Home | Away

Against blogofascism

Jamie and I are guests at this exclusive resort, having been invited to an ultrasecret DLC conference as a result of last Thursday’s post.  We got in at 1 am last night—that is, 4 am “our” time.  We flew from Pittsburgh to Seattle, realizing as we did so that we were doing the Super Bowl cities, got in a half hour late, waited a half hour for our bags, got caught in Seattle traffic at 10 pm on a Sunday, searched vainly for this place in the darkness, and so forth.  This morning I learned that for the first time in my life, I packed mismatching dress shoes.  But that’s all right!  Evan Bayh tells me I’ll be welcome anyway.  Besides, they expect bloggers to wear sneakers.

Speaking of bloggers and the DLC: it has come to my attention that people out there, especially those of you who don’t wash very often, have been doing the unthinkable—insulting Lee Siegel.  Just because he called attention, in his characteristically measured and sagacious manner, to the populist crudity, character-assassination, and emotional stupefaction one finds on blogs.  I mean, really.  All Siegel did was describe the blogosphere as “hard fascism with a Microsoft face,” and people started calling him names!

“Moron"; “Wanker” (a favorite blogofascist insult, maybe because of the similarity between the most strident blogging and masturbating); and “Asshole” have been the three most common polemical gambits. A reactor even had the gall to refer to me as a “conservative.”

Ouch!  I hate it when reactors go nuclear.  And as you all know, this blog doesn’t like it when you crude blogoIslamofascists call people “morons.” (About “wanker” we remain agnostic, and we note that Siegel responds to the insult by accusing his critics of . . . wanking!) So I’m here to say that this kind of thing really has to stop.  Now.

Seriously: people should not call Lee Siegel names.  Remember, Lee Siegel is one of the most fatuous and self-regarding writers in the English-speaking world, and as such, he is ripe for parody.  Why, from Jon Stewart to Stephen Colbert to the Witty Leftists of blogofascism, Siegel has been flailing at people considerably more talented than he for months now.  Occasionally he reminds his critics, whom he suavely calls “pissants,” that

I was writing for magazines like Dissent, The Nation, and Radical History Review while you were still worrying whether it was safe to walk around the Upper West Side at night. (Maybe you still do.)

That is so street.  Why, it positively reeks of authenticity!  It is at once leftish and dangeral—a potent combination in any neighborhood.

So please, please don’t get angry at Lee Siegel.  Don’t descend to angry name-calling.  Instead, use the hard Microfascisoft power of the blogofascisphere to parody him!  It’s more fun, and, most important, it’s more sophisticated.  And though, as you well know, this blog is loath to repeat itself, quote itself, or repeat itself, we’ll repost our Siegel parody from early March just to get things started.  Take it away, parody Lee!

***

Hello, everyone!  Many thanks to Michael for letting me sit in today while he basks in the Pacific Northwest with the captains of industry.  I’ve decided to take to the blogosphere again because it’s come to my attention that there are some people who still haven’t responded adequately to my February 27 essay on Jon Stewart in The New Republic.  It’s available online to subscribers, but I hear that the good people at LBO-Talk have made the full text available on their listserv.  Please read the entire thing right now.  It is critical to the future of comedy in our country.  It takes the form of an open letter to Stewart on the occasion of his hosting of the Academy Awards, and it begins,

Dear Jon Stewart,

As the entire world knows, you’ll be hosting the Oscars this coming Sunday for the first time.

On this august occasion, please allow me to appeal to you as someone who wants to be a fan but hasn’t been able to enjoy you so far. Please allow me to appeal to you as a public service. You of all people know from public service, since you are the very man who has enlisted comedy in the cause of civic clarity. I can’t imagine that what I say will make a difference to you—if you even happen to read this. No matter. Like you, I have a job to do.

First, note my “humility trope” at the end of this passage.  Despite the fact that I am a very important reviewer writing for the house journal of the National Center for Unearned Self-Importance, I say it is “no matter” whether you read my work.  But don’t fall for that little rhetorical feint—it is simply a measure of my craftiness as a writer.  For, in fact, it is critical that my words make a difference to you.  Jon, you have failed to win me over despite my desire to approve of you, and that should concern you.  It should concern all of us.  As I explain later in the essay,

I love comedians who make humor out of current events, out of bad or stupid politics. But the best of them work the stuff into wit. You just point, taunt, make faces. You say something “sucks,” and that’s the joke. You say “sucks” a lot.

