Home | Away

Clumpy v. smooth

In his latest, most Ward Churchillesque attempt to make the worst of a bad situation, my occasional sparring partner David Horowitz defends his “Discover the Network” site by pointing out that many of its critics have not, in fact, adequately discovered the network:

In the first place it should be pointed out that even though DiscoverTheNetwork consists of thousands of files, and is the product of years of work and decades of experience, these critics have launched their attacks within hours of its appearance on the web and before any serious person could have digested a fraction of its contents.

David’s right about this, of course.  The project was years-- nay, decades-- in the making, and smug snarkmeisters like me came along within hours to make fun of it, just because it contained an “Individuals” page that listed people like Roger Ebert next to Mohammed Atta.  David has every reason to feel sandbagged.  All that time, all that effort-- only to meet with uncomprehending derision.  Now he knows how Michael Cimino felt when he screened that seven-hour version of Heaven’s Gate for those bean-counting United Artists executives!

It is difficult not to regard such attacks as politically motivated attempts to stigmatize, tarnish and yes, smear, the new website, and thus bury the enterprise in a way that would preclude having to deal with the information it displays.

Hey, if it’s difficult, don’t do it!  Just go ahead and say that the leftists and liberals smeared on the site are themselves smearing the site.  We won’t mind!  We love this kind of thing.

Thus, instead of parsing and analyzing the actual contents of the site– the detailed profiles of individuals and organizations and their links to networks defined in the site– these critics have seized on a quirk in the format, an entirely innocent feature of the site, as an opening for their attacks. This is the “Individuals” search page, which functions as a table of contents for one section of the site. Actually it is even less than that. What they have attacked is a picture grid on the Individuals search page which was intended as a kind of visual enticement to enter the actual profiles of the site. Thus if one were to click on the picture of Barbra Streisand or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or Michael Moore on this page, one would be immediately directed to their individual profile pages.

The mere listing of these figures in the database was not intended to suggest that there are organizational links or common agendas or coinciding agendas between these individuals.

My apologies for seizing on a mere quirk in the format, FrontPage fans!  Not being very good with computers (as this blog’s regular readers are well aware), I had no idea that the posting of Bill Moyers’ picture alongside the Ayatollah Khomeini’s was an entirely innocent feature of the site.  Nor did I understand that the mere listing of these figures in the database was not intended to suggest that there are organizational links or common agendas or coinciding agendas between these individuals.  Again, I’m not very good at deciphering databases.  I simply thought we were being invited to, uh, how you say, “Discover the Network,” and that the “Individuals” page indicated pretty clearly that the Network consisted of people like Bruce Springsteen, Zacarias Moussaoui, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Rob Reiner.  My mistake!  Thanks for clearing that one up!

And then it gets personal. Not content with the defense of the site’s formatting quirks and innocent features, David proceeds to make fun of my tentative, innocuous, well-meaning post on the Network, calling it “a pretty good rendering of the paranoid fantasies of the left” and claiming that “its ‘humor’ . . . is so clumpy, however, that you would hardly suspect his expertise was literary.” Well, I ain’t no Ring Lardner, people, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard tell of “clumpy humor.” It’s true that some of my jokes have had to huddle together for warmth in recent months, because the Bush Administration has been deliberately withholding heat from blue states (and no, that isn’t a paranoid fantasy, David-- the BTU readouts don’t lie, dude), but that doesn’t make them “clumpy.” In fact, as the recent Koufax Awards have definitively demonstrated, this blog’s humor is exceptionally smooth, with a full body and an effervescent finish.  Cheers!

