Home | Away

Twenty ten

So I see from the previous thread that JP Stormcrow stopped by a few minutes after midnight to check whether this blog was still breathing.  It is indeed!  Just look at that fog on your screen.  We’re about to head over to a friend’s house and catch the Penn State - LSU game.

MLA was fun, even though Janet and I were there only for a day and a half.  The Loews Hotel happens to be one of my favorite hotels of all times, and it was a profound pleasure to be at the minnesota review cash bar on Tuesday evening, where managing editor Heather Steffen presented Jeff Williams with a special “Roast Issue” to celebrate Jeff’s eighteen remarkable years as editor.  Heather and her crew put the thing together in a matter of weeks, and just like a real mr issue, it turned out to be about three times as long as she’d planned.  It’s also the funniest academic journal issue ever, and I am happy to say that Jeff himself was gobsmacked (even though a few people nearly ruined the surprise by talking about the thing the previous night with Jeff almost within earshot).  I have a feeling the Roast Issue will become a collector’s item, so if you want a copy of this rare and valuable and hilarious object, write to Heather.

Tomorrow, I’m going to do my very first “book salon.” I’ll be discussing Ye Left at War over at Firedoglake between 5 and 7 pm Eastern time.  Come on over and say hello!  Hey, what’s been going on over at FDL these past few weeks?  Anything I should know about?

Last and least, I am reliably informed that the term “teabagger” is a nasty slur that should not be applied to people who ... uh ... call for Obama and liberal Democrats to be ... um ... mumble mumble mumble.  I sincerely apologize to anyone I may have offended in 2009, and I hereby declare that this blog will henceforth refer to this group as Tea Party Patriots™.  I ask you all to do likewise, just as I once asked you to refrain from calling David Horowitz a vicious racist and sexist term and say “He Who Shall Not Be Referred To By His First Initial and a Drastic Truncation of His Surname” instead.  I would also like to say, for the record, that I do not believe the animus directed against Obama’s stimulus plan last spring had anything to do with race.  Many Americans simply realized to their dismay that government spending was out of control, and some of them began to harbor suspicions that the new president was actually a Keynesian.  Accordingly, they demanded to see his Keynesian birth certificate, and the White House did itself no favors by stonewalling them.  To call these people “birthers” today is to suggest, however faintly, that they are not to be taken seriously, and I respectfully request that you refrain from using that term on this blog as well.

And now, folks, let’s try to have a very happy new year.

Posted by on 01/01 at 12:07 PM
  1. Done and done!

    Of course, I promise nothing on the Tea Party Patriot front. As I’ve learned from the righties and their proactive fundraising from the Underpants Gnome from Nigeria, I won’t do a thing you say until you give your review of the new Sherlock Holmes movie. The Exiled and Lance Mannion gave it some fine reviews, and I won’t stop mocking wHorowitz until you give in to my demands!

    Mwa ha ha, etc.

    Posted by Tim McGovern  on  01/01  at  03:03 PM
  2. Happy New Year to you and your family!

    The Loews Hotel is also my favorite hotel.  Best happy hour location in Philly.

    Glad you didn’t board things up again.  I’m still recovering from the last nuclear shut down.

    Posted by  on  01/01  at  03:47 PM
  3. And there was no doubt about it! (re: the effing f-ball game).

    Some nasty slurrers might think leaving a comment here a few minutes after midnight on New Year’s Eve would be “lame” or “pathetic”, but I can assure you that it was merely one small part of a larger pattern of sophisticated New Year’s celebration program-related activities. And now we’re going “game night” at a friend’s house. Taboo and Balderdash* FTW, you jejune academic elitists with your latte mustaches and books and stuff.

    *We’ve actually started playing a Wikipedia/Wiktionary/Wikiquote equivalent.

    Posted by  on  01/01  at  06:41 PM
  4. Well the Big-10 certainly improved their bowl record this year especially with the two wins today.  Hats off to Penn State and to Ohio State; mostly because i am tired of wearing this stupid hat from last night, but still a salute to accomplishment. 

    It is my understanding that the TPP only give money to their corporate sponsors, so referencing them is acknowledging their overseers, and that can’t be all bad.  But if we are getting away from the term “birther,” are we likewise ridding ourselves of “tenther?”

    Happy twenty-ten to all and to all a good football night.

    Posted by  on  01/01  at  10:33 PM
  5. are we likewise ridding ourselves of “tenther?”

    Whoa, I had no idea the David Tennant fanbase was that organized.

    To call these people “birthers” today is to suggest, however faintly, that they are not to be taken seriously, and I respectfully request that you refrain from using that term on this blog as well.

    So we’re to treat them like delicate children?  Sorry, but I don’t know nothin’ ‘bout babyin’ birthers.

    Posted by  on  01/01  at  11:39 PM
  6. Aaaaaand we see at last from where the mdslet gets my horrible sense of humor.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/02  at  01:45 AM
  7. Daaaaammmmmmnnnnn...you’re starting off oh-ten with a bunch of stoopid rules. Fuck that. And as I have ever-increasingly less to lose, I see no reason why I should have to follow them. Especially because they’re stoopid. Also*. Just like Birthers and Tea Baggers.

    *Got to brush up on the lingo in case we start cruising over Palin airspace. Someone on this blog ought to be able to communicate with the control tower, and I’m guessing PalinSpeak is a language the MLA doesn’t study or teach, being so elitist and all.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  03:07 AM
  8. Oh, almost forgot -

    Hey, what’s been going on over at FDL these past few weeks?  Anything I should know about?

    thanks for the laugh, I needed that! And I will try to be at FDL tomorrow for your thingy.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  03:22 AM
  9. And, pray tell, what will the MLA now do about this: “The Year’s Work in Lebowski Studies,” an essay collection edited by Edward P. Comentale and Aaron Jaffe (Indiana University Press, $24.95)?  It already comes with chapters such as:‘The Big Lebowski’ and Paul de Man: Historicizing Irony and Ironizing Historicism; On the White Russian; and Professor Dude: An Inquiry Into the Appeal of His Dudeness for Contemporary College Students.

    Hair (captcha) as in give me a hit with hair.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  06:45 AM
  10. TP Patriots! How charmin.’

    Posted by Bill Benzon  on  01/02  at  08:04 AM
  11. Well, I can see that my efforts to create a more civil and respectful lexicon for the discussion of advanced wingnuttery are already doomed to failure.

    All right, it’s on to Plan B.  I propose creating “avatars” that can communicate with the Palinistanian people using their own language and physiognomy.  We will use advanced technologies such as “weights,” “pulleys,” and “levers” to control these avatars from remote sites, with the aim of winning the hearts and minds of “the people.” Who’s in?

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  09:17 AM
  12. In the long run no one needs no stinkin’ birth certificates. And besides if the government can’t even keep kung fu terr’ists* off of airplanes what are they doing in the business of recording births and deaths anyway.

    *Genuwhine Chris Matthews quote: I‘m waiting for the terrorist who knows kung fu or something that gets on an airplane without a weapon. God knows what that is going to be like.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  11:00 AM
  13. Before I lift weights or pull levers, I’ll have to be convinced that the the Palinistanians have “hearts” and “minds.” Otherwise, the plan sounds suspiciously like going to the gym.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  11:02 AM
  14. And under your tenure will the MLA pledge to stop importing higher education into Palinistanian territory?

    I thought not .... so much for the rights of indignant peoples.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  11:03 AM
  15. I propose a scheme where “weights”, “pulleys”, and “levers” are used in a clever labor-intensive fashion to physically transport large stones a nontrivial distance and pile them in a precise manner such that the pile will remain intact for millennia. Among the beneficial side effects of such an endeavor—after a long day of wrestling with rock everyone involved is likely to agree on the benefits of a warm meal and a good night’s sleep for all. The piled rocks might survive a global nuclear fireball, too.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  11:55 AM
  16. Aaaaaand we see at last from where the mdslet gets my horrible sense of humor.

