April 01, 2004
LEFTY MAKES NEW FRIENDS
When a year-old piece on Richard Clarke by the Village Voice’s George Smith recently hit the web anew, its lefty author found himself subject to anti-Bush rage ... and pro-Bush friendliness. It’s difficult to tell which he finds more distressing:
The first sentence of this particular column proved to be a time bomb: "The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror." That was what got me in trouble. Honeyed dung it was, or became, to clouds of flies on the right, buzzing mad to find a couple quarts of offal to throw on the man after the calumny of his 60 Minutes spotlight.
Then came the emails:
From both sides of the political spectrum, the missives of my fellow citizens showed no grasp of the fact that my column was written over 12 months ago ... As a consequence of their aphasia, it was clear I was obviously a Bush administration fixer—"vermin . . . coming out from under ... rocks to smear [Clarke]." Or, if you stood on the other ridge, I was an honest fellow, laboring to get the real story past the spinmonger Lesley Stahl and the perfidious 60 Minutes.
The anger was instantly gripping. A prime ingredient was the rage foaming, apparently, from Democrats, who avidly read Drudge so as to be able to intimidate and beat to death troublemakers. They were so over-the-top, it was funny enough to reduce one to tetany. It's certainly a misconception that Democrats are eloquent, sophisticated, sensitive, and therefore beyond the knavish dirt commonly attributed to the "right-wing attack dog." Last week, I found no difference between the two.
One difference: the right-wingers usually have better spelling.
Posted by Tim Blair at April 1, 2004 04:19 AMHi,
The few times I have heard from dems regarding a
positive word from me regarding the president I
received some e-mails that could certainly not
be printed in a newspaper. I learned some neat new
swear words, as well.
Yes, I find the conservative writers are much more
likely to spell better, and are not as hysterical as the dems get!
BIG DARK words ARE USED VERY FREQUENTLY!!!!
Although the dems are continually telling the world the conservatives are the haters, there is
no contest in this issue, dems anger and frustration is so easily seen, it is almost
pathetic.
Well, I guess it is hard to be the ones who usually end up with egg on their face.
Posted by: jean at April 1, 2004 at 06:03 AMForget his politics - he deserves a flogging for using the phrase, 'reduce one to tenany.'
Posted by: Pig Head Sucker at April 1, 2004 at 09:08 AMP.H. Sucker:
Au contraire, I think "tetany" is a good description of the state one can find oneself in after receiving a faceful of lefty "nuance" delivered at full volume.
Ha, so much for us RWDB having better spelling - sorry.
Posted by: Pig Head Sucker at April 1, 2004 at 11:13 AMG'day Pig Head Sucker,
"Tetany" is a really cool word - when someone is in tetany their eys roll back, sometimes their fingernails and toenails turn black - as far as fits goes it is an absolute laugh riot. I think th idea of laughing oneself into tetany (rather than just hyperventilating to get there) is really evocative.
Posted by: Russell at April 1, 2004 at 11:58 AMYou've convinced me Russell, I'll use tetany when suitable.
Best to try it out first:
tetany, tetanous, tetanically, tetaned (hmmn - this needs improvement- tetanated ? as also:)tetaning -no, tetanating and, to correct the second, tetanatically. Perhaps also - sounds like the unpleasant infection and so: tetanateous.
Posted by: d at April 1, 2004 at 03:10 PMI have to deal with the same moronic, the-world-is-going-to-end-if-you-don't-do-everything-I-say invective every day. To sustain that view the world they have to shut out any sort of impiricism and common sence and resort to extreme stetches of common sense.
The only explanation i can see is one told to me by an old friend. People say and do things that they often no longer believe in, in order to back up thing that they've said, done, or even just thought about in the past. Regardless if anyone heard them or not to enduce the embarassment.
Anyway - he was talking about people who actually think people are hanging on their every work - not mature people.
The only explanation i can see is one told to me by an old friend. People say and do things that they often no longer believe in, in order to back up thing that they've said, done, or even just thought about in the past.
Joe: Headshrinker Robert Cialdini calls this the commitment/consistency principle. Here's a summary, and his book Influence goes into detail.
Posted by: Brian at April 2, 2004 at 11:27 AM