CPAC, Potty Mouth Bloggers, and the 10 Commandments

i read your urbandictionary entry and it seems to attack you from the RIGHT. I think you mischaracterize it as a liberal rant. A lot of people think repeated dependency (either from the government or from a family member) basically shows lazyness. I do NOT however think you’re plea for your sister showed any signs repeated dependency.

JUST SAYING.. a progressive wouldn’t attack you for being unmarried at 40. They would probably be happy that one less person was having a child and therefore the earth’s carrying capacity wasn’t further being burdened.

Hello LaShawn – I love your columns, but I am going to have to partly disagree with you on this one.

1) I think George Carlin was actually right about the 10th commandment. Coveteousness is what drives our economy. If we Americans did not covet, Capitalism would probably come to a grinding halt.

2) The gospels present Jesus demanding that the rich give up their wealth and distribute it among the poor. This was the model that the communal lifestyle advocated by the Jesus Movement of the early 70s relied on.

And Medved forgot one other thing when it comes to the murder commandment. Jesus in the new Testament said “turn the other cheek.” If you believe in the bible, you shouldn’t live in the Old Testament. Jesus was the ultimate pacifist. And if he’s accusing people like me of being like Jesus, then I’ll take it. Jesus would never have authorized the Iraq War. And the fact that Bush did so in the name of Jesus, it makes it that much sicker. Shame on Medved. he needs to stop bashing gays and go back to reviewing movies like Flicka and Air Bud 5: Air Attacks!

LaShawn, why didn’t you show the page count for the left leaning blogs? We can’t do a comparison without it.

As for the libs trying to co-opt the Bible, well, Jesus was a Jew, most certainly a rabbi, so he would have preached a Jewish value system which he knew inside out. Loving kindness toward sinners is one thing; pretending a sin is not a sin so you don’t hurt the sinner’s feelings is quite another. The Left tries to paint Jesus as a sweet puddle of mush who would never have chastised or corrected or held to a standard anyone on the Left doing Leftie, moonbat things. (But of course, Jesus would have been very, very angry with President Bush, or anyone who tries to uphold the 10 commandments.)

Within the entry are two links (including the image itself) to the page with both charts on it. – Admin

Will, you are so wrong. You are exhibiting a fundamental lack of awareness of the context of Jesus’ life.

He was raised on Talmud Torah, in a Jewish society. Talmud Torah is steeped in symbolism, metaphor, and analogy. It rarely deals in the literal. Phrases like “an eye for an eye,” and “turn the other cheek” are seen to be metaphors, not for physical retaliation or pacifism, but in the first case, for equivalent compensation under the law (usually damages were paid monetarily), and in the second case, for guidance in how to respond to verbal insults or generally hostile behavior from others. There is no evidence that Jesus would have instructed the entire world to voluntarily march into Nazi ovens.
Furthermore, Jesus would not have strayed THAT far from Torah teaching as to become a pacifist when G-d is anything but a pacifist, particularly when it comes to evil directed toward His nation or those who revere Him.

What bothers me about pacifists is that they are the ultimate cowards; they owe their very lives to non-pacifists who keep their little world safe for them. Pacifists are like parasites, because they can only live as long as they are sucking protection off non-pacifists.

Ditto that Jesus didn’t mean the rich man “had to ” give up his wealth by decree from the Government, as we do in the USA.

He likely meant that people shouldn’t let wealth interfere with decent living.

At Canisius HS in Buffalo NY, my Jesuit priest told us thie “camel and the eye of the needle” was nonsense, and that a rich man could get to heaven much easier than a poor one.

Hmm, interesting choice of the 7 dirty words.
I wonder what the count would look like if one were to analyze the number of racial epithets used by blogs? Yeah, we all know what that would say.

It comes down to the fact that liberals, in general, aren’t offended by four letter words used to express one’s level of exasperation, but are appalled by the hate-speech that pours out of the ignorant rightist base.

The right, on the other hand, have much more of a problem with dirty words, for no other reason than they’re “dirty”, as opposed to belittling, demonizing, and marginalizing other groups that have differing world views than themselves.

And I totally agree with the earlier poster who noted that liberals have been F’ing livid for the past 6 years. No doubt about it, and for good reason.

-BP

Hey, BP! I just checked littlegreenfootballs.com and dailykos.com for the words “n*ger,” “k*ke,” and “darkie.”

Results? LGF 0, Kos 824.

LOL. Next challenge?