    What do you mean “at last”?  (Still, if it had to be noticed by someone, at least it was Chris.  Happy 2010, CC!)

    We will use advanced technologies such as “weights,” “pulleys,” and “levers” to control these avatars from remote sites

    We could make it something of a game, and call it “Mystaken.”

    Otherwise, the plan sounds suspiciously like going to the gym.

    Well, there goes the Professor’s subtle ploy to encourage more exercise amongst his readership.

    And I will try to be at FDL tomorrow for your thingy.

    Chicka-Wow Chicka-Wow Wow!*

    *I had resolved to move on from this in the New Year, but you people are like an open bar at an AA meeting.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  12:04 PM
  17. Well I can only hope this is the year we finally put up a Guillotine on the national Mall. God knows we could use some virtue and terror.

    Fuck civility.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  12:11 PM
  18. God knows we could use some virtue and terror.

    Chick-a-wow!

    What?

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  12:32 PM
  19. Quoting Robespierre there.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  12:44 PM
  20. I dunno, Christian, that sounds frightening.  I mean, if you go carrying pictures of Robespierre, you’re gonna wind up with a movement that’s doctrinaire.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  12:52 PM
  21. Michael, I’m guessing from your use of “doctrinaire” that you are aware of the fact I wasn’t being entirely serious.

    The Jacobins, to put it in Marxist terms, didn’t have a politically conscious class to push their radical egalitarian program on and the terror was in part an attempt to create one (although obviously they didn’t think of it in Marxist terms). As such, they were doomed to failure.

    On the other hand, feudalism never got a firm hold on France again. I don’t think a few aristocrats are too high a price to pay for that. Plus, I just happen to be angry. Maybe we could send the Guillotine on tour and have a stop in Sacramento first.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  01:08 PM
  22. Actually, Christian, if I thought you were entirely serious, I wouldn’t have paraphrased Lenin Lennon in response.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  01:34 PM
  23. Death Panels FTW,’cuz you know that the euthanized never lie.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  01:37 PM
  24. And they won’t be fooled again.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  02:28 PM
  25. Well, I can see that my efforts to create a more civil and respectful lexicon for the discussion of advanced wingnuttery are already doomed to failure.

    Well thank you, Michael. I’m proud and honored to have been able to help set an appropriate tone so early into the new decade.

    And I will try to be at FDL tomorrow for your thingy.

    Chicka-Wow Chicka-Wow Wow!

    Well, ya got me on that one, mds. (Video clip is 9:33, but the reason for the link is within the first 1:15 and definitely worth it).

    And may I just say that I am loving the guillotine idea!

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  02:31 PM
  26. I’m happy with not using the term “birther,” as I prefer “birfer” instead, which I think captures the grade-schoolishness of it all quite nicely.

    Posted by Dave Maier  on  01/02  at  03:45 PM
  27. I mean, if you go carrying pictures of Robespierre, you’re gonna wind up with a movement that’s doctrinaire.

    You’d better free your head instead.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/02  at  03:52 PM
  28. Just like the dormouse said.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  04:04 PM
  29. Is the Bérubé book as important as this?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123002389.html

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  04:05 PM
  30. I’m reasonably certain the dormouse actually said “cede your head.”

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/02  at  04:06 PM
  31. Remember you only get ahead once in the human race—so try not to lose it. (But if you do lose it in the US in 2010, you get to pass the whole thing on to your kids and then they get ahead. Neo-feudalism for the cross-generational win.)

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  05:42 PM
  32. @30. “Seed your head”? That is, become green, become a Chiapet.

    Posted by Bill Benzon  on  01/02  at  05:50 PM
  33. Spyder @ 9, Miracle Max @ 29—I guess now would be a good time to admit it at last:  I never really understood what people saw in The Big Lebowski.  Seemed to me to be a movie that was trying way too hard to be “fun” and “quirky” in a “cult” “movie” kind of way.  Coen Bros. on an off day—not as bad as Burn Before Reading, but not worth a third viewing, either.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  05:55 PM
  34. You need six or eight viewings to get the full import of it.  Kind of like Paradise Lost.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  06:26 PM
  35. Michael @33 - it’s so refreshing to hear that opinion coming from a male. My experience has been that my critiques of the movie largely get dismissed out of hand because I’m female, therefore I just don’t get it. It’s very patonizing.

    Nice job at the FDL book salon, by the way.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  08:12 PM
  36. “Seed your head”

    Somewhere in there there’s achicka-wow waiting to come out.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  08:15 PM
  37. Good discussion over there, Michael, though I fear that your tone may convey the impression that you’re merely concern trolling the left. Not that I don’t agree wholeheartedly with everything you say, but I think your unrepentant civility and willingness to discuss difficult issues with intransigent people could turn many of your readers away from the important task of renewing Manufacturing Consent: The Sitcom for another 13 weeks.

    Also, I think someone set us up a novelty trick browser window thingy, because I looked at that page and when I came away my face was covered in lampblack.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/02  at  09:45 PM
  38. Seemed to me to be a movie that was trying way too hard to be “fun” and “quirky” in a “cult” “movie” kind of way.

    Then we agree on principle; now onward to the guillotines and off with their freed, stoned heads.

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  10:09 PM
  39. I think The Big Lebowski is weaker than the first six Coen movies, but love all the performers and recognize Walter Sobchaks in real life.  Plus it sends up Philip Marlowe in a more playful fashion than did Robert Altman.  I don’t get the fact that it’s become such a cult, however.  And I grant you that people with disabilities in the film are not treated nicely.

    Anent the mr roast: Janet is the awesomest Master of Ceremonies I’ve ever encountered.  She should host American’s Next Top Editor.

    As I began to describe the event to Ray Davis, I said, “You know the minnesota review is leaving Pittsburgh . . . “
    “OMG, it’ll have to change its name!”

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  10:28 PM
  40. Manufacturing Consent: The Sitcom

    I would just have to watch that.  But then again, wouldn’t we all?

    Also, I think someone set us up a novelty trick browser window thingy, because I looked at that page and when I came away my face was covered in lampblack.

    Oh, snap.

    (FDL jokes aside, I came away with an excess of bile and a reawakened desire to punch Ed Herman in the throat.  Would there be a way to work that into an episode of the sitcom?)

    and recognize Walter Sobchaks in real life.

    Indeed, John Goodman is yet again an essential component of the appeal.  Just as with Barton Fink.  I should probably try to watch both films someday.

    Seemed to me to be a movie that was trying way too hard to be “fun” and “quirky” in a “cult” “movie” kind of way.

    Were you listening to the Dude’s story?

    Somewhere in there there’s achicka-wow waiting to come out.

    Chicka-Wow Chicka-Wow Wow!  Or is that too “meta”?

    Posted by  on  01/02  at  11:54 PM
  41. (FDL jokes aside, I came away with an excess of bile and a reawakened desire to punch Ed Herman in the throat.

    I got the “punch in the face” desire from reading the 1990s described as “Ancient History” and the birth of the blogosphere dated to some years after I started, but maybe I’m just sensitive this week.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/03  at  12:03 AM
  42. but maybe I’m just sensitive this week.

    Awww, Happy Birthday in advance, Chris.  You know what they say: “Fifty is the new forty.” So when my birthday arrives later in the month, we’ll be the same age!  Er, assuming we ignore logic and consistency, “Tea Party Patriots™” style.

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  12:29 AM
  43. This made me laugh and I just thought I’d share:

    From ESPN.com - playoff picture/scenarios
    (info on page not static - changes as situation changes). Going into the final week of the season, here we stand:

    - Baltimore clinches a playoff spot with: BAL win
    (also known as “win and in").

