I'm with Yglesias on this stuff: stop whining, start hitting.

This election is making me insane. God, if the Democrats don't actually a) win control of at least one house, and b) actually use the victory to investigate and expose every damn last misdeed committed by this adminstration and congress, I will be furious.

Per this, and the other recent discussions here about style of argument, tone, etc., I thought Tim Burke's recent post was interesting:

In a way, what I think Americans might need most from their educational system is to better learn the arts and science of public reason, about how to form arguments and opinions and respect evidence. That’s not just about the health of the body politic or about how we sustain community. It’s also an economically valuable skill set, both for its social and its intellectual strengths.

You know, though, there's substantive hitting, and then there's this kind of disgusting crap. I'm all in favor of coming out swinging, but I think attacking Limbaugh/Coulter partially on the basis of being revolting excuses for human beings is a fair angle of attack.

It's fair but useless. Dems should be out there and calling them names and making rude and insupportable remarks about them.

making rude and insupportable remarks about them

If you're serious, I disagree.

Yeah, what about rude and supportable remarks? "Anyone who would make fun of someone because they're sick is a disgusting excuse for a human being who should be shunned. Hey Rush, you enjoy making fun of people who are too sick to slap you around for it like you deserve?"

6: I'm entirely serious. You people need to learn how to hate bone deep. Because a third of this country (or whatever the actual BTKWB number is) feels that way about you.

Bah. I'm Shia, we're martyrs. I'd rather suffer in Gitmo than stoop.

But seriously, (or, also seriously) there's aggressive political counterpunching, and then there's slime, and I don't think slime is necessary. Some portion of the population hates my guts, but there are also a lot of decent people in the world.

To what are you referring, Ogged?

Yeah, I don't really know what we're talking about now. Is it a question of whether liberals should be decrying Coulter and Limbaugh as pondscum? Who's not doing that now?

The focus should be on the ostensibly respectable media outlets that give Coulter a forum. We must invade their studios, kill their executives, and convert them to xianity.

and b) actually use the victory to investigate and expose every damn last misdeed committed by this adminstration and congress, I will be furious.

I want this too, but I think it's unrealistic to expect the investigations and exposure to go very far. Control of one house of Congress gives the Democrats a chance to apply the brakes to the worst excesses of this administration and the Republican party, but it doesn't actually give them that much power. I'd rather they choose the juiciest targets than launch into a 24/7 All Investigations, All The Time mode.

Building a relatively small majority in the House (and in the best case a razor thin one in the Senate) into an expectation that the Dems will Change The World is, I think, counterproductive.

Some portion of the population hates my guts, but there are also a lot of decent people in the world.

Somewhere between 62%-67% in this country, from the polls that I dimly recall. Which leaves, say, 34% of the country that holds indefensible positions. And let's be honest: generally, "decent" means that someone won't actually kick your teeth down your throat for no reason, but it doesn't mean that they'll object when someone else does it to you.

I should note that I'm extending Yglesias's argument way, way past the point that he makes and beyond which I think he would be willing to make. Which is to say that I've misappropriated his argument for my own needs.

11, etc. I think the problem is that some people tend to say "oooh, that's offensive" rather than say "Christ, what an asshole." I'm really baffled as to how Ann Coulter has a career, but what do I know?

To what are you referring, Ogged?

I took SCMT to be saying that we need to respond in kind to Coulter and Limbaugh, and I was disagreeing. Was that the confusing part?

ogged, I'm not at all sure what was confusing about your statement.

I'm generally agreed with Emerson that Dems try to stay above teh fray at their peril, and that we just need people who will fight hard.

I think that LB's point in 7 about "rude and supportable" remarks is a pretty good one. And Labs gets it right with, why aren't we just calling them assholes?

Having said that, I do think that this behavior is despicable, and I'm not sure that I want to be the one makign the return attacks myself.

BG, you saw that there's going to a Boston meetup, right?

At some poin, dsquared is going to turn up and berate you all.

It's long past time for one of Coulter's higher-profile targets to call her on her clown act and just say, "Ann Coulter is either insane or full of shit. What's the point in talking about her?" If you respond to these people as if they're legitimate (i.e., in the language of the offended), you just legitimize them.

17: I did, and I got your e-mail too. Thanks.

You people need to learn how to hate bone deep.

Never. I refuse. For the sake of my own well being I refuse. In fact, for the sake of my well being, I try very hard to hate less.

I took SCMT to be saying that we need to respond in kind to Coulter and Limbaugh, and I was disagreeing.

And you're wrong. From things David Brock has said, I understand that Coulter enjoyed her sex life. Good for her, but there has to be tape. Where is it? How have we not burned her to the fucking ground yet? Limbaugh--Jeebus. Fat boy with possibly fictive relationships with women and drug problems? That doesn't sound like at least the starting point for speculation that he was abused as a child? And, hey, what are the turnover rates for abused children->abuser of children? How fucking hard can this be?

Surely Democrats are competent to put together shadowy and well-financed groups to ask these questions. And since no shadow group that cannot be explicitly tied to the national party is mentioned in the same paragraph as the national party, there's minimal harm to the Democrats' reputation.

14: I think Coulter and the other shitheads have a career because our liberal representatives cannot frame an eloquent, coherent, and fact-based response. Whenever I see Donna Brazile or some other dumbass liberal representative on Chris Mathews, Crossfire, Tim Russert, etc. it honestly makes me scream. Almost without fail, they are unpreprared to counter either the Republican or talk show host's talking points (lies) with facts. Maybe I just do not understand the pressure of live television, but I don't think it's that difficult to call bullshit when you hear it and follow up with the facts.

Ultimately, maybe I am naive; I "believe" in reason, so I think eloquent and informed Democratic spokespeople can easily refute the shit that Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. produce. Our beloved New York Times even lauded Coulter's extensive research and footnotes for Slander (http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072202.shtml) If people knew how full of shit Limbaugh and Coulter really were, I really cannot imagine them being very successful. I think it is universal to be angry and embarassed when one realizes that one has been deceived. Unfortunately, no one (it certainly will not be big-wig media players because it is in their interests to keep the public misinformed, so it must be Democratic representatives) calls BS and follows up with facts.

22: Drug addiction, doctor-shopping and sex tourism haven't exactly ruined Limbaugh's career. What would you need to find/dig-up/invent to actually have the impact you're looking for? And even if you can get rid of Limbaugh, does it really matter? His listeners just go to Michael Savage or O'Reilly or some other thug with a studio. Cut off one head and two shall replace it. Limbaugh is the symptom, not the disease.

Almost without fail, they are unpreprared to counter either the Republican or talk show host's talking points (lies) with facts. Maybe I just do not understand the pressure of live television, but I don't think it's that difficult to call bullshit when you hear it and follow up with the facts.

It's very hard to say "You're lying" without sounding irrational -- a flat factual lie is incredibly difficult to refute to an audience that doesn't know the truth of the matter offhand. Remember the Bush Gore debates, where Gore pointed out, accurately and politely, that Bush's proposed budget numbers didn't come close to adding up, and Bush came back at him with "There you go with your fuzzy math"? That worked for Bush; the fact that his numbers really didn't add up never came back to hurt him.

Democratic spokespeople definitely should work harder to be better prepared and faster on their feet, but what you're asking them to do, refuting factual misstatements on the fly, isn't easy. It's very, very difficult to do convincingly.

Sometimes I wish duelling were still allowed.

'You sir, are a lying dog. I refute you and your tissue of lies with all possible vehemence and call upon you to attend me on Hampstead Heath tomorrow, at dawn. And bring your seconds.'

19: I disagree. I think it works with Dawkins position w.r.t. Creationists, but not w.r.t. politics. There are clear and well-known rules for determining the Evolution/Creation debate, so there is no point in responding to the Creation "argument" because it does not follow the rules of science (empiricism, experimentation, falsification, etc). You cannot speak science to someone who rejects science.

I don't think it works w.r.t. Coulter, politicians, and media pundits. There rules for determining who is right in a political situation are much more vague. There might not even be any. I, for one, would love to come up with rules that would arbitrate political arguments, but alas, I haven't yet started. Anyway, with Coulter, you must respond to her because most people will have no other way of determing whether she is correct or incorrect. Her technique is deceitful, but she is playing the game and she fits in. There are no standards that let you dismiss her outright. Scientists luckily have standards that allow them to dismiss people with supernatural arguments.

In the end, you must speak politics (a truthful fact-based one) to someone who embraces politics (a "Machiavellian" one).

Perhaps the only ones you can block out are the explicitly racists ones.

His listeners just go to Michael Savage or O'Reilly or some other thug with a studio. Cut off one head and two shall replace it. Limbaugh is the symptom, not the disease.

If that turns out to be true, that turns out to be true. It would still have the beneficial effect of reminding Dems how to hate deeply. Sometime in the last few months, I followed the links to a blog by guy who drives a taxi in NYC. He told the story of a young woman who burst into tears in the back of the cab. She was a Republican from Utah, she was afraid to let her friends know, and she was upset that she was hiding her political position, as she thought she was right (very right). On the one hand: nice story. OTOH, a Red Stater comes into our house, and all she's worried about is losing friends? She ought to be starting at shadows. What is she doing feeling comfortable in my country?

Paxman tore lumps out of Ann Coulter when she appeared on Newsnight, with a very simple tactic; he kept asking her if she believed in evolution. She stumbled, badly, because the answer is "yes, of course I do, I'm an educated human being, but I have to pretend that there is a genuine debate in order to sell my worthless fucking books to mouth-breathers in Shitland", but she can't say that for fear of affecting sales.

It also might be fun to point out that she has now written the same book four times.

Some portion of the population hates my guts, but there are also a lot of decent people in the world.

This morning on an e-mail list I subscribe to a Wiccan, after describing her commendable efforts working with battered women from Muslim families or whose partners were Muslim, went on to say of Islam generally, "I would like for the entire religion to be eradicated."

I mean--what's the world coming to when you can't even rely on the Wiccans for rainbows and unicorns?

Speaking of rainbows and unicorns, Rush Limbaugh needs a beating wrapped in a pretty package and tied with a bow. And having watched my father die in his own vomit of Parkinson's-related causes, I'd like to volunteer to deliver it to him.

25: Perhaps you are right. Being a lawyer I am sure you know the difficulties of presenting and responding to arguments on the fly. However, when you agree to appear on a television show, I expect our representatives to prepare a bit and bring notes. Maybe it's unseemly to read from notes (or maybe it's not even allowed on tv shows), but if you cannot remember the facts in your head, bring fucking notes.

RE: the Bush/Gore debates. I think you might be proving my point. If only we could go back in time and poll people BEFORE they heard the press commentary about what they thought about Gore's refuttal. I bet the public would have agreed that Gore did a marvelous job. In fact, I believe all instant polls revealed that Gore had trounced Bush. However, in the days that followed, the press just fucked him (and the public) over by confusing the numbers. And who didn't stick up for the facts? I will leave that to you.

Well.. actually I want to comment more, so I will not leave it to you. Perhaps Bush's lies would have come back to hurt him if our Democractic representatives in the media spent the minutes/hours/days/weeks after the debates clearly expressing the facts of the situation. Instead, we just get babble.

For example, why couldn't our Democratic representatives respond to the "He voted for the 87 billion after he voted against it" claim with the facts? Hello! There were two DIFFERENT bills. One was bad; One was at least less bad.

Ouch... I am dumb:

"Being a lawyer I am sure you know..."

"refuttal"?

I am dumb and dumber.

I am not a good example of how Democratic representatives should speak on television. I am making all this stuff up as I go along. I hope they prepare with notes.

Actually, I like "refuttal" as a portmanteau-word.

Me too.

Stem cell research as it relates to PD is not something that can be discussed on the merits in the forum of political debate. Stem cell research is very basic science and not anywhere close to application. While funding for all basic science is important as a long term policy but it's just silly that this particular issue is put before the public when there is crucial debate about things that have real consequences. It's like having the public vote on the angles of the mirrors in the Hubble telescope. It's a red herring and though it may end up falling in our favor, it may hurt us in the long run because it diverts attention from things like health care and the war.

What I'm really saying is that trotting out Fox is stooping to the Ann level.

stooping to the Ann level.

Hardly. And what hurts us in the long run is having the Republicans win elections, regardless of how technically correct either side's campaign commercials are judged to be.

Stem cell research is very basic science

That either will or will not happen as it should, depending on public funding, which, for better or worse, the public has to decide about.

What I'm really saying is that trotting out Fox is stooping to the Ann level.

Fox isn't being "trotted" out. He's rich, he has a choice, he's not an idiot. He made this ad, and he's made a similar for a Republican, because he wants more funding and leeway for researchers.

Are you an idiot, or a liar?

It's an area of basic research which has the potential for producing cures for diseases like the one that afflicts Fox. Current federal regulations make it impossible to do research in this area if your lab accepts any federal funding, which covers essentially all research labs in the US.

What on earth do you think is wrong, shameful, or Coulter-like about what Fox did?

Oh, I am enjoying this thread, especially SCMT. "Learning to hate deeply" can be about committment. Do I care more about reason fairness my self image than ending the war? Over at hilzoy's I ended a comment with Botvinnik's rule:"Chess is about sacrifice."

