If it's in the news - it's blog fodder. You know that!
What one picks from the news is the issue. An international food crisis is in the news. A collapsing US dollar is in the news. Record oil prices are in the news. Iraq is in the news. But we get to see post after post after post after post about a scary preacher.
Your blog, your choice. But it's getting tedious, in my opinion.
Which is worse?: The fact that she is posting about it, or the fact that you're STILL here reading and bitching about it? If it bothers you that much, why do you insist on returning?
Also, which is getting more tedious?: The constant bashing of Wright by the host, or the constant bashing of Mr. Wonderful by the (select) commenter's??
Also, which is getting more tedious?: The constant bashing of Wright by the host, or the constant bashing of Mr. Wonderful by the (select) commenter's??
The bashing of the scary preacher. Mr. Wonderful, after all, is intending to be bashed, is he not?
Which is worse?: The fact that she is posting about it, or the fact that you're STILL here reading and bitching about it?
What can I say? I'm an addict. But Scary Preacher 24/7 may yet drive me out the door. Although it's entertaining to bitch about it as well, so who knows?
"A 75-year-old black man who hates white people. Is there another type of 75-year-old black man? Do you realize his whole third grade class was lynched?"
"Actually, this is an important story. And that's my professional judgment, here, for free."
The only thing important about it is what it says about brain-dead, bottom-feeding, "conservative"-movement-driven politics and the equally miserable state of our political media.
Otherwise, I'll think I'll try something too. Get the behind me Satan.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I am shocked and outraged by what he said. Saddened that the man I knew is not the man I feel compelled to "distance" myself from. There was a Time when I thought his redeeming qualities outshined his darker nature, but the bad overwhelmed the good man I thought I knew and no longer can be associated with.
[Who said it? Obama about Wright or the Ex-Mrs. Esmay about her Ex?]
If I knew then what what I know now, I would not have done things the same way.
[Who said it, Obama about Wright, or Hillary about the War -- or about Bill?]
I condemn what he said and did in the strongest possible terms. It was ridiculous and wholly without merit.
[Who said it, Obama about Wright or McCain about, geez, name it, Keating, Bush, Norquist, any number of lobbyists, Hagee, Cunningham.]
Let us know the next time someone blames you, Rose, for some bullshit Dean writes. Note, being compared to him is not the same as saying you are responsible for his actions or that you think like him or agree with him. Obama was married by Wright, but didn't marry him, raise a family with him, live with him. If you feel you can make a clean intellectual break from Dean, it should be far easier to acknowledge Obama's clean break with Wright.
So, it you've got it out of your system, let's move on. This horse has been spanked to death.
BTW, I think the major issue in this case, and figuring it out, boils down to this -- has Obama been betrayed by a friend? Or does this say something about Obama's judgment?
In other words, you cannot blame a man for reacting to events, events that were not reasonably foreseeable and out of his control. And I don't think you can blame Obama for taking a little while to recognize exactly what's happened. When you've been traduced by a friend, your first reaction is going to put the most charitable spin on it. It takes a while to realize the snake in the grass.
I doubt, given our politicized press, whether we'll get to the bottom of this until after the election.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
Hey Bill, I found some science on your theory you were trying to formulate the other day and wrote about it here.
It's about some scientific studies that look at subconscious bias against other social groups leading to prejudice and/or discrimination on race sex or age.
You might not agree on my linking it to the current politics, but you might find some food for thought there.
Mark Adams, who's always correct, get used to it. (mail) (www):
I was invited to cover Fridays at America Street this year. Kevin Hayden recruits a rotating crew where some pretty popular folks have gotten better known, like Digby and Skippy The Bush Kangaroo -- a silly little man.
Ara gave me privileges at his place, but I've been slacking there. I was posting heavily at some John Edwards sites and KOS, plus running Ohio for Edwards, but I'm avoiding KOS until silly season is over. Time was KOS was pretty much an Edwards 527, but now it's a mess and some of the most vile Obama trolls now rule there. Ditto with MyDD. I was a front pager at AsOhioGoes until it shut down last year, but they asked me aboard BuckeyeStateBlog for the few occasions I write about my home state.