    - N.Y. Jets clinch a playoff spot with: NYJ win
    (once again, “win and in")

    - Denver clinches a playoff spot with:

    1. DEN win + NYJ loss or tie + BAL loss or tie OR
    2. DEN win + NYJ loss or tie + PIT loss or tie OR
    3. DEN win + NYJ loss or tie + HOU win OR
    4. DEN win + BAL loss or tie + PIT loss or tie OR
    5. DEN win + BAL loss or tie + HOU win OR
    6. PIT loss + BAL loss + HOU loss + JAC loss OR
    7. PIT loss + BAL loss + HOU loss + NYJ loss OR
    8. PIT loss + BAL loss + JAC loss + NYJ loss OR
    9. PIT loss + HOU loss + JAC loss + NYJ loss OR
    10. MIA loss or tie + NYJ loss + BAL loss + HOU loss + JAC loss or tie

    OK, so how badly does it suck to be a Broncos fan going into tomorrow’s (today’s) games trying to keep track of all that shit?

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  05:22 AM
  44. Janet is the awesomest Master of Ceremonies I’ve ever encountered.  She should host American’s Next Top Editor.

    Isn’t she, though?  She totally saved that party—people would have just gone back to chatting and drinking and flipping through the pages.  Making people read their contributions was a stroke of genius—as I told her repeatedly that evening.

    I looked at that page and when I came away my face was covered in lampblack.

    I’m telling you, Chris, there are no blogspats like the blogspats of aught-six.  It was a different time, you understand.

    Were you listening to the Dude’s story?

    I’m supposed to say “mark it zero” now, right?

    I got the “punch in the face” desire from reading the 1990s described as “Ancient History” and the birth of the blogosphere dated to some years after I started, but maybe I’m just sensitive this week.

    I got the sense that a couple of those commenters have never read anything that wasn’t online.  It reminded me of some of my TPM threads from back in Ancient History Aught-Eight.

    Happy birthday, Chris!  I believe fifty is the new thirty-eight, mds.  And I play the equidistant game all the time, even though I’m only 48, which is the new 35.5.  That picture of me with Henri Richard on the hockey page of this blog?  It’s now as distant from us, temporally, as it is from FDR’s election.

    As Ringo once said: I’d never thought of it but being middle-aged and old takes up most of your time, doesn’t it?

    Posted by Michael  on  01/03  at  10:44 AM
  45. O-Girl:  it’s a good year whenever it sux to be a Broncos fan.  But today I’m gonna be thinking about poor Bob Herbert and his long-suffering Jets.  I’m surprised, though, that Herbert didn’t mention the Jets’ epic double-OT playoff loss to the Browns in ‘86, up 20-10 with four minutes to play....

    Posted by Michael  on  01/03  at  10:53 AM
  46. I got the sense that a couple of those commenters have never read anything that wasn’t online.

    They also appear to have taken home a contrarian take on The Manchurian Candidate, given that they think it’s a mark of erudition to parrot “Ed Herman is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life” at every opportunity.

    On the other hand, it was something of an eye-opener to learn that you were only included on You Know Who’s list because you freeped an online poll.

    But all of this is water under the bridge, a bridge that NATO then blew up.

    I believe fifty is the new thirty-eight, mds.  And I play the equidistant game all the time, even though I’m only 48, which is the new 35.5.

    So if I apply these rules selectively, I can call the both of you “whippersnappers,” and demand that you depart my lawn forthwith?  Splendid.  Who knew there would be such advantages to reaching halfway-to-dead?

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  11:44 AM
  47. Well boy am I glad I avoided that FDL thing like the plague. After all, getting punched in the face by mds would not be much fun.

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  11:50 AM
  48. getting punched in the face by mds would not be much fun.

    It turns out to be more fun than you’d think!  The thing you have to avoid, though, is getting kicked by the mdslet’s hooflike feet.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/03  at  11:56 AM
  49. After all, getting punched in the face by mds would not be much fun.

    Oh, come now, christian h.  You’re a math professor; there’s no way you’re innumerate enough to be Ed Herman.  The urge to violence has nothing to do with Chomsky’s ideas, but is a personal matter involving me, Herman, Herman’s fanbois, and a certain “Mormon Tabernacle Choir.” But that’s a story for another time.

    It turns out to be more fun than you’d think!

    You lie!  You’ve dodged meeting me more than once, in terror of encountering Knuckles and Chuckles, the Twin Fists of Pain.

    The thing you have to avoid, though, is getting kicked by the mdslet’s hooflike feet.

    ... Okay, this part is true.

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  12:48 PM
  50. 45: I’m surprised, though, that Herbert didn’t mention the Jets’ epic double-OT playoff loss to the Browns in ‘86, up 20-10 with four minutes to play....

    J’accuse, monsieur! Posted in bad faith given the events of the following week. Yes Virginia, there were two playoff games that year in Cleveland Stadium decided by identical 23-20 scores in overtime, both of which featured improbable comebacks by the winning team. (Fortunately, the second one is barely remembered, and is *not* replayed multiple times a year on ESPNClassic, because that would be bad and hurtful.)

    I was sad that I had only distant memories of a victorious pro football franchise until I met a man whose baseball team last won the World Series in a year closer to the Napoleon’s invasion of Russia than the present.

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  12:57 PM
  51. Actually, I do think the Jets are doomed after having watched their incredibly self-destructive loss to Atlanta two weeks ago (two missed field goals and utter defensive domination until Atlanta’s last winning TD drive).

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  01:08 PM
  52. I got the sense that a couple of those commenters have never read anything that wasn’t online.

    I fail to see what relevance you professor-academic types and your “reading” and your “books” and your “knowledge” have to our writing “first!” when we’re the second commenter at Atrios crucial online organizing.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/03  at  02:04 PM
  53. Well, I think a book about how intellectuals disagree about stuff is elitist.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/03  at  02:16 PM
  54. What’s wrong with being 133ty?

    Captcha: own.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/03  at  02:22 PM
  55. O-Girl:  it’s a good year whenever it sux to be a Broncos fan.

    Agreed. And for the record, I’ve really been pulling for the Jets this year. Even if they are one and done, I’m hoping they make the playoffs.

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  03:10 PM
  56. When you write that you have been “reliably informed” of something and go to the trouble of rebutting it, shouldn’t you provide a link so your readers can see for themselves whether you actually address the issues raised? For the record, the link is http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2009/12/quotations_side_3.html

    Posted by Dr. Weevil  on  01/03  at  08:19 PM
  57. Let us not mock the Jets until they lose tonight’s game.  There are so many opportunities left for them to carve their failure into history.  And now that the Rams have the first pick in the draft do they go with a big boy named Suh? 

    I do wish Chris a happy birthday, though i think 50 is still 50 and not all that old.  And though he is always unwilling to toot his own horn (i believe there was a show trial or some such event that proved that), i do think his Cause is just.  Donate in honor of Mr. Clarke

    And that ‘86 reference? That was so last century, and we are already so into this one.  I can’t even remember the 1990s that are now nearly 20 years ago.  Then again i am getting old-er, hell i am three days into my seventh decade.

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  09:51 PM
  58. shouldn’t you provide a link so your readers can see for themselves whether you actually address the issues raised?

    Not necessarily!  It all depends on whether the blog in question is dealing in good faith.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/03  at  09:54 PM
  59. It all depends on whether the blog in question is dealing in good faith.

    It’s very gracious of you, Michael, to allow that Ms. O’Connor might be a savvy political operative concern-trolling the president of the MLA rather than the pearl-clutching Miss Manners that particular post suggests she is.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  01/03  at  10:59 PM
  60. rather than the pearl-clutching Miss Manners that particular post suggests she is.

    Oh, now now.  I think Ms. O’Connor is simply raising a reasonable objection to the use of a pejorative term for a segment of the American population for whom deficits and government overreach suddenly became a problem again when a Democrat was elected President, a position which requires them to be woefully ignorant or shamefully dishonest.  Should they therefore be made the object of fun?