I do lots of things, experiment and play. I notice that if I talk about Bakunin and nationalizing industries on most boards I get ignored, whereas the usual right wing trolls get engaged. I am honestly just trying to increase the tension by attacking from the left. I would welcome feminists and ethnics helping out. I am not very good at it.

Yeah, pretty much a Situationist by nature. Let's just blow the whole thing up. I got lots more, some oh which makes a little sense.

Incidentally, I think I write pre-literate as an irritant in places where grammar marks status. Some of what I do is intuition.

21: Emotional well-being isn't really worth it. Ask McManus if you don't believe me. After a few weeks you won't even miss it.

True, that Fox is not stupid. He's a great spokesperson for PD who has raised many funds for research and put the disease on the map for the public in an effective way. However, stem cell research is not the sort of pressing policy issue that will get democrats elected. The technical merits of an election campaign do matter. I think the democrats made a big mistake in '04 by focusing on side issues, ones that brought the wrong kind of voter to the polls. In this case, the public has been oversold the promise of a panacea of stem cell research, especially as it pertains to particular diseases. There is no indication that stem cells will provide a cure for PD. All recent research is pointing to PD and other movement disorders as mitochondrial in origin.

How much will funding for basic science be affected by the outcome of this election? Very little, if any.
The Fox Foundation may benefit and I'm absolutely supportive of that. (My husband has PD.)

I'll grant that the voters may see this issue only as a proxy for more government support of basic research, in which case it's all for the better.

What on earth were you talking about saying that Fox was "stooping to the Ann level"? Was he lying about anything? Was he attacking anyone wrongfully? What did you mean?

(My husband has PD.)

That sucks. My best to your husband.

And it's not about "more government support of basic research". It's about ending a ban on a particular area of basic research in any research laboratory that receives any federal funding, which is all of them. You appear to know so little about this issue that I'm not sure of why you're bothering to express an opinion.

Y, whether or not featuring Fox was good strategy, and whether or not funding stem cell research is a good idea and should be a political issue, featuring Fox was not "sinking to the Coulter level." There's slippage in your argument.

Stem cells is a proxy for "Christian maniacs going too far."

It's also worth pointing out that Fox endorsing one candidate for supporting federal funding for research that he thinks might help isn't exclusive with also having a platform that cares about health care and the Iraq war. Unless this is the entirety of the Democratic platform, which would be nice, as it would get the rest of these clowns off of my television. (Getting sick of the political ads here.)

Current federal regulations make it impossible to do research in this area if your lab accepts any federal funding.

I don't believe that's correct. According to this statement from NIH one can in work with 'ineligible' stem cells and indeed may derive new embryonic stem cells in an NIH-funded lab provided that a) direct costs are charged to a non-governmental source, and b) accounting procedures are in place to ascribe the appropriate indirect costs to a non-federal source.

43:"Emotional well-being isn't really worth it"

I don't even know what this means. What have I to do with happiness? I have my work to do.

"Stem cells is a proxy for "Christian maniacs going too far."

Yes. Though it's the White House that has instituted the funding ban. And it's bizarre, including the separation and duplication of laboratory efforts in order to keep private money and public money seperate.

This is a hot-button issue for christian maniacs more so than for rational voters. Putting this as an issue in an election is going to bring the maniacs to the polls. Because they strongly believe that stem cell research is a philosophical issue (ie harvesting of human life) while diseases like PD are sad evidence of life.

My understanding is that the accounting separation necessary to work on 'ineligible' stem cells is practically prohibitive; an entirely separate laboratory and funding structure would need to be created. I'll see if I can find a supportive link.

Serious question- where did Coulter come from. I know Rush's trajectory. He did some small market stuff, then syndicated. There was an obvious market for his schtick, and it is schtick. The problem is that many of his listeners don't see it as a bit, but as coming from the mouth og God. But Coulter must have written something intelligent at one time, because she didn't spring forth from the forehead of Zeus.

While prohibitive may be overstated, here's a memo stating that equipment cannot be shared between a laboratory doing stem-cell research and one receiving federal funding.

Hey, Y, what were you talking about when you suggested Fox was sinking to Coulter's level? Because if you don't mean that sort of thing, you really shouldn't say it.

54: IIRC, she went Michigan Law, and worked for Justice Thomas. I don't know why she jumped to the Dartmouth Review crowd, except that they were all in DC in the 80s.

Wiki on Coulter.

Wasn't she (this is a vague recollection, rather than anything more specific) involved in the American Spectator's Arkansas Project? I have a sense that she got her start as a lawyer digging for filthy stories about Clinton.

"What on earth were you talking about saying that Fox was "stooping to the Ann level"? Was he lying about anything?"

The promise of a cure for PD from embryonic stem cell research is technically a lie. I suppose it's not Ann-like in the sense that it is a hopeful lie and a lie for a good cause.

Care to back up that "technically a lie" bit? Seriously, I haven't ever seen anything suggesting that embryonic stem cell research does not have potential to relate to a cure for Parkinson's. You seem knowledgable about Parkinson's, given your family connection, and you're calling Fox a liar over it, so I assume you have a supportive link at your fingertips.

If you're right that this is a non-controversial fact about embryonic stem cell research and Parkinson's, I, like you, think less of Fox for misrepresenting the facts of the matter. I'd appreciate some backup so I know whether to take your claim seriously.

Y, there are plenty of mainstream people who are getting tired of the Christian right. The people on the ground in Missouri, a centrist state, judged that the ad would work, and there's evidence that they were right. I really, really, really doubt that your judgement is better than theirs, though they still could have judged wrongly.

Frankly, the vividness of your assertions, together with their weak grounding, together with the issue slippage whenever you are confronted, are coming very close to putting you in your own unique passive-aggressive subspecies niche of the contrarian species of people whom I think it's more reasonable to insult than to argue with.

a misguided lie (if that's what it is) does not get someone even CLOSE to Ann Coulter levels, Y.

That's like saying Ogged slapping w-lfs-n is stooping to Ahmendadijaddaerakdjf levels.

I wonder if in the need for attention/ headlines/ ad revenue more attention is paid to outrageous statements than to "truth". It is up to the reader/ listener to discern.

The National Parkinson Foundation has this to say on the matter:

There is still considerable hope for the development of effective neurorestorative/neuroregenerative therapies including novel gene therapies and other cell-based therapies (possibly including stem cells).

So Y. must be talking about some really recent research, that the National Parkinson Foundation hasn't got yet, that shows that stem cell research has nothing to do with treatments for Parkinson's disease. Or perhaps Y. is simply confused.

"Stem cells is a proxy for "Christian maniacs going too far."

Yes. Though it's the White House that has instituted the funding ban.

"Though"? Bush is a Christian maniac, and the Rs generally have decided to pander to the Christian maniacs.

Those silly, silly people at the National Parkinson Foundation are even still giving out grants for stem cell research, this year:

Lachlan Thompson, Ph.D. - Wallenberg Neuroscience Center, Lund University "Identification and selective isolation of dopamine neuron progenitors from foetal midbrain for transplantation in animal models of Parkinson's disease" The foetal midbrain contains a highly mixed population of cells in various states of differentiation including, for example: proliferating stem cells, progenitor cells and more mature neurons and glia. Following transplantation, some of these cells give rise to the dopaminergic neurons that can very effectively restore motor function in PD patients. In order to identify these cells, this project makes use of a variety of transgenic reporter mice in which green fluorescent protein is expressed only in certain cell types at specific stages of differentiation within the foetal midbrain. Through the technique of 'fluorescence activated cell sorting (FACS)', this will allow the researchers to selectively isolate sub-fractions of cells from the foetal midbrain, based on their differentiation state, and identify which cell type is best suited to giving rise to mature dopamine neurons following transplantation. The results from this project will be highly relevant for current efforts in the field to develop safe and effective protocols for transplantation therapy of PD using embryonic stem (ES) cells, where there is likely to be a need to obtain purified populations of transplantable dopamine neuron progenitors from mixed preparations of expanded ES cells.

I should have gone with "hitler" in my 63. The Mexican President hasn't, AFAIK, done anything, really.

I don't think that anyone is saying that stem cell research will not possibly lead to any important medical benefit. Obviously we can't be sure what that benefit will be, and if the most recent science tells us that it won't be with Parkinson's, all that means is that the wrong poster child was chosen back when we had less information.

The real issue is fundamentalists meddling stupidly in government funding of science. Among Y's several unadmirable traits is an inability to see the forest for the trees.

My strong impression after a little googling is that Y. is simply mistaken about the relationship between stem cell research and Parkinson's. Not that a cure is guaranteed -- we're talking about research here -- but that it's still an active area of inquiry.

I can't imagine why Y. thought it was appropriate to call Fox a liar in an area where Y.'s own knowledge seems somewhat vague and poorly supported.

(It's possible that Y. is going to come up with some absolutely convincing link, showing that the National Parkinson Foundation is wrong to still think that stem cells are an active area of Parkinson's research. But I'm not holding my breath.)

From ogged's Ann Coulter wiki link in 57:

She has reportedly dated . . . HBO talk show host Bill Maher

"Technically a lie" is obviously too strong. Stem cells are an exceptionally promising technology, with the *potential* to do many things. I suspect Y is responding viscerally to what she perceives as the over-selling of the near-term clinical potential of stem-cell technology. Which, given that her husband suffers from the disease, is understandable.

And not to belabor the point, but the idea that NIH regualtions make doing stem cell work in a federal funded lab impossible/impracticable seems less an overstatement than flatly incorrect. I just emailed a friend in the area, and the process he describes is no doubt a hassle: direct costs are tracked, and cap ex is broken down by utilization. This isn't ideal, but is well within the capabilities of any institution with good accounting procedures. Interestingly, in his account the notion that stem cell work can imperil unrelated NIH funding, although incorrect, has had a chilling effect. Some academics become nervous, and shy away.

LB, I did a bit of googling too, and I think what the NPF is giving a grant for is a proposed use of stem cells to help with the effects of Parkinson's - but not to cure it.

Of Course, M. Fox did not at all claim that stem cells research would cure Parkinson's. (technically all he said was it "mattered to him")

72: Yeah, what I was finding leaned more toward difficult and chilling than impossible; I had gotten the wrong impression. Thanks for straightening me out.

Feel the comity!

That by the way, was my way of saying that my 72 now seems to me phrased needlessly harshly, not an attempt to double-down!

The real, issue, of course is that Fox is using his Parksinon's to shield the fact that's he's pro-Clone and pro-Animal-Human Hybrid!!

What fucking earthly good does it do to fantasize about how to ruin Ann Coulter's reputation? If what she's said already won't do it, then you're up against an architecture of public discourse that is completely immobile. If you just pretend, literally, that she doesn't exist, like you just put her on an /ignore list in a computer game, then you still have to deal with her spill-over, sure (e.g. all the people who quote her and talk about her and talk back to her). But ignore that too, and what do you get? The same place you get if you run around trying to figure out how to most effectively call her for what she is, a malicious know-nothing whose fondest career ambition would be becoming Goebbels someday.

It is not as if by ignoring her we fail to counter her destructiveness within public discourse. The people who are convinced by her, like her, buy her books slavishly, would be convinced by her, like her, buy her books slavishly, if there was a tape of her on TV running on a constant loop that showed her having sex with Osama bin Laden while worshipping Satan. The tape would be deemed a media hoax, or we'd get essays from the cultural right about how freedom demands allowing Satanistic sex with terrorists, or asking why liberals tolerate Satantic child molesters in their own ranks. Or at best she would slink into the same has-been bin as Wally George and another Ann Coulter would rise into the same prefixed place.

This is why I have my own obsessions about public reason: I figure the only thing you can hope to do is the construct some larger way of being and talking in the public sphere that a sufficiently large majority of folks regard as the ground floor of basic decency that kicks someone like Coulter back into the marginalia. We've always had our Father Coughlins, after all: the thing you want is for them to be seen as vaguely indecent for normal folks. You can't get there by going on the teevee and out Coulter-ing Coulter. All that does is get the people who hate her already, for good reason, to touch themselves in their special places and feel good. Which I'm not knocking, but let's not oversell how much you can accomplish with masturbation.

Don't worry about the harshness -- considering that I made an exaggerated claim of fact in the midst of calling Y. out for making what appears to me on the basis of what I've been able to find a false claim of fact (that Fox could fairly be construed as 'lying' on the subject of Parkinson's and stem cell research) I'm surprised that you didn't come down on me harder. Left myself wide open there.

52 - You realize, of course, that the Missouri stem cell amendment, which forbids the state legislature from placing restrictions on stem cell research beyond those in federal law, has the support of something like 64% of registered voters in the state? Beyond the rightness and wrongness of supporting stem cell research as a policy, it's a classic wedge issue -- something Republicans can't support because their base would eat them whole, but something which moderate voters support and some feel very deeply about.

And beyond that, Fox's ad was very carefully scripted. He doesn't say that stem cell research will cure Parkinson's. "Unfortunately, Senator Jim Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. Senator Talent even wanted to criminalize the science that gives us a chance for hope." It's a honest and brutally effective ad -- of course the Republicans are trying to muddy the waters around it.

