Saturday, December 18, 2010

Why the Right wing is winning, continued

...because the left no longer tolerates dissent.

I just realized I have been banned from a good half-dozen lefty-blogs in the past few weeks. And not a single right-wing blog has banned me.

I have been as much of a pest at the conservative right-wing blogs as I have been at the liberal-lefty-radical blogs; I have in fact been far more rude and nasty to the Tea Partiers. I have (more or less) minded my manners at all of the lefty blogs, but that hasn't helped me. After all, I AGREE in principle with the lefty bloggers.

All arguments at left-leaning blogs centered on various minor points of dogma, or about the fact of confrontation itself (something the right-wing welcomes and enjoys). The Left will have none of it. It seems the good people of the Left cannot even answer ME, one of their own. How on earth could the Left realistically respond to the Right? Looking at the liberal blogs in question, I see that no outright conservatives are allowed to participate. Looking at the conservative blogs, I see a willingness to take on the liberals, even a zeal to do so.

This is how we know they are on the ascent; they are unafraid.

Meanwhile, the Left cowers and censors some old hippie grandmother who already agrees with them.

Good lord, what's wrong with this picture.


Standing around in a cozy Christmas huddle with several female customers, chatting/worrying aloud about mercury content in fish, when one of them emphatically remarked: We need to be MAMA GRIZZLIES for the environment.


Oh dear.

Does she know that Sarah Palin, Mama Grizzly of the Mama Grizzly movement, just shot a reindeer, which she will likely roast out on the snow-covered Alaskan tundra, and serve for Christmas dinner? I do not trust rich caribou-killing politicians/reality-TV whores to take care of the environment. I do trust Sarah Palin to be a bloodthirsty warmonger, mindless Republican talking-head and overall narcissistic swine.

Why, I wondered, do I come to such different conclusions than my customer... a very nice lady who speaks to me every day and cares about the poor fish filled with mercury? (She really does, too.)

Is it because of our different backgrounds that we have come to different conclusions? We don't seem that different to me.

That's the scary thing.


Another reason is that certain dark corners of the Left seem to have no sense of decency these days.

For example, Todd Pettigrew just wrote a spirited defense of incest on Macleans. Not just any incest (of course!) but the gold-standard of incest: father/daughter incest, the sexy kind that gets middle-aged guys excited. All those hot-young-daughter stories on BARELY LEGAL have finally made a cultural impact, and you can almost hear the drooling. These are porn-fantasies come to life, and various men on the left can barely restrain their enthusiasm. If I were Pettigrew's daughter and I lived in his house? I'd be making plans to move. Unless I was too young to move. And then I would have nothing to worry about, needless to say, since this is all about CONSENSUAL incest; this is a defense of incest only AT THE AGE OF CONSENT. Dad only makes the moves on his daughter the DAY SHE TURNS 18. Yes, we all know that's the way it usually happens, huh? It's all very RESPECTFUL and MINDFUL OF THE AUTONOMY OF WOMEN. Sure it is.

Feminists write epistles the length of the Summa Theologica about incest and how it is an abuse of familial and patriarchal power; how it amounts to men creating and brainwashing sexual beings for their own use, and it all comes to this? Some hotshot professor (David Epstein) is busted for "having an affair" with his 20-something daughter, and well... we obviously need to rethink things. I mean, this is a COLUMBIA PROFESSOR! It MUST be okay.

After eons of redneck jokes about southerners banging their sisters and their kids, the people on Central Park West DIDN'T REALIZE that important people of the upper classes want to bang their kids too! They have just received the memo, and they are on the case. We'll have your reputation restored in no time, professor Epstein!

They are now comparing incest to homosexuality, which incidentally, is an argument I first heard from William Donahue of the Catholic League: First they'll say homos are okay and next thing you know, they will be championing incest.

Oh, don't be ridiculous, we replied.

And now, the fashionable liberals are saying just that. They are comparing same-sex peers who have attractions to each other, to someone who RAISED A CHILD to be his sex partner.

Needless to say, this is all guys excusing/defending this behavior... and this is all about David Epstein and Woody Allen and other MEN. I don't see anybody advocating moms diddling their sons (of whatever age) which I think would TERRIFY these men in a way they could not even discuss rationally. All of the examples they offer are about MEN MEN MEN... and their daughters.

Jesus H, has the Left lost all sense of morality? We have 9.8% unemployment (not nearly as sexy a story) and lefty writers are wasting valuable political net-space defending a perverted professor who can't keep it zipped around his own kid.

