just now? that means i am specifically referring to your post.
the person i made that comment to(again, whose post i quoted), made a sarcastic remark saying that since i did not agree with the smoking ban, then that means that i must not want that musician to work in a safe and healthy environment. i did nothing more than come on here and express my feelings on the subject. i didn’t call anyone names, or assume that they must be some kind of monster just because they disagreed with me. there’s nothing wrong with me specifically addressing a rude post aimed at me. why would you tell me i was on a high horse simply for defending myself against an extremely rude comment? it was actually an apt response, in this case.

 
Herr Doktor Bimler
 

And as an Eastern European in the 20th century
You try walking through a mall in Prague and telling the locals that they’re Eastern Europeans. “We are Central Europeans!” they will reply. “The heart of Mittel-Europa! Prague is the crossroads of Europe!” Then they beat you over the head with empty bottles of Plžen Urquell, and rub goulash in your hair.

Always happens to me, anyway.

 
Herr Doktor Bimler
 

That business with the tags always happens to me, too.

 
 

Yes, I’m quite sure that all the people I’ve seen who do “The Cough” anytime they even see someone light up outdoors (or sometimes even before anyone lights up; sometimes all you have to do is pull out the pack) are all principled, reasonable people who care about the health of others and aren’t just looking for an excuse to stare down their noses at someone. All other explanations are unpossible.

 
 

God, I can’t stand all these infringements on my freedom in this country. Do you realize you can’t buy thalidomide over the counter? Fucking fascism is what that is. Look, if I want to buy mass quantities of Rohypnol it’s my own business, not the government or society’s! In fact there is no society, just a bunch of individuals, and their absolute freedom is the most important thing EVAR!!

I tell ya, ever since that pinko fascist Ted Roosevelt signed the Clean Food and Drug Act this country has been on the decline. There’s no freedom anywhere! I can’t even practice my marksmanship in my own back yard! By God I own that yard and I’ll do whatever I fucking well please there!

P.S. to jenni: Maybe you are a socialist, there’s no way for us to know, but a poor way of demonstrating your socialist bonafides is to wheel out the libertarian talking points on a thread that’s ostensibly about Doughy Pantload. Just a quick Pro-tip for ya.

 
 

Ahh, hell, now I’ve got goulash in my hair. Shit….

mikey

 
 

Oh boy, can the anti-smoking and anti-fattie set please just finally admit that their principal objection to smokers and fat people is thar personal distaste for the habits? You think fat people are ugly and that smoking stinks, please stop pretending that its more than that.

Regarding the smoking, I don’t personally believe that my life has been shortened by my limited exposure to the habit. However, it’s cost me in dry-cleaning, coughing, and sore eyes. When smokers allow me to vomit into their drinks to make them ill at social events, we’ll be even-steven, and you can bet that shit’ll rock YouTube.

 
 

You figured us out kingubu, the real reason I’m willing to entertain that indoor smoking bans in public places may actually be a net good (though I’m not entirely convinced), is simply because I enjoy lording my nonsmoking ways over you filthy barbarian smokers.

Waaah! I’m a victim! Someone gave me a dirty look! Waaaaaah!

 
 

my whole point, which i initially made, was that the author this post was about was full of shit, because republicans legislate morality all the time, which to me, is just as fascist at heart than the things he was calling liberals out on. that was really all i was trying to say. how in hell that got turned into me being a libertarian, or anti-liberal, i have no idea. most people i know do not strictly follow party lines. i assumed this was normal.
if i ever post here again, i’ll be sure to begin each post with a tagline like “free healthcare for all” or “capitalism is for chumps.” that way we all know where i stand.

 
 

I assume you’re playing in bars and clubs, RB, and, as a smoker, I’m glad that my nasty-smelling habit is no longer distracting your audiences from their primary goal of poisoning their livers in an effort to reduce inhibitions against having risky sex with total strangers.

 
 

We could do what the wingnuts do and hide in our basements for the rest of our adult lives. That way, we would never have to interact with the filthy smokers and ugly fatties ever again (other than ourselves, of course). It works for the Right. They get to formulate plans for the extermination of humankind while us liberal suckers get all worked up about public policy.

 
 

“Waaah! I’m a victim! Someone made me smell something I didn’t like! Waaaaaah!”

Fixed.

 
 

If I cough when you light up, it’s because coughing is a natural response to finding an irritant in your throat and lungs.  It’s not my fault if you take my bodily responses personally.  Sometimes I fart, but that’s also not a political statement.

OK, sometimes I deliberately fart on goths at noisy clubs, but that’s just good clean fun.

 
 

If I cough when you light up, it’s because coughing is a natural response to finding an irritant in your throat and lungs.

Then its obviously not you that I’m talking about, Dayv. Plus, farting on goths is just common sense.

 
 

Single issue politics is frustrating in general, but it’s especially odd when the single issue at hand is “I like to poison the air in my general vicinity.”  And yet I still meet people who choose their local candidates based on nothing else, so maybe I’m missing something here.  Maybe it really is alive with flavor in the T-Zone.

I also love it when smokers play the false equivalence card of “but you’re drinking!”  Because, as we all know, my bourbon is totally harming the liver of the guy sitting next to me.  Seriously, anyone trotting out defenses like this is irredeemably stupid and should have corks placed firmly on the business end of any and all forks within an arm’s reach.

 
 

“Waaah! I’m a victim! I have to breathe toxic air that can help cause lung cancer, makes me smell like shit and is all but impossible to remove and makes my eyes hurt because some asshole is too fucking lazy to go outside for a minute. Waaaaaah!�

Re-fixed.

And jenni, sorry, I was too harsh. It’s just that hearing or reading about how terrible it is that our freedoms are infringed with public health measures that legislate where you can blow smoke (smoke for the love of Jeebus! toxic smoke!) sets off my libertard alarm. Not the economic sort, mind, tho I hate them too, but the ‘absolute freedom at any cost’ kind. I saw red there for a minute. In any case that’s what I meant by libertarian talking points, and I admit it was a little unfair. Just a little.

Full disclosure: I’m a quitted smoker, but I still smell like shit because I let all my smoker friends smoke inside my home, and I don’t really favor smoking bans. That said, if one passes in my state you won’t hear me wailing and gnashing my teeth. Plus I think Goldberg is a fuckhead, can we agree on that much?

 
 

I assume you’re playing in bars and clubs, RB

Nope, that’s JK47.

 
 

well, it does seem a bit hypocritical when some drunken lush with smeared lipstick all over her face goes off on a rant about me lighting up a cigarette in her vicinity…after she’s consumed about 10 diet coke/vodka combinations.
to me, that’s like saying, “i want cirrhosis of the liver, but don’t you dare possibly give me cancer , that i may or may not get anyway, despite my healthy lifestyle. o, and i don’t want my clothes to stink of cigarettes, even though they already stink of sweat and liquor, and will indubitably end up covered with vomit and/or sperm by evening’s end.

and Jrod, i do agree that goldberg is a fuckhead.

 
 

WOOHOO! Long live the leftist echo chamber!

 
 

Wow, when I saw 130 comments I thought for sure there had been a “toofer” infestation, instead it’s a socalist/libertarian (wtf?) and a smoking argument.

I think we can all agree that Jonah is indeed, a huge pantload and his book will be best suited for bird cage lining (should it ever be issued).

 
 

jenni,

I’m not accusing you of anything per se. I am mocking you because you are ridiculous.

Please try to keep up.

 
 

I cannot believe this will work!

 
 

(comments are closed)