Jon, I think the reason you’ve settled into this gross-out expedience is that you think, or you’ve been told, that the young audiences you supposedly draw aren’t up to more sophisticated bits. For one thing, I think you’re selling short the number of people in the magical demographic who have fine senses of humor. For another, I don’t think your audience is that focused on politics anyway. They just like to see people in authority, no matter whether they’re good or bad, torn down. It doesn’t matter whether the deconstruction is funny or not so long as it seems to humiliate the subject. So pretty soon, and especially when politics changes, you’re going to have to rethink your role as the Howdy-Doody Orwell. More importantly, when the chickens come home to roost—yes, the deficit spending on the war—and people start to want comedy with true creative-destructive substance; when they start to crave comic maturity rather than resigning themselves to pandering puerility, you’re going to be in trouble.

Yes, you read that correctly, Jon.  I think you’re condescending to your audience . . . but, you know, that’s my job.  You’re selling short the number of people who have fine senses of humor, whereas I’m quite sure that they’re not very sophisticated politically, and that’s why they’ve resigned themselves to pandering puerility.  But not for long!  Not after they hear from me.

By the way, I have a question for Michael Bérubé’s regular readers: honestly, what did you all think of the “Howdy-Doody Orwell” line?  Pretty good, huh?  When I typed that, I cried, “yes!  Lee Siegel, you have done it again!”

I slay me sometimes.

Now, I admit that every now and then, I’m a party of one in that regard.  No matter.  When I find myself in the critical minority, I know that our nation is deep in the throes of a profound cultural crisis.  For instance, when I informed the world that Eyes Wide Shut was “one of the most moving, playful, and complex movies I have ever seen,” I didn’t simply disagree with everyone else who saw the film.  Rather, I made my disagreement into a Gravely Pessimistic Cultural Statement About Our Entire Culture:

I realized that something that had been stirring around in the depths of the culture had risen to the surface.  After years of vindictive, leveling memoirs of artistic figures; after countless novels, plays, films, paintings, and installations constructed to address one social issue or another; after dozens of books have been published proclaiming the importance of the “great books” and “humanist ideas” to such a point of inflation that the effect was to bury the specificity of great books and of original ideas—after the storm of all this self-indulgence had passed, a new cultural reality had taken shape. Our official arbiters of culture have lost the gift of being able to comprehend a work of art that does not reflect their immediate experience; they have become afraid of genuine art. Art-phobia is now the dominant sensibility of the official culture, and art-phobia annihilated Stanley Kubrick’s autumnal work.

As you can see, I know art.  And I know playful!  So please, Jon Stewart, fans of Jon Stewart, and readers of this blog, take my words to heart.  Read them, repeat them, live them.  For your own good, and for the good of all humanity.  Thank you.

***

OK, everyone, have at it.  But don’t lose your focus and start talking about other things!  Lee says that happens all the time in blog comments; in fact, he says it’s related to the whole fanatifascistic phenomenon. “The blogosphere’s fanaticism,” he writes, “is, in many ways, the triumph of a lack of focus.” So . . . uh . . . what was I saying?  Oh yes. Meat is Hitler!

(Many thanks to an enterprising—and very focused—commenter on this thread.)

Posted by on 06/26 at 11:54 AM
  1. "Meat is Murder” plus “Bush is Hitler” yields “Meat is Hitler”? That’s an enthymeme, unless you render explicit the connecting proposition that “Murder is Bush.”

    </Logic Nazi>.

    How’s that for blogofascism?

    Posted by John Protevi  on  06/26  at  01:26 PM
  2. “Wanker” (a favorite blogofascist insult, maybe because of the similarity between the most strident blogging and masturbating

    Au contraire. Bloggers adopted “wanker” not because it’s crude and boorish; rather, it’s anglophilic resonance lends web diarists an air of sophistication.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  01:41 PM
  3. An enthymeme!  My stars, this blog is more sophisticated than I thought!