    Posted by  on  01/03  at  11:17 PM
  61. Well, I think it’s neither (a) nor (b), John.  Ms. O’Connor is simply operating under the mistaken impression that the political meaning of “teabagging” somehow grew out of the sexual meaning, when in fact the Tea Party Patriots™ adopted the term in complete and blissful ignorance of the word’s prior usage.  That’s why she is so shocked, shocked at its appearance on this blog.  I think of Ms. O’Connor as a beacon of honesty and integrity in the blogosphere, even when she doesn’t allow my comments to appear on her blog.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/03  at  11:20 PM
  62. Loads of integrity in the last 2 weeks of NFL play. (Actually I think Cincy legitimately stunk it up.)

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  01:37 AM
  63. Ms. O’Connor is simply operating under the mistaken impression that the political meaning of “teabagging” somehow grew out of the sexual meaning, when in fact the Tea Party Patriots™ adopted the term in complete and blissful ignorance of the word’s prior usage.

    No shit. When the Teabaggers were making a mockery of townhall meetings with their crazy, insane, and outright hateful scorched earth tactics, the only thing worth smiling about was those several weeks when they were absolutely ignorant about the other meaning of “tea bagging”.

    And now on to my very important NFL commentary, which will proceed without reference to spyder"s opening statement @57 because I’m classy like that. (And by the way, a very happy birthday to all you geezers out there having birthdays soon).

    As someone who’s been happy to see both long time n’er-do-wells the Jets and the Bengals enjoy some success this season, I think it totally stinks that they are going up against each other in the first round of the playoffs on Saturday. Under normal circumstances I’d say it’s good news for the Jets that Cincy has so many injured players; however it’s already been established in the comments above that the J-E-T-S Jets! Jets! Jets! have a long tradition of losing big in big games. But I’d still like to see them win. With Chad Ochocinco injured and likely out of the mix, the Jets are probably the most fun story/team of the postseason. It’d be cool to see it play out for awhile.

    But of course first and foremost is post-season agenda item #1: the new england patriots must go down. And may the infinite blessings of Gojira be upon whomever takes them out.

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  02:48 AM
  64. (And by the way, a very happy birthday to all you geezers out there having birthdays soon).

    Oh, well, thank you very much for the kind ... Hey!

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  09:25 AM
  65. Well, I think it’s neither (a) nor (b)

    Uh, oh, more complexities! For a long while this airspace held to the Interntet Tradition of “both, and,” but now “neither, nor” is an option!

    So I guess it’s neither (a) savvy political operative nor (b) pearl-clutching Miss Manners, but (c) ignorant prude?

    Captcha, and I’m not making this up: “children” as in “will no one think of the?”

    Posted by John Protevi  on  01/04  at  10:06 AM
  66. For a long while this airspace held to the Interntet Tradition of “both, and,” but now “neither, nor” is an option!

    All it takes is a tilde.

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  10:16 AM
  67. Spot on re: the Jets, Oaktown Girl. Last night I suggested to my brother, a diehard fool Jets fan, that he might be having some difficulty identifying his feelings, but that’s what it feels like to root for a winner. He promptly replied that true Jets fans are feeling dread because they know the Jets will get killed in Cincy next weekend.

    And Michael, as the new leader of the MLA, perhaps the best way to avoid pot shots from the Erin O’Connors of the world is to remain totally silent for the duration of your leadership.

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  10:24 AM
  68. perhaps the best way to avoid pot shots from the Erin O’Connors of the world is to remain totally silent for the duration of your leadership.

    Ahhh...the Obama strategy. Very clever, indeed.

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  10:53 AM
  69. I think we’re getting ahead of ourselves, people. I am not the president of the MLA; Sidonie Smith is, and I am second vice president.  Next year, it’ll be Russell Berman, and I’ll be first vice president.  Then, in 2012, I take the reins and drive the buggy.

    As for Ms. O’Connor, I wish you all would be a bit more charitable:  I bear no ill will toward her, and I know that this is simply an annual ritual we go through.  Last year, she chided me for using “snark” and employing the term “wingnuts,” but we resolved that one amicably.  This year, it’s “teabaggers.” So I figured next year, it would be “birthers,” and I was trying to get out in front of that one.

    Last year, in response to Erin’s objection to the term “wingnuts,” I wrote this:

    I do think that once you get past my snarkitude (if you can), the major point remains:  conservative intellectuals have a lot of work to do if they want to disavow the Palin/ Plumber wing of their constituency in the US.

    I dunno about you, but I didn’t see any of them working very hard at this in 2009.  On the contrary, it looks to me like the Palin/ Plumber wing is in the ascendancy, and the greatest conservative intellectual of our generation, Newt Gingrich, seems pretty gleeful about this.  Call me snarky and nasty, but I think that’s more important to the state of the republic than anything derisive I might say about people who want to keep Hitler out of their Medicare.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/04  at  12:18 PM
  70. On the contrary, it looks to me like the Palin/ Plumber wing is in the ascendancy, and the greatest conservative intellectual of our generation, Newt Gingrich, seems pretty gleeful about this.

    To be fair, he initially endorsed the sane approach in NY-23.  He only reversed himself after some angry pushback and realizing which way the wind was blowing, as brave, principled conservatives are wont to do.

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  12:23 PM
  71. Good point, mds.  I stand semi-corrected.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/04  at  12:53 PM
  72. shit, I’m late.
    Still a party?
    Seed your head

    yeah, that’s it.

    [captcha, no shit: growth Haw!

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  01:31 PM
  73. While we’re talking football, among the interesting “features” of this year’s NFL finish is that *3* of the 4 games on the initial playoff weekend are repeats of season-ending games. And each of those games (37-0, 33-7, 24-0) were pretty much blow outs. I just felt somebody needed to comment and that comment is me. (Plus Grover Norquist and I blame Obama.)

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  03:08 PM
  74. *3* of the 4 games on the initial playoff weekend are repeats of season-ending games.

    Yeah, that’s pretty bizarre. Do we need a certified math professional like Christian H. to figure out the odds of that this would have happened? Anyways, as someone who loves watching the Cowboys lose, (especially in round one of the playoffs), I’m hoping the odds are totally against them beating the Eagles 3 games in a row. Saturday has the potential to be a lot of fun, for sure.

    And if both Dallas and New England lose, I might not make it in to work on Monday from being in a state of delirium.

    Posted by  on  01/04  at  07:59 PM
  75. What would suck worse re: being a Broncos fan and having to remember all that stuff is losing to Kansas City (!), at home, by 20 points.  But I do believe the Patriots may be somewhat hobbled by the loss to injury of a key player whose name I forget.  Go Iggles!

    Posted by Dave Maier  on  01/05  at  12:22 AM
  76. Indeed Jets fans must experience the struggle of keeping hope on their side as their team moves into the playoffs against the team they destroyed.  In the meantime i came across this review of conservative reviews of AVATAR.  One of the better lines is:

    “a sanctimonious thud of a movie so infested with one-dimensional characters and PC cliches that not a single plot turn, large or small, surprises. . . . Think of ‘Avatar’ as ‘Death Wish’ for leftists, a simplistic, revisionist revenge fantasy where if you . . . hate the bad guys (America) you’re able to forgive the by-the-numbers predictability of it all.”

    On my the right wing insanity of it all.
    Posted by  on  01/05  at  05:04 AM
  77. Michael,

    When exactly did I not allow your comments to appear on my blog?

    You had some trouble a year ago posting a comment--but that is because it contained too many links and my spam filter ate it. We cleared that up then, and I posed your comment with apologies.

    So what’s the problem now?

    Posted by Erin O'Connor  on  01/05  at  01:44 PM
  78. Erin, I tried to post a comment on Dec 23, then again on Dec 24.  The first contained one link (to Rachel Maddow bemusedly explaining that the term “teabagger” was indeed adopted by Tea Party activists who were unaware of its prior usage), the second two links (to pictures of Tea Partiers using the term).  So I assumed the spam filter had gone rogue again, and gave up.  Besides, by that point John Drake’s free-flowing bile had gone to 11, so I figured I was better off in moderation after all.

