August 28, 2004
COMMENTERS "FUNNY", "SHARP" - GUARDIAN
The Guardian's John Sutherland turns out to be a good sport. He writes:
Posted by Tim Blair at August 28, 2004 05:44 AMThere is so much daily traffic on your website, you may not remember a hilarious trashing of a piece of mine in the Guardian, a few months ago. I found it by the masochistic device of googling "Sutherland"+"idiot". A depressing number of hits.
The head comment and email string are very funny and I certainly made some blush-making errors (breasts and all that). The "fundagelism" essay, isn't, I have to confess, a column of which I feel proudest. At least, not now. They all look good when you first see them in print.
The email barbs are very sharp. I wish they had been directed somewhere else.
I'm sorry not to have reacted earlier. We won't agree on opinion but I'll
certainly follow the action on your site with interest.Yours,
John Sutherland
hmm, i get
Results 1 - 100 of about 1,200 for +bingley +idiot . (0.54 seconds)
not bad.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 28, 2004 at 05:54 AMhmmm, not sure if this is scientific, but...
Results 1 - 100 of about 42,100 for +summers +idiot. (0.46 seconds)
i'll let you good people draw your own conclusions.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 28, 2004 at 05:59 AMThat's okay. Here are my results:
Results 1 - 10 of about 746 for mr. bingley genius. (0.30 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 661 for mister bingley genius. (0.17 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,540 for bingley genius. (0.41 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 44,300 for summers genius. (0.34 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,690 for ken summers genius. (0.49 seconds)
It's okay, Mr. B, we genii tend to cause jealousy in others, who take out their frustrations on google.
Posted by: Ken Summers at August 28, 2004 at 06:34 AMResults 1 - 100 of about 803 for +bingley +stud. (0.69 seconds)
Results 1 - 100 of about 32,600 for +summers +stud. (0.57 seconds)
sigh.
i am a broken and humbled man.
Posted by: Mr. Bingley at August 28, 2004 at 06:38 AMYES!!!! [Victory lap with snoopy dance] Studliness is mine!
Posted by: Ken Summers at August 28, 2004 at 06:44 AMOh my GAWD, that is so cool! I'm a first page, first entry for tree hugging sister! Mr. Summers oughta pay me for the referrals, by crikey!
(But what they're saying about the other tree huggers in the world makes my toes curl, sheesh! Rebecca would be allll over them.)
Posted by: tree hugging sister at August 28, 2004 at 06:48 AMI owe you big time, sis. Please reread your bro's last comment, then we'll talk about how I can repay you...
Posted by: Ken Summers at August 28, 2004 at 06:54 AMAt least Mr. Sutherland reacted like a gentleman to the, ahem, gentle reception of his column. Kind of rare to have that happen, isn't it?
Posted by: Mikey at August 28, 2004 at 06:59 AMActually, yeah, I'm really impressed with Mr. Sutherland.
Posted by: Sortelli at August 28, 2004 at 07:40 AMUm, Ken, don't tell old Bingley how many hits there are for +crusader +stud. Take that elitist weenie.
BTW, I own the copyright on 'tree hugging sister', so I'll expect royalties from all of Kens gains.......
Posted by: Crusader at August 28, 2004 at 07:42 AMThat's such a classy and self-aware e-mail from Mr. Sutherland, that it's hard to believe he also wrote that "Fundagelic" column.
Results 1 - 10 of about 30 for Pearley Idiot. (0.25 seconds)
I'm gratified to have generated such a low number with the onl distinctive element of my name. But the first two links listed are from previous postings here on Mr. Blair's web site. So that's kind of ironic, right?
Posted by: John Pearley Huffman at August 28, 2004 at 10:05 AMI'm also trying to convince THS that it's a makeout joint
Posted by: Ken Summers at August 28, 2004 at 10:22 AMAt the risk of deflating a couple of other egos, here is additional info on that last issue (you listening THS?):
Results 1 - 10 of about 781 for bingley stud. (0.48 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,570 for crusader stud. (0.54 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 31,800 for summers stud. (0.38 seconds)
I think I've made my point.