I figure these sicko defenses of sicko Epstein brought at least another thousand people or so over to the Tea Party side.


Jon said...

I pretty much decided that the white people who are self identified as leftists, I mean, just as leftists, are usually worthless. Most of the people I associate with in real life and on the internet are more or less on the left but they're union people, or community organizing people, or healthcare reform people or queer activists or something that involves work around an issue that directly affects them. White leftists are usually just indignant liberals who think they're doing the world a favor by expressing their deep concern.
The truth is that the people who call themselves "the left" in this country represent next to nothing. The actual left is not part of "the left". By the actual left I mean people who are actual resisting the system/capitalism/ the patriarchy/ whiteness, you know, the bad guys. They're not resisting because they read an interesting piece in the New York Times, they're resisting because they don't have much choice. When they collaborate it doesn't take the form of sympathy or charity it takes the form of solidarity. Look at who's really fighting back and you'll see relatively few white people and lots of women. Look at the left and you'll see a lot of white men with a bunch of opinions.
Feel free to disprove me. I'm only giving impressions but they're based on some study. My impression is that there really isn't much of a left and the people who call themselves the left aren't helping.

southcarolinaboy said...

Yes, and there is the old argument that the leftists can't criticize the Left, because if we do, we're not sticking together. So...the other liberals should be able to move as far *right* as they want to, and if you disagree, then you're just making the Right stronger...? I don't get it.

(Sorry my comment is loopy, Daisy, I am on drugs...prescription, but drugs nonetheless...I'm not at my most articulate...)

BD said...

I really agree with you, Daisy. I disavowed "the left" a long time ago. For me, the left and right don't exist, except in the sense that some people have a more "liberal" or conservative," but it's all the same They protect, promote, and love the state. The idea of an decentralized state--or no state--scares them to death. It's the corpos against us. If the self-described lefties want to sit it out, fine. I don't want them.

BTW, in my own work in adoptee rights, it is the liberal side who are the real enemy. Certain "conservatives" of course fight us, but by far it's the libs who are the enemy. the ACLU hates us and tells us we hae no rights. Go figure.

mikeb302000 said...

Yeah, I know what you're saying about the "intolerant left." They're as bad as the extremists on the right.

Yet, I have to say I've been banned from many pro-gun bans. In the gun debate they're the biggest offenders. I moderate comments myself, but what some of them have done is really comical for guys who keep talking about rights and freedom.

corey said...

First, I don't hang around too many lefty blogs other than feminist ones and they have certainly become pretty insufferable when it comes to dissent from other lefties...the shakesvillification of the lefty blogosphere if you will. Second, I would like to express my DISGUST that Sarah Palin compares herself to the mama grizzly...does she understand that mama grizzlies' whole m.o. is to sacrifice herself to protect her cubs. If they gave male grizzlies the vote she'd be serving up her youngest on a damn silver platter. Mama grizzly my ass.

Deb said...

I totally agree with you, It seems like lately the people on many leftist blogs, and in real life too are more interested in policing language if its PC or not, even really tame words like idiot, lame, dumb, are not allowed, white knighting instead of you know, actually helping! And some tend to get hyprocritical on being progressive when it comes to conservatives "Man Coulter" and fat shamining Dick Chaney comes to mind.

There is truth the old joke that the reason conservatives are winning is because they have better partys, liberals want to see how pure your politcs are, where conservatives usually just want to fire about the grill and joke around.

La Lubu said...

Jon said what I was going to say (only without mentioning COINTELPRO and its legacies...).

Keep ya head up, Daisy. I hope your Christmas is a good one and your New Year even better.

Anonymous said...

Daisy you know that many people who call themselves leftists are really fauxgressives. I am very left wing and the thing that I have learned is that people's political views are one thing. But their personal actions are something very different.

For example people whose politics I somewhat agree with Al Gore, Clinton, & Assange are all very likely either attempted rapists or actual rapists. LBJ who did lots of wonderful things and probably had more courage than JFK was quite racist. I feel a little bit like a religous person who says about bad seeds in their faith; "Oh they are not a real believer that is why they do that."

As a black man who immigrated here from an African country I've met lots of fake progressives but some of that shows me how powerful the principles and powers that I am against are. I don't think its a good idea to say that because of people on the leftwing blog scene are unpleasant people online that you should tar the whole left with such a broad brush.

Love your blog and all your writings. You always have something interesting and good to say.

Bonnie said...

Just out of curiosity, which blogs have you been banned from? I'm not going to troll them or anything; I was just wondering who would kick you out.