More important, this blog has a really good memory.  For example: David appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on February 1 and claimed that although he had been invited to speak at Hamilton College, it was at the behest of “conservative kids”:  “It’s not like the faculty brought me up there,” he said.  But actually, it was like the faculty brought him up there.  In fact, it was exactly like the faculty brought him up there.  And who says so?  Why, David Horowitz says so-- or he did, on his very own blog back on September 18, 2002:

Today I am at Hamilton College in Clinton NY to speak on the Sixties. It is one of the rare occasions I have been officially invited, in this case by historian Maurice Isserman with whom I have had an email correspondence for some time. Isserman is that rare specimen, an honest leftist. He has written an excellent biography of Michael Harrington called The Other American, and one of the only studies of the Sixties by a leftist that I would recommend, If I Had A Hammer. I had dinner with Maurice and another leftist here whom I respect, Phil Klinkner, the author of a book on the civil rights movement, The Unsteady March, whom I once blasted on these pages. Having talked at length to Klinkner I realize I misjudged him, an error encouraged by the fact that his article appeared in The Nation.

Well, misjudging Klinkner was an understandable mistake on David’s part, and it was good of him to own up to it-- The Nation is part of The Network, after all.  And speaking of The Nation, I see that Bruce Shapiro’s memory of Horowitz’s visit to Hamilton is every bit as good as mine.  Anyway, David is right-- Maurice Isserman is an honest leftist.  Let us all emulate his example, cough cough.

On the “Academic Bill of Rights” front, by the way, David is now claiming that

[w]hen I drafted the Academic Bill of Rights-- and before I published it-- I took pains to vet the text with three leftwing academics-- Stanley Fish, Todd Gitlin and Michael Berube-- and with Eugene Volokh, a libertarian law professor at UCLA, who is one of the nation’s leading experts on First Amendment law. Anything in the original draft of the Academic Bill of Rights that so much as irritated these gentlemen I removed.

But as Stanford professor Graham Larkin has pointed out (with a little help from Fish, Gitlin, and me), that’s not quite right either.

Thanks once again to everyone who voted for me in the Koufaxes and honored me with three very respectable finishes.  This humble blog vows to remain humble, to remain full-bodied, and most of all, to remain smooth.


I remember David’s visit to Hamilton College because he wrote to me about it back in 2002-03 when we were sparring about leftist “second thoughts” and the leadership of the antiwar movement.  At the time, he complained to me that he rarely received invitations to speak as a serious intellectual historian of the sixties, and I’d replied that surely this was partly his fault:  you invite David Horowitz to your campus, you don’t know whether you’re going to get the guy who aspires to be a serious intellectual historian of the sixties, or the agent provocateur who peppers campus newspapers with ads that claim (among other things) that welfare constitutes a form of reparations for slavery (which must surely come as a surprise to all the white folks who received welfare checks between 1935 and 1996!).  But I did not know that Horowitz had-- ah, how should I put this-- innocently misstated the facts about his invitation to Hamilton when he appeared on The O’Reilly Factor.  For that I have to thank the invaluable Rick Perlstein, who sent me a transcript of the show (which, in my computer-coffee travails, I quickly misplaced):

O’REILLY: All right. We’re talking—Nancy Rabinowitz is on the faculty at Hamilton, and . . .


O’REILLY: You know-- but it is to Hamilton’s credit that you were invited to speak there, correct?

HOROWITZ: Yes. Well, I-- you know, the conservative kids invited me.  It’s a little different when you’re invited as a-- you know, a speaker paid by and invited by the faculty. It’s not like the faculty brought me up there.

Thanks, Rick!  Now we know that honest leftist professors who invite David to speak on their campuses run the risk of being pissed on in national media.  Smooth!

Posted by on 02/23 at 05:54 PM
  1. I was shocked to discover a student orgaization friends of mine had founded as undergraduates included in Horowitz’s network of evil left-wing organizations and slandered on Horowitz’s webpage as de facto anti-semites.  This doesn’t strike me as McCarthyism so much as paranoid and almost fascist conspiracy theorizing and intentional and indefensible oversimplification and distortion…

    Posted by zach  on  02/23  at  07:15 PM
  2. DiscoverTheNetwork = Ishtar of the internets.

    Posted by NTodd  on  02/23  at  07:16 PM
  3. Also, is he really friends with Sherman Alexie?