Posted by: Ken Summers at August 28, 2004 at 10:28 AMI just reread that post and the comments...it was funny. How young we all were then...Kudos to Mr. Sutherland for good sportsmanship.
True Story:
My friend G. in Brooklyn often travels to London on business. An older retarded man who works as a busboy in the diner near G.'s home heard G. discussing London. Since the old man's only knowledge of London came from old black & white horror movies, he warned G. that London is always foggy and dark and "there's werewolves and shit there!"
I say give the old fella a job at the NY Times discussing British politics...
Posted by: JDB at August 28, 2004 at 12:28 PM(But what they're saying about the other tree huggers in the world makes my toes curl, sheesh! Rebecca would be allll over them.)
Took a look. Woof!
Posted by: Rebecca at August 28, 2004 at 12:59 PM
Hey, that Sutherland dude is OK. I hope he keeps checking in here and gets a perspective he won't get at cocktail parties. Sounds like an open-minded, not-full-of-himself guy.
Now, behave, kids! We have guests.
Posted by: Dave S. at August 28, 2004 at 02:10 PMI have to agree; I don't see many people responding to Tim's posting with grace. 'Tis a rare thing these days.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 28, 2004 at 02:14 PMGoogle : 1 - 10 of about 349,000 for +Brain +Idiot.
*Sigh*
As for Mr Sutherland... another illusion shattered. There was I, convinced that all Grauniad writers were completely full of their own importance (as well as other brown smelly stuff), and one of em writes with wit and self-deprecating humour. Even confesses that he's not infallible. Bugamided.
Worse, this means that instead of being able to automatically consign his articles to the 'not worth reading' heap, I might actually have to look at them, and even engage my higher brain functions and think about what he's saying. Bastard!
Still, as long as he writes stuff like this :
Two days later a contrary photograph of Rachel appeared, first in the Seattle Times (the article accompanying it has since been removed). It depicts her snarling, shawled and in a Palestinian street demonstration, tearing up a paper US flag. The provenance given for the photograph (a mysterious snapper called "Khalil Hamra") led nowhere. Where, then, had it come from? Paranoia suggested the Israeli secret service, which monitors such events. This picture also looked, to some expert eyes, doctored.... I'm in no danger of having my prejudices too badly dented.
(BTW the pictures in question, along with the usual LGF Incandescent Rage at Foetid Antisemitism, are here.)
Trouble is, I think John Sutherland might well issue an honest Mea Culpa on this one too - everyone has bad days, and the article as a whole is relatively even-handed - and I'd be back to square one. And should he actually publish such in the Grauniad, my nice, comfy, snug All-Grauniad-Writers-Are-Moonbats world-view would be shattered.
Google : 1 - 10 of about 183,000 for +Brain +Stud
Now that's funny.
Posted by: Alan E Brain at August 28, 2004 at 03:30 PMWell, Alan, the main difference between moderate-to-right-wing and Leftoids is that Leftoids are not willing to accept a world view that does not match their personal vision. The world must bend to their desires.
Non-Leftoids (excepting extreme right wingers differing from Leftoids only in their jargon, not their objectives) are more flexible and willing to learn, and likely change their opinions.
With that definition, there's hope for Mr. Sutherland. But the next step is up to him, as you pointed out.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 28, 2004 at 04:30 PMThe Real Jeffs:
Open-mindedness is not just confined to the moderate-to-right. It was an education for a Right Wing Death Beast like me to go read Normblog, written by a Marxist Academic. Or Hak Mao, by a Leftist RadFem, who unlike myself is a Cat rather than Dog person to boot.
Sanity, Logic, Rationality and an intolerance for Smelly Dictatorships and Romantic Utopian superstition is not just confined to those we completely agree with. Compared to Arch-Leftoid George Galloway, both Marxist Norman Geras and Anti-Marxist Tim Blair are like two peas in a pod, despite the obvious differences. Whodathunkit?
Well, Alan, that is good to see! NormBlog has good points.