D. said...

The "left" (ever notice I usually put the "left" in quotes? There's a reason) likes to ignore its own history as a set of movements with occasional thrusts at an overarching ideology informed by economics, religion and science. It is aided in this denial by the "right," which literally cannot distinguish one "left" position from another, and the media, which portrays all "left" positions without any kind of historical context.

Probably the worst thing to happen to the "left" was the Russian Revolutions and the most extreme ideologues there rising to power, because that scared everybody.

Your current "left" is comprised of several competing elements including those people Jon mentions, both those who are actively fighting the power and those who identify as people who fight the power and who don't much care for the "right." (There's a lot not to like on the "right," see; they're still trying to restore the idea of the French aristocracy, in their own way. Ewwww.) I think of it as akin to the Reformation; you have mainline Protestant churches and many, many smaller churches, all divided by interpretations of doctrine and visions of founders and schism.

(I have no idea why those blogs are banning you; I probably don't read them.)

Becky said...

However, when it comes to our elected representatives at just about every level, the Democrats (usually to the left of things)are all over the place while the Republicans enforce strict party discipline. Exceptions would be the one party town or city council that has their own vote-gathering splits/strategies.

Intolerance is why many are disengaging from the political process or self identifying as independent or moderate when in fact they have a relatively defined stance, but not an extreme one.

Becky said...

Oh,and I think that incest is totally indefensible...and the wives of these big, brave men think...what? It's a form of domestic violence, so there's a good chance that there is more of that existing in the household. My opinion.

Anonymous said...

"many leftist blogs, and in real life too are more interested in policing language if its PC or not, even really tame words like idiot, lame, dumb, are not allowed."

taking this a little further, for me the most irritating habit is not the policing itself, but the attempt to erase the user of prohibited language. on blogs, you get banned; in real life, they'll simply ignore every word you say thenceforth.

it's one thing to be opposed to the use of words that one views as offensive, insensitive, or barbaric. it's entirely another to consider oneself morally right in excluding from the conversation anyone who bothers you.

daisy, your blog's the greatest!

Dave Dubya said...

There are disgusting perverts on both sides. The difference between the left and right is in the body count from real violence. Unitarians in Tennessee, cops in Pitsburgh, Abortion docs, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans tell the tale of the Right.

The difference between the Left and Right is also in the collapse of the middle class.

And the Right keeps "winning" on the ballot because they have much more "free speech" money to buy politicians, and more influence to dupe the people through corporate media.

It's always easier for the Right to keep on message for the interests of the economic elite. The Left has to consider the interests for everyone.

white rabbit said...

Daisy in full-onm polemical mode is a wonder to behold!

And yes, having an affair with your daughter is just plain wrong.

DaisyDeadhead said...

I didn't name the blogs that banned me, no free commercials for them! Also, didn't want to get bogged down in the particulars. The banning is the point, not the disagreement. The fact that the lefty-blogs are banning lefties for simple disagreement when the right wing blogs seem glad to see me? Dear God, we are toast. I mean that.

BD, had no idea the left was (largely) against adoptee rights! I need to study this, shows what I know.

Anon and WR, thank you so much for the compliments!

DaisyDeadhead said...

And, what Jon said. Ohhh, yes yes yes.

Laci the Chinese Crested said...

I have to admit some surprise that oy are being banned from liberal, and other lefty, blogs. This is especially true after the synchronistic posts George Monbiot and I did about astroturf coments. Part of me agrees that it has something to do what Jon mentions, that the US left isn't truly a left movement due to US politics being balanced more toward the right end of the spectrum.

True liberals allow for differing opinions, provided they are reasoned and not astroturf harassment.

As for the incest thing, that's an incredibly complex topic which requires an oversimplification to try an explain. Although, the term "motherfucker" is usually very perjorative.

I'd say the interest in younger women is due to the reproductive aspect of the relationship: younger women are more likely to reproduce than older ones.

The interest in one's own family member is incredibly socially unacceptable. And given that we represent people who practise familial sex and have been arrested, I have given a lot of thought to the topic.

But it also ties in both topics--are you confusing liberal and libertarian?

My first encounter with libertarians were that a class mate had libertarian parents. They parents gave their kids pornography and tolerated behaviour which turned out to be the son molesting the daughter. I blame it on the libertarian dislike of the nanny state and calling incest a "victimless crime".

That's my ha'penny's worth.

Jim said...