Go to hell, baa. Why should the government monkeywrench scientific research? Why should the President of the US stand up in public and make dishonest imbecile statements about stem cells. Why should this be a big issue at all? Why should such an enormous effort be put into rulings and laws whose big selling point is that they only do a moderate amount of harm? Why should people not be angry at the morons, con men, and fanatics who have put us through this dog and pony show? Why shouldn't people who care about the issue talk about it? And why should someone like Michael Fox who takes the risk of talking about the issue in public be ridiculed and mimicked by your fellow-Republican Rush Limbaugh? And why should the moron Couric give Fox the third degree instead of Limbaugh? Why are neither you Republicans nor the national media angry about this, thus making it a partisan issue?

And why do you cherry-pick the issue to find the one little patch where your Republican opinion isn't disgusting and stupid, and try to get us to talk about that one little patch?

78:

1) "If what she's said already won't do it, then you're up against an architecture of public discourse that is completely immobile."

2) "I figure the only thing you can hope to do is the construct some larger way of being and talking in the public sphere" ??

3) "Which I'm not knocking, but let's not oversell how much you can accomplish with masturbation."

Just funning ya, Mr Burke.

Different strokes for different folks, Bob.

I really think that a new alternative media is needed. Minimally a national newspaper and a national TV or cable network, and a larger Air America.

One of the reasons I more or less gave up on the Democrats and the so-called left is that no one at any level has ever picked up on that idea. People are still begging the media czars to do the right thing. But the media czars aren't going to do the right thing. They like the media the way they've made it. the people whose names you know are just lackeys.

79: But Alamedia told me it was a moral imperative to be extra-nice to women -- or at least I think that was the gist of it...

Tim Burke, as per usual, is making sense. If people are irredeemable loons, the best thing to do is ignore them, or cite them to embarass people who are nominally "on their side."

You have weird issues with Burke that you ought to work out, Bob. A blog can be good for that.

81:What, do think you are polarizing the discourse, Emerson? Drive baa away to his right-wing haunts so we can have productive conversations over here? I think you may make some feel sorry for baa. He is a human being, ya know.

Note:I don't and you haven't seem me discuss Coulter & Limbaugh. Waste of time. They don't exist for me. I don't accept them as human beings, at least until given the opportunity and responsibility when the judgement would be immediate and important.

On the local level in Massachusetts I'm feeling a bit burned on the stem cell issue.

In the Democratic primary Chris Gabrieli was going on and on about the importance of stem-cell research. He had these campaign commercials on which talked about how any candidate who failed to support direct funding of stem cell research on the part of teh Commonwealth of Massachusetts had it in for a particular family whose child suffered from some disease.

Gabrieli's background as a venture capitalist is in biotech related industries, so I'm a little suspicious of the purity of his motvies. (Or I was until the Republican Lt. Governor Kerry Healey ran ads attacking him for his proposals.)

Meanwhile, he said that of course he supported expanded access to healthcare, so long as it was affordable. And, of course, health care costs always rise, so it's never affordable, and assessing emplyers with more than 10 employees a $295 annual charge per employee if they don't provide coverage would be prohibitive and cost the state jobs.

In Massachusetts it's turned into stem cell research/ business types vs. social justice sorts.

Was it McManus who said that focusing on this stuff would dissuade a lot of ordinary voters? I believe in funding basic research (at the Federal level; I'm not sure that States are competent to do it), but the promsie of medical cures, which may or may not materialize, for rare and complicated diseases is not likely to motivate people who are having trouble paying to see a doctor.

"You have weird issues with Burke that you ought to work out, Bob. A blog can be good for that."

They aren't particularly "weird issues". I am in a constant critique of liberalism, which doesn't mean I have yet enthusiastically abandoned it. Tim and Berube and others are passionate defenders of liberalism. I don't really see it as personal, and I hope Tim doesn't either.

Republicanism is theoretically curable, but first you have to realize you're sick. Republicans aren't doomed by an accident of birth to be the way they are. I do bite my tongue a lot around here, but I can't always do it.

But there's no reason at all to think of stem cell research as more opposed to the provision of basic health care than highway funding, or law enforcement, or farm subsidies. They're two separate things -- basic research in an interesting and possibly productive area, and social programs providing health care -- both of which appear to me to be worth funding.

88: I can't say how Fox's ad is playing out in all locales (I suspect in Maryland it's mostly meant to remind people that Steele is pro-life and of a gaffe he made where he compared stem cell research to the Holocaust in front of a Jewish group), but it's particularly relevant in Missouri this year, since there's a constitutional amendment on the subject up for referendum.

Timothy Burke has it exactly right in 78. As usual.

I'll take that as saying that you haven't got any support to point to for having called Fox a liar.

Why did you?

Those Healey adds were appalling. They were also stupid. Why she wanted to face Patrick, I'll never understand.

91: No real reason at all. I'm just admitting that I have a kind of irrational bias about the relative importance of the issue lurking below the surface. It just seems like a soccer-mom issue in a lot of ways, but stem cell research is, in fact, a lot more important than the V-chip.

And at the state level, where we have a flat income tax which can't be made progressive without some sort of Constitutinal amendment our non-property tax resources are really finite indeed. If Weston wants to fund stem-cell research, let them do it.

Most of my concerns do not apply at the Federal level, and I do , in fact, support NIH funding of stem cell research.

Naw, not personal: it's a familiar kind of disagreement to me, which is probably why I anticipate it as much as I do--I'm always thinking about the radical answer to the liberal position, partly because once upon a time I was more likely to do the former than the latter.

The only reason the right is upset about the ads is that they're startlingly good ads, propaganda-wise. He isn't lying. Stem cell research might not provide a cure, but that's why we do the research.

It would be funny to hear all the squawking about how its unfair because he's an ACTOR and ILL and you can't criticize ILL PEOPLE and only Democrats exploit people's emotions if it didn't make me despair that this country isn't going to get anywhere because half of it thinks an entertainer on clearchannel is the fucking second coming.

Tim, the significant thing about Ann Coulter is that she is treated as a respectable figure by the national media. It's not about her personally. The problem is much worse than a few wackos (Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh,et al) and the 20% or so of the populace which agrees with them. There's another 10% or so wich disavow them, while happily letting them carry water for the Republicans. There's another 10-20% of zombies and cynics (especially in the media) who are non-commital. It's not just the hard right 30%; the moderates and professional media in this country are pretty sick too.

The point of #82 is that I don't quite understand how sentence 2) is not contradicted by sentence 1).

I should ask, but hey, I do some wortk myself. Now perhaps Burke would bypass the "immobile architecture" with an expansion of the public discourse to those currently outside of it by choice, disillusionment, or lack of means. Maybe there is the resolution of the contradiction.

But if we are creating new conversations outside of the institutional heirarchies, then why would we want to use them simply as new tools within the heirarchy? As it always does, the liberal heirarchy will eat the new organizations and structures. That is how it feeds. NARAL actually was a good idea once.

Yeah, the power of a celebrity face is really kind of horrifying. I don't feel bad about our side using it -- the Republicans certainly don't hesitate -- but the fact that it's so effective is worrisome.

99: Right. It's not just that Coulter should be beyond the pale, it's that there's something really wrong with people who don't recognize that fact. She gets treated by the media as if she were a respectable pundit.

101. Not ti disagree with your point, LB, because I don't, but to which Republican celebrity face are you referring? Most "names" are outspoken Dems. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I mean, what am I seeing on the Web today? The blogs are discussing MJF/Limbaugh, Webb novels, attack ads on Ford...much the same topics as the MSM. The blogosphere doesn't play the Missing White Female stories, but to a large extent the blogosphere is already an extension of the MSM.

The liberal culture state incorporates all, and doesn't really mind how you play, as long as you play on their ballfield.

It's all part of the gradual Fox News-ification of the American media. I don't know anything about Matt Lauer's politics, but he showed no compunction about regurgitating Limbaugh's disgraceful attacks and pressing Fox on whether he was exaggerating for effect. The filter that makes people stop and say to themselves, "Wait, is this news? Or am I just being an asshole on national television?" has been detached, because ignoring news and being an asshole on television is now seen as a legitimate option. When did this start? Was it the parade of buffoonery around Clinton, credulously hyped by the media? Because at this point, telling even obvious lies (Cong. Mike Fitzpatrick has an attack ad up now accusing his opponent, West Point law prof and former special prosecutor Patrick Murphy, of not being a former special prosecutor, for God's sake) has no drawbacks; huge swaths of the media will teach the controversy rather than simply saying that you're telling lies.

The stem-cell vs. social-justice stuff absolutely exists, at least out here in California. The local VCs got the voters to give them billions of dollars with essentially no oversight by pushing the stem-cell research button, and are trying to do the same thing with alternative energy. I'd think it's much harder for "cheap healthcare for all" to be subverted in this way, but then there's Medicare Part D, so I dunno.

The Michael J. Fox ad was pure political genius, and whoever says otherwise is just bitter.

103: Hi, Governor Schwarzenegger! Seriously, that's who I was thinking of. I suppose Charlton Heston in the fairly recent past, all the country-music superpatriots like Toby Keith... Neither side is celebrity-free. It's not particularly wrong, or out of line anyhow, for the parties to do this sort of thing, but it bothers me that it works so well.

I don't disagree, Bob, except you seem to believe that there's an alternative. It would have been nice. Shit, it would be nice if we had a full two-party system around here. We're up to a 1.8 party system by now, which is a big improvement over 3 years or so ago.

It hasn't been spelled out, but Kos Democrats are TNR Democrats on the issues, except for the Iraq War and Israel. (At least the Kos Democrats are spunky on strategy and tactics.) Everybody's always saying that they're "not really all that liberal", and they don't mean that they're radical like you and the former me.

I'm now a member of Hasek's "Party of Moderate Progress within the Bounds of the Law", whose main political action of drinking bouts. It's like dada except much more lowlife.

Bitter because they got served, I mean.

Have I mentioned that I really don't miss television, especially in October of even-numbered years?

Emerson is on a roll.

I didn't know that Deval Patrick's father was in Sun Ra's Arkestra.

108:"I don't disagree, Bob, except you seem to believe that there's an alternative"

I had this whole long section from the Eley book I am reading about Red Vienna and how urban socialism 1910-45 in Austria, Germany, Scandanavia, and England empowered women and "women's issues", made them political players, and thereby broadened the socialist base and made social democracies possible in those places. But I am trollish and OT enough.

In America the US President is more important to an individual than her mayor. But she has little direct influence with the President, and so little motivation to become active and organized in politics. Instead, she is told to work thru her "liberal institutions" and the Party heirarchy, which is coincidentally dominated by men, and coincidentally seems to serve national corporate and military interests.

Now she could try to organize locally, but what is the point? Burke and the other liberals want to make health care and child care and abortion national institutions and issues, and seeing as liberals control the useful institutions, she has no alternative.

Liberalism is the number one enemy of socialism.

Recommended: "Good Soldier Svejk" / "Schweik".

105 sums up a major source of my misery nicely. Ugh. It really makes me despair, all the more so when I go to the airport or spots on campus where they have TVs showing what I assume the people in charge think is broadly-acceptable and neutral programming: CNN. Why do I have to listen to Glenn Beck just because my flight has been delayed?

The Fox News store at Dulles also gets my goat, probably more than it really ought to.

re: 113

You're missing a ha?ek in Švejk.*

* I like the fact that the word ha?ek contains a ha?ek.

I'm starting to feel like Democratic politicians are finally realizing that no matter how virtuous a Democratic candidate is, he is going to be treated by Republicans and the media as if he actually had eaten those babies he is accused of eating. What with this week's controversies being "CNN Poll: Should Jim Webb apologize for being a novelist?" and "CNN Poll: Should Claire McCaskill apologize for allowing Michael J. Fox to take medication that allows him to talk?", I think the message is finally getting across.

Of course, this should have been obvious as soon as the Swift Boat thing happened, but now that it's happening in every race in the country, it should be seen as inevitable. The problem, though, is that the constant negative campaigns of lies are not going to just fade into ignored background noise unless the Democrats start doing it too.

What's really hilarious in an insane way is that the anti-stem-cell research ad that's running in Missouri also features an actor: Mel Gibson's Movie Jesus, speaking in Aramaic. Although he's wearing modern dress. Is it God or just some guy? So confusing. Plus baseball players, known throughout America for their acute political insight and ability to read a prompter in an almost natural manner.

What's really hilarious in an insane way is that the anti-stem-cell research ad that's running in Missouri also features an actor: Mel Gibson's Movie Jesus, speaking in Aramaic.

Even better, mcmc: in Aramaic, Hollywood Jesus is saying "You betray me with a kiss."

ttaM: You Czech bitch.

Now, now, John, he's only Czech by marriage.

ttaM: You dhimmi slave of a Czech bitch.

Czechs are Muslim now?

(It's possible that Y. is going to come up with some absolutely convincing link, showing that the National Parkinson Foundation is wrong to still think that stem cells are an active area of Parkinson's research. But I'm not holding my breath.)