ALso, your post was confusing because you go from talking about bad language to the ten commandments, and I’m not sure the 10 commandments tell me I can’t use cuss words.

Cussing is the use of words, that’s it. Words that some find offensive for some reason but they’re just words. It doesn’t mean that one lacks eloquence, it doesn’t mean that one lacks class, it just means the addition to one’s vocabulary of certain words that others find offensive. Why anyone pays attention to the use of these words is beyond me…especially when the religious have a problem with it (there’s nothing biblical about it except vain use of god’s name).

As for Medved and the 10 commandments, why does this apply to the US? Separation is the law. We are majority christian but not, formally or constitutionally, a christian nation. Hopefully, we never will be. In addition, they are old testament. Would Christ, based on his teachings, condone killing your kid because he is incorrigible? God did in the old testament. Would Chirst condone sending your wife away to live separately because during menstruation she is unclean? Do any of you men do that to your wives? God made it a law in the old testament.

That being said, seeing how people derive different interpretations of the texts of the bible should logically call into question the very idea that the bible is god’s word because it is clearly not any kind of absolute truth, nor is any of that truth eternal. Or maybe the notion that Jesus is at once the son of god and god is false since the two clearly don’t agree on a lot of things.

I agree that the left uses the word “f*ck” like it’s bound to their spacebar or something, so “offensive” to them isn’t in the same realm. But racist screeds are (ostensibly) offensive to them, and so I would be interested to see 7 “hateful” words compared between right and left. The problem would probably be that so many slurs exist for a single group that it’s hard to narrow such a search down, but I’d be willing to be money that “n*gger”, “gook”, and “k*ke” are prominent fixtures.

“Would Chirst condone sending your wife away to live separately because during menstruation she is unclean? Do any of you men do that to your wives? God made it a law in the old testament.”

Yeah… and the Old Testament law was fulfilled, so no need to slaughter goats anymore either.

“That being said, seeing how people derive different interpretations of the texts of the bible should logically call into question the very idea that the bible is god’s word because it is clearly not any kind of absolute truth, nor is any of that truth eternal.”

Why? Your analysis seems to gloss over the existence of the Devil. You know, that creature who wants to lie to and confuse people, especially people seeking God. If I were the Devil and I wanted to confuse and distract people seeking God, who is only knowable through the Bible, what would I do? Hmmm… Well, I certainly wouldn’t lead people to different interpretations of that Bible, nope nope.

Harrumph!

I don’t think that saying “cr*p” is fit for a public sermon.

In my world of choice, slang that might be vulgar is unnecessary baggage and cheapens the message.

But then, I am such a Victorian prude that I probably have Queen Anne’s legs.

When I edit, I always make the writer convince me that his choice of words is not for the shock power, but for the impact of meaning. Mostly, words of questionable taste don’t make the cut.

Bugaboo, Jewish interpretation of our holy scriptures is very different from the way Christians interpret them. Since they were ours first, we have a longer history with them. We also have other writings beyond what the Christians know as the Old Testament, and in our faith, all of our writings are taken together. We would no more pick up a Bible and say “this is all there is” than read the first volume in a series of books and claim that we read the entire series. Simply put, the Bible (our Tanakh) cannot be understood without looking at the entire context.

For example, with regard to slaughtering animals as sacrifices, in Judaism, this can only be done if there is a Temple and a Sanhedrin (a group of 70 rabbis that form the court). Since we were exiled from our land and our Temple destroyed, there are certain laws and practices that are no longer applicable, among them, the sacrifice of animals. We have laws that only apply to farmers in the Holy Land, but don’t apply to Jewish farmers in the diaspora. In the Torah, we have the death penalty prescribed for certain violations of the law, but only the Sanhedrin could pass down a death sentence; therefore, we do not kill shabbat violators or homosexuals, etc. We believe that we will not have a third Temple or a new Sanhedrin until the Moshiach (Messiah) comes, and when he comes, there is a belief that major changes will come about (i.e., we still won’t sacrifice animals or kill homosexuals).