I get Jon's point, but his language is sloppy. He is talking about limousine liberlas; well then, he might try calling them that instead of "white leftists". The gay activists and the union members - a lot of them are white. in gafact that is often a complaint about white gay activists. Tough shit - when gays bitched that black civil rights groups were ignoring thier struggle, they were told tough shit. So what's the problem with white gay activists concentrating on their issues?

"The truth is that the people who call themselves "the left" in this country represent next to nothing."
nothing of substance, you mean, but they do represent something - resitance and adolescent rebellion. You see this in the NYT and in the Guardian too, they have the same thing in Britain. It's knee-jerk anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism, even though these same assholes live off the proceeds. But it makes them feel good; it's like they think that their fine words balance out the livellihood they are ashamed of. That goes for all the unwashed trust fund baby anarchist brats too.

Laci the Chinese Crested said...

In reading the Maclean's article, it sounds like the libertarian viewpoint. The first comment bears that out:
I agree wholeheartedly with the commentator. I think is a clear example of government overreach. There is no reason to criminalize incest. There is no need to deter people from doing it, since most people are naturally repulsed by it.

The article and the comments have that "intrusive government" aspect which is libertarianism.

As opposed to "Statists" who believe in things such as laws.

And conventions of society.

sheila said...

Ah, the season of giving and receiving. lol I say blast whomever needs a wake up call. I say to hell with parties and let's raise up the people as a whole. Let's finally do what's right. For the actual people, not the parties. To hold hostage a vote on unemployment in order to keep the tax rates the same is insane. Both sides do insanely STUPID things in the name of a party rather than the people they were elected to represent.

I want a revolution for Christmas. A revolt against the parties, both of them, for their mismanaging, corruption, etc etc etc etc.

Merry Christmas Daisy. Keep fighting the good fight. If people can't take critique, maybe they shouldn't be into political blogging.

Jim said...

"I say to hell with parties and let's raise up the people as a whole. "

Don't I wish, but the sad truth is there is no "people as a whole". Politics is about factions of the peple opposing each other; all the rest is stage management.

And even when there is, they can be wrong, wrong, wrong. The people as a whole of several states voted in Jim Crow, for one really hinous example, and literally fought to keep it, sometimes even resorting to terrorism and guerrila warfare.

BD said...

Daisy, as far as adoptee rights are concerned the "left" and "right" are in bed with each other. Various state ACLU's very actively oppose us (others let it pass.) In NJ, they are part of a conservative coalition created by the Bishops and NJ Right to Life. It gets really absurd because the ACLU will argue that if the right of adult adoptees to their own birth certificates is restored, more women will seek abortions Like WTF does the ACLU care about that? The ACLU, for reasons that make no sense, that our restoration of rights will harm Roe. They are two totally separate issues that have nothing in common.

NOW, PP,and NARAL have also opposed for the same reasons. It's no surprise of course, that many muckety-mucks in those organizations are adopters and lawyers.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Laci, that is fascinating reading, thanks so much for the links. Especially this excerpt from George Monbiot's piece: For his film (Astro)Turf Wars, Taki Oldham secretly recorded a training session organised by a rightwing libertarian group called American Majority. The trainer, Austin James, was instructing Tea Party members on how to “manipulate the medium”(11). This is what he told them:

“Here’s what I do. I get on Amazon; I type in “Liberal Books”. I go through and I say “one star, one star, one star”. The flipside is you go to a conservative/ libertarian whatever, go to their products and give them five stars. … This is where your kids get information: Rotten Tomatoes, Flixster. These are places where you can rate movies. So when you type in “Movies on Healthcare”, I don’t want Michael Moore’s to come up, so I always give it bad ratings. I spend about 30 minutes a day, just click, click, click, click. … If there’s a place to comment, a place to rate, a place to share information, you have to do it. That’s how you control the online dialogue and give our ideas a fighting chance.”

Wow. This makes so much sense.

As for whether I regard Pettigrew (and other commentators) as liberal or libertarian.... good question. As a (almost ex? partly ex? I dunno) Christian leaving the church (in my half-assed fashion), I have old habits I developed as a nicey-nice Catholic (not a mean Catholic), such as: if you say you are Christian, then I take your word for it. Mormons, New Agers, fundies, gnostics, whoever. I deliberately did this to differentiate myself from the fundies (all kinds, including Catholic 'fundies', called trads) who go around deciding who the "real Christians" are. Now that I am in the process of apostasy, I am far more willing to say who really is and who isn't a Christian.