    One of these days I gotta do some Friday catachresis blogging.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  01:52 PM
  4. Just as you’ve already shown you are not adverse to the use of litotes, I’d say you’ve already used a catachresis or two. Perhaps even in this post: “suavely called them ‘pissants’”? Not bad.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  06/26  at  02:26 PM
  5. One Lee Siegel parody, coming right up:

    ...so I found myself in front of the mirror, saying my name over and over again, corndog, corndog, corndog, until it was transformed from greasy carnival fare through the bizarre maize/canine juxtaposition into some pure abstraction of hunger, the aching void at the heart of the human Comedy, what Lao Tze called “the empty mountain” or to Tolkein was “second breakfast”.  Though robbed of definite meaning, it still echoed with an ideal of golden lipidic roundness.  My favorite American writer, John Kennedy Toole, wrote despairingly to Paul Prudhomme that deep-fried foods on a stick nauseated him, but I think that was just the low serotonin talking...

    Posted by corndog  on  06/26  at  02:35 PM
  6. these damn blog comments—like my elementary language arts teacher, T-ball coach, John Milton, George Lucas, and wikipedia—are all fascists… fascists fascists fascists, the tip of the tongue taking a step of two spits on the lips to land at two on the, er, lips.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  03:05 PM
  7. I was calling the blogosphere fascist when it was just a bbs and I was writing for Backshelf Digest, Another Spurious Rag, and The Stapled Photostat Review.

    Posted by Central Content Publisher  on  06/26  at  03:16 PM
  8. Lee who?

    Posted by The Constructivist  on  06/26  at  04:36 PM
  9. You can’t tell me what to do!  You aren’t KOS!!

    Posted by Doodle Bean  on  06/26  at  05:08 PM
  10. I’m putting together a conference on Hitler studies. Do you think Siegel might be available?

    p.s. does he speak German?

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  05:19 PM
  11. You forgot to mention Lee Siegel’s respect of Nicole Kidman’s “unforgettable ass”...oh, I’ll just quote it:

    “The danger Bill and Alice face is that either domestic emotions will stifle sex or that unbridled sexual indulgence will kill off the individuality that nourishes emotional attachment. This is a dated theme? (That’s like telling Hamlet to lighten up--everyone’s father dies, for goodness sake.) Such a dilemma is why the movie begins with a shot of Kidman’s back and her unforgettable ass.”

    I fear it outdoes your parody.

    Posted by Mr. Waggish  on  06/26  at  05:23 PM
  12. What most people don’t know, CCP, is that blogfascism has its origins in the Bay Area Mac Users Group and The Well.

    “Hard fascism with a Microsoft face,” indeed!

    Posted by Roxanne  on  06/26  at  05:25 PM
  13. You know, I’d forgotten about her ass. Thanks for the reminder.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  05:45 PM
  14. Oh my...It sounds like Lee Siegel jumped the shark a while ago.

    Just one question:  How does one write “for” Radical History Review?  (It’s not exactly a magazine staffed with writers.)

    I just gotta find out what Siegel submitted to RHR.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  06:09 PM
  15. Michael,

    if one’s main point is “WHY IS EVERYONE BEING SO MEAN TO ME ABOUT MY BAD WRITING AND THEREFORE THERE SHOULD BE FEWER VOICES,” then one cannot be expected to write non-poorly, no?

    It would cripple the entire enterprise from the knees, which would suck.

    Imagine: if this man wrote and thought well, what would he say? How would he say it?

    Captcha Word: Saying.

    In the spirit of grand thoughts, Noam Chomsy should release a collection of aphorisms, entitled “Noam Sayin’?”

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  06:16 PM
  16. chomsKy, dammit, chomsKy.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  06:17 PM
  17. I did a quick search on America History and Life and I can’t find any book reviews or articles that Lee Siegel wrote for Radical History Review.

    Can any better searchers then me find anything?

    Maybe he’s not talking about the academic journal?

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  06:24 PM
  18. If Jon Stewart is the Howdy-Doody Orwell, does that make Stephen Colbert Clarabelle?
    And then is Craig Kilborn Buffalo Bob?