Yeah, don't. Long story short, Parkinsons appears linked to a defect on chromosome 4, which eventually screws up dopamine producing cells in mid brain.

And where might we find replacements lacking that defect?

FUCKING STEM CELLS.

Work on this is ongoing, but recent stuff suggests the mix of cells is going to be tricky. Layman friendly recent news below.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1023/1

"And where might we find replacements lacking that defect? FUCKING STEM CELLS."

Or neural stem cells (from the patient) or fetal stem cells, or therapeutic clone cells, or any cell that can be differentiated into neural dopamine producing cells. That's been done many times. The problem is in the therapeutic use of such cells. There are a host of attendant issues, like tumorigenicity and immune rejection, to overcome. Those problems are of such an enormous magnitude and scope that when they are solved, the question of embryonic stem cells will no no longer be an issue.

ESC research will become commonplace soon enough unless it is made into a ridiculously important public policy issue.

The Czechs' plan for world domination is not widely known. ttaM is only the first to experience the humiliation the drunken, resentful Czechs wish to inflict of what they call "Rome" -- i.e., the whole civilized world.

I guess I should mention that I have joined them, via the "Party of Moderate Justice within the Limits of the Law". My jibe at ttaM was a friendly message from one dhimmi to another.

Those problems are of such an enormous magnitude and scope that when they are solved, the question of embryonic stem cells will no no longer be an issue.

It's ridiculous to say these problems with ESC are of enormous magnitude when so few people are working on them due to poor funding.

ESC research will become commonplace soon enough unless it is made into a ridiculously important public policy issue.

Well, no. Generalized undirected research can only really be done with public funding. It's just too expensive for private companies to step in.

ESC research will become commonplace soon enough unless it is made into a ridiculously important public policy issue.

Y, you're a total waste of time.

The issue here is imbecile fundamentalist interference in government funding of stem cell scientific research.

It's not any of the chickenshit little quibbles you think it might be. No one cares what you think. You have a certain amount of scientific knowledge, apparently, but your mind is worthless when it comes to discussing political issues of any significance. You're a political idiot and complete waste of time, if you're not a troll.

You simply have no knowledge or understanding of politics, and your habit of presenting your ignorance and misinterpretation of politics as intelligent commentary is incredibly brassy. You don't know what you're talking about, and don't seem to care about that.

Go away.

"It's ridiculous to say these problems with ESC are of enormous magnitude when so few people are working on them due to poor funding. "

Oh, nonsense. There is a large area of research into the specific questions. Many different cell and disease models allow that type of research. And it receives federal funding. I want to make a distinction between stem cells and embryonic stem cells. There are progenitor cells for most tissues in the human body that are stem cells. These are differentiated along a path toward specific ectoderm or endoderm, etc. lineages. There are viable cells from early development that don't involve destruction of an embryo. Umbilical cord stem cells, for example. There is a tremendous amount of research with stem cells. There is also a lot of research on non-human embryonic stem cells. All of these cells can be induced to differentiate into specific neural fates. Embryonic stem cells, in particular, are highly useful because most of them are totipotent. They can be differentiated into cells of any type. However, since those cells are obtained from an embryo, any cells derived from those cells will carry the immune recognition antigens that is coded by the cells in that embryo. For cells with neural fates, however, any progenitor to that fate can be used. To diminish allograft rejection, neural stem cells from the patient are best used. Or nuclear transfer of patient cells into an ovum (cloning).

There are great prospects in cloning adult cells for therapeutic purposes, this would eliminate problems with immune rejection and bypass the ethics of embryo use. The public is probably more worried about cloning however.

Y, you're an idiot. Get your ass over to a biology site and talk about cloning there. This is not a biology site. This is a political site with mucho added snark. Some of us may be interested in the biological information you are sharing, but it's off topic.

The topics here are really basic. #1, "Might fetal stem cell research ever contribute to any important medical purpose?", and #2 "Isn't moron fundamentalist interference with government funding of fetal stem cell research a very bad thing?"

If your answer to these two questions is yes, then you agree with us and need say nothing.

Your ruminations about political strategies, etc., are irrelevant because you're a total political idiot and should shut up forever about politics.

"Generalized undirected research can only really be done with public funding. It's just too expensive for private companies to step in. "

Oh, I agree. California has stepped to the plate with state funding. I don't mean that the private sector will eventually take over. I think that the government will relent when the prospects of therapeutic effectiveness becomes evident. Right now, it's a cheap pander by the administration to the religious right. Given enough false advertising to the voting public for public policy on ESC, votes could swing the other way, resulting in state bans on ESC research.

ESC research is not common at all relative to other types of basic facilities like the fish and mouse type labs. Go wander a few research universities, or browse their department sites.

Sure, at this point it appears "neural stem cells from the patient are best used". But this gets self fulfilling. How the fuck are we supposed to get an idea of the potential of ESC when religious jackoff's are allowed to impede funding? That's the whole point of putting a bunch of money into undirected research.

And yeah, cloning holds a great deal of promise. Promise that should be being explored right now, except for those fucking nutcases interfering with policy.

Emerson's dead right about you.

I think that the government will relent when the prospects of therapeutic effectiveness becomes evident.

You think this is a scientific debate with these people? You think they're going to back off creationism because of the overwhelming evidence for evolution?

This is a political site with mucho added snark.

Is it? It seems like a snarky site with a fair bit of miscellany and a fair bit of politics mixed in, in varying proportions depending on the hour of the day and who's posting.

Emerson's fine.

I've been reading him here, there, and everywhere for a couple of years now and he's one of the few people who can consistently make me chuckle.

All this talk of the great Czech conspiracy reminds me of the joke about the first Czech heart transplant, from memory the third or fourth in the world, so still news.

Dick West, a journalistic mentor of mine, was there at the time, and discovered how the donor came to offer himself: he was, as sometimes happened in Czechoslovakia under really existing socialism, a married man screwing someone else's wife. The someone else came home unexpectedly. The prospective donor fled through a window and managed somehow to impale himself (on broken glass? on railings? I forget the details).

In any case, he was dead; his heart was young and fit; he was swiftly cut open and the transplant performed. This made him, Dick observed, the first man in history to have had two different vital organs throbbing away inside two different women on the same day.

"he was, as sometimes happened in Czechoslovakia under really existing socialism, a married man screwing someone else's wife."

That's one of those clichés, as portrayed in Kundera novels, that, as far as I can tell, turns out to be true. It's a nation of blackly comic adulterous bureaucrats.

I concede defeat. Y's political deafness and passive-aggressive fake rationality are like kryptonite. There is no weak spot in her armor. What she says is nonsense, but the presentation is impeccable. Her ability to move on imperturbably while ignoring all points made against her is worthy of Bush himself.

She still hasn't explained how Michael Fox is just as bad as Coulter, though she has implied that people like him who politicize stem cell politics are negative forces standing in the way of medical research. Bad Michael!

Jake is correct that this is really a snark site with a bit of politics. My intended point was just that it not a biology site. There are biology sites out there, for example at Scienceblogs, but I doubt that Y posts on them -- either because what she says is truistic and people would sa "Duh", or else because it's false. But I'm not a biologist.

Hey, Y. Did you ever come up for any explanation for why you thought it was correct or appropriate for you to call Fox a liar?

Really, I think you're disgustingly dishonest and evasive. You tried to make Limbaugh's shameful attack on Fox sound reasonable; instead, you made yourself look like exactly the same sort of asshole Limbaugh is, only more of a coward about it. I see no reason that anyone should listen to a damn thing you say.

LB- is this a particularly sensitive issue for you? I don't recall you reacting with such hostility* to many (any?) commenters in the past, even trollish ones. Not saying I disagree with you on the merits, I was just caught off guard by your tone. (Starting very early in this thread.)

* I say this with much trepidation given recent discussions, but I think it's justified.

No, it's that Y. is dishonest in a particular way that really gets my hackles up. She came into this thread claiming to know a lot about Parkinson's research, and to, on the basis of that knowledge, say that while she really sympathized with Fox, he was lying about the relationship between stem cell research and Parkinson's. What a shame it is that the cold hard facts show Fox to be a liar, she's really on his side, but honesty requires that she call him out.

This was untrue. Embryonic stem cell research is an active area of Parkinson's research. Normal people, when you point out that they are under a misapprehension of fact, and the real facts are actually in line with what they'd like to be true (after all, Y. sympathizes with Fox; she should be happy to find that he's not a liar on this issue) acknowledge their error and are happy about it. Y, instead, puts out a cloud of ink like a cuttlefish.

I am of the firm opinion that Y. is lying not only about whatever facts she thinks she can get away with, but about her political opinions. (Oh, or she could just be trolling for non-ideological reasons, for the hell of it.)

I'll argue all day with people I disagree with, as long as they're arguing honestly, and I'll keep my temper about it as best as I can. Dishonest assholes like Y., on the other hand, aren't worth my or anyone else's attention or time.

Y is unique in my experience too. I have never before encountered her particular mix of contrarianism, evasiveness, imperturbability, and rationality-speak, and she's especially frustrating because she has not tipped her hand as to any actual overall point of view.

Turing test.

Oh, I think she has. The pattern of what she lies about indicates to me that she's either a right-wing apologist or a non-ideological troll acting like one. It's the only way the "Honestly, guys, I agree with you about the political issues, but what a shame it is that the hard cold facts indict the Democrats as dishonest and counterproductive" routine makes any sense.

That's what annoys me so much -- I can argue even with someone who makes their facts up. Someone putting on a phony political position as cover for their false facts is just useless to talk to.

My feeling is that she's an Aspergers-esque hyper-version of the old anti-populist administrative-liberal policy wonk, for whom all questions are technical, political involvement in policy-making is always wrong, and emotion of any kind whatsoever leads to error and is to be avoided entirely. Her relentless argumentativeness is the strangest part -- she never concedes anything. Most wonks avoid this kind of debate, but she's like a steamroller.

Hi, Y! I am not talking behind your back. My communications to you personally are still on the table (130 and 138).

I think you're (uncharacteristically) giving her too much credit. I'm harping on the accusation that Fox lied, but that's revealing. Someone with her claimed level of knowledge of the technical facts shouldn't honestly have posted her 44: " There is no indication that stem cells will provide a cure for PD. All recent research is pointing to PD and other movement disorders as mitochondrial in origin." That's blowing technical smoke to support a claim that Fox acted inappropriately -- while it seems from what I've read that the 'mitochondrial' bit is accurate, the implicit opposition between 'mitochondrial in origin' and 'stem cell research may be relevant to the cure' is bullshit, and it's bullshit that someone with real knowledge of the science shouldn't have fallen into accidentally.

Y. isn't an Aspergery technocrat, she's a dishonest troll.

I actually like trolls better than Aspergy technocrats. She has a unique trolling style that I've never encountered before.

Y, you still there?

She certainly puts a fair amount of effort into her work.

Hey, Y, after the stuff I've called you, if I'm wrong you should either be so offended that you go away and don't come back, or, if you like hanging out here enough to mend fences, you should have some explanation for why you called Fox a liar. Doing your "Who, me? I'm going to talk pseudo-rationally about something else now" routine will further cement my opinion of you as a lying sack of shit.

147:"I actually like trolls better than Aspergy technocrats"

I beg your pardon? Although such ideas of reference might disqualify me on at least one ground. I agree with the lack of variety in trolls, and trying to do my part.

I was called a Rorty liberal last night, if not a Maoist. I think I am making progress.

Aspergy technocrats used to be common on DeLong's site, though they seem to have given up on him when they realized that he was committed to the vulgarity of politics. These were people who believed that Krugman's political writing is no good and discredits him as a scientist.

I've always been aware that I only agree with Krugman and DeLong because Bush is in office, just as I only supported Clinton while he was being slimed and impeached.

Hey, does anyone know where that thread was where we (and by "we" I mean "SCMT") came up with a bunch of possible slogans for the Dems?

Also, does anyone know wtf is up with blogger? For days now, it's refusing my posts, telling me "there were errors"

001 java.net.ConnectException: Connection refusedblog/43/56/12/rockpaperswords/archives/2006_10_01_rockpaperswords_archive.html

Hi, back from getting pumpkins with the kids.
And, since I have no self-respect at all, I'm going to respond.

I don't like to broaden the argument, but this happens to *be* a technical issue. That's one of the reasons it's so silly to have lay people voting on it. Even on this thread smart people can't keep their stem cells straight as they freely interchange fetal, embryonic and plain stem cells. I doubt that the voting public in Missouri is better informed.

I don't want to imply that the ethical issues are only present for the radical religious right. There should be some ethical thought about this as the research in question does involve human embryos. I happen to fall on the side of the divide that is permissive for use of human embryos, but I'm not particularly proud that this issue is not wrenching for me. I think, somehow, it should be. And it is for other non-religious people. The EU only recently came to a decision about allowing ESC research and there are many countries where restrictions still exist. See a map here of world stem cell policies. Germany is quite restrictive and it's not for religious reasons.