    Posted by zach  on  02/23  at  07:18 PM
  4. Dunno, Zach!  You’ll have to ask Sherman Alexie.  And NTodd, isn’t Ishtar itself part of the Network?  I can’t access David’s “Films” page at the moment, but I think I remember seeing it there next to The Salt of the Earth

    Posted by Michael  on  02/23  at  07:23 PM
  5. DiscoverTheNetwork = Ishtar of the internets

    So is Horowitz the blind camel?

    Posted by Sadly, No!  on  02/23  at  07:26 PM
  6. The mere listing of these figures in the database was not intended to suggest that there are organizational links or common agendas or coinciding agendas between these individuals.

    Right! By calling them a “network,” Horowitz meant that they had no ties or common agendas at all!

    I don’t know if this blog’s humor is smooth so much as sandy. Or possibly satiny. Or maybe there’s some other texture I’m overlooking.

    Posted by Linnet  on  02/23  at  07:34 PM
  7. From Linnet above:

    “I don’t know if this blog’s humor is smooth so much as sandy. Or possibly satiny. Or maybe there’s some other texture I’m overlooking.”

    I think the texture you’re looking for is all of that ... you know, like sand mixed in Vaseline, rubbed sensuously over David Horowitz’s hairless and satiny-smooth ...

    I can’t bring myself to write the rest.  Use your own imagination.

    Posted by  on  02/23  at  07:53 PM
  8. I dunno. “Clumpy” sounds better than “blogosphere fringe.”

    Posted by Roxanne  on  02/23  at  07:59 PM
  9. Damn, Shapiro harshed our scoop!

    Posted by  on  02/23  at  08:30 PM
  10. From the Graham Larkin link:
    Note that Ohio’s bill, introduced by State Senator Larry Mumper, prohibits instructors from “persistently” discussing controversial subjects. His examples of controversial subjects? “Religion and politics.” So that’s what Republican state senators want in Ohio—universities devoted solely to sports and weather.”

    Tee and indeed hee.  Horowitz is a loon, of course, and his ABOR should be called what it is:  The Right Attempts to Absorb Yet Another Part of American Life In To the Republican Borg Collective.  Or TRATAYAPOALITTRBC for short.

    Posted by  on  02/23  at  08:52 PM
  11. Funny you should bring up Ishtar, NTodd. Well known Hollywood Liberals Beatty and Hoffman worked closely with the jihad-inspired Isabelle Ad Jani, who went on to work in Adolphe. Costarring with them: Aharon Ipalé, who is directly connected to The Tragedy of Flight 103, which connects him to another member of the infamous Beatty cartel.

    In attempting to smear Horowitz’s site, you yourself have provided another clear example of the Hollywood-Nazi-Terrosist axis. Awfully clumpy of you.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/23  at  08:56 PM
  12. Roxanne—I’m pretty sure he meant that you are a sort of decorative border of hanging tassles, attached to the outside of the blogosphere. Much better than “clumpy,” if you ask me.

    And Bérubé, for the last time—a “network” does not imply “organizational links or common agendas or coinciding agendas” or even any connection of any kind between its nodes! A “network” is simply a list of people I don’t like, written about in a manner that is just shy of libelous, with a clear intent to insinuate guilt-by-association without explicitly saying it!

    That’s what I meant by “network.” If you’d digested a fraction of its contents, you would’ve found Discover the Blacklist! to be creamy, never grainy or crunchy, and always available in your grocer’s freezer.

    Posted by Alex  on  02/23  at  09:17 PM
  13. Unfortunately, I have my mint condition David Horowitz card from “Magic: The Gathering,” and it says that he’s impervious to criticism, having his past inconsistencies pointed out to him, and plutonium. In fact, the negative energy actually makes him stronger through the operation of his weapon of choice, the Persecutmatron.