With regard to women’s menstruation, the idea that we view ourselves as “dirty” due to menstruation is very foreign to us. This is a classic example of secular Jews or gentiles not understanding what is going on with regard to this law, and they are the ones who think WE think menstruation is dirty. In Temple times, blood was considered spiritually unholy because it represented death. So, if a man was injured and had blood on him, he could not enter the Temple either. Similarly, if a woman was menstruating blood, then she, too, was spiritually unholy and could not enter the Temple. Her husband could not have relations with her because then he would come into contact with her blood, and wouldn’t be able to enter the Temple, and so on and so forth. Blood represented death, and death, or at least a dead body, is unholy in the context of entering the Temple. After her period ceases and she waits a few more days to make sure she is not bleeding at all, then a woman goes into a bath called a mikveh and says a blessing. After that point, she can resume sexual relations with her husband. This is a spiritual purification process and has NOTHING to do with being “dirty” on a physical level. Religious Jewish men also go to the mikveh at certain times, as required by the law, for spiritual purification. But secular Jews and gentiles have gotten fixated on women who go for menstrual reasons, probably because they aren’t aware that men have to go too, and they aren’t aware of the historical context of the practice. Does it change your view to realize that men, too, must go to the mikveh?

In our tradition, different interpretations of the scriptures and teachings are to be expected, but must fall within certain parameters. For instance, no rabbi would assert that in his interpretation, it is okay to eat pork or okay to violate the sabbath. But there is a concept in Judaism that G-d wants us to “struggle” with the word and study it intensely and come to understand it better and on a higher level through this intense struggle. We don’t consider ourselves confused by the Satan or anything like that. Most rabbis agree on the fundamental things.

I wish there were an edit feature for commenters! I think some things I said weren’t very clear. In the statement: “We believe that we will not have a third Temple or a new Sanhedrin until the Moshiach (Messiah) comes, and when he comes, there is a belief that major changes will come about (i.e., we still won’t sacrifice animals or kill homosexuals).”

That should be “even though when Moshiach comes, we will again have a Temple and a Sanhedrin, and logically, the death penalty and animal sacrifices would be resumed, many believe that major changes will occur with the Moshiach’s coming, in that we will NOT resume sacrifices and death sentences even though we have a Temple and Sanhedrin again.”

Whew.

On one hand I agree with Helio’s point, on the other, we have plenty of scriptural references to occasions that required an empathetic choice of word(s). Look at how offended muslims get if one is called a dog or pig, yet when that is hurled at us, it simply rolls off our back with nary flinch.

Now imagine the Pharisees and Sadducees purpling in rage when Jesus uses his favorite putdowns on them. Likewise, if someone called us a ‘Whited Sepulchers’ we’d shrug and respond “Whatever”. Now Jesus wasn’t trying to make nice or whitewash anything, he fully intended to inflict damage by exposing the evil and consequent rage of the ‘victim’.

Point is different cultures have different thresholds for offense, and sometimes it is necessary to rhetorically slap or smack-down a deserving person(s) to get the point across.

In Jesus’ case, he said enough things to provoke them into literally killing him.

oh go @#$%.

but I jest.

In all seriousness,

If you also look up certain founding fathers quotes, you’ll see that they said things akin to “only elect Christians” to the US Government.

OK. And if you look up other certain founding fathers, you’ll find that they said nothing of the sort.

From http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/ffnc/ ,

George Washington, - the first president of the United States, never declared himself a Christian according to contemporary reports or in any of his voluminous correspondence. Washington Championed the cause of freedom from religious intolerance and compulsion. When John Murray (a universalist who denied the existence of hell) was invited to become an army chaplain, the other chaplains petitioned Washington for his dismissal. Instead, Washington gave him the appointment. On his deathbed, Washington uttered no words of a religious nature and did not call for a clergyman to be in attendance.

Benjamin Franklin was closest to an agnostic: “As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.”

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, who didn’t believe in the Old Testament, and didn’t consider Jesus to be the son of God.

Jefferson believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being, but this was not the triune deity of orthodox Christianity. He also rejected the idea of the divinity of Christ, but as he writes to William Short on October 31, 1819, he was convinced that the fragmentary teachings of Jesus constituted the “outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man.” In correspondence, he sometimes expressed confidence that the whole country would be Unitarian, but he recognized the novelty of his own religious beliefs.

James Madison said: “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”

In short: the founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing, and set things up exactly as they intended.

Thinking otherwise is such wishful-thinking on the part of Conservative Christians, and it pops up so often, I am now saving this as a text file.

Stop using what you WANT, and start using facts, thanks.

Practice what you preach.