Ogged posted what I understood to be a juxtaposition of the simple and honest ads of the Democrats and slimy distortions by Limbaugh and Coulter. He’s right about the distortions. Some comments followed about how Democrats should fight just as dirty as Limbaugh and Coulter. I entered the conversation to say that I thought the Fox ad was already dirty fighting, because, in essence, Fox is making an effective appeal that ties the control of a cure for PD from ESC research to a vote in the November. I think that's dishonest. Most of the arguments that followed were about whether there was any real dishonesty.

I don’t fault Fox for his appeal for support for PD. I think he’s done a tremendous job with his foundation. However, the exclusive focus on embryonic stem cells in this ad, combined with the hype of the possibility for a cure, and the tie-in to an election is, in my view, dishonest. It’s dishonest in the way of a Beer Lite commercial. Nobody has to actually say or disclaim anything about beautiful women or expensive cars.

How are MO voters going to change the nature of PD research? There is nobody in MO doing PD research with ESC. (I’m happy to be corrected on that. AFAIK, there are a small handful of ESC researchers but they are not working on PD.) The fact that ESC research is put before the public in this election is, in my view, inane, if not ridiculous. I disagree with the ban on federal funding for new ESC lines and research. For the Bush administration I think it’s a cheap pander to the religious right. A principled stand would ban ESC research outright. However, the federal ban is not up to a public vote. And I have serious doubts that the MO election is going to change momentum in congress toward significant change on funding. The public doesn’t vote on whether or when to send up the next space shuttle, nor do they vote on the merits of continuing construction of the particle accelerator in Texas. (I don’t believe that a particular stance on ESC research identifies one as a pro-science or anti-science politician although much of this thread’s argument may rest on that belief.)

Stem cell research is an active area of research, that’s true. But human embryonic stem cell research is a small subset of stem cell research, and as it relates to PD, an even smaller subset. Most of the PD disease research directed toward other efforts. One might argue that this is because of the funding ban, but this is not necessarily so. There is substantial promise in the use of stimulated autologous stem cells.

When difficulties of transplanting allografts are overcome, there might be a host of applications, PD perhaps one of them. But they still come attendant with ethical issues as well as practical issues. I rather think there is no need to bring this to a public discourse, especially as it is a highly technical issue, at this stage of research. There may be a scientific way around the ethical issues. Just this year, a Japanese research group (Yamanaka et al. Science 313, 5783) was able to turn adult murine cells into cells with embryonic potential.

As for the promise of ESC for the therapeutic treatment of PD, I concede that I overstated the lack of indication for potential use. But such use is far enough from practical application as to be negligible as a voting issue. Besides, practical applications for embryonic stem cells are likely to be effective with other stem cells as well. Plus, since genetic links for PD point to liver enzyme genes and metabolically related mitochondrial genes, and because of its intricate link with aging, the degeneration of dopamine producing neurons in the brain are, likely, a result rather than a cause of the disease. Transplanted cells might alleviate the patient with temporary relief of symptoms, in the way that deep brain stimulation of the dopamine producing region or pharmaceutical replacement of dopamine do but they are not going to provide a cure.

Many here think that the emotional appeal of Fox is stronger than the ethical and moral attachment that people have to embryos. They may be right. But I think that when people are pushed to make a decision on such an issue, long before the applications are obvious, they’ll err on the side of safety and then become entrenched in their position. I think that federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research is far better promoted under the radar.

Oh, and JE, I'm sorry to ignore you on this thread. I understand that this may make you feel shut out or something, but I just don't read anything substantive in your posts that I can respond to.

Point of order: How are we to determine whether the applications are obviously if the research is forbidden? That seems like it has to be a voting issue since we get to elect the people (if you're in Missouri) who get to vote on the funding, and as others have noted, it's also serving as a proxy for the larger religion/scientific method debate.

Fox's ad is emotional. It's also not an excuse for an ethical debate. But it isn't lying. He doesn't tie the immediacy of a cure for PD to embryonic stem cell research.

And if the emotional pull is itself dishonest, while I'll grant that I'm not sure what standard we're supposed to be holding political ads, I doubt it's the dispassionate standards of medical journals. Further, I'll think Fox is doing something wrong when the religious right's position is more than scare-mongering about the beautiful holy virginal blondes who will, if this is federally funded, start getting pregnant and having abortions just to sell off the stem cells (presumably to buy bigger prom dresses) or the spectre of abortion being extended to include five year olds their parents don't want.

Unless all political ads are bad if they pull on people's emotions, then it seems disingenuous to single Fox out for horrible behavior when all he did was, if his story is to be believed, talk.

It's not a technical issue, it's a political issue, as I've explained several times. Y asserts the opposite, but her argument is not good. The technical issues are discussed elsewhere, and I wish she'd go there.

She still has not justified or renounced her smears: that "trotting out Fox is stooping to the Ann level" and that "The promise of a cure for PD from embryonic stem cell research is technically a lie." Fox did not promise anything.

There should be some ethical thought about this as the research in question does involve human embryos. I happen to fall on the side of the divide that is permissive for use of human embryos, but I'm not particularly proud that this issue is not wrenching for me. I think, somehow, it should be. And it is for other non-religious people.

Perhaps her motiviation is somewhere in there. Perhaps she thinks we're too blithe in our support of stem-cell research, even though she supports it herself.

I am willing to give Y. the troll gold medal. I've never encountered such a virtuoso performance of polite, relentless nastiness and fake reasonableness. I still incline toward the technocratic-arrogance explanation, but now with just a tinge of right-to-life, and somehow it still seems that one of the Aspergers-like "can't see the forest for the trees" disabilities is involved.

IIRC this is only a political issue because people who are not scientists, and not primarily concerned with the technical questions, wanted to make it one. Because they thought (in many instances correctly) that the politics of it favored them.

They're wrong about this, overall, and so we get Limbaugh/Fox as a rearguard action, and Lt. Gov. Steele's sister with her own misleading (it seems to me) spin.

Charley, this is a political issue because Christianists have taken steps to cut off federal government funding for fetal stem cell research. Is that different than what you're saying?

The Christianists would like to forbid stem call research entirely. Opposition to their attempts is entirely justified and doesn't depend on whether or not stem cell research wilkl cure Parkinsons.

At this point, the Fox ad appears to have been effective with the public.

I don't understand how it's not a political issue, if you grant that government funding is instrumental to performing good research and that in the case of embryonic stem cells, there are ethical problems to consider. (It's also a political issue once one side says it is, and wishing it away won't help.)

158 -- Not different. This responds as well to 159.

157 - Again, there is a ballot initiative, Amendment 2, in Missouri that would prevent the state legislature from banning embryonic stem cel research. The reason they have this on the ballot is not a CA-esque attempt to shake down Missourans for money but because Missouri politicians keep discussing banning embryonic stem cell research.

Stem cell research s/b stem cell research, obvs.

See, the "cell/cel" joke is much funnier when I don't fuck it up.

I've never encountered such a virtuoso performance of polite, relentless nastiness and fake reasonableness.

What nastiness? Aside from her insult of Fox, I mean, which, I think, was wrong, but it was only a single instance.

I agree that Y seems better at the science than the politics, but I don't see what's making you people so mad. Refute her arguments or refuse to engager with her. Why demonize? I just don't see the point.

How are MO voters going to change the nature of PD research?

One legislator at a time. A strong proponent of an issue can sometimes have a powerful influence. It's not a certainty, but a possibility. And Fox is making ads for more than one pol, right? People in MO might choose to vote based upon what they think congress should support, rather than on just what they think their congressman could accomplish, right? Voters do that all the time. If Stem Cell research is important to a voter, and I think it's likely important to a lot of voters, then it seems to me (taking everything you've said in) to be a logical decision.

Michael, she continually changes the subject when confronted. You can't pin her down because she simply ignores you. Many of her assertions have been demolished, but she just moves on. There's this continual topical drift. And she swamps you with tons of factual material which is entirely irrelevant to any of the points being discussed.

The nastiness is in the fact that there's never any real give-and-take, and she seems entirely intent on proving us wrong in some way which is not necessarily specified clearly, while never admitting werror herself -- probably "malice" would have been a better word. She maintains a reasonable tone with the continual imsinuation that she knows that the world would be a better place if everyone could be reasonable the way she is. I think that she's presuming on our good will ("our" meaning "Unfogged's"; I've always been opposed to comity but am following the local custom.)

"Refusing to engage" is difficult here. And the fiendishness of her trollery lies in its seeming expertise and reasonableness, and the absence of the usual signs of the troll. The girl's a real whiz. She deserves her gold medal.

I think the patina of reasonableness is belied by her ignoring being called a "political idiot," "nasty," etc. Any reasonable person engaging in actual debate would object to that, but she just moves on and keeps spewing out science stuff. That doesn't make sense.

No, she's being above the battle. She finally broke slightly in 154 when she deigned to get a dig in at me.

There is something weirdly affectless about her way of arguing which is exactly the technocratic administrative-liberal wonk approach. People who train themselves to suppress affect often become unable to understand others' motivations. I think that she missed the point of the Fox argument for this reason, and didn't understand how annoying she was being was for the same reason.

This is the Phineas Gage disorder. If she comes back I'll ask her if she's had any steel rods driven through her brain recently.

I thought Phineas Gage became a beligerent jerk who could no longer get along with his friends?

I'd have to look at the book again, but IIRC flattened affect, apathy and motivelessness were among of his problems. It's possible I made it all up, in which case the sreel-rod question was innapropriate.

No doubt I am precisely the wrong person to be making this point, but I do find myself startled by LB's response to Y. I don't think Y should have called Fox's ads "technically a lie" -- that's really unfair given that all Fox uses in the ads I have (now) seen is language like "offering hope." There is of course the implication that stem cell reserach could help the suffering person you see making the appeal -- that's what makes the ads so enormously powerful. And as far as I can gather, that's what Y considers to be an offer of false hope given the state of the science. But again, that doesn't seem to me to be fairly characterized as "a lie" nor would I have analogized it to Ann Coulter's behavior.

So, those are errors. LB's response, however, could not have been better calculated to shut off productive interaction with Y -- seizing on the the overstatement, and basically riding it into the ground. And then "dishonest troll," "lying sack of shit," and on and on. This is no way to behave.

I agree with LB. There's no productive way to argue with Y. Her specialty is "moving on". She just ignores arguments she can't answer, and with her, the topic of discussion is always changing according to her convenience and interest.

I'm pretty sure that Y is the "Yamamoto" of awhile back. In any case, they both drive me crazy in exactly the same way.

Baa, those were malicious, damaging errors, not mere factual discrepancies. And Y. threw them out there purely as assertions, and responded very poorly when she was challenged. LB was trying to call her to account, but Y. doesn't work that way.

If Y isn't Yamamoto I'll eat my hat. She's an incredibly annoying and condescending techocratic science/concern troll. Let's just take this sentence:

I don't like to broaden the argument, but this happens to *be* a technical issue. That's one of the reasons it's so silly to have lay people voting on it.

The people of Missouri are not voting on whether to cure Parkinson's Disease with embryonic stem cells, dear. They are voting on whether the funding of scientific research should be curtailed because that research is disapproved by right wing fundamentalist nutjobs. It seems more than reasonable to me that the people of Missouri should be asked for their views on this matter. It's their money, after all.

I was wrong about Phineas Gage. It must be some other patient.

Beyerstein seems to recently been assigned a professional troll. That the trolls seem to limit themselves to one liberal blog is evidence of organized assignments.

A troll would need to be pretty slick to fit in at Unfogged.

It takes a LOT of Brylcreem to enslickify a troll.

I happen to fall on the side of the divide that is permissive for use of human embryos, but I'm not particularly proud that this issue is not wrenching for me. I think, somehow, it should be.

There's the money shot. T-R-O-L-L

I do not actually think that Y. is a troll in the standard sense. I think of her as an odd and antagonistic person with the traits of arrogant administrative-expert anti-populism already mentioned.

I don't buy the "I'm just like you in that I approve of baby killing. But it should bother me, and it should bother you too."

Baa, I"m sorry that you feel the need to defend Y. I disagree with you about all sorts of stuff, but I don't think ill of you beyond the fact that your politics are inexplicably mistaken.

I am angry with Y. because I think she's lying to us both about facts, and about what position she's arguing for. It's not about disagreement, it's about dishonesty. If she wants to explain why she called Fox a liar, I'll listen. Short of that, she's a non-person to me.

okay, so another idea for ogged community effort.

we all know that some of the trolls out there are being paid by the RNC or its affiliates and assigns.

Sure, some trolls are freelance/amateurs/pro bono. Some are just ornery creeps--the old fashioned kind of troll. But a lot of the ones haunting the liberal blogs now--Al, Specialist, etc.--are pretty clearly payroll trolls.

but it would be nice to know exactly how their operations work; who are the middlemen, how are they organized.

it would be nice to have someone on the inside, in other words.

how do we bring it about that some of us get to work for some of them? And bring back usable info?

You people are delusional if you think Unfogged has the kind of political clout to warrant a paid troll. John is exactly right that it is past antagonism that is pissing LB off on this thread. It has nothing at all to do with my argument.
You're a joke, LB, and you know it.

All the way at 182 and still not a baked good in sight. Lame.