    As for our beloved, clumpy host, I simply echo the following laudatory couple from A Tribe Called Quest, penned in his honor:

    “He never half steps cause he’s not a half stepper // Drinks a lot of soda so they call him Dr. Pepper.”

    Posted by norbizness  on  02/23  at  09:30 PM
  14. He may have meant “clunky,” which is exactly what happened with this post: I laughed too hard, fell over backwards, and CLUNK!  But the texture we seek is pithy, innit?

    Posted by  on  02/23  at  09:40 PM
  15. With his Index page Mr. Horowitz does seem to have made a signal advance in right wing rhetoric. He’s revamped, remodelled and replaced guilt by association with his shiny new invention: guilt by quirk of the format. Innovation, thy name is internet!

    (I do notice a bit of clumping in the comments at times. Would you all mind spreading out a little? Thanks.)

    Posted by  on  02/23  at  09:42 PM
  16. Sorry about the clumpiness.  My bad.

    Posted by Skippy Super Chunk  on  02/23  at  09:47 PM
  17. Rick-- I saved that file you gave me and called it “horowitz.rp,” but in the middle of shuffling all my files from the desktop to the backup laptop I misplaced it.  Had I been able to cite your excerpt from the O’Reilly exchange, I’d have done so.  Do you still have it?  I want the bit where O’Reilly asks him whether it isn’t to Hamilton’s credit that they invited him, and I can’t find it.  I’ll post an update crediting you, of course. . . .

    And we’ll get ourselves on that Network page sooner or later.  I just hope they don’t put me next to the blind camel.

    Posted by Michael  on  02/23  at  09:47 PM
  18. I have spent years, nay, decades compiling the biggest dustbunny on earth.  I do this as a public service and as a contribution to the War On Swiffer Mops(R).

    Just because my dustbunny looks like most of the left-wing bloggers on the internets (in the right light it also looks like Tom Selleck) is no reason to denigrate this pile. Let’s not get personal.

    Posted by  on  02/23  at  09:50 PM
  19. Clumpy humor is blogs in clogs.

    Posted by Carol  on  02/23  at  11:03 PM
  20. This humble blog vows to remain humble, to remain full-bodied, and most of all, to remain smooth.

    Ah, but will it be the coldest-tasting blog?  That’s what counts.

    Posted by Miguel Sánchez  on  02/23  at  11:36 PM
  21. "The product of years of work and decades of experience” is the same argument my wife makes when she wants to watch figure skating on the big teevee.  Although she also adds something about grace, so I suppose it doesn’t really apply.

    Posted by  on  02/23  at  11:49 PM
  22. I too do my best to try and not treat David Horowitz with the same contempt I treat say, Henry Kissinger or Ann Coulter.  But then, I clicked on the link to his “network” and surveyed the “individuals” section. 

    There is no alphabetical order and the whole thing appears designed to make people confuse Katrina Van Den Huevel with particular Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

    I’ll take Horowitz at his word and that he thought through his creation.  But then, I’ll also have to reject his miserable defense that he did not intend to smear his fellow Americans who happen to dissent from the current Bush administration foreign policy.  The structure of that “individuals” listing speaks volumes about his intent.  I suppose if Alex Cockburn had a list of people that put David Horowitz next to Hitler or D’Aubussion, David would not likely accept a similarly worded defense from Cockburn.

    If David Horowitz is bothering to read the comments section, he still has time to straighten this out and show he means what he says when he intends not to smear the people he has smeared.  He can, specifically, create a leftist list that seperates Katrina Van Den Heuvel, and yes, David’s favorite “devil,” Noam Chomsky from the Islamic-fascist terrorists he identifies.  If he wants to vent against Chomsky or Van Den Heuvel, each of whom is also distinct in their respective views, Horowitz can still vent as to such persons when one clicks on the photo.  Horowitz doesn’t have to listen to me or anyone, but he shouldn’t whine about his good intentions under the current structure of his “network.”