    I think Lee Siegel’s prose is of the sort that only arises when an educated mind grapples with all the complexities of the overwhelming currents of modern culture in an environment devoid of criticism.

    Or editing.

    Posted by pbg  on  06/26  at  06:24 PM
  19. I love Siegel’s reference to pseudonyms as a mechanism of “thuggish anonymity.” Let’s see:  George Eliot?  Mark Twain? Stendhal? The authors of the Federalist Papers?  Bob Dylan? Ringo Starr? Were they thuggin’?  Were they lurking in back alleys and putting the boot in with their nominofascist pseudonyms?

    Posted by Steve M.  on  06/26  at  06:25 PM
  20. (Oh, and your parody is splendid.)

    Posted by Steve M.  on  06/26  at  06:26 PM
  21. Lee Siegal is a second rate James Fenimore Cooper - I have this in an Email from Samuel Clemons.

    Posted by Eli Rabett  on  06/26  at  06:36 PM
  22. I heard Lee Siegal is an amanuensis for an unholy fascistic alliance between his borderline personality and his anus.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  06:45 PM
  23. I was writing for magazines like Dissent, The Nation, and Radical History Review while you were still worrying whether it was safe to walk around the Upper West Side at night. (Maybe you still do.)

    There’s a word in there...I can almost hear it..."Swine!"? No..."Worm!”?...closer..."Upstart!"! Yes, I think that’s it…
    Strange that the feelings of the MSM toward the (Left)Blogosphere should be so distilled in one writer. Of course, he could be working on assignment…

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  07:05 PM
  24. Islamowanking is the new talking points in the lefty discourse as practiced and preached at Daily-Yearly-whoknowswhen-Kos site.  I can tolerate Moron.  Indeed, Moron is a word I use and had used on me regularly, way before those Wankerfacists were old enough to subscribe to Time-Life Books. But Islamowanking is beyond the pale,pale light of dawn as it creeps up my door in the early morning light, nay, the dawn, of a post 9/11 world. I shall shut them down personally.  My soul craves the dignified embrace of noblesse oblige.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  07:16 PM
  25. Michael, you are a first-rate humorist! Thanks a bunch for making me spew coffee on my laptop’s screen while reading this essay.

    Posted by Alex von Waldenberg III  on  06/26  at  09:26 PM
  26. Hitler was a vegetarian.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  09:29 PM
  27. Hitler was a vegeterian.

    We could have told you that.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  09:47 PM
  28. Lee Siegal really nails it. Populism and inclusion are fine as concepts, but leave the door open just a smidge in the real world and there’s no telling what kind of crude and abominable creatures might stroll in. Have high ideals but lock the doors, and be tolerant with people, but for the love of Nicole Kidman don’t interact with them.

    Nothing pisses me off as much as having to interact with the crude and mannerless.

    Captcha word: high ... where’s mighty?

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  09:55 PM
  29. RHR’s website only lists contents of issues going back to No. 39 (Sept. 1987). At least since then, the only thing that Siegel has published in RHR is an piece called “Gramsci Behind Bars” in RHR No. 62, Spring 1995 (The Queer Issue).

    Perhaps someone who reads this blog was involved in the collective in earlier years—or has a complete run of RHRs handy—and can say whether or not this was Siegel’s only piece in the journal.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  09:59 PM
  30. I was an Islamiwankofascist until Whitaker Chambers exposed Alger Hiss and made me see how the world really worked.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  10:06 PM
  31. Being generally intimidated by the blogofascists (had to look up 4 words in 1st 4 comments) I rarely post.  But I can look things up—according to the “web of science” this is the only thing published since 1980 by an “L Siegel” in Radical History Review:

    Title: GRAMSCI,ANTONIO - LETTERS FROM PRISON - ROSENGARTEN,F, EDITOR
    Author(s): SIEGEL L
    Source: RADICAL HISTORY REVIEW (62): 225-231 SPR 1995

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  10:11 PM
  32. OMG!  Really—your’re in Seattle?  How long?  If I promise not propose again will you let me buy y’all dinner or lunch or coffee or something?