We got an emotion out of Y.

Victory! (But wait -- is that fake-Y.?)

If "John" is me, I didn't say that.

I agree that Y. is not a paid troll, and I also agree that Unfogged is too small to pay a troll to disrupt. Yglesias, Drum, Tapped, and a few others probably have paid trolls. Trolls, paid or otherwise, are easy to deal with: delete or disemvowel. If you ail to do one of these, you will have trolls, paid or otherwise.

"Fake Al" aside, the real all seems to have changed his comment style, and I think that they've slotted a new guy in.

"real Al"

Emerson, is the cold weather and lack of sunshine making you extra-cranky?

I am angry with Y. because I think she's lying to us both about facts, and about what position she's arguing for.

How so? She backed off her claim that stem cells weren't important to Parkinson's. What else? And as to her position - she clearly thinks that funding for embryonic stem cells isn't extremely important, and she gives a few reasons for this, which are alright reasons, though they don't convince me to her side. Also, her ideas of what constitutes a "political issue" are certainly different, but they don't seem to me to be terrible.

This huge insult pile-on makes me suspicious of y'all motives, actually. Honestly, it's rather weird.

You're a joke, LB, and you know it.

Michael, are you sure this is ground you want to defend?

Look up NetVocates, kb.

181: I think it would be delighfully interesting to go play right-wing troll for the purposes of infiltrating Teh Crankshaft. But then, I used to listen to right-wing talk radio in high school, out of a deep and abiding commitment to political masochism.

I've argued with Y. before (as "Yamamoto"). Her style of argumentation is extraordinarily frustrating in an insulting, condescending way, and she is unique even among trolls in her refusal to respond to arguments. It's not just her position on the issues.

She also started off saying that the Fox ad was "as bad as Ann Coulter" and then later called Fox a liar. She never backed down from these statements. It was pretty rough language, not really grounded in fact or argument -- just assertion.

The thread was originally about how toxic Limbaugh's treatment of Fox was (and Coulter generally). Behind that were the general ideas that fetal stem cell research has medical potential, and that Christianist attempts to impede stem cell research are obnoxious.

She shifted the thread to calling Fox a liar, saying that stem cell research should not be a political issue and that it's liberals' fault that it is one (which is false), and quibbles about how whether stem cell treatment is sure to cure Parkinsons (no one says that it is).

I hijack thread myself often enough, but in her case there are a multitude of other problems.

So anyway, I question you y'all too.

186: Oh sure, really any reasonable, well-meaning person might find himself comparing Michael J. Fox to Ann Coulter, especially when he's trying to encourage those stupid lay people to vote in favor of funding research that might help to find a cure for his fatal disease. Because claiming that research that might help to treat his disease might help to treat his disease is, um, lying?

Does that make sense?

I thought not.

And beyond the "things that should concern you" bit, the whole "don't make the voters choose now lest they dig in" is old news too.

"Don't make voters confront miscegenation laws lest they hate black people even more."

"Don't make voters confront queer marriage lest there be a backlash."

"Title IX will just make the boys resent the girls."

And so on, and so forth.

189: ^t, of course.

This thread makes me sad.

Because Y. is nuts?

Is it because you were looking for baked goods, apo?

No, it's vaguer than that.

"You people are delusional if you think Unfogged has the kind of political clout to warrant a paid troll"

This ain't the vanguard? Let me see, the violent early 19th century revolutionaries, something with a 'B' but not Bakunin...Belaq, Ba...aw hell, no wonder I am always getting lost

Wait I remembered...I am actually taking Notes for future study on Memorex slimline title inserts.

Blanqui, Babeuf, Buonarroti

Just to be clear, LB, my comment wasn't really about defending Y. Rather it was noting that her errors, such as they were, seemed utterly inadequate to justify the reception she got here from you in particular. The hostility meter just seemed cranked up way too high. Like Michael, I think there's jsut something weird about it. So maybe there is some back story I am missing.

I don't particularly relish the role of scold, and probably wouldn't have said anything except I felt embarassed to be part of a thread where someone was treated this way without speaking up.

[sighs]

Kobe…

The hostility surprised me. Not that it couldn't be warranted, just that LB almost never loses her cool. Like if a fluffy kitten suddenly turned savage. (well, my cat does that. Say the Unfogged Happy Kitty of Dolphins.)

If you're actually arguing with Y. / Yamamoto, you'll eventually find her style of argument infuriating. It was interesting for me because I've never met that particular style before. Because she couldn't be dismissed as an evident troll, I was much more patient than I normally would have been.

oh come on, Charley. Is the rule that it's indefensible for new people to throw back after being called a host of names by regulars?

And of course I'm glad no one here agrees with Y.'s positioins.

189- Political masochism! I still listen to right-wing talk on occasion -- I don't know why, since it infuriates me. Even more troubling is that the *only* news I *ever* watch on tv is Fox News. If I want news, I go straight to Fox. I know it's terrible for me, but I can't seem to kick the habit.

And to comment further on LB's psychotic break, part of the curiosity behind 140 was just how early in the thread LB began expressing an unusual degree of open hostility to Y. Emerson's 203 is probably right that protracted engagement with Y. could be infuriating, and unlike baa/Michael I'm not sure LB really said anything terribly unfair. But things barely got going before LB became uncharacteristically fired up. Which was why I wondered if this was a sensitive issue for LB--or, I suspected she might just be having an unusually stressful time offline at home or work, and that was coming out here. If LB and Y. have some history I'm unaware of (I didn't realize Y. was Yamamoto), that could also explain things.

Kobe is targeting 200 now?! Arrogant bastard needs to learn to pass the ball.

I may be wrong -- always a possibility for all of us -- but I'm certain. The reason I'm fussing at Y. is that she's abusing your trust by arguing positions she doesn't hold; she's screwing with you, and I strongly disapprove of that. I like discussing issues. That's what I'm doing here. People like Y. make that impossible.

If you look back at her first post, she presents herself as a Democrat (talks about Democrats as 'us') but says the Fox ad is at Ann Coulter's level. It's not just that I disagree with that, it's that it's an incredibly (and I use that word literally) unlikely thing for a Democrat to say. I've never heard anyone use 'Coulter's level' to mean 'involving an unseemly appeal to emotions'; any Democrat who thinks about Coulter at all thinks worse of her than that.

Now, people can be weird, and just because it's an unusual turn of phrase doesn't mean she's falsifying her political position. At that point I was snapping at her out of disagreement, not because I was certain she was trolling.

When she defended her position that the Fox ad was Coulter-esque by claiming that it was 'technically a lie', based on her claimed expertise in the area of Parkinson's research, I was certain she was fucking with us. Experts in an area do not make surprising claims about their field of expertise that contradict the conventional wisdom that turn out to be wrong, if they're being honest. Experts presenting themselves as Vulcan-like Aspergers-syndromey emotionless robots like Y. do not make overstated claims (that is, saying 'technically a lie' when they mean 'perhaps giving rise to a wrong impression about the imminence of a cure, although not, in fact, literally inaccurate in any regard') because they're overwrought by emotion.

And no one being sincere reacts to being abused the way Y. has been. Someone who says something inaccurate and overheated like accusing Fox of being a liar either defends the claim or backs off it. Leaving it hanging there the way Y did isn't normal behavior for someone arguing in good faith.

I doubt, of course, that there's any organized effort to troll Unfogged; that would be silly. But I am certain that Y. is trolling, and she's doing it skillfully and subtly. I don't want a conversation going on here where people take trolls seriously.

I'll take an awful lot of disagreement in good humor. I have no patience whatsoever for people abusing our trust here.

Again, Unfogged has a good comment section (really, is a good comment section -- the comments mean a lot more than the blog) because we don't tolerate trolls. We don't ban them much (just abc, and that was before my time) but we don't let them pretend they're people. I think Y. is subtle enough to get by a lot of you, which is why I'm affirmatively kicking up a fuss at her.

204 -- I know jokes. I am a joke. LB, she's no joke.

Actually, Michael, I thought the 'you're a joke' line both gratuitous and lame. Each a minor sin in its own right, but together, indefensible.

I agree with LB. I'm the only one who argued both threads beginning-to-end with Y./Yamamoto. I was baffled at first and it took me a long time to decide that there was something fishy going on, but after perhaps 20 back-and-forths I became convinced that she is not arguing in goodwill. Besides her wild, unsupported accusations, it was her refusal to respond to arguments (and her continual changing of the subject) which decided me.

"I just don't read anything substantive in your posts that I can respond to," she said. She had decided, by fiat, that this was a technical rather than a political question, so she simply ignored the political angle (except when she herself was making unsupported conjectures about the political effects of stem cell politics).

She never did retract her claim that Fox is a liar as bad as Ann Coulter, either, which is what enraged LB, and she didn't deign to justify it either. Instead she tried to baffle us with biological minutae which none of us here is equipped to criticize.

I'm not completely sure whether goodwill is what's missing in Y., or whether it's some sort of lack of communicative competence which makes it hard for her to listen, but there's something wrong there, and the nonstandard features of her debating style (she doesn't tip her hand right off like a standard troll) have the effect of sucking you into long argument during which you get increasingly angry.

I'm actually not particularly angry, although that would be a reasonable, and the most natural, reading of what I've written about Y. I'm purposefully throwing a monkey wrench in her gears, and trying to make it impossible for her to do what Emerson describes.

It is possible that I'm being unjust to Y; I've been wrong about lots of things in the past. But I'm sure enough of myself that I don't mind shooing her off, and anyone who's been here for a while knows I don't do that lightly.

LB, you psycho. Everybody's all flummoxed by Sensible Mom blowing up. Now is not the time to allay people's worries; now is the time to take advantage of them. Don't say, "I'm actually not particularly angry," or "It is possible that I'm being unjust to Y." Say, "Only your dollars can save me now," or, hell, "I'd feel more comfortable if everyone stopped addressing me as 'LB' and started addressing me as 'Caesar.'"

While I tend to sympathize with LB in her opinion of Y., (and approve of her treatment of Y.,) I do so with one caveat. I think this quote:

However, the exclusive focus on embryonic stem cells in this ad, combined with the hype of the possibility for a cure, and the tie-in to an election is, in my view, dishonest.

while it doesn't explicitly back off of her earlier position that what Fox said was "technically a lie", or even explicitly connect it to that statement, does give a rationale for that statement, which answers one of LB's questions to Y. (While "technically a lie" usually means that a statement's connotation is correct but is false when read literally, I think she might have meant it in an opposite sense--that it was an intentionally deceptive statement, even if literally correct. Why would she have used this phrase instead of "factually inaccurate" if she had meant it in the primary sense?) So in posts after this response of Y's, LB might have acknowledged this. (For example, in 180 where LB said "If she wants to explain why she called Fox a liar, I'll listen.")

Oh, and I'm in the Asperger's/some-sort-of-autism camp.

I for one have never thought of LB as excessively sensible, God bless her heart. I always knew she had potential.

And let this be a example to all those that have mocked me that I do, in fact, take a reasonable position on when being charitable isn't justified.

I'm in the Asperger's/some-sort-of-autism camp.

That's fine, but what do you think is the deal with Y.?

Also, I think it's great that they send you people to camp.

Whatever. The number of people who would group Michael J. Fox and Ann Coulter together on the basis of that ad is trivial. So now you have a data point to use in mapping Y's moral map, and it's one that gives you a sense of the differences between Y's moral map and that everyone else. Beyond that, there's not much there.

I'm still wondering why Apo is sad.

216-217: You wanna take this outside, buddy?

OK, I just realized that 216-217 were probably not jokes at my expense. After it took me a minute to figure out the jokes in the first place.

Either I need some coffee or I need to get me to one of them camps.

221- what? Of course they were jokes at your expense. How else can you read them? And of course this means 220 stands, and honor absolutely demands that you find Apo and throttle him.

221- what? Of course they were jokes at your expense. How else can you read them? And of course this means 220 stands, and honor absolutely demands that you find Apo and throttle him.

221- what? Of course they were jokes at your expense. How else can you read them? And of course this means 220 stands, and honor absolutely demands that you find Apo and throttle him.

221- what? Of course they were jokes at your expense. How else can you read them? And of course this means 220 stands, and honor absolutely demands that you find Apo and throttle him.

Just playing with words, pdf23ds.

Brock, upon further consideration, I've decided it isn't this thread, but just the crap weekend I'm having. Carry on.

The third time's a charm.

Quadruple posting makes me sad.

227 to 222 through, um, 224. Not sure what to say about 225.

The important thing to keep in mind here folks is that angry chicks are hot.

t's that it's an incredibly (and I use that word literally) unlikely thing for a Democrat to say.

I'm not as sure; traditional democrats tend to be exceptionally self-critical, and possessing of high standards.

And about the not-replying to arguments/accusations bit: around here, we're plenty anal about our arguments. This isn't so among many people. I've met people with absolutely infuriating styles of good-faith argument, so I'm not so quick to judge.

I suppose it's possible that Y. was a troll. Though she did some non-Troll things, like starting off "since I have no self-respect at all" and construct lengthy replies. And she wasn't advocating any Republican position. Her position was weird, but that's one of the things that makes me doubt she was a troll. A troll who's well-informed (if not an actual expert) on stem cells, and who doesn't believe they're human beings?