    David Horowitz also hits his sophomoric worst with the photo of a bloated Teddy Kennedy on what is presumably a Kennedy family yacht.  Yeah, David, no harm intended.  Right.  Or should we say, Right Wing?

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  01:58 AM
  23. Mitchell, hold off on that shirtless-Teddy-Kennedy-photo indignation.  This humble blog is in the process of compiling its “individuals” page of Horowitz, Norquist, and Cheney, and then let’s see who’s clumpy and who’s smooth--

    Posted by Michael  on  02/24  at  02:07 AM
  24. This humble blog is in the process of compiling its “individuals” page of Horowitz, Norquist, and Cheney, and then let’s see who’s clumpy and who’s smooth--

    A shirtless Grover Norquist? A bare-chested Dick Cheney? Michael, please, I beg you. What are you trying to do, turn me straight? You’re one of them, aren’t you?

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  10:57 AM
  25. Horowitz still hasn’t gotten over being the last leftie to discover the Panthers and winding up being caught up in their violent, paranoid era rather than their glory years.

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  11:05 AM
  26. “its ‘humor’ . . . is so clumpy, however, that you would hardly suspect his expertise was literary.”

    I think he must have been misquoted.  He probably meant “humours” - blood, bile phlegm and urine.  It is well known that clumpy humours are inconsistant with a literary mind.

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  11:30 AM
  27. "I don’t know if this blog’s humor is smooth so much as sandy”

    Then why does it taste salty?

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  02:11 PM
  28. Michael - You mentioned putting up pictures of, among others, Cheney, on your new ‘individuals’ page.

    It seems Cheney is pretty ... clumpy ... according to wonkette.com.


    I’m just dragging the discussion right down to the gutter, yes?  I’m so ashamed.

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  02:17 PM
  29. Wow, new picture.  I didn’t realize Tom Hanks and Dieter from “Sprockets” had a love child.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  Oh well, there goes my chance of being on your blogroll.

    Posted by corndog  on  02/24  at  02:20 PM
  30. -- Parts of this profile were adapted from the article titled “Sen. Ted Kennedy, D - Afghanistan,” written by Michelle Malkin—

    For $200/hour (or $1600 a weekend), we can prepare a profile you too.

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  02:22 PM
  31. Roland, we are all of us lying in the gutter, but some of us are looking bleaaaRRRGGGGHHHHH! kaf HUNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHH BLAAAARRRGGGGGGHHHHH.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/24  at  02:24 PM
  32. Oh, and this is the worst segue ever, but nice redesign job, guys.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/24  at  02:26 PM
  33. Corndog --

    You just earned a spot on my blogroll.

    Posted by Roxanne  on  02/24  at  02:27 PM
  34. Sweet new pic!  Leather… nice. 

    Hey, what is your left arm doing, anyway?  Your hand is off camera… it reminds me of those rare times, so long ago, when Johnny Carson during a monologue would bend down and flip off the audience just out of camera range when they booed one his jokes.

    You’re not flipping the bird to us, are you?

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  02:30 PM
  35. Okay. I’ve been thinking about this for the last hour or so. I must demand that you change the picture back to the one you had yesterday. Otherwise, I’ll be forced to either mock you with this picture or give you a Patridge Family nickname.

    Posted by Roxanne  on  02/24  at  03:45 PM
  36. Wow!  Glad to see that someone else read _Final Cut_.  Also… the new picture makes you look even more Gallic, which is one way of thumbing the eye of the VRWC.

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  03:54 PM
  37. Following up on Roxanne, “Reuben” is only one letter away from being a jumble for Berube, minus the accents.

    Posted by corndog  on  02/24  at  03:56 PM
  38. Ralph, we French North Americans are a crafty lot. For every joual-speaking Quebecois or okra-sniffing Bayou fiddler or obviously 8-bit texted Bérubé, there are more of us sub rosa with apparently Anglophone surnames permeating the ranks and files of Merkin Suhsightee. And we await the fateful day when we rise up, don our red plaid quilted shirts, stand shoulder to shoulder, and start a thrilling off-key chorus of Alouette. 