    I hope your new year has been a happy one thus far.

    Posted by  on  01/05  at  03:43 PM
  79. Michael, I never saw the comments. Perhaps you could refrain, in future, from suggesting that I am actively censoring you until you confirm that this is indeed what I’m doing. You say to me that you “assumed the spam filter had gone rogue again, and gave up.” But if that is the case, why did you write above--when you didn’t think I would see it--that you “think of Ms. O’Connor as a beacon of honesty and integrity in the blogosphere, even when she doesn’t allow my comments to appear on her blog”?

    My new year has been a happy one, thank you. I hope yours has been, too.

    Posted by Erin O'Connor  on  01/05  at  04:08 PM
  80. But if that is the case, why did you write above--when you didn’t think I would see it--that you “think of Ms. O’Connor as a beacon of honesty and integrity in the blogosphere, even when she doesn’t allow my comments to appear on her blog”?

    Actually, Erin, that’s how I decided to call your attention to those Lost Comments; I certainly wasn’t going to try to post a third comment on your blog.  And I did think you would see that remark, since I noticed (from comment # 28 on your thread) that you’d checked back in here—and I was right, you did see it.

    So, then.  I was indeed ribbing you, and the reason I called you “a beacon of honesty and integrity” was simply this: you had explicitly accused me of engaging in a “nasty slur” when I had done nothing of the kind.  I decided, in response, to be amused rather than offended.  Because when you set yourself up as a moral arbiter of civil discourse in this way, but you’re unaware that the people I was mocking actually called for the “teabagging” of Obama and other Democrats, well, that is mildly amusing.

    So, yes, I will certainly refrain from even the faintest suggestion that you censored my comments, and I’ll chalk this up to a spam filter gone rogue once again.  In return, perhaps you might refrain from trying to gin up some faux-outrage chez vous by telling your readers that I am describing Tea Party Patriots™ as people who dip their scrotums, etc.  And just to make extra double sure there’s no confusion about those sexual practices, I will continue to use the term Tea Party Patriots™ from here on out.  Many thanks and best wishes.

    Posted by  on  01/05  at  04:43 PM
  81. "But if that is the case, why did you write above--when you didn’t think I would see it--”

    You don’t know what he thought.  You just stuck that in so that you could insinuate that he’s a liar. 

    Look, Erin, you’re on hostile territory.  Don’t come over here to ask smart-aleck rhetorical questions. You’re just pissing people off.

    Have a sucky New Year.

    Posted by  on  01/05  at  05:15 PM
  82. Well, Bloix, if we’re going to have a ban on mind-reading, I think it cuts both ways.  Let’s not presume why Erin wrote that bit.  I don’t know what Erin was trying to insinuate, nor do I know why she thought I thought she wouldn’t read my comments section.  For that matter, I don’t quite understand the motivation behind her original post.  (Surely there are more important things to be faux-outraged about?  Isn’t Rachael Ray wearing a terrorist scarf and isn’t Obama looking disdainfully at Biden?) So, once again, I’m just going to assume that she didn’t know about the Tea Party Patriots™’ enthusiastic initial embrace of the term “teabagging” when she claimed that I was using a “nasty slur.” And I’m just going to assume that she’s trying to straighten out this latest miscue, as we did last year. 

    Which is to say:  Erin, you’re welcome here anytime.  And do have a good new year.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/05  at  07:35 PM
  83. Well, Bloix, if we’re going to have a ban on mind-reading, I think

    A-HA!!!!!!

    Oh, wait. You probably just meant a ban on reading other people’s minds.

    Carry on.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/05  at  07:39 PM
  84. Hey, I’m not the newly elected head of the MLA.  It’s not my job to reach out across the divide to wing-nut welfare addicts like Erin O’Connor.

    And there’s no ban on imputing bad faith to people who are acting in bad faith. O’Connor asked a question that was clearly not a question - it was an accusation.  It was unpleasant and irritating and she deserved to be called on it.

    On the main point, I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t know the history of the Tea Party/Teabagger terminology.  Perhaps she was mindlessly spouting some wingnut talking point that she’d been emailed.  I’m willing to accept that.  It wasn’t very nice of her to post what she posted, but I’m willing to assume that it was just stupid and nasty and not actually malicious.

    I’m also willing to assume that her purpose in posting it was not to poison her readership’s view of Michael in order to undercut their confidence in his ability to lead the MLA - although if you read the comments to her post, it appears to be having that effect.

    And I’m even willing to take a cue from Michael and be nice.  No more wishes for a sucky new year.

    But I am not willing to assume that someone who is a “research fellow” at the “American Council of Trustees and Alumni” is acting in good faith, when the implication of her actions is that she is not. I can be nice, but I don’t have to check my brains at the door.

    Posted by  on  01/05  at  09:21 PM
  85. May I ask what the evidence is for “the Tea Party Patriots™’ enthusiastic initial embrace of the term ‘teabagging’”. Of the two links in the original post, the first is undated and unplaced, and the second can be dated to April 15th (a bit of context here), which was the day after Anderson Cooper’s use of the sexual slur made it famous. It is unfortunate that one Tea Partier out of tens of thousands replied in kind to a vicious slur, and aimed his (her?) reply at Obama rather than Cooper or any of the others who had used it so gleefully, but this evidence does not support your case that the Tea Partiers adopted the name ‘teabaggers’ themselves rather than having it imposed on them by their enemies. Perhaps the first link supports your case, but we can’t tell without a date. Even if it does, do you really want to state that the Tea Partiers as a whole ‘enthusiastically embraced’ the term ‘teabagging’ on the basis of a single example? As Aristotle noted, one swallow does not make spring.

    Of course, even if dozens of Tea Partiers had called themselves ‘teabaggers’ in ignorance of the sexual meaning, that would not justify labeling the entire movement with that term forever after. If (hypothetically) tens of thousands of angry leftists were demonstrating as “The Working Peoples’ Movement”, and one or two or ten of them were quoted as saying things like “I’m just a simple working girl from Muncie”, their opponents would surely snicker, since “working girl” is of course slang for prostitute. Would it be reasonable for their opponents to start shouting “they’re all WHORES! they admit it! ‘working girl’, ha ha ha! whores, whores, whores!” and keep up the mockery for eight months or more, calling the WPM “working girls” with a sneer every time they were in the news, and adding little digs about the putative whores’ prices for various services? That would be the equivalent of what you, and many on the left, are doing. Do you really see nothing wrong with it?

    Posted by Dr. Weevil  on  01/05  at  10:45 PM
  86. Why dicker over invented terminology when the perfectly valid and accurate term “protofascist” already exists?

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/05  at  10:56 PM
  87. Also, I would just like to note for the record that calling a reference to consensual homoerotic activity a “vicious slur” is in and of itself pretty much a vicious slur.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/05  at  10:57 PM
  88. Lastly,

    enthusiastically embraced… ‘teabagging’… one swallow

    mds, white courtesy phone.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/05  at  10:59 PM
  89. Apparently Chris Clarke can’t imagine how an activity that involves one person’s mouth and another person’s testicles could possibly be performed by a heterosexual couple. It looks like John Protevi (#59) was wrong about who is the “(c) ignorant prude” in this particular dispute.

    Posted by Dr. Weevil  on  01/05  at  11:12 PM
  90. Cool! The “look over there” defense to being called on bigotry, homophobia subsection! Haven’t seen that one in the wild for HOURS.

    Slowly so that Dr. Weevil can understand: The phrase “teabagger” derives its derogatory power from the assumption of homoeroticism despite the known possibility that the acts described are commonly engaged in by heterosexual couples. There is almost certainly another such epithet describing the interplay of male genitalia with another person’s mouth similarly used as a homophobic insult despite its prevalence among straights, but i’ll be damned if I can recall… hmm. It’s on the tip of my tongue…

    Anyhow, there is a very good case to be made that the sniggering over the phrase “teabagger” is not particularly the most non-homophobic way of ridiculing the shock troops of Fox News.