And this seems guaranteed untrue:

And no one being sincere reacts to being abused the way Y. has been.

Most people don't, surely. But surely some people do. If the internets have taught us anything, the set of [X] for, "no people do X" is small.

So is Y. a troll, or just a n00b to political discourse? I can't say. You can read into her actions one way or the other.

As I've said, it's possible I'm wrong (and of course, any statement including a universal claim like 'no one' is false. Any such claim should be read as 'no one I've ever met or heard about'). But I'm certain.

I think we've said all that we productively can here, but these two statements:

I think Y. is subtle enough to get by a lot of you, which is why I'm affirmatively kicking up a fuss at her.

it's possible I'm wrong... But I'm certain.

bother me.

This thread is the most disheartening discourse I've read in at least a year, and I actually once trudged though almost 3 pages of Coulter.

I'm loath to psychoanalyze LB, whom I generally idolize; but I do think she's wrong. My suspicion is that long experience of arguing with people who have professional training in how to argue has blunted her ability to deal with amateurs.

It saddens me that in order to avoid being pilloried, I feel I have to pony up a giant neon disclaimer that I do not in any substantive way agree with Y.'s actual claims. I vaguely recall the infuriating Yamamoto thread mentioned above; but I truly do not see any kind of nefarious, disruptive agenda in Y.'s posts to this thread.

It seems worse than useless for me to attempt any explication in such a poisonous atmosphere, but I feel more angry than prudent. In brief: I believe Y.'s original post was an emotional response to the debate, in which she overstated her case. Subsequent attempts to develop a rational response were hampered equally by the inherent weakness of her positon; by her lack of rhetorical finesse; and by a disproportionately nasty series of unseemly attacks piled on by the actual troll in this thread, whose name I needn't mention because the hatefulness of the tactics makes it self-evident.

As ever I'm late to the thread, and as ever I'm too long-winded. But I am deeply frustrated to see O'Reilly-style bullying embraced by an apparently respected leftist. People who willfully and maliciously (and gleefully) distort the arguments of those who disagree with them, for the clear purpose of asserting their own social dominance, are my enemy--no matter how many opinions we hold in common.

Bullies are what I learned to "hate deeply", and I learned that hate good and hard by the age of six. If the only way to have a say in the affairs of this country is to become one, then I'll eventually end up as far away from politics as the 78 million Americans who couldn't find a reason to vote in 2004. I've never missed a chance to vote, but this kind of discourse always makes me feel I understand those 78 million a little better.

For anyone who believes I have been too easy on Y. and too hard on her accuser, I offer this simple question: if you were waiting tables in a local restaurant, which of the two would you rather have seated in your section?

The whole business makes me ever so nostalgic for the days of the killfile. I'm already sorry I brought it up.

Oh dear, it's all gotten so nasty and poisonous.

Is it me, or do the smelling salts seem to get passed around in particular when it's one of the ladies that's percieved as too angry? LB wasn't even that hostile. Get a fucking grip.

Is it me, or do the smelling salts seem to get passed around in particular when it's one of the ladies that's percieved as too angry? LB wasn't even that hostile.

Hey, either show me one of the male posters going off on a commenter like what happened here, and then I'll eat my words, or else shove the passive-aggressive sexism card up your ass.

177 gets it exactly right.

Michael, I held off on Y. specifically out of respect for the local customs of Unfogged. I disagree with these customs but as a guest here I try to suppress my true nature. And even so, I've gone off on people here.

Good for LB. Y had it coming to her. And in the spirit of your own post, go fuck yourself.

Rah:

Y.'s original post was an emotional response to the debate.

Diametrically wrong. Y. is very harsh, but prides herself on her objectivity and detachment -- qualities which she feels are lacking in almost everyone else in the world.

The waiter question is imbecile, but of course I'd much rather have LB seated in my section, because I'm not Y. LB is civil to people who deserve civility, which is almost everyone in the world.

Since I left the thread I've found that Y's spin on Fox is exactly Limbaugh's spin: Fox was falsely promising a cure for Parkinson's from stem cell research. This smear is factually inaccurate.

Rah, I think that you completely misunderstand the cause and nature of the toxicity of American politics. I'm not going to try to change your mind. If you want to lump LB (and me, I think) with Coulter, and that's what you just did, I have no desire to try to stop you, but I do plan to avoid your little restaurants.

Just to reprise, Y's biggest offenses were to call Fox a liar like Coulter and never back off that, to refuse to respond at all to criticisms which she felt were somehow beneath her, and to keep changing the subject as convenient. Y is a very odd nonstandard troll, but that's all classic troll behavior. The choice of a Limbaugh talking point is just additional evidence.

I offer this simple question: if you were waiting tables in a local restaurant, which of the two would you rather have seated in your section?

I'm tempted to say, Rah, that you're a joke and you know it. I mean, do you seriously expect the answer to this question to be Y? For a non-trivial number of people reading these words?

if you were waiting tables in a local restaurant, which of the two would you rather have seated in your section?

To answer this intelligently I'd want to see pictures of each of them first, of course.

I'd also want to know what Y. does for a living. LB is a lawyer so she's probably a good tipper.

To veer back toward the original conversation: I appreciate that Atrios knows how to hate and how not to forgive. I'm sure there will be occasions when that attitude is counterproductive, and I suspect it has made him say things that made me less trustful and respectful of him, but Gawd is it a needed quality among Democrats.

OMG, people, mountain out of molehill much?

"Y" was recognizably Yamamoto, which is why I ignored her. Yamamoto said she was "leaving and not coming back" when some people discussed, dispassionately and without name calling, why they didn't *trust* her sincerity or intentions as a commenter, and it was exactly the kind of thing she's doing now: pseudo-science, "concern," weirdly unpinnable points of view, deliberate and bizarre changing of the issue.

At the time, LB *defended* her and was, in fact, the only person on the site who'd regularly engaged her. If I were LB, I'd be pissed, too, at having someone show up under a different pseud without admitting that they were the same person as before. That's trollish, as well.

Anyway, the point isn't whether or not you agree that Y is a troll in your sense of the word. The point is, she's fucking around in an irritating and dishonest way.

236: Well, for one, John jumped on Y pretty rudely long before LB stepped in.

Erm, while I, obviously, agree with Emerson about Y., I don't want to fight with Michael and Rah about it; I'm not offended or hurt that you think I did the wrong thing, I think you're just misreading the situation.

There may not be anything else I can say to convince you that I treated Y. fairly, but let me give it one more stab. Y's stated positions, in so far as she's stated them, are almost totally unobjectionable to me, and in line with most of the people who post here. If you take her posts at face value, she's a Democrat, with a strong personal interest in finding a cure for Parkinsons, and no moral objection to embryonic stem cell research. She objects to the Fox ad for some very vaguely stated reasons (the "hype" is "dishonest"), but that's a tactical, rather than, really, a substantive disagreement. If you take her posts at face value, we have nothing to disagree with.

And as a matter of literary criticism, I don't believe that. I do not believe that her posts were written by someone who holds the political positions she claims to. The comparison to Coulter is dead out of character; getting pissed off at the first thing I said to her (harshing on the Coulter comparison) would have been perfectly reasonable, but her evasive response about it was also out of character. She's got nothing substantive to be emotional about, because everyone here agrees with her about her stated position on the substance; the only thing she has to defend is her bizarre rhetoric. Look back at her posts, and see if you can see them coming from someone holding the positions she says she holds.

Again, I didn't go off on her out of disagreement, or personal dislike (people have said much more unpleasant things to me than anything she's ever said). I went off on her because her posts convinced me that she was bullshitting us about the positions she's arguing for. I don't like being played, and I don't like watching my friends get played.

So, think I'm wrong, or that I went off without enough evidence in support. But do accept my assurances that I'm not going to bully other commenters like that out of disagreement, or a personality clash -- it's a reaction purely to my perception that she was screwing with us in terms of where she stood.

LB is a lawyer so she's probably a good tipper.

Another Landers' Folly. Many lawyers are terrible tippers (even successful film directors, at least those named Gus Van Sant, can be consistently lousy tippers). Occupations aside, I'd bet that LB is the better tipper, unless Y. herself is a waiter.

Well, I guess I didn't explain that enough, although since it was mostly a throwaway joke I didn't think it necessary: LB seems from what I know of her to be the type of person who would not be a stingy tipper. Combine that with the fact that she's a lawyer and has high disposable income, and I'd expect a reasonably good tip. I don't know Y. well, so I can't judge her personality, so I'd at least like to know where should stood w/r/t disposable income. Or not, really-- it was a joke. I wasn't claiming that all lawyers are good tippers.

235 made my morning. Thanks, gswift.

it was a joke.

Likewise -- I was merely tossing in an insignificant and perhaps too-subtle scrap of levity. But based strictly on what I know of how they think (and even allowing that my knowledge of Y. comes only from this thread), as a former waiter I am nearly certain that LB is the better tipper. I also think that LB is totally right in 244.

Hey, either show me one of the male posters going off on a commenter like what happened here, and then I'll eat my words, or else shove the passive-aggressive sexism card up your ass.

Try the commenter with the initials J.E. tough guy.

Ah. I'm on my way to get coffee now. My appreciation for subtlety should increase markedly in about a half-hour.

God, I really wish someone would pay me to troll here.
Hey guys, what say we vote a troll for the month? That way we all get a go and no one need take offence or puzzle it out?

To be honest, this is one thread I'm glad I seem to have missed the meat of.

God, I really wish someone would pay me to troll here.

In a very real sense, this is what my employer does. Except he doesn't know it. And I try not to come off as a troll.

Try the commenter with the initials J.E. tough guy.

Emerson and mcmanus are not so much "male [commenters]" as "dirty, crazy hippies," and as such, should not be used as examples. I don't think for a minute that the reaction had anything to do with LB's gender Are you seriously claiming that you can't remember any prior threads in which things got nasty and various women played their own active part? (IIRC, men did their share, too.) The reaction--whether it was reasonable or not--is in no small part a function of LB's usual online personality.

LB is too nice, but I'm working on her. Even B is nicer than she should be at times.

235 + 236:

Not to put too fine a point on it, and not to equivocate between the parties, but have we so soon forgotten the greatest spat in this blog's history, ogged and B.? Just sayin'.

Also, Michael, are you really willing to defend that? I would have excpected your response to 235 to be "dude, I'm not objecting because I don't like angry women, I'm objecting because I think LB was being unreasonable/mean/whatever." Not to say "Yeah, it's cause she's a woman, 'cause women are the ones who go all off and crazy on people."

(Hey, could we maybe not hash out the sexism question on this one? I neither want to leave gswift hanging out to dry by saying that I'm sure he's wrong (after all, my usual Sensible Mom persona is shaped by how I think I can behave without pissing people off irretrievably, which is shaped by my gender) nor do I want to say that Michael and Rah are being sexist pigs for taking issue with how I treated Y. -- I did treat her both harshly and unusually, and while I think they're wrong to disagree with me over it, I'm not surprised that some people do nor offended by their disagreement. I don't think this is an argument where any gender issues can be teased out profitably.)

Oh, ok, I retract 255 then.

(And 255: In the interests of putting a little more oil on the troubled waters, I didn't read Michael like that. My understanding of what he meant was that this sort of thing is pretty unusual around here, and so there isn't a big sample of male posters shredding a commenter without a reaction from the other commenters to compare it to; you can't say that no one would have noticed what I did to Y. coming from a man, because the male posters here really don't do that sort of thing often at all. Ogged certainly took shit for the B. thing.)

On the other hand, any thread that can combine Stem Cells, "Der Brave Soldat Schwejk" , and a waschechter Troll has got to be worth an hour of anyones time.
BTW.. I'm "voll" with LB on the gender thing here.

Who knows, maybe I'm way off.

Gender aside, the pearl clutching at tone and "bullying" is annoying. It's the internet, everyone gets to be a badass. I'm pretty sure we can all take a little harshness without running to the therapist.

I'm working on LB, but she may be hopeless.

I'm working on LB, but she may be hopeless.

It's there, but we're going to have to work on her. I remember her mentioning in one of the sexism threads about wanting to beat someone with a golf club. Good stuff.

Do the words "Good cop, bad cop" mean nothing to you people? We need a certain number of people who can keep up a facade of sweet reasonableness to get anywhere.

Svejk is an example for us all.

Well, Unfogged already has reasonableness up the yinyang. But that's OK!

Up the yinyang and out the hoohole.

It is a sad state of affairs when 20 minutes with no comments makes me thing "what is this blog coming to"? Clown must taking the day off, or like, working or something. He's usually reliable for some morning action.

ATM.

20 minutes with no comments makes me thing

And people accuse me of objectifying women...

What's with the sudden ubiquity of "passive-aggressive" as a term of abuse? I'm coming across it everywhere. Is there a new passive-aggression game show or something?

Saywhat you really mean, mcmc.

M. Leblanc -- thanks, nice to know somebody appreciates my buffoonery.

I'm going to kill you, Emerson.