    Hey, Michael, that reminds me. Maybe Horowitz is having technical trouble fitting your 8-bit text surname into his two-bit website?

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/24  at  04:05 PM
  39. Liking your site’s new makeover, but also noting that, as such a TIRELESS blogger, you have picked up some rather unfortunate BAGS under your eyes.  Perhaps too much coffee at the hockey rink?

    Now, knowing that many other bloggers are going in for expensive plastic surgery, I thought I’d spare you the expense w/ a moment or two of image manipulation. 

    Hoping not to offend: everybody’s doing it!


    Posted by metaspencer  on  02/24  at  04:29 PM
  40. in my official opinion as an information professional, i’m afraid i shall have to give a failing grade to Mr. Horrorwitz’s “Network”.

    “format quirks” aside, how does he explain subtitling his sections with phrases like “campus support for terrorism” (academia) and “shadow party” (politics)? that is no “quirk”, that is clear editorial comment intended to tell you exactly what to think as you happen to notice Fidel Castro next to Dennis Kucinich on the following page. and the Prime Directive (for both Librarians and Journalists) states that we do not interpret or judge or give our personal opinion when providing information to those who seek it--we give them any and all relevant or requested facts, and that is all.

    now, if this database had been a project done by a student in an MLS/IS program, intended to illustrate some of the dangers inherent in electronic organization of information--that you can set something up that appears to connect any given object to any other given object, in a manner that implies a causal or other close relationship between the two (where in realty no relationship exists,) then i might give David a better grade.

    similarly, if he’d been attempting to show us that the human mind is capable of, and in fact desires to, see everything in terms of logical systems, because that is how we understand our chaotic world, and that this tendency, coupled with “the internets” means that paranoia needn’t be reserved for the paranoid any longer...well, then i’d have to suggest he leave the MLS/IS program and get started on his Philosophy degree.

    in fact, i turned in a project myself way back in 1992 for an ethics class which ultimately consisted entirely of quotes, accessible in various orders, thus providing different meanings, as part of a paper on the emerging ‘net & the effect of hyperlinks on text (shhh--it felt clever when i was but a wee girl!)

    sorry, i digress--David is not the only party guilty of this online behavioral trend, but unless he wishes to become a member of the Black Helicopters & Alien Lizard People Society (who can and do connect everything from Elvis to the Avian Flu,) he may want to get back on his meds.

    i have to go call Fidel now and see if he wants to come to campus for a special viewing of Stalin’s frozen brain.


    PS: i actually prefer “clumpy”, but only when i’m mixing it with ice cream.

    Posted by Librarian  on  02/24  at  05:28 PM
  41. Nice photo. The Bérubéan’s At The Gates, eh?

    Yet we plead (Unbold us, Kurt!) for discernable links in comments.

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  06:22 PM
  42. I can’t decide if the vibe is Joe Strummer or a VH-1 Bands Reunited bass player from Ultravox.

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  09:41 PM
  43. You have been un-bolded. Sorry about that…

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  10:20 PM
  44. <i>You have been un-bolded. Sorry about that…<?i>

    Gods be praised!

    Posted by NTodd  on  02/24  at  10:26 PM
  45. Praise be, good Kurt, I can see!

    I can seeeeeeee!

    Posted by  on  02/24  at  10:41 PM
  46. This is now officially a perfect website.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  02/24  at  10:46 PM
  47. Just checked into the lovely Hampton Inn in Urbana, Illinois, folks, so I can’t reply to everyone just yet, but I just wanted to tell Roxanne to bring on the mockery.  You know what?  I was actually thinking of that picture when I put this one up, and there was much giggling around here.

    And I can take “Reuben.” It’s better than being called the Danny Blogaduce of the Internets.  Barely, but discernably.

    Good to see everyone unbolded, too.  Thanks, Kurt!