    You and O’Connor are not making that case.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/05  at  11:29 PM
  91. Poor Chris Clarke can’t seem to handle the rational argument I provided, and tries the old ‘homophobe’ diversion. It’s amusing that he thinks I’m the one saying “look over there!”.

    The fact is that imputing particular sexual practices to people that you know find those practices disgusting is vicious, and this has nothing to do with sexual orientation. ‘Teabagging’ is a distinctly minority taste, and very few Tea Partiers even knew the meaning of the word, much less had any desire to practice it, before Anderson Cooper forced them to find out. The fact that some people engage in it consensually is irrelevant. Lots of people engage in fellatio consensually, but implying that someone you know is a Lesbian is a fellatrix (I’ll keep it clean by using the scientific word) is in fact a vicious insult. Who doesn’t know that? Some people engage in consensual coprophagy, but calling Chris Clarke a coprophage would still be a vicious insult—unless he happens to be one of that tiny minority, of course. Saying or implying that all lefties are ‘furries’ would also be vicious, though the furries won’t like to hear that: even most lefties find them creepy. Please don’t play dumb and pretend that calling the Tea Partiers ‘teabaggers’ is not a vicious insult, and intended as such—rather like calling them protofascists, as it happens.

    Finally, if you’re going to giggle because I used the noun “swallow”, you probably shouldn’t be talking about what’s on the ‘the tip of your tongue’.

    Posted by Dr. Weevil  on  01/05  at  11:53 PM
  92. ‘Teabagging’ is a distinctly minority taste,

    1204360703979.jpg

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/06  at  12:05 AM
  93. Dr Weevil, “teabagger” is not a vicious slur.  It’s a silly joke.  Nobody is claiming that the teabaggers engage in such sexual practices.  We’re well aware that they only do sex for procreation.  Just look at them!  So we’re not slurring them.  We’re making fun of them.  In a nice way, of course.  It’s called incongruity humor, and it’s all the rage at the International Society for Humor Studies.

    Posted by  on  01/06  at  12:16 AM
  94. The fact is that imputing particular sexual practices to people that you know find those practices disgusting is vicious, and this has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

    The fact is, Gary Ruppert just called and wants his phrase back.

    And yes, I’m mocking you rather than engaging your “rational argument,” for a number of reasons:

    1. it’s ridiculous concern-trolling of the worst sort, that is, civility concern-trolling, nay, one might say even PC concern-trolling; oh my goodness, the language you leftists use!
    2. you’re imputing a homophobia to the Tea Party Patriots (tm) that they themselves have not evidenced. If they don’t like [that horrid, horrid term], let them come over here and tell us; they don’t need you fighting their battles for them.
    3. if you find the practice in question “disgusting,” for goodness sakes, please have the courage of your convictions and say so in your own name, rather than posing as the civility maven for other folks.

    Posted by John Protevi  on  01/06  at  12:25 AM
  95. Dr. Weevil @ 85:  May I ask what the evidence is for “the Tea Party Patriots™’ enthusiastic initial embrace of the term ‘teabagging’”.

    Mister Answer Man replies:  Well, until Dr. Weevil’s attention is drawn elsewhere by a fresh outrage (I hear the next one will involve Obama and condiments—no, wait, we did that one already), I suppose I should try to set the record straight.  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jay Nordlinger of the National Review Online:

    First, a little history. After Barack Obama was sworn in as president, with his big majorities in Congress, the Democrats launched quite a bit of federal spending: particularly with the “stimulus” package. Some Americans were determined to counter this. And, before you knew it, we had the “tea party” movement. What protesters were doing, of course, was invoking the spirit of the American Revolutionaries, and their Boston Tea Party. According to the website of the Tea Party Patriots, the movement is committed to three “core values”: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets.

    The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

    Alas, as Nordlinger notes, you know sometimes words have two meanings.  Which made things uncomfortable when the word went mainstream:

    After Cooper and the others smirked about “teabagging,” the word went utterly mainstream — although you could say that, if Cooper used it, it started mainstream: because how much more mainstream can you get than a CNN anchor? On ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, E. J. Dionne, the liberal columnist, spoke of “a right-wing candidate supported by the teabaggers.” The host himself, Stephanopoulos, followed suit. On PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, senior correspondent Gwen Ifill used “teabaggers” as well. At the New York Times, Paul Krugman used it in a column. Elsewhere, Roger Ebert used it in a movie review. And so on.

    Some politicians—Democrats—have talked about “teabagging” and “teabaggers” too. And that includes the biggest Democratic politicians of them all. Recently, both President Obama and former president Bill Clinton spoke to congressional Democrats behind closed doors. They were giving pep talks on health-care legislation. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse reported Clinton as saying, “The reason the teabaggers are so inflamed is because we are winning.” Rep. Earl Blumenauer reported Obama as saying, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care?”

    And now Nordlinger argues that “teabagger” has become the new black—after a fashion:

    And this brings up the question of whether “teabagger” could be kind of a conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family....

    In any event, it may well be too late to purge “teabagger” from our discourse, certainly from discourse controlled by liberals. But I’m for giving it a try: for running “teabagger” out of town, even at this late date. It is really a lowdown term. “Tea partier” is a neutral term. “Tea-party patriots” is a positive term, used by some of the protesters themselves. “Teabagger” — not so positive, and not so neutral.

    It could well be that liberals at large are recognizing this too. In a discussion at Slate, the online magazine, Sam Tanenhaus wrote, “Even today the right insists it is driven by ideas, even if the leading thinkers are now Limbaugh and Beck, and the shock troops are tea-baggers and anti-tax demonstrators.” As he told me, he subsequently learned that “teabagger” had this vulgar meaning, and was used as a pejorative. So he changed his text to “tea-partiers”: “tea-partiers and anti-tax demonstrators.” Much better, don’t you think?

    The conservative N-word!  That almost gave me the vapors, I declare.  But after reading Nordlinger’s essay, I heartily agree with his closing question.  And that is why, in response to Erin’s post, this humble and decorous blog has chosen the term Tea Party Patriots™—in recognition not only of the outrage itself, but of its thoroughly manufactured nature.  And with that, mesdames et messieurs, I leave you with a final word from Rachel Maddow.  (Stick with the video to the 4:00 mark, at which David Shuster notes that, contra Nordlinger, the Washington Independent reported that conservatives were using the term as early as February.)

    Posted by Michael  on  01/06  at  12:27 AM
  96. Nordlinger is demonstrably wrong about the chronology when he writes that “conservatives started it” and mentions a single Tea Partier’s sign on April 15th. Anderson Cooper’s broadcast was on the 14th, David Schuster’s on the 13th, and the Rachel Maddow / Ana Marie Cox dialogue some time the previous week. Here is my source for the chronology. It is clear that the demonstrator was responding in kind to a whole series of fresh insults from your side, as I noted in my 10:45pm comment.

    Posted by Dr. Weevil  on  01/06  at  01:32 AM
  97. Anybody got any Raid, we got us a durn cussed weevil running all around the tea box.

    Posted by  on  01/06  at  02:15 AM
  98. Posted by Michael  on  01/06  at  08:56 AM
  99. Oh no he didn’t! He did not go there!

    “The conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family....”!!!111!11eleven11!!!2

    The mind boggles, then recoils, then re-boggles, then begs, literally begs, the Great Moloch that it come to pass, as the possibilities are endless.

    As the screenshot from the Rachel Maddow clip went, daring hipsters could say: Teabagga, please! The controversial rap group TWA! The ironic use of the hyper-formal to mock the Uncle Ts of the NAATP: Tea Party Patriot, please! The head-wagging from the elders about the self-hating nature of the internal use of the T-word! Community organizers going out across this great land of ours to educate the youth as to alternate terms for the Lipton-lovers among us! And even more concern-trolling of the 2nd vice-president-elect of the MLA as to what he knew and when he knew it about the etymology of the T-word. (Philology is still part of literary dangeral studies, isn’t it?)