It's not that I want to hear only right wing views (I've voted both Democrat and Republican, depending on the candidate), it's that the primary leadership on the left has turned leftoid (i.e., irrational and/or stupid), closing their minds to what really happens, and the membership follows their leader. Thus, the open minded, rational and intelligent left view goes out of fashion, and left-leaning people who have the will to go against "the party line" are rare.
This is not to say that all right wingers are rational and independent thinkers. Nope! But I find it compelling that most right wingers are more readily convinced that their opinions might need to be re-examined, as opposed to many on the left who flat out reject what threatens their opinions.
Thanks for the link.
Posted by: The Real JeffS at August 29, 2004 at 01:57 AMIs this an e-mail string?
Posted by: Jim Treacher at August 28, 2004 at 07:58 AM
I'm a frayed knot.
Posted by: Some Seppo at August 29, 2004 at 08:50 AM"...there's hope for Mr Sutherland."
That's a rather condescending way to refer to a man who is one of the freshest and most interesting practitioners of literary criticism on the planet, respected the world over and widely published on all manner of topics.
It makes me laugh to imagine the cave some of you must live in, believing up until now that open-mindedness is the domain of the right. I've been derided for preaching open-mindedness in political discussions on this very blog. It's amazing how blinkered (and this is by no means a comment on the right alone) some people are by their self-righteous commitment to their own beliefs.
Posted by: Karl at August 30, 2004 at 03:36 PMOne more thing. The Real Jeffs, I find it compelling that you find most lefties are unwilling to accept a world view differing from their personal vision. What a ridiculous, unprovable and naive generalisation. I doubt there would be ANYONE, left or right, who would fully accept a world view which differs from their vision.
Could you show me some evidence to prove that righties are more accepting of opposing views than lefties? Isn't it funny that so many lefties think exactly the opposite. You don't think it's a matter of team bias on both sides, do you?
My guess would be there's an even proportion of re-examination of opinions on both sides, just as there's an even proportion of said re-examinations being labelled flip-flopping. That's a big problem with the political culture right now - politicians aren't allowed to change their minds at all when sometimes it might be the right thing to do.
Posted by: karl at August 30, 2004 at 03:56 PMI was going to highlight all of the things that Karl just wrote that betray him as a hack trying to disguise himself as fair and open-minded so that he can score points on his enemies, but then I realized that would pretty much require copying, pasting, and bolding every damn word he wrote . . . from the glowing praise of Mr. Sutherland (which even Mr. Sutherland himself was too humble to offer as a defense, good for him) to the remarks about the cave some of us live in and the pablum about "oh, I wager everything's equal in the end, except where it makes John Kerry look like a spineless weathervane of a politician who changes his mind on a daily basis when it's the right thing to do."
Posted by: Sortelli at August 30, 2004 at 05:11 PMOH AND ONE MORE THING, Karl, why does Jeff's post threaten you so much that you have to come on with such forced, condescending laughter? And here, on the very blog where you claimed to have been crucified for preaching "open-mindedness"... oh, alas! So noble were you in your fairness, it makes you look all the more foolish now...
Does the thought that someone else's personal experience has found more logic and open-mindedness on the right side of the spectrum frighten you? Are you trying to convince yourself that it isn't true or are you trying to convince us?
'Cause, just sayin', I really don't think that anything you say is going to unravel how Jeff's personal experience has formed his perceptions.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, either, mind you, I'm just throwing this out so you look stupid for having put your fingers to the keyboard.
Posted by: Sortelli at August 30, 2004 at 05:20 PMSortelli: first off, never intended to attack the right, just the views of a select few lefties AND righties (I challenge you to find anything in those two posts which can be read as a specific attack on the right - that's not what I was doing at all). Second, I find nothing in your commentary which makes me look foolish or feel stupid. Third, frig John Kerry, frig George Bush and frig America - this is Australia and we've got our own issues right now. Fourth, my praise of Mr Sutherland is purely based on the books of his I've read (none of which are political; I didn't even know if he was conservative or liberal) and was intended to point out that whatever you may think of him politically, he's done some great work intellectually.