    Posted by Michael  on  02/24  at  11:14 PM
  48. Dude. I just got back from tying one on with the DC chapter of “Drinking Liberally” and I still think that new photo sucks. Change it back to the clumpy baby-boomer professor NOW!

    Posted by Roxanne  on  02/25  at  12:13 AM
  49. Speaking of Ward Churchill, we at the University of Colorado-Boulder are required to sign loyalty oaths when we are hired here.  (Loyalty to the Colorado constitution.) Churchill didn’t have one in his file, so we are being required to sign another loyalty oath and have it notarized.  Word on the quad is that those who don’t do it by 5 pm Friday (they informed us of this necessity on Tuesday, btw) will be terminated.

    I am a Quaker, and taking oaths is against my religion.  It is designated as an oath at the top of the page, but you can affirm, rather than swear.  Still, I feel gross doing it.  I’m tempted to not sign it, be terminated, and collect unemployment until my tenure-track job at Southern Illinois begins in the fall, but I’m not sure that Illinois will look kindly on that action, so I’m stuck.

    Posted by  on  02/25  at  12:23 AM
  50. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Change at MichaelBérubé.com! Make it stop! [click click click] There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home. [click click click]

    Posted by  on  02/25  at  02:37 AM
  51. I’m thoroughly enjoying your give and take with Horowitz, and appreciate your doing so here in the blogosphere.  Reading his most recent post got me started on a tangential rant of my own:


    Thanks for your excellent, excellent work.

    Posted by Trevor Dodge  on  02/25  at  05:21 AM
  52. Here’s something that’s sad. Jennifer Washburn.
    ‘s book is out. Have you heard anything about it? Over the din of David Horowitz and Ward Churchill.

    Posted by  on  02/25  at  07:23 AM
  53. Wooo, tough crowd on the photo front. Ok, so I’m late to the party, but just in case I’m NOT the last Bérubé blog habitué to have read the Frontpage pieces linked above--folks, do yourselves a favor and take a minute there. The 11/27/02 mano a mano with Horowitz is nice and all, but ohmigawd, the triple-teaming in the 2/7/03 “leadership of the antiwar movement” symposium . . . let’s just say that I don’t think a little heckling about the photo is gonna get Michael to change it anytime soon. You, sir, are tough as nails. And smooth, did we mention smooth? The closing comment in your reply to Radosh and the interlocutor on question 8 was smoooooooth.

    Way to make chicken salad out of questions that were largely chicken you-know-what.

    Posted by  on  02/25  at  10:45 AM
  54. Wow. New photo. First, Neo, then Condoleeza, now Michael. What can I say. Um, “Free your mind.” Leather is the new tweed. And, why are there giant saffron mattresses lined up behind you?

    I don’t personally “get” Horowitz. At some point, it would seem that being someone who makes outlandish, fire-eating statements challenging the pernicious, deadly, all-manipulating Left--a movement which, in spite of its power, can’t seem to elect a president under objectively favorable circumstances--would undermine his academic credibility, since the latter depends on a trust that he’s soberly weighing and honestly presenting the evidence on which his teaching depends. Maybe that conflict is the source of his anger. He’s not being taken seriously, he lashes out blindly, and historians take him less seriously.

    Posted by  on  02/26  at  12:02 AM
  55. A belated observation: wouldn’t you think that a rightie like Horowitz should celebrate clumpy humor?  After all, clumpy is much more hetero.  Unless...unless he’s actually a closet case!  Now, wouldn’t that be atypical?

    Posted by  on  02/26  at  04:23 PM
  56. I wrote to David once, critically examing his stance on something or the other. He replied by posting ‘yawn’ between the sentences.
    Like Malkin and Coulter, he’s a smokescreen for the real criminals, not that he doesn’t wish he was the real deal. And yes, he is immune to criticism because he doesn’t really care about anything but his own imaginary status.

    Posted by  on  03/15  at  07:34 AM





Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:

Next entry: New look, same topic

Previous entry: Dear Madame President

<< Back to main