    Captcha, and I am not making this up: “thing” as in “ain’t no”

    Posted by John Protevi  on  01/06  at  09:22 AM
  100. I hope that we can all at least agree that the political use of “teabagger” developed pretty much *exactly* like comparing Bush to Hitler did after the MoveOn ad campaign contest where a couple of Internet entries which did that were up for a few hours before they were noticed and taken down by the organization. The parallels are staggering. See? Yin and yang, right and left, clever and stupid; in a spirit of bipartisanship that would make David Broder and Cokie Roberts proud: I declare COMITY!

    Posted by  on  01/06  at  10:13 AM
  101. I’m also willing to assume that her purpose in posting it was not to poison her readership’s view of Michael in order to undercut their confidence in his ability to lead the MLA

    I am also willing to assume this, since if Señor Weevil is anything to go by, her readership almost certainly has no particular respect for the MLA anyway.  Buncha’ PoMo leftists, banning all conservative thought from classrooms.

    mds, white courtesy phone.

    Sorry, Chris, but you obviously missed the memo where I noted that I wasn’t going to bother if the target was too close to a single entendre.

    Now make sure everyone has his or her pearls within clutching distance, and ... go!

    Chicka-Wow Chicka-Wow Wow!

    Whoops, here’s hoping conservative-movement troglodytes don’t use Google to figure that one out, or the cycle will start all over again.

    In the Gregorian calendar, you’ll recall, February precedes April.

    Uh, just a moment ... ROTFLMAO.  Since, as Chris suggested earlier, we’re all e1337ists here.

    Posted by  on  01/06  at  12:54 PM
  102. I’m also willing to assume that her purpose in posting it was not to poison her readership’s view of Michael in order to undercut their confidence in his ability to lead the MLA - although if you read the comments to her post, it appears to be having that effect.

    It’s Charity Time on this blog!  Good to see.  Thanks, Bloix—and as mds points out in his inimitable fashion @ 101, some of Erin’s readers can git themselves all riled up simply by being informed that I was genuinely surprised to win that election, that I am a biped, that I observe the Gregorian calendar, and so forth.

    On second thought, however, I have to say that I was wrong @ 98—this is not in fact the silliest “controversy” this blog has been involved in.  That distinction would have to go to The Notorious Riley Scandal of aught-six, in which I was accused of (a) guest-posting on General JC Christian’s blog, a blog which, three months after my guest-post, accepted an ad that was highly critical of George Bush, thereby suggesting that I am very uncivil, and also (b) secretly being the General himself.  It took eight weeks of painful physical therapy for this blog to heal the second-degree burns it incurred as result of that explosion of stupid.

    But this is definitely in the top five.

    Posted by Michael  on  01/06  at  02:24 PM
  103. This isn’t a controversy, it’s a tempest in a ... oh, never mind.

    Posted by Dave Maier  on  01/06  at  10:14 PM
  104. It took eight weeks of painful physical therapy for this blog to heal the second-degree burns it incurred as result of that explosion of stupid.

    Speaking of physical therapy, mds and his cadre of happy followers (amongst which I include myself) will be delighted to hear that I inadvertently brought the office to a screeching halt today, (followed by hysterical snickering which further interrupted the work flow), when I nonchalantly informed one of the physical therapists about the treatment status of her patient by saying: “he’s prone and he’s got the unit between his legs”.

    captcha: wish - as in, I wish I hadn’t phrased it that way

    Posted by  on  01/06  at  10:21 PM
  105. Oh, and in keeping with All Internet Traditions, the mandatory addendum to comment @104:

    Oaktown Girl, FTW.

    Posted by  on  01/06  at  10:28 PM
  106. If this were a literal-minded blog (#98), the proprietor would note that “the demonstrator in question” was the one Nordlinger saw on the mall on April 15th, as he specifically says, so there is no contradiction in dates. (I inadvertently conflated that demonstrator with the one in Tampa on the same day linked in the original post, but that doesn’t affect my argument.). The fact that someone (perhaps the same person) carried a sign with the same message on February 27th is interesting, in fact the first tiny piece of actual evidence for the claim that the Tea Partiers ‘started it’. That makes one pre-Anderson-Cooper demonstrator apparently making the sexual insult, pictured on a website I’d never heard of that approves of it, and three very obscure websites using the term ‘teabagging’ to mean sending tea bags to the White House, with no apparent sexual innuendo. That plus a CafePress page is supposed to prove that the phrase “teabag the White House” was “widely and enthusiastically embraced” by “many” of the hundreds of thousands of people who joined Tea Party protests, and therefore to justify tens of thousands of crude ‘teabagger’ allusions over the next eight months and counting? Someone has a very self-interested idea of what counts as legitimate provocation.
    Quite a few leftists are fond of aquatic pastimes like swimming, boating, and surfing. If some of them have incautiously referred to their love for ‘water sports’, a phrase which has another meaning most people find disgusting, would it be fair to mock the entire movement forever with volley after volley of crude innuendo? I don’t think so. Then again, I don’t even use ‘Democrat’ as an adjective, because for some reason it really pisses off a lot of Democrats-as-nouns when people say things like “the Democrat party”, and I don’t see the point of gratuitously angering the other side. Of course, I’ve already asked (#85) the ‘water sports’ question in another form, using the ambiguous phrase ‘working girl’. No one answered my question. I wonder why.

    Posted by Dr. Weevil  on  01/06  at  10:51 PM
  107. Here’s the Nordlinger quote of interest: The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.”

    Note, Dr. Weevil, that Nordlinger does not say he saw a protester on the mall, nor does he say that the protester was spotted on the 15th. He states only that “a protester was spotted.” He also states that the organizers had a gimmick, with one of the exhortations being “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” Presumably the organizers, were, you know, organizing and exhorting before the 15th, when that dastardly Cooper got the ball rolling horrible epithet into the mainstream consciousness.

    As for why no one will answer your questions involving hypothetical situations and disgusting terms such as water sports, well, I’m not allowed to read minds on this blog. But speaking for myself, it’s because the hypothetical situations are so fucking dadgummed darned brilliant that I can’t even begin to come up develop a coherent response.

    Posted by  on  01/06  at  11:57 PM
  108. New memo just out from headquarters, and Dr. Weevil has a copy:

    Now’s the time to double down on the silliness, everyone!  Add a heaping helping of disingenuousness! We’ve got them on the run! Extra extra bonus points for pretending that the websites of the organizers of Tea Party Patriot™ rallies are “obscure”!  Don’t forget to ignore that March 18 appearance on FOX News of an organizer demanding to “tea bag the White House!” And deny everything about the CafePress websites, the T-shirts, the buttons, and the actual teabags themselves.  If asked directly, you don’t remember a thing.

    Remember, everything that we do to ourselves is the fault of liberals. We’re the real victims here.

    Of course, I’ve already asked (#85) the ‘water sports’ question in another form, using the ambiguous phrase ‘working girl’. No one answered my question. I wonder why.

    Because your intriguing counterfactual question, like unto a game of 11-dimensional chess, was far too complex for our stupid minds!  Stupid, stupid minds!

    Posted by Michael  on  01/06  at  11:59 PM
  109. Water sports?  No, we always referred to them as ocean sports.  Now water spouts on the other hand are a different matter.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  12:25 AM
  110. So now the Humble Libertarian counts as a well-known website? The websites you linked to are in fact obscure. I don’t know how Quantacast.com calculates their “audience data for any site on the internet”, and their claim that Instapundit gets 2 hits per month is not encouraging, but their traffic numbers for my sites are fairly accurate. They list http://www.washingtonindependent.com at 5,489 in popularity, http://www.reteaparty.com at 210,732, http://www.politics.com at 284,228, and http://www.humblelibertarian.com at 460,308, with a few hundred hits a day each for the last three. I had never heard of any of the four, and I’m pretty sure none of you had heard of the last three at least, but found them through Google. You seem to forget that it’s a grass-roots movement, so the organizers have hundreds of different sites. If you Bing ‘tea party’, the first one of your linked sites to come up is the 80th hit.