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  10:50 PM
  33. And this Siegel bloke wants to “Old Corps” Me?

    Hell, Ol’ David “Duke” Horowitz hisownself called me a “Fascist Redshirt” long, long ago…

    Never could figger out what the uniform should look like...Would’a been snazzy, though...And Id’a wore it with pride…

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  11:02 PM
  34. THE ORIGINS OF BLOGOFASCISM
    By Lee Siegel, Lee Siegel, Lee Siegel, Lee Siegel, Lee Siegel, Lee Siegel

    At the end of my post yesterday, I wrote, “The blogosphere’s lack of concentration is even more dangerous than all its rage… The blogosphere’s fanaticism is, in many ways, the triumph of a lack of focus.”

    For example, it rarely focuses on me, and whenever it does, it’s so snide I feel like the whole blogosphere is ganging up on me and yelling at me with one big rude voice, “Oh, shut the fuck [!] up, you twit!” or something, as if they don’t even care where the Upper West Side is! So then I wrote:

    All these abusive attempts to autocratically or dictatorially control criticism came about because I said that the blogosphere had the quality of fascism, which my dictionary defines as “any tendency toward or actual exercise of severe autocratic or dictatorial control,” even though it might be hard for all those puddingheads (oh, just don’t get me started) to understand how an essentially unfocused entity manages to exercise autocratic or dictatorial control. Have they never experienced that unfocused entity called Eyes Wide Shut exercising its autocratic or dictatorial control when looking in the mirror and saying, “unforgettable ass, unforgettable ass, unforgettable ass, …” over and over again?

    Oh, I will conscientiously criticize, in the form of a real argument, those who ridicule the great autocratic or dictatorial danger in the triumphally unfocused blogosphere where people fun of me, and I will equate that with the origins of blogofascism. I will. So there. Nyah!

    (submitted [pseudonymously!] for you approval)

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  11:25 PM
  35. “Lost,” with its secrets multiplying minute by minute, episode by episode, in twisting, turning, multi-layered plots, is like a metaphor for a country that feels it has suddenly dropped out of halcyon ahistorical skies onto an island set apart from an angry, alien, menacing world.

    Romper, bomper, stomper, boo.
    Tell me, tell me, tell me do.
    Magic mirror, tell me today.
    Did all my friends have fun at play?

    I see Bobby and Sally and adjectives, and alliteration, and personification, and why, there’s simile and “metaphor” together, and yes they all do play so very nicely with each other.

    And I just want to add that I think that we are all being very mean.

    Posted by  on  06/26  at  11:31 PM
  36. George Eliot?  Mark Twain? Stendhal? The authors of the Federalist Papers?  Bob Dylan? Ringo Starr? Were they thuggin’?  Were they lurking in back alleys and putting the boot in with their nominofascist pseudonyms?

    Hamilton’s in the basement
    Mixing up the medicine
    I’m on the pavement
    Thinking about the government
    Mark Twain in the Phillipines
    Taft out, fuck off
    Says guns cough cough
    and rebels get offed
    Look out kid
    It’s somethin’ you did
    God knows when
    But you’re doin’ it again
    You better duck down the alley way
    Lookin’ for a new friend
    The journalist in the poodle suit
    with the big pen
    Wants eleven dollar bills
    You only got ten

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  12:11 AM
  37. Perhaps someone who reads this blog was involved in the collective in earlier years—or has a complete run of RHRs handy—and can say whether or not this was Siegel’s only piece in the journal.

    Not me!  I was still worrying about whether it was safe to walk around Tribeca at night.  Damn loft converters back then would strip you clean in seconds.

    OMG!  Really—you’re in Seattle?  How long?

    Actually, we’re two and a half hours north, just outside of Blaine.  We can see Canadia from our hotel room, and we just got back from Vancouver.

    I love Siegel’s reference to pseudonyms as a mechanism of “thuggish anonymity.” Let’s see:  George Eliot?  Mark Twain? Stendhal? The authors of the Federalist Papers?  Bob Dylan? Ringo Starr?