Bugaboo, it is not an “abomination” for a woman to be a rabbi and nowhere does the Torah say that it is. Women do not become rabbis; it just isn’t done. It has nothing to do with the fact that women menstruate! By that logic, then all post menopausal women in Judaism should find their career options wide open. There are strict gender roles within Orthodox Judaism and we are not necessarily given the reasons for them, just as we are not given the reason for why pork consumption is prohibited. No, it was not because of health concerns. There are many mitzvot (commandments) for which we are not given a tidy or obvious reason, but we just have to obey them anyway.

Judaism does not believe in “original sin.” The only consequence of Eve’s sin in the Garden of Eden is that childbirth would be painful for women and that women would, nonetheless, desire their husbands and be subject to their husbands. Her sin did not have the consequence of preventing all future Jewish women from becoming rabbis!

Deborah was a judge and a prophetess, the strongest, most powerful, most authoritative female leader in the Tanakh. Surely God would not have put her in this position if she were unworthy due to menstruation.

I think you don’t really know enough to have this discussion. I was only trying to shed a little light on subjects that are very misunderstood by those not familiar with sacred Jewish texts. I’m certainly no expert, but I know a fair amount since I live with it.

Tyrian, I’m willing to consider your assertion that some pacifists have exhibited noble behavior and courage under fire, but I still maintain that they owe their own lives to those who are willing to fight so that they may be safe and practice their pacifism. I’m thinking of all the “pacifists” I’ve met, mostly moonbat college students (sadly, some grown ups too) who swear that they would not resort to violence in any situation, even if it were necessary to stop a rape or a murder, even if the victim were a child, and they feel very self righteous having this belief. I just find it very EVIL. We Jews have an admonition from G-d, “Do not stand idly by while your brother’s blood is shed.”

I honestly can’t believe anyone really gives two hoots about profanity on blogs. Amazing with the obscenities going on in Darfur, etc., people are getting all whipped up about a few Anglo-Saxon monosyllables.

#17

Jon, you said:

“Hey, BP! I just checked littlegreenfootballs.com and dailykos.com for the words “n*ger,” “k*ke,” and “darkie.”

Results? LGF 0, Kos 824.”

That’s incredible. Either this shows that

1. the far-left wing in America are almost outrageously racist towards ‘blacks’ and Jews,

or that

2. no-one thought to check the results for context?

OK, let’s look a little closer…

I just did a little experiment, and put a search on K*ke into Daily Kos comments for the last 4 years…

Fortunately (saving me a lot of time) it only gave the first 50 results from the 265 found over the last 5 years, nonetheless, I read as many as I could in 15 minutes (most of them) using ctrl and F and every one checked out as a discussion/quote/response ABOUT the improper use of the racial epithet ‘kike’.

I wonder why Jon neglects to mention that?

OK Jon, next challenge:

Maybe you would like to find whether any far-right wing websites use anti-semitic slang and report back with numbers? (you know, one’s that REALLY hate liberals with a vengeance)

It’ll be interesting to correlate the results, after you’ve amended the last ones for context

Regards,

John

Those of us on this side of the spectrum, have access to a very powerful duplex post filter that those on the other side do not. I have sometimes heard of this filter referred to as “common sense and manners”. Alas the ultimate filter shall be the Grace of God!

speaking of LaShawn, have you ever heard of Grace Ministries in Manassas? They do an awesome three day conf. called “The Grace Life Conf.” It is an outstanding message.

JohnD:2. no-one thought to check the results for context?

I wonder why Jon neglects to mention that?

Perhaps ‘cuz BP proposed a search similar to the “dirty words” one, which specifically did not “check the results for context.”

JohnD:
Maybe you would like to find whether any far-right wing websites use anti-semitic slang and report back with numbers? (you know, one’s that REALLY hate liberals with a vengeance)

Now you want to change the websites used? Heck, I didn’t even take the time to come up with a decent list of epithets to search for (a preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with). Why limit it to anti-semitic slang? People on the left often express their anti-semitism without it.

Most conservative blogs are pro-Israel. The left, and lefty blogs, seem much more anti-Israel. Littlegreenfootballs (one of the conservative blogs on the list) was given the “Best Israel Advocacy Blog” award by the Jerusalem Post. LGF also keeps track of all the anti-semitism at Dailykos (and the examples I’ve seen don’t have the slang terms).

I think these instances should count. I think things like blackface pics should be counted. I’ve seen where multiple lefty blogs have done those. Never seen one on a conservative blog (except to show the outrageous examples from lefty blogs). I think we should look through the uses of “neocon.” As Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, has said:

First, “neo-conservative” is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out those who are Jewish.