At last! We've broken through the resistance!

That will be $750, mcmc. In November we're having a two-4-one sale, sessions will be only $375 and you will get a free Godiva chocolate.

Stab!stab!stab!

Emerson, the world's scariest therapist.

LB's resistance is more troubling than mcmc's. My feeling is that she'll have to work on her relationship with her abusive children, behind whose cuteness hide monsters. Once LB realizes this, she will be able to free her own inner monster.

Well, I didn't mean to abandon the thread, but it looks like just about everything was said, so, cool. I really had intended to leave the thread after 233, which is why I tried to limit my next comment specifically to gswift's charge of "sexism", which was ridiculous. btw, SCMT has it exactly right - talking to Emerson (who is a commenter, not a poster, btw, and I'm sure that makes a difference to a new person) about harsh rhetoric would be like talking to a leopard about changing it's spots. Wastes your time and annoys the leopard, who will then try to eat you. George Carlin, I think, was the guy who made the observation that we always kill the guys who come in and say, "hey! peace! let's try and get along". Emerson's kinda one of those types, but, ain't nothing for that.

I certainly don't mean to re-awaken a fading thread, but apparently I was a bit too subtle for my own good at 3 in the morning. I was surprised at LB's vehemence, but that's not what made me so angry. It was an error for me to specify her in my mild criticism of what I saw as overreaction, and then turn my attention to the poster who really got me steamed without making clear I meant someone else.

I thought John Emerson's spittle-flecked vituperation was so over the top that my criticism would be obvious, but apparently it's not far enough from his usual style to have seemed outrageous to others.

Okay, now I'm done. Sorry. Really I should have kept my mouth shut.

Go off to your safe place, Rah. When the world is nice enough for you we'll come and get you.

And you too, Michael.

you're making a category mistake, John. My views on proper etiquette in Unfogged threads do not extend to the broader "world".

I shouldn't misrepresent myself. My views somewhat extend themselves - I think a lot of the mess we're in could be blamed on tolerance of arrogant, beligerent rhetoric. But I also do not deny that some people cannot be talked to, nor should they be listened to. We're just drawing the line in different places.

I treated Y as she deserved. I've spent more time with Y than anyone else (all of both threads), and at the beginning (both times) I was civil. But you can only take so many condescending little claims of superiority and refusals to respond before you get mad.

Y is unique, but at some level she's a troll. She's not inept at arguing; she's insulting, arrogant, and evasive.

Whether she's an actual political troll I don't know, but her chosen issue is also Rush Limbaugh's chosen issue ("false promises of cures") and it's a dishonest smear.

She presumed on our good will, and eventually she lost it.

John, seriously, how do you expect me to treat your complaints that another is insulting? Should I laugh? Or perhaps just give a loud snort and role my eyes? Honestly, do you really think you have legitimate ground to get onto someone else for being insulting?

And yes, your first few comments to Y. were civil. Then they stopped being civil. Perhaps you'll point me to where Y. stopped being civil, which provoked this change? Because I'm just not fucking seeing it. Looking back, I did see Y. make her best political point - that polticizing stem cell research would likely turn out more people to vote against it than to vote for it. I don't know if it's true, but it's certainly plausible. And, anyway, LB came out of the gates swinging, well before it was concluded that Y. was Yamamoto, which Y., to her credit, didn't respond in kind. Y. didn't get around to insulting you till way down in 154, and at least she didn't make herself boring by repeating the same insult over and over again.

OK, first of all, I already had a long history with her. But I played along, and responded to her points. One of her main points was that this is a technical question and not a political question. That was by fiat, so she simply ignored everything I said about politics, as well as my arguments that it really was a political, as well as my criticism of her own political assertion that the politics of stem cells will harm scientific research, behind which was the assumption that stem cell politics was started by Democrats and not by Republicans.

She just ignored everything I said. Didn't I have a right to get mad? She also kept shifting the topic rather than defending what she'd already said, and (this was most important to Liz) past a certain point she never either defended nor retracted her accusation that Fox is a liar like Coulter.

There are really a tremendous number of problems there, and I feel that Liz and I were perfectly justified. You talk above about something like "inexperienced people with peculiar arguing strategies" but that's not what this was. It was an extremely annoying form of dirty pool presented in a consistently condescending manner.

You seem to believe, for God knows what reason, that Liz and I had some obligation to tolerate her and be civil to her, but I don't see it.

Liz has a reputation for being ectremely civil, and if she "lost it" this time, it was for a very good reason. The reason is that Y was arguing in bad faith and arguing in an extremely unfair, dishonest way. You obviosuly didn't see that, but you weren't trying to argue with her.

she replied to you directly at 52, made one more direct reply to another commentator, then went presumably went away from the computer a bit. By the time she returned, she'd been inundated by questions and accusations, and you'd already lost your temper. I don't see anywhere in there where she could reasonably construed as egregriously ignoring you.

And Y. softened up her claim a bit - saying it was at least "hopeful" and she gave reasons for why she thought it was misleading. Honestly, while reading the thread I thought the continous harping on that one statement to be silly.

"silly" - and that is a euphamism.

"One statement" = accusing Michael Fox of being as bad as Coulter. Folowed later by calling what he said a lie (exacerbating rather than softening the original statement). And based on a misrepresentation of what Fox said.

To me that's big.

She did not respond to any of my points, and later she blithely explained she didn't think that there was anything there worth responding to.

To you, apparently, her offenses in argument are of negligible importance, whereas my offense of civility, and Liz's, are important. I guess if I was at a tea party, I'd be wrong.

Not necessarily me, but you might have given Liz a little credit based on past performance, before deciding to stand in judgement on her.

Maybe Brock was on to something with that 250-comment thing.

I thought it was pretty obvious that Y was Yamamoto from when she started posting under that handle. Her rhetorical style is distinctive. I'm not sure whether she's trolling in the strict sense or just trying to play some kind of weird ego game, but the impact is the same either way: threads in which she participates get derailed in ways that aren't fun or entertaining.

And LB is charming in her wrath, as JE is in his orneriness.

And Michael and Rah are cute when they're making snap judgements about things they don't care about.

284, 292: Having re-read the thread (why? because I'm a masochist), I must agree that there was indeed a period of relative civility. 128 is the comment that really set me off, and it was posted quite a ways after Y.'s original post. If I had re-read the thread before posting in the middle of the night, I would very likely have been less harsh. So perhaps I should cop to a "snap judgement"; I felt I saw Emerson engaging in behavior that's infuriated me before, just as he felt he saw Y. engaging in behavior that's infuriated him before. Perhaps I've found the polar opposite of comity?

Nonetheless, I think 292 displays the very attitude that concerns me, by throwing in an assertion utterly without foundation merely for its value as an insult. Don't tell me what I "don't care about". My father is slowly dying of a horrible disease (somewhere between Parkinson's and ALS), for which ESC research may someday offer a cure; my brother died before the age of 30 from Type I diabetes, for which ESC research may someday offer a cure. I take this seriously.

I'm confident there was at least one path to countering Y.'s concerns in a way that would either change her opinion or, at the very least, demonstrate to other readers that she ought to. You also had the option of simply declaring her a troll and ignoring her. But apparently abusing her was just too much fun. It's classic authoritarian behavior.

You're clearly an intelligent man, and I frequently enjoy your comments in non-political threads; but you are so manifestly incapable of fighting fair that I implore you not to argue with people who don't already agree with you. That's all I wanted to say, and I swear by the gods I will not post in this thread again. I should have listened to my partner, who reminded me last night that "sometimes the Internet is better because of what we don't say."

She did not respond to any of my points, and later she blithely explained she didn't think that there was anything there worth responding to.

Would you like a tissue for your tears?

but you might have given Liz a little credit based on past performance

LB has in a number of instances lost her head, with, for instance, Idealist and Baa. So, in answer to your query: NO

I pretty much agree with DaveL in 291. I was sure it was Yamamoto very quickly, and I'd be very happy if she never commented here again, as she pledged not to do the last time (unless she starts commenting honestly and productively).

Yes, JE and LB come across as harsh in this thread, but in this case I believe it's warranted. Perhaps the wiser course is just to ignore her, but she can be pretty infuriating, and I don't blame LB and JE for going off on her.

Also, Michael is a big poopyhead.

Michael, I'm explaining why I reacted to Y the way I did, not asking for sympathy. Liz is good friends with Idealist IRL and she may have spoken sharply to him at one point or another, but they're still friends AFAIK and she sticks up for him. But really, if even Liz is too much for you -- I won't miss you when you abandon this terrible, terrible place full of evil people. I've even succeeded in bringing out out evil sarcasm from your sweet self!

I do have a habit of fighting with / abusing trolls rather than ignoring them. I don't see the problem with it. No one has to hang around. In Y's case, there was a special problem with her a.) seeming rationality and B.) lack of the obvious troll markers, which led me to be polite longer than I should have.

128 was posted after she had just flat refused to respond to my points, but kept shifting the argument. By that time I'd been wrestling with her for some time and I came to the conclusion that she was hopeless and in bad faith.

My suspicion is that both of you sailed in without having read the whole thread (much less the earlier thread) and without having followed the argument (which I think that Michael still hasn't done) and were very happy to come to your negative judgements about LB and me.

These judgements, while civilly expressed, offended me because I do not think that LB and I deserve that, but especially not her. I especially dislike the way that you are alert to my deliberate rudeness but not to Y's argumentative dirty pool -- LBs harping about her smear of Fox was supposedly "worse than silly". Apparently everyone's OK to all y'all if their etiquette is good. There were actually reasons for being angry at Y, and ignoring her wasn't a required option either.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

What a swamp of navel-gazing, pompous, wimpy, nerds. Good grief, Y shows up and posts (gasp) facts, (gasp) facts that don't agree with you-alls prejudices, and an orgy of recriminations & babbling ensues. Man, i have no doubt that plenty of you are graduate students, with nothing better to do that bitch at each other on a weblog about who said what to whom before they said something else to someone else.

Gaah! Go bake some cookies or some pot-laced brownies or something, and stare at a lava-light for a couple of hours! It'd be more useful to the rest of humanity than this drivel.

Oh, and it's funny to see lefties whining about not having media access; NPR, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS (forged documents a specialty), the NY Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Denver Post, the Atlanta Constitution, and of course CNN aren't enough for you? You need Jim Hightower on his own AM radio station 12 hours a day, with Molly Ivins the other 12 as well? Give the rest of us a break! We get it: Bush is Hitler, Islam is a Religion of Peace, 9/11 was done by the Jews, Christians are Evil, Ignorance is Strength...we got the message, really, our teachers from kindergarten on told us, your pals in Hollywood told us, your heroes at all your media outlets told us...we got it.

Now, can you just leave us alone once in a while? Can you quit jamming your death-cult-fetish down our throats just once in a while? Nah, you can't. You'd have to admit that people who are different from are still human beings, and you can't do that any more than Stalin's killers could admit that the zeks they shot in the back of the head were humans. No, to y'all we're just the great unwashed masses of ignoramusi, to be used as cannon fodder in your wars (oh, yes, you DO start wars, too!), patted on the head once in a while during some Labor Day speech, and otherwise patronized & despised.

Grow up, for crying out loud! I've seen and heard better debates at 3:00 AM around the empty keg behind a dormitory parking lot than this.

death-cult-fetish

I want only two things in this world: 1) high quality pastry, and 2) for that phrase to be on the rollover text of Unfogged.

I'm explaining why I reacted to Y the way I did, not asking for sympathy.

I didn't mistake you to be doing so.

My suspicion is that both of you sailed in without having read the whole thread

Your suspicion is wrong, at least concerning me, and I suspect concerning Rah as well.

much less the earlier thread

Not material to my case. Besides, being a liberal, I'm inclined to give second chances.

without having followed the argument

I've followed it to the best of my ability. I even made some comments.

I especially dislike the way that you are alert to my deliberate rudeness but not to Y's argumentative dirty pool

You know what? You don't care if you hurt my feelings, and I don't care if I hurt yours. You seem to be trying to infer from my position against unwarranted rudeness that I'm weak and I'm gonna get the vapors and run away or some shit. Don't hold your fucking breath.

John, I'll let you have the last word. I'll read your comments but I'm bowing out, I think.

Michael, you didn't follow the argument, whether or not you read it. Just the etiquette. When LB tried to call Y to account for her reiterated smear of Fox, you thought it was beyond silly. Have fun at your tea party.

299: Unfogged, a full service blog for all your death-cult-fetish needs.

Do you think Bwah-hah-hah just keeps a document of abuse to cut and paste from, or do you think that screed was written for the occasion? Its relationship to anything we've been talking about seems a bit perfunctory. But I do appreciate the provision of some unambigious trolling; under the circumstances, I won't even ask for cake.

But LB, we need cake.

The sort of cake I imagine Bwha-ha-ha thinks liberals eat.

Well, to be fair, I probably would eat it.

Hypotheses:

1. Somehow this thread just happened to attract a random pro-life troll at the very end.

2. Y just took the mask off.

I lean toward (2).

305: I prefer these cakes.

307: I wasn't going to say it.

308: "Urethra Franklin"?! That's awesome.