    Ringo Starr isn’t his real name?  No matter—the authors of the Federalist Papers were thugs.  So is Kos, for that matter.  Only my membership in the Advertising Liberally network prevents me from complaining about Kos’s anonymity, you know.  Someday, someone’s gonna pierce that veil, and then the mysterious Mr. Kos will be in a heap of trouble.

    And Alex, please don’t call me a first-rate humorist.  For one thing, it’s not true, and for another thing, we don’t want Lee Siegel showing up here and giving me advice about humor.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/27  at  01:04 AM
  38. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=11678
    The Blogofascistas
    A modern-day Hannah Arendt identifies the new threat of our era. Do we have the will to fight it?

    By Matthew Yglesias
    Web Exclusive: 06.26.06

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  01:27 AM
  39. re: meat is hitler,
    knock offs of WWII posters attacking the NYT,
    http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/4771

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  01:37 AM
  40. correction on url,
    http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005434.htm

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  01:40 AM
  41. The proper term is Moron-Americans.

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  01:59 AM
  42. Wow. That letter to Jon Stewart is not parody. Aren’t there some national safety standards that can be invoked when someone puffs up that much?

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  09:43 AM
  43. “Au contraire. Bloggers adopted “wanker” not because it’s crude and boorish; rather, it’s anglophilic resonance lends web diarists an air of sophistication. ”

    You’re right,Sven. Wanker sounds much more sophisticated than calling this Seigel guy a jack-off!

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  09:44 AM
  44. Wow. That letter to Jon Stewart is not parody. Aren’t there some national safety standards that can be invoked when someone puffs up that much?

    That was, in a way, the question for Friday’s thread:  should liberals support the regulation of motorcycle helmets, guns, smoking, and stuffed shirts?

    Comment 36 wins, by the way.  Thanks.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/27  at  11:51 AM
  45. Though I forgot to give much love to corndog, corndog, corndog in comment 5.  That Siegalese is just too damn good.

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  11:55 AM
  46. thuggish anonymity

    How about “thuggish nonymity,” like, uh, the Ramones? Or Lee Ving & Derf Scratch? Or Captain Sensible? Or, uh, Woody Allen & Cary Grant?

    Thugs all!

    I love the ‘unforgettable ass.’ Probably my favorite U2 album.

    Posted by  on  06/27  at  06:59 PM
  47. I’m thinking maybe we can have a version of YearlyKos here in San Diego next year.  We can call it:

    Beach Blanket Blogofascism 2007.

    When people arrive at the Hyatt Hotel (they give mostly to Democrats, I have read), they’ll be greeted by our event mascot, Topo Blogofascist Giggo (Dating myself with Ed Sullivan references).

    And of course, everyone who attends receives a complimentary copy of the Likud--I mean New-- Republic.

    For as we all know, even the New Republic...well, you know the rest.

    Posted by Mitchell Freedman  on  06/27  at  07:14 PM
  48. Busy Day - By L.S.

    I gave John Stewart sage advice on comedy
    and then fixed up old Walt Whitman’s poetry
    I told Kos how to blog
    Haliburton how to loot
    and then I clued Dwayne Wade on drivin’ to the hoop
    And it’s not even noon!

    Posted by  on  06/28  at  09:57 AM
  49. And Alex, please don’t call me a first-rate humorist.  For one thing, it’s not true, and for another thing, we don’t want Lee Siegel showing up here and giving me advice about humor.

    I dunno, Michael. If Instapundit and Tom McGuire refer to Jeff Goldstein the “funniest blogger ever,” a little fawning hyperbole directed at you is almost obligatory in the liberal-blogofascist realm. Besides, the great and powerful KOS ordered me to say it. I’m just a foot soldier and lackey.

    My captcha is ‘Soviet’.

    Heh.

    Posted by Alex von Waldenberg III  on  06/29  at  02:48 AM
  50. Pork brains with milk gravy?  It may be quite tasty for all I know, but lordy, it sure SOUNDS like just about the most digusting concoction imaginable.