I’m sure there would be some way you could set it up so that right-wing blogs appear more racist. I’m just as sure there are ways to make lefty blogs more racist (esp. more anti-semitic).

About 18 months ago, when I realized that what I say onthe internet may well live for decades, if not forever, I simply stopped using curse words.
I strongly believe that if the internet is going to have a lasting positive impact more people will do the same.

“which kind of makes this whole “Well, they really wanted it to be a Christian nation” argument, well, stupid.”

That’s a reasonable argument if one is a Christian and believe there is evidence for such a statement?

I’ve also seen arguments that socialism and capitalism are covetous, that Christ was a Conservative or a Liberal. People tend to argue from the limits of their experience or understanding, and frame it in the view they have of the world.

Let’s not go calling people stupid eh?

As I’ve said before, one good read of the hate mail coming to both Michelle Malkin (on the la-la right) and Margaret Cho (on the la-la left), convinces me that the current 24hr right-left-who-is-the-most-racist-athon was a dead heat.

What you said there kinda proves me right when I said: “Left not racist? What a crock!” The left is fine with non-WASPs when those non-WASPs are lefties. It’s not at all uncommon for them to use racist epithets for conservative non-WASPs.

That said, it does appear, on further inspection, that the use of racial epithets on Dailykos looks more like an extension of the potty-mouth syndrome. For most people I know, those terms are “dirty” words, which shouldn’t even be used in civil conversation. And we know the Kos Krowd doesn’t care about civil conversation

Let’s try comparing apples to apples. Many of the blogs you cite do not permit open comments or any comments at all. Most of the “potty”-mouthedness that occurs on so-called “liberal” blogs is in the comments section, which as everyone can agree can be posted by anyone anonymously (and perhaps even nefariously).

Of course, I see no amount of outrage at our potty mouthed vice president or at the blatant calls for death and destruction of non-believers by such erudite pundits as Ann Coulter. In fact she is paraded around like a pundit diva.

Makes you wonder what’s really important. Words or beliefs.

La Shawn. Regarding hate speech, do you have any comment to make about ms. Coulter calling a democratic party candidate for president a “faggot” to wild applause and laughter at the conservative convention this week?

If a similar event occurred and say, a speaker at a rally for Barack Obama called George bush a faggot or one of the 7 restricted words being bandied about here, would the Republic party not be calling for his head in a sack? Apologies and demanding Barack drop out of the race?

Serious question, La Shawn, I’m not trying to troll. I would really like some discussion of the hypocracy that is oft apparent both from the Republic party and in the uneven coverage given to such “scandals” by the MSM. Witness the different reaction to John McCain’s use of the word “wasted” in referring to war deaths and the frenzy of frothing bloviation that happened when mr Obama said almost the identical thing.

I have a hard time getting past obscenity. During the last election, I tried to read the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler a couple of times, having followed links to it. I just couldn’t stay with it. I never read Pandagon or many other lefty blogs because of the frequent use of the “f” word.

Why should I put that kind of garbage into my mind?

I’m not surprised at all to learn that lefty blogs “out-cuss” right-wing blogs. I find that the conservative blogs to which I am drawn rely on reason and, very often, humor to make a point. Left-wing blogs (not all, but most) tend to be more emotive and less inclined to debate. Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt’s doesn’t cuss online, but I find him truly funny and readable. James Lileks isn’t as conservative as I am, but I still find his writing resonates with me and makes me laugh–the worst he gets is when he cites “Chuck-E-Fargin’-Cheese.” MKH cracks me up. Jonah Goldberg is high-larious. All the folks at the Corner frequently employ humor, but I like the posts powered by intellect too (Ramesh Ponnuru and many others). Not a cuss word among ‘em. They are fun to read and (blessedly) they *make sense* more often than not.

There’s a well-known verse in the Bible that admonishes the believer: “…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.”

And Christ Himself said it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out of his heart. Profanity spewing out of someone’s mouth toward another person reveals what is in the heart…curses, hatred, and anger. Why would anyone want to associate with such a person, or their like-minded commentors?

LaShawn, thank you so much for making sense and being civil, post after post after post. And holding your comment-dwellers to a good standard as well.

I scored in the hundreds, mostly due to my commenters, though I have dropped the f-bomb once or twice.

First Ann Coulter, now Bill Maher:

http://newsbusters.org/node/11169

Yeah, I’d say the level of discourse has sunk pret-ty low.