    But hey, keep making stuff up, like the accusation that I’m following instructions from some mysterious headquarters. That looks like a simple case of projection. Left-blogs have been known to coordinate their messages through secret mailing lists. The rest of us are on our own.

    Posted by Dr. Weevil  on  01/07  at  01:16 AM
  111. I can’t make stuff up, Dr. W., I’m not that creative.  All I have is an Internet, which shows me the totally obscure reteaparty.com founder and PEAC PAC organizer being promoted on the totally obscure FOX News Network by the totally obscure FOX News correspondent Griff Jenkins (in a Patriotic Hat!) on March 16, 2009.  Pay extra extra special attention to the sequence from 2:35 onward.

    Now is the point at which you say, “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

    And yes, of course, I understand that you’re working entirely on your own.  But I do not think this speaks well of you.

    Finally, folks, while we’re all waiting for Dr. Weevil to move beyond the “denial” and “anger” phases, this preternaturally patient blog would just like to say that it misses Kirby Olson.  Now there was someone who really knew how to argue.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  01:34 AM
  112. Ah, the Kirbster himself. Maybe Dr Weevil agrees with him that Foucault was a member of the extreme wealth of Paris bent on seizing total state control and crushing resisters? Neither of them have the concision and insight of Jordan Shoes however, who closed that thread off right!

    Captcha: “school” as in “little red -house”

    Posted by John Protevi  on  01/07  at  09:35 AM
  113. No, John, it was “school” as in “Kirby Olson took you to.” And the person who really closed that thread off right was surely “The Professor” @ 150, who chided me for mocking Dinesh ("The Islamists are Right") D’Souza and insisted at some length that when it comes to denunciations of Western depravity, sexual licentiousness, and wild wild wimmen, bin Laden and company are basically spot on.  As you’ll recall, “The Professor” sagely pointed out, and not at all in a concern-troll kind of way, that my dismissal of D’Souza was “certainly not very open-minded, nor very liberal, nor very intelligent, nor particularly fitting for an academic.”

    By the way, I am given to understand that in one tape just after the London bombing, bin Laden spent over three minutes denouncing liberals’ use of the term “teabaggers.” Is that true?

    Posted by Michael  on  01/07  at  09:48 AM
  114. it misses Kirby Olson

    It’s an oldies show! I’d like to dedicate one to all the “22 year-old right-wing gun moll[s]” out there: “Bing Me Daddy, Eight to the Bar”.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  09:59 AM
  115. Hi Michael, unfortunately it was the school KO himself teaches at, and *that* campus visit didn’t turn out well at all! Although I was richly compensated for it, as are we all.

    New idea (OK, it’s really an old Internet Tradition of which you are no doubt aware) for a comic book: “Who knows what truths lurk in the hearts of Dinesh D’Souza and Osama bin Laden? The Professor does!”

    Posted by John Protevi  on  01/07  at  10:05 AM
  116. Alas, Professor Protevi, thanks to the Seventh Doctor’s companion Ace, “Professor” has already been applied to a comic-book-style character.  Perhaps we could work something up with “The Protevor”?

    Speaking of physical therapy, mds and his cadre of happy followers

    I have a cadre?  And it’s happy?  Obviously, I’m doing something wrong.*

    Anyway, given either the moral bankruptcy or the intellectual vacuity required to continually overlook the Fox News incident, can we agree from now on to see, hear, and speak no Weevil?

    *No, I suppose this is not really news.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  12:08 PM
  117. The Protevor: Master of Obviation! Ignorer of Vile Slurs! Mocker of the Sincerely Concerned!

    Posted by John Protevi  on  01/07  at  02:41 PM
  118. Ezra Klein’s a leftist now?

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/07  at  02:44 PM
  119. Ezra Klein’s a leftist now?

    The only way this could be true is if his right hand were in a cast.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  02:57 PM
  120. Or if the center of gravity had shifted far to the right on the political spectrum. But that could only happen if those on the right had gotten significantly denser.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/07  at  03:03 PM
  121. But that could only happen if those on the right had gotten significantly denser.

    Indeed, physicists estimate that the tens of thousands of Tea Party Patriots™ who marched on Washington on September 12 of this year actually had a cumulative mass equivalent to that of two million people, thus complicating official counts of their actual numbers.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  03:29 PM
  122. Was it raining in DC on September 12? I’ve noticed that exposure to water significantly increases the density of, um, paper-based tea-leaf-delivery vehicles.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/07  at  04:15 PM
  123. I’ve noticed that exposure to water significantly increases the density of, um, paper-based tea-leaf-delivery vehicles.

    Chicka-Wow Chicka-Wow Wow!

    Or if the center of gravity had shifted far to the right on the political spectrum.

    Someone needs to come up with a term for that political phenomenon.  Perhaps “The Chandrasekhar Doorframe”?

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  04:25 PM
  124. Someone needs to come up with a term for that political phenomenon.  Perhaps “The Chandrasekhar Doorframe”?

    I’m cool with that as long as Bob Balaban can play him in the movie.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/07  at  04:41 PM
  125. I’m cool with that as long as Bob Balaban can play him in the movie.

    ...Okay, even considering what year it is, that’s pretty obscure.  Though I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me, since [PLACE WITTY OFF-COLOR “MONOLITH” PUN HERE]

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  05:16 PM
  126. Just how heavy is that door frame?

    Over a ton.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  05:58 PM
  127. Hmm, so if the doorframe’s mass is over a ton, and its proportions are 1:4:9, what is the likeliest range of values for its density, in units of Tea Party Patriot(TM)?

    (Yes, I’m deliberately ignoring the pun.  I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that Stormcrow made it to begin with, since [PLACE WITTY OFF-COLOR “MACKINAC CENTER” PUN HERE])

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  07:58 PM
  128. Coming in from the cold (and left and/or left and cold), are we actually making jest regarding the fact that many of those attending the teabagging parties are, how shall i say this, morbidly obese?  If so, then good.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  09:41 PM
  129. As someone with a proud Robust-American heritage, I’m portended by that remark, spyder.

    Posted by  on  01/07  at  10:03 PM
  130. are we actually making jest regarding the fact that many of those attending the teabagging parties are, how shall i say this, morbidly obese?

    At the risk of being that guy who ruins the afternoon rather than letting things slide, no. Not even a little, no more than I would make jest regarding skin color or degree of disability. 

    For why, see almost every post on this blog over here, for starters.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  01/07  at  10:51 PM
  131. No, spyder, we’re making jest regarding the fact that many of those attending the teabagging parties are, how shall I say this, ill-informed and easily exploited by lying demagogues.  Those are things which they could change so easily, yet don’t.  Oh, and we’ve also segued into the themes of movie sequels and Indian astrophysicists.

    But although I am concerned about potential public health consequences of, e.g., high-fructose corn syrup being put in everything, I would be uncomfortable targeting the Patriots for their appearance rather than their ignorance and embrace of violent rhetoric.  If nothing else, phenotype-mocking would be a case of the neutron star calling the white dwarf degenerate:  I’m scrawny and below average height, and the mdslet supposedly has bizarre hooflike feet.

    Or, you know, what Chris said.  And linked.

    Hey, how about the outcome of that sporting event?

    Posted by  on  01/08  at  10:00 AM
  132. I was going to say it before @ 121, but I think Chris and mds have done the job for me—the first person who photoshops a large sammich into the hands of a Tea Party Patriot™ is banned.

    mds—it’s OK about the feet.  At least he doesn’t have a tail and a long braid with neural fibers streaming out of it.

    Posted by  on  01/08  at  01:46 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main