    I suspect this was a British propagana poster grin

    Posted by Tim Horrigan  on  06/29  at  10:47 AM
  51. Would calling Noam Chomsky a liar because he pointed out that it is known (though not widely known) that it was not Milosevic but the US organised KLA terrorists who were (& are) primarily responsible for the genocide in Kosovo count as blogfascism?

    Since you were unable to support this lie when it was questioned if you are actually against blogfascism perhaps an apology is due.

    Posted by Neil Craig  on  07/01  at  10:09 AM
  52. Not really, Neil.  After all, some people believe that it is known (though not widely known) that Slobodan Milosevic tried vainly to save 8000 civilians from the massacre in Srebrenica that never happened, and I don’t owe those people anything, either.

    I thought I did a very nice job of supporting my claims about the Balkans, thanks.  But it’s hard to convince genocide deniers of anything, of course, because they tend to deny the evidence in front of them.

    Posted by  on  07/01  at  10:34 AM
  53. Well I’d like some evidence of that though I assume you are saying he succeeded in saving at least 4,200 of them since the civilians massacred at Srebrenica amounted to 3,800 Serbs in local villages murdered by Nasir Oric’s US backed Moslem terrorists.

    As everybody except genocide deniers accept. Even NATO generals accept it.

    Brad must have blocked your reply since his blog doesn’t show you making any attempt to dispute the facts.

    Posted by Neil Craig  on  07/01  at  11:15 AM
  54. You should try reading my replies to critics on this blog instead of Brad’s.  That would kind of make sense.  And by the way, you’re doing a wonderful job of proving my point that there is some really foul, foul dust floating in Chomsky’s wake on this one.  Thanks!

    Posted by Michael  on  07/01  at  12:02 PM
  55. If that is the level of your discussion.

    You should try writing replies, it makes them easier to read.

    As regards foul dust & holocaust deniers - have you admitted yet that the primary (there is room for discussion as to whether it was the only) genocide at Srebrenica was of Serb civilians by America’s Moslem Nazi allies?

    Posted by Neil Craig  on  07/01  at  12:20 PM
  56. If indeed you can read, there are many many replies here (that would be my original post on Chomsky and the Balkans, if you’re not familiar with how the Internets work, despite having your own blog), along with links to Balkan Witness, No Peace Without Justice, the United Nations, the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights, and the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

    Once again, thanks for demonstrating that the pro-Milosevic crew are truly out of their minds.  But I love the phrase “America’s Moslem Nazi allies”!  You really ought to copyright that one.

    Posted by Michael  on  07/01  at  12:37 PM
  57. Answer the question.

    The rest is just rudeness & obfuscation.

    Posted by Neil Craig  on  07/01  at  12:46 PM
  58. "the job of the intellectual is to tell the truth and expose lies” to quote yourself. Assuming you claim to be an intellectual:

    Answer the question. Tell the truth.

    Posted by Neil Craig  on  07/03  at  08:24 AM
  59. Y prbbl nw knw tht Nsr rc, th prptrtr f th gncd t Srbrnc whs xstnc y hv nthr th ntgrt nr vn gts t thr cknwldg r dny, hs bn rlsd.

    bvsl s n f mrc’s Mslm Nz lls h ws prtctd.

    “Prfssr” Brb vn b yr wn stndrds y hv n rght t sggst tht y r n n wy n ntllctl. Y r a crrpt rcst Nz lr. Ppl lk y prvdd th “ntllctl” jstfctn fr th Hlcst.

    D nt vr clm tht y r yr cllg pssss shrd f dcnc. 

    Posted by Neil Craig  on  07/05  at  01:42 PM
  60. Mr. Craig:  Professor Berube will be away for a few weeks, as he made clear on this blog on June 30.  You may continue to post abusive comments here, or (if you like) on the lengthy thread on which Berube repeatedly defended his criticisms of Chomsky and defenders of Milosevic, but they may be tampered with or deleted if you continue to do things like accusing Berube of “rudeness” while calling him “a corrupt racist Nazi liar.”

    On a personal note, I would like to add that you seem to be as complete a fool as has ever been found in nature.

    Posted by  on  07/07  at  12:07 PM
  61. lgbuxjcu http://filkclrs.com hejrshma tdkyuelx rocunmlx kzslxhxj

    Posted by hiqthsgo  on  10/11  at  05:47 PM
  62. That’s pretty funny, especially since Hitler was a vegetarian.