I suppose it really doesn’t matter, but the point of Ann Coulter’s joke was that today in the US, people really do go into rehab for using the word that she used. Her comment was quite clear and explicit in that regard. Not only that, but she was talking about something that really happened. Somebody has actaully gone into rehab because he called somebody a name. It is telling that people are visibly upset about her use of a word, but not about the reality of what she was alluding to.

Jan, I did respond in full to your comments about the Malkin hate mail/’proof’ that ‘the left’ is worse than ‘the right’, but it disappeared! Grrr, after 30 mins typing (and I can’t type well).

Suffice to say, Margaret Cho gets exactly the same kind of racist drivel from ‘the right’ as Malkin gets from ‘the left’.

Not that it would change a confirmed righty or lefty mind from the mantra that ‘They’ are teh Racists!

I don’t have a horse in this race, and I see both sides doing the same.

As for Coulter ‘not being allowed to criticize’ the widows. “Ahem $$$$$$$$”’s says she’s not only allowed, but she profits hugely from them.

What do you think the reaction would have been from the Republican blogsphere and talk radio if say, at an ACLU convention the head of the Christian coalition or Mitt Romney had of been called a Faggot, to wild applause and laughter?

I haven’t heard any reports of “wild applause and laughter,” Bill. Just a “smattering,” kinda like when John Kerry told his “if ya don’t study, ya end up in Iraq” joke. A group of conservative bloggers have posted a joint “Open letter to CPAC” regarding the matter. Captain’s Quarters Blog is one of them if you care to check.

My ride is going to be late so I went to the Captain’s Quarters blogsite. Good on him for forcefully denouncing offensive, racist speech and calling for ms Coulter to be dis-invited to the CPAC in the future. He couldn’t resist one little slap at the left, though: “Such offensive language–and the cavalier attitude that lies behind it–is intolerable to us. It may be tolerated on liberal websites but not at the nation’s premier conservative gathering.” I’ll forgive him for that, though it made me laugh. There is little logic train in equating the postings of mostly anonymous bloggers with a Nationally recognized spokesperson/best selling conservative author who regularly appears on radio and TV — mainstream and right wing outlets. Not the same thing. It’s not fair to equate all you good people here with the frothing madness one finds no Freerepublic.com and it’s not fair and I won’t listen to equating some angry, frustrated postings on dailykos with official gatherings of the presidential candidates or the Democratic party convention. All blogs get mowroon posters who are incapable of expressing themselves save for obscenity or a lame attempt at wit. Best to ignore them and try to cut deeper to the real issues. That’s why I simply laugh at CQ’s little nyah, nyah at the left. to him it’s probably an autonomous action to throw an elbow or two, like a hockey player going into the corners after the puck.

On the whole I’m happy to see the republic party’s candidates condemning Coulter’s remarks outright. I’m sure much partisan mudslinging will occur from BOTH sides before this next presidential election takes place. It’s the nature of humanity to throw rocks, unfortunately. but it’s good so see the people that matter stepping back from it.

“I don’t see where Jan weighed in on the Cho/Malkin hatemail thing, JohnD,”

Sorry Jon, I didn’t reference the comment no. with the Malkin quote in question, it was #60, not yours.

Regards,

John

Even Lee Atwater could imagine the crude way in which some people conduct themselves. I can’t imagine what it will be like five years from now.
Remember “The Gong Show”? All types of social critics denounced it as the nadir of Western civilization. And, if you catch it now on GSN, it’s pretty quaint. Will we refer to this time as the “good ol’ days”? How much further can the envelope be pushed?

Don, can you produce a cite for an instance of an democratic spokesperson or official at the national pundit level of Ann Coulter, calling a repub candidate something as racist and offensive as “faggot” as you imply is common in your last post? You call instances of hate speech much worse than “faggot” being made by Democratic leadership as routine. Are you referring to the planet Zolton?

Planet Zolton:

link

Here’s a small list of 20. Patterico must not have been trying very hard.

This sounds like more of the “they do it too!” defense of Coulter. This is beyond ridiculous. The hypocrisy is amazing.

If you disagree with a Democrat you are, by definitiion, guilty of hypocrisy. But if the head of the Democrat Party says, “I hate Republicans and everything that they stand for,” that is just fine. Just for the record, I absolutely support Howard Dean’s right to express his hatred. In fact I am glad to hear what he really thinks. I would never call on the Democrat Party to muzzle him or ban him from Democrat political events. But if the kitchen is too hot for him, he should stay out of it, for his own benefit.