I might repost that piece on instinctive bias over at Open Left, which is more wonkish than partisan. I haven't done too much there since they started up (I got a ridiculously low double-digit user number there, and am a proud 4-digit Kossack in a 6-digit Kosoverse) I'll have to look to see if Bowers or Rosenberg wrote anything about the Scientific American article. Stoller wouldn't. He's all polling numbers, all the time.
But it's here at Rose's I can hang out, trade insults, relax and interact on a personal basis. This is kinda like a slow-motion chat room to me.
What one picks from the news is the issue. An international food crisis is in the news. A collapsing US dollar is in the news. Record oil prices are in the news. Iraq is in the news. But we get to see post after post after post after post about a scary preacher.
Your blog, your choice. But it's getting tedious, in my opinion.
Which is worse?: The fact that she is posting about it, or the fact that you're STILL here reading and bitching about it? If it bothers you that much, why do you insist on returning?
Also, which is getting more tedious?: The constant bashing of Wright by the host, or the constant bashing of Mr. Wonderful by the (select) commenter's??
The bashing of the scary preacher. Mr. Wonderful, after all, is intending to be bashed, is he not?
Which is worse?: The fact that she is posting about it, or the fact that you're STILL here reading and bitching about it?
What can I say? I'm an addict. But Scary Preacher 24/7 may yet drive me out the door. Although it's entertaining to bitch about it as well, so who knows?
And wait, no one was asking me.
Actually, this is an important story. And that's my professional judgment, here, for free.
The only thing important about it is what it says about brain-dead, bottom-feeding, "conservative"-movement-driven politics and the equally miserable state of our political media.
Otherwise, I'll think I'll try something too. Get the behind me Satan.
[Who said it? Obama about Wright or the Ex-Mrs. Esmay about her Ex?]
If I knew then what what I know now, I would not have done things the same way.
[Who said it, Obama about Wright, or Hillary about the War -- or about Bill?]
I condemn what he said and did in the strongest possible terms. It was ridiculous and wholly without merit.
[Who said it, Obama about Wright or McCain about, geez, name it, Keating, Bush, Norquist, any number of lobbyists, Hagee, Cunningham.]
Let us know the next time someone blames you, Rose, for some bullshit Dean writes. Note, being compared to him is not the same as saying you are responsible for his actions or that you think like him or agree with him. Obama was married by Wright, but didn't marry him, raise a family with him, live with him. If you feel you can make a clean intellectual break from Dean, it should be far easier to acknowledge Obama's clean break with Wright.
So, it you've got it out of your system, let's move on. This horse has been spanked to death.
!!!!!!
Acts 19:13-17: Jesus I know and Paul I know, but who are you?
I am Batman!
In other words, you cannot blame a man for reacting to events, events that were not reasonably foreseeable and out of his control. And I don't think you can blame Obama for taking a little while to recognize exactly what's happened. When you've been traduced by a friend, your first reaction is going to put the most charitable spin on it. It takes a while to realize the snake in the grass.
I doubt, given our politicized press, whether we'll get to the bottom of this until after the election.
If only this level of intense scrutiny into the critical issue of a preacher could be harnessed and applied to things that really matter.
And so we come full circle.
It's about some scientific studies that look at subconscious bias against other social groups leading to prejudice and/or discrimination on race sex or age.
You might not agree on my linking it to the current politics, but you might find some food for thought there.
Ara gave me privileges at his place, but I've been slacking there. I was posting heavily at some John Edwards sites and KOS, plus running Ohio for Edwards, but I'm avoiding KOS until silly season is over. Time was KOS was pretty much an Edwards 527, but now it's a mess and some of the most vile Obama trolls now rule there. Ditto with MyDD. I was a front pager at AsOhioGoes until it shut down last year, but they asked me aboard BuckeyeStateBlog for the few occasions I write about my home state.
I might repost that piece on instinctive bias over at Open Left, which is more wonkish than partisan. I haven't done too much there since they started up (I got a ridiculously low double-digit user number there, and am a proud 4-digit Kossack in a 6-digit Kosoverse) I'll have to look to see if Bowers or Rosenberg wrote anything about the Scientific American article. Stoller wouldn't. He's all polling numbers, all the time.
But it's here at Rose's I can hang out, trade insults, relax and interact on a personal basis. This is kinda like a slow-motion chat room to me.