    Posted by  on  01/31  at  12:16 AM
  63. If “Meat is Murder” plus “Bush is Hitler” how can you say that meat is Hitler? Okay so if Murder=Hitler, Meat=Bush?

    Posted by Dhamphy  on  08/11  at  04:34 PM
  64. Sound like you really went through a lot of obstacles but at least you had fun right, so I think it’s worth it.
    Iberostar Grand Paraiso

    Posted by Iberostar Grand Paraiso  on  08/26  at  12:03 PM
  65. Sounds like you really went through a lot of obstacles but at least you had fun right, so I think it’s worth it.
    Iberostar Grand Paraiso

    Posted by Iberostar Grand Paraiso  on  08/26  at  12:05 PM
  66. The most excellent means to practice for any exam is not only to recognize the information, with but to know what you are obtainable to be faced with on that dreaded exam paper. This will not just alleviate a small constant worry, but will assist you to acquire from side test king
    to side testking 642-901
    the paper a great deal easier. Similar to any other exam, the MCITP exam has a range of special questions to analysis your understanding and unusual skills. Resting on the MCITP exam, poles apart formats and question types testking 70-680
    come into view in order to brave your awareness and skills. There are testking SY0-201
    presently three formats, counting format which will test your logical skills, simulations and practical labs to check out your skills and facts contained by a genuine site.

    Posted by  on  09/18  at  06:26 AM
  67. Mr. Craig:  Professor 650-195 Berube will be away for a few weeks, as he made clear on this blog on June 30.  You may continue to post abusive 642-611 comments here, or (if you like) on the lengthy thread on which Berube repeatedly defended his 199-01 criticisms of Chomsky and defenders of Milosevic, but they may be tampered with or deleted if you 350-040 continue to do things like accusing Berube of “rudeness” while calling him “a corrupt racist 650-251 Nazi liar.”

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  03:32 AM
  68. Mr. Craig:  Professor 000-022 Berube will be away for a few weeks, as he made clear on this blog on June 30.  You may continue E20-361 to post abusive comments here, or (if you like) on the lengthy thread on which Berube repeatedly defended his criticisms of Chomsky and defenders of Milosevic, but they may be 1z0-050 tampered with or deleted if you continue to do things like accusing Berube of “rudeness” while calling him “a corrupt racist Nazi liar.” 70-236

    Posted by  on  02/19  at  12:38 AM
  69. Maintaining high quality demands extensive software testing before product releases,
    and testing on various supported platforms and scenarios to ensure that the product
    performs well. As software application grows, the number of scenarios to be tested grows so does the number of test cases. This eventually causes the test suite maintenance to be hard and execution to be time consuming.
    HP0-Y30 / 70-513 / 70-682 / 642-647 / 1z0-526

    Posted by  on  02/28  at  05:39 AM
  70. Do not ride with the meat! lol

    Posted by Charles  on  03/29  at  06:13 AM
  71. Thanks for all of your wonderful work on this blog.  I always found reading your posts and the comments very rewarding (and enjoyed participating on the few occasions when I did).  You built a great community, which I’ll miss.  O2 Sensor

    Posted by  on  04/03  at  08:59 AM
  72. I think you’re condescending to your audience . . . but, you know that better, that’s your job.  You’re selling short the number of people who have fine senses of humor, whereas I’m quite sure that they’re not very sophisticated politically, and that’s why they’ve resigned themselves to pandering puerility.

    Posted by Mobile Webcam Girls  on  06/24  at  12:07 AM
  73. I have always been about one 70-448 test hundred percent the truth.  My friends, we have to rein in wasteful bear DNA.  Al-Obama is not one of us!MB2-631 test
    I have always been about one hundred percent the truth.  My friends, al-Obama has bear DNA.  One hundred percent the truth!  Bears.  70-294 test DNA.  Obama.  Ayers.  Truth.  DNA.  Bayers.  Osama.  Truth truth truth truth truth truth truth truth tru

    Posted by  on  07/09  at  02:58 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main