Are you saying it’s okay for Coulter to do what she did because people on the left say similar things? – Angel

Quite frankly, I found Coulter’s remark in and of itself to be offensive. I hate the word “faggot” and I dislike name calling. In watching the video, I believe that she probably meant it as a lame joke, knowing that Edwards is NOT gay, but it was a joke that was distasteful to me and most of the mainstream right blogs that I have read.

Quite frankly, the farthest thing from my mind was the ridiculous notion that “her comments were ok because the left does it too.” I simply find it humorous that so many folks are in a lather about a comment that is the very same type of comment that is endemic in their rhetoric.

Angel, you really need to read what folks write and not what you think they mean. You are always so far off the mark when trying to pinpoint what I think.

I know…I know…it’s simply another “figment of my imagination”. – Angel

I am glad that we finally agree on something.

Quite frankly, you WERE laughably off the mark about what I think and you most often are. Even your closing comment, “By any means necessary, right?” is ridiculous, particularly in light of the fact that I just stated that her comment was offensive as did the many right wing bloggers, such as Malkin, which I mentioned.

Given that I had just said that I found her remark offensive and that still doesn’t seem to satisfy you, I am led to wonder if there are some sweeping “Angel-type” emotive judgements and lofty pronouncements that you would like to hear?

At the end of the day, I speak for myself and I will leave all the other folks in the world to you.

That link times out for me, Stacey. could you just post the URL?

Jan, I guess you can just retire now. We don’t need YOUR input on what YOU think.

Angel, by means mysterious to both you and me, is channeling your aura and will tell us all what you think. He does this for many of us. You are simply confusing the issue by insisting that you know yourself better than Angel knows you.

Jan,

You figured it out….I’m stupid and delusional.

Angel;

I am not offended in the slightest. There you go again, far off the mark.

Quite frankly, I just find statements such as; “When you say it and then cite 50 examples of liberal bad behavior” to be absurd (particularly given the fact that I did not cite one example of a liberal engaging in bad behavior), but I would not go so far as to say I am offended. Quite frankly, your comments generally evoke a good deal of amusement and I don’t take them seriously enough to be offended.

You really need to lighten up and have some fun. Continually getting your knickers in a twist must be really uncomfortable.

Jan,

I leave it to others for judgement of whether I “accused” you of “wanting lower standards.”

That is exactly what you are saying. You can couch it however you want. Another part of your backpedaling act is to say I’m uptight in some way. I’m not. But, it’s interesting how you are in a sense using a variation of the “Coulter” defense. “Hey, lighten up…we’re all just having fun here…blah…blah…blah.”

It’s very clear to me now what another poster warned me about. You’re not serious and it appears your only intent is to push buttons on a personal level. You move very quickly into that “I’m just joshing mode” right after you say someone is too “emotive” whatever the hell than means. So, you get your wish. You’ve defeated me, not with intellect, but my lack of desire to be the mouse to your cat.

Angel;

I did not say that I was “just joshing.” I said that your comments frequently amuse me.

Once again, you seem to be confused about what you read.

As to my comment about your emotive style…Note that you used the word “hell” and “defeated me” and “warned me about you” all in one post. And you don’t think that you need to lighten up?

Whatever….

Bugaboo

You seem very confused or at least ill-informed about the distinctions between “ultra Orthodox” (a term most often used by people who disapprove of Orthodox Judaism in general), Orthodox, modern Orthodox and so forth. As an Orthodox Jew who has friends among every segment of Orthodox practice and belief — including what you call “ultra” Orthodox (the polite term is Chareidi, which includes both Yeshivish and Chasidish), I can vouch that what batyah has told you is mainstream Orthodox belief. Among other things, nowhere in Jewish teaching and scripture does it say that it is an abomination for a woman to be a Rabbi,nor does Torah judaism (which you prefer to call Orthodox) link that prohibition to in any way to menstruation. It is based solely on issues of modesty and on the different societal roles of men and women.

Any nexus to menstruation is solely in the imaginations of both Jews and gentiles who have never studied the traditional Jewish sources on this issue — the Tanakh, the Talmud, the various legal codes and Rabbinic responsa.

Those who don’t know and don’t care what those sources say prefer to make up their own reasons, and if those supposed reasons reflect discredit (at least in the speaker’s eyes) on Torah udaism, so much the better.

