Sam Boyd tries to tangle with a Kirchickian web of nonsense which leads me to wonder how Jamie K. decides that an absurd argument like even though Ayan Hirsi Ali's main arguments are false, she's nonetheless unquestionably the greatest women's rights advocate of our time belongs on Jewcy's blog whereas something like even though Barack Obama favors gay rights and opposes slavery reparations it might be fun to pretend he has the reverse positions and condemn him for holding these views he doesn't actually hold belongs on the Commentary's blog.
« We Have Ways of Making Your Support Our Predetermined Political Agenda | Main | Liquidate! »
Cogitating
06 Nov 2007 10:05 pm
Comments (17)
I have no idea what you just said. Is this some kind of meta-sentence? Perhaps a "Kirchickian web of nonsense" embedded in a sentence that is a "grammatical web of muddled syntax?"
How'd you decide when you were blogging for Tapped, TPMCafe, and on your personal blog?
I'm never going to forgive myself for not contributing to your "How can I improve my blog" poll. I can't believe more Peretz-Kirchick bashing won...I love your blog but hate, HATE, your Peretz-Kirchick reactions and links. Stop giving these clowns more attention and site traffic! They are buffoons. They write the SAME nonsensical posts over and over again. Much like Rudy's "Noun-Verb-9/11," I quickly tire of their "So and so is jewbashing/gaybashing" schtick. These idiots love bashing "librals" because they think its counterintuitive rather than, what's the word for it? - pathetic. Have they ever written an original post? Can they sue themselves for plagiarism?
But the real question, sure to be answered tomorrow, is how the Democrats victory in Virginia is bad for the Democrats.
Damn you, MDtoMN, for (1) making a very funny comment that (2) must be decried for flouting norms of topicality.
I disagree, Augie. It's important that nonsense such as Kirchik's be knocked down. We're in an argument with the Right, and it's important that our side show up; Matthew does yeoman's work that is necessary but somewhat tedious in discrediting their bullshit.
This gets my vote for both 1) worst Matt post ever, and 2) most incomprehensible Matt post ever.
Oh, yeah, and 3) most ungrammatical Matt post ever.
I thought this post was very funny, and perfectly readable. Or is there some inside joke from the navel-gave thread that I missed?
The inside joke is that most commenters here, possibly including me, are jerks.
Jamie K is a hack and a tool. So why does he get so much attention? Can't we just ignore him and hope that he just goes away?
Jamie K is a hack and a tool. So why does he get so much attention? Can't we just ignore him and hope that he just goes away? Because major neoconservative publications keep hiring him, and he's not going to disappear. He's got jobs at both TNR and Commentary. Once you buy in to the rightwing intellectual welfare regime, you can stay as long as you want. Kirchick isn't going to disappear, and he's not even close to being the sort of person who deserves a serious response, so a continued stream of mockery is the best thing to do.
When it comes to Obama, people like Kirchik are at a comparable disadvantage to liberal pundits criticizing Bush. Liberal pundits could just point blank say that they didn't like Bush and that he was a bad person. Bush, after all, was a contemptuous person, particularly to a liberal: self-righteous, swaggering, anti-intellectual, and had a disdain for learning and thinking-- completely the opposite that liberals grow up being taught are "good."
Kirchik, for whatever reason, "just doesn't like" Obama but can't point blank say that. Not only is Obama pretty much anyone's definition of a successful person, but he's likely the person that Kirchik mother wishes he had become, rather than the poorly-paid hack-writer he turned out to be. Kirchik feels he has to invent "substantive" reasons to oppose Obama, and if those reasons aren't exactly true, well, at least they "sound" like they'd be good reasons to oppose him.
Post: Totally comprehensible, perfectly grammatical.
Kirchik: A buffoon, but with a big enough platform that he's worth taking shots at.
It's really not that hard.
Ad as for the question of the original post: obviously, an argument that hating Muslims is the new feminism only works with an audience that's at least sympathetic to feminism.
In college Kirchick was a protege of Giuliani senior foreign policy adviser Charles Hill, which means we'll be hearing much more from him once the election cycle picks up.
bacchae fribbling unrightwise befret amid amphiscians bauleah bilio
http://www.tividaleartscollege.co.uk/ >Tividale Community Arts College
http://www.allete.com/
Comments closed November 20, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Bravo! All your post should be single sentence long.
Posted by butthash | November 6, 2007 10:32 PM