Perhaps, however, I should have included some praise for the way most of you appreciated his consideration of your views, because I was quite impressed - it gave me a lot of hope for more cloudless discourse, the sort of discourse where ridiculous generalisations need to be discouraged.
And another thing Sortelli, Jeff's post didn't threaten me - it stood out as the only commentary on this topic I found unreasonable and misguided, even if it was supposedly based on some "personal experience" analysis. I hardly think attacking a person for criticising a lack of evidence or fact as unreasonable. If he'd presented his statement honestly as mere opinion instead of spinning it as a pseudo-fact, I wouldn't have minded. He can have whatever opinion he wants. That all said, if you want to know how to discuss politics with a clear head, look no further than Alan E Brain, whose arguments I find extremely reasonable (whether I support them or not). He seems the sort of person it would be a pleasure to discuss politics with in a civil manner.
BTW Sortelli, notice how I said all that without calling you stupid or foolish. Your problem is you see a swinging voter but label him a Marxist because you don't understand why he's questioning your views in order to arrive at an independent position of his own choosing, which ultimately dictates how he will vote. I've said it once and I'll say it again: I believe in democracy, I believe in cyclical changes of government as beneficial for a nation (due to the differing focuses of political parties) and I believe in making decisions for myself based on the evidence and argument I'm given (hence my problem upon reading Jeff's argument).
Selah.
Posted by: karl at August 30, 2004 at 06:29 PMOh, you never meant to be insulting. This was said as a mere light jest:
It makes me laugh to imagine the cave some of you must live in, believing up until now that open-mindedness is the domain of the right. I've been derided for preaching open-mindedness in political discussions on this very blog. It's amazing how blinkered (and this is by no means a comment on the right alone) some people are by their self-righteous commitment to their own beliefs.It's too bad that JeffS and Sortelli don't have a sense of humor so they can laugh at your gentle and erudite bon mots.
Seriously, why don't you crawl back under the rock you came out from under, Karl? No one here said anything insulting about Mr. Sutherland; in fact, they were quite complimentary, because we are always relieved when someone on the left (as apparently Mr. Sutherland is) is capable of responding to the opposition in a reasonable fashion instead of resorting to playground insults, namecalling, and hissyfits. Unfortunately you have failed to keep to the same high ground as your idol. With fans like you he doesn't need enemies.
Posted by: Andrea Harris at August 30, 2004 at 08:41 PMKarl, you missed the entire point of JeffS's comment.
I doubt there would be ANYONE, left or right, who would fully accept a world view which differs from their vision.The moderate right and left are generally willing to debate and argue, without accepting the other view. The problem with the far left (and the far right, for that matter) is not that they don't accept the opposite view but that they cannot accept that any other view can be allowed to exist. Posted by: Ken Summers at August 31, 2004 at 01:21 AM
Ok... this is indeed becoming weirder.
Andrea, I never said I didn't mean to be insulting so I don't quite get your point. I did, however, make a point of saying I was not on a right-bashing mission, which is true. My criticism is directed only to certain people on both sides of the divide, who believe openmindedness is the domain of their friends and not their enemies. Neither side can ever show any evidence and, as a swinging voter, I find both the pro-right and pro-left versions completely and utterly ridiculous. If there's any proof supporting one side or the other (who knows? maybe a political or sociological journal has examined it) I'd be extremely interested to read it.
And Ken, that was my comment you quoted, not Jeff's. It was me saying that it's both the left and right at fault (a reaction to Jeff's unsupported comment that "most right wingers are more readily convinced that their opinions might need to be re-examined"). Apart from the bit about missing Jeff's point, I completely agree with you.
I must say, I'm glad Liberal MPs are a little more sensitive in their treatment of swinging voters than some folks here. I'd hate to think any other swingers have been chased off in the direction of the Fatso Latham camp for trying to discuss a bi-partisan issue like stubbornness in politics. Still, (deep breath) I'm sure it happens on both sides. : )
Posted by: karl at August 31, 2004 at 02:48 PM