Two more thoughts to ponder. If it WERE somehow linked to menstruation, wouldn’t the prohibition cease when a woman reaches menopause? And second, from the way batyah spells her name and the fact that she posts at a Christian blog, one can speculate that she is more likley to be modern Orthodox or just plain Orthodox than “ultra” Orthodox.

You have a lot to learn about the Jewish religion. Until you do, please do not drag your misconceptions as to what we believe into disputes about Christianity.

Angel;
Where to start…You say; “Notice you don’t address how you have misread my intent” when I have never concerned myself with your intent. I only comment about your words. I leave the judging of people’s intentions to you.

You say that my following comment is dishonest;”Angel, I find that much of what you write actually paints a very negative picture in my mind.” I am simply telling you how your words appear in my mind. How utterly ridiculous for you to tell me that I don’t perceive your words the way that I do. When I read the posts of Heliotrope, for example, I see a mind-picture of a proud and mighty people with great elegance, wisdom, principles, and intelligence. The picture your words paint for me is very different.

Who are you to tell me what picture anyone’s words paint in my mind.

You say; “This isn’t about emotion” in response to a comment that your posts are emotive in style. I certainly never maintained that this “was about emotion” and simply looked at the types of words that you use. Not sure how to explain the distinctions between the two comments. Suffice it to say that once again, you are absurdly off the mark.

Who are you to tell me what picture anyone’s words paint in my mind.

Well, if I’m the author of those words, I think I should have some imput. I did write them, after all.

You can only determine what YOU meant but you cannot determine the picture that your words paint in MY mind….

You can only determine what YOU meant but you cannot determine the picture that your words paint in MY mind….

Wow. Are we going to count the angels on the head of a pin now? For the last time, if you want to take MY words, which don’t have double-meanings, and turn them around in YOUR head to say that I’m saying something that I’m not, it’s called dishonest. Some folks would call it a lie.
Now who has her knickers in a twist?

Where to start…You say; “Notice you don’t address how you have misread my intent” when I have never concerned myself with your intent. I only comment about your words. I leave the judging of people’s intentions to you.

Another bit of dishonesty. The only way to gauge my intent or to put it simply the message that I want to get across is through…wait for it….my words! There’s no other way to do it. You can’t see me or hear me. So, the actual words that I use to convey my intent are all you have to go by. That is what people use words for, you know. So, clearly you decided you disagree with the intent. That’s fine. Say so. Trash me if you want. But, be honest. The intent of that statement is to tell you to be the opposite of dishonest.

Jan,

I don’t understand how this is any different from what I’m saying. I have never advocated for lowered standards of behavior ( or, in general)for blacks. I just think we get a steady enough diet from the media as a whole of the negative with a small bit of attention paid to the postive. I and my circle of friends and colleagues are not criminals, welfare cheats or drug dealers. So, our direct experience is overwhelmingly positive. I live in the city. I see all the negative stuff. I just don’t think I need to wallow in it to combat it. What’s wrong with saying to those people out there (which is the majority of us, by the way), “Hey, I see you and appreciate you. Keep it up!”. What is so wrong about that?

LaShawn and Helio have a different tack than I do. This is her blog. She can do what she wants. But, I think for every newspaper that has a police blotter full of black faces, there should be a Jet Magazine or Black Enterprise magazine that features blacks of accomplishment. I had my parents to show me the way. A lot of these kids don’t have that. I think if they can see and read about successful blacks functioning in the real world, it can only improve things. I think role models have a positive effect.

If the goals of LaShawn and Helio are to change things, how is what I’m saying diametrically opposed to that? If you want to see or read about all the negative stuff, there are plenty of outlets for you. Do you think I want this nonsense that goes on out there to continue or worsen? That impacts me and my daughter because like it or not, people have a tendency to group all of us together. And, make assumptions about us based on negative stuff.

I still don’t see anywhere in any of my posts how you could read a defense of bad behavior. I’ve never done that. Not once. I don’t “defend at any cost”. I say , “Hey, look at this guy over here. He’s not a gangster! He’s a regular guy like you and me.” I also don’t separate myself from the mainstream. For the purposes of discussion it’s easier to talks in terms of “black” and “white”.
I do identify as black, by default. That’s not every part of me, but it’s the most visible.
I just have a different approach. I’m sorry you don’t like it.

Thanks, Tiffany. I wonder if I’m “speaking” English sometimes.

Tiffany,

I do…I most certainly do.

They don’t ‘get’ it because they don’t choose to ‘get’ it.