And I have acted more or less the same politically. If you call yourself a liberal or a feminist or whatever, I tend to take your word for it, that you are one. I won't rename you a conservative or a libertarian. I have always disliked the intellectual tendency to label people in ways they would not label themselves; it seems elitist, arrogant, judgmental and it bothers me. (One reason I get so furious when people "put words in my mouth" and TELL ME what I "really mean" and what I "really think"... NOTHING pushes by buttons faster! Likely this is more religious fallout.) But I do understand the purposes and reasons for doing it. Classifications are important.

BD, I am very much in favor of adoptee rights, and I don't exactly know where this comes from, since I am not adopted. (I often joked, as a kid, that I wished I was, LOL) But I am pretty gung ho on the issue and always have been. And I think adoption is fine as an option (I've also been a very poor single mother), but I find the weird subterfuge around the subject very DISHONEST and gross. It seems adopted children are told every just-so story except that which is 95% most likely to be true: "Your mama was very poor and didn't have anyone to help." If liberals acknowledged this, then they would have to acknowledge they benefited from another person's poverty, which is perilously close to actually taking advantage.... wait, it IS taking advantage in many cases, now isn't it? This is probably the reason for the psychological pretzels they twist themselves into...

DaisyDeadhead said...

Jim, one of the blogs I was banned from, well, I think you already know. ;) After a long, convoluted and (in the end) largely meaningless argument with BG about what constitutes "good faith discussions" (((rolls eyes in disdain)))-- I finally gave up. He can take his good faith and shove it up his closet-misogynist ass. I see he editorializes on your comments too, so please be careful and don't get on his bad side. He has become as censorious as some nasty priest in the 50s Legion of Decency, deciding that Rock Hudson and Liz had to have separate beds in GIANT. Agreement is the coin of the realm, not a lively argument (has to be in "good faith"--whatever BG decides that means on any given day) or having some good old fashioned FUN. As a result, its gonna get damn boring over there. Oh well, his blog, his rules, but what the hell happened? You and I used to get into fights, and now we are friendly. We are friendly because we got to KNOW EACH OTHER, by getting into fights in the first place! (That's how online alliances and friendships often evolve, rather like siblings who grow up arguing.) Now, he oughtta know better than that. *sigh* Same with NYMOM, Zo-Babe, kiuku, Renegade Evolution and other women, who have since vacated the premises. Do you want to have fun or be a damn snooze? Ideological lockstep is not a big draw, and maybe someday he will understand that.

Anyway, I finally gave up.

PS: Jim, Eagle makes me think of the Geiko commercial with the drill sergeant as the therapist.

I'd like to throw a few kleenex boxes at him myself.

Laci the Chinese Crested said...

another thought, Liberalism & populism isn't always the same thing

Since my political strain is Green, we are elitists by nature. Consider trying and persuade people about climate change!

Jim said...

"You and I used to get into fights, and now we are friendly. We are friendly because we got to KNOW EACH OTHER, by getting into fights in the first place! "

God, we're so Irish!

I think the root of BG's thing is the torment he is going through trying to be the kind of feminist he wwas taught to be and his drive for intellectual rigor and civility. That has made him put up with kiukus' and NYMOM's straight up bigotry - no, we will never be friends however much we fight; they are both only good for target practice as far as I care - the only reason I would talk to either of them is to get close enough for a clean shot. Others like Ren and Daisy Bond have drifted away for lack of intersts or because other intersts became more intersting. Ren doesn't blog at all any more.

Here recently we had a bit of a minor spat over calling feminists misandrist - he told me it was an inaccurate generlaization, I agreed with specific examples and said it didn't clear the wholemmovement any more than andy number of other analogous examles - anyway before it got heated, Daran came in and started saying soemthing similar to me and that was about that.

Closet msiogynist - The more I look the more I see that some many male feminists are white kniights, in step with the female feminist who are damsels, and that the whole mess is misogynist. And that there are lots of feminists like April who just reject that. That's at the core of TB's position, even as much as she pisses you off just by existing.

Jon said...

The discussion has moved on but I was reminded of you when I saw this,

DaisyDeadhead said...

JIM, OMG, you didn't know: REN STILL BLOGS! She is still her awesome self. :)

DaisyDeadhead said...

Jim, yeah, she does piss me off by existing. I feel like young women don't understand what their elders went through, being called dykes before we even knew what it meant, simply for saying something like "I'll never get married!" (pretty funny considering I ended up getting married 3 times, but anyway...) I think she underestimates the importance of feminism back in the day, in fact, seems to think it was never necessary... as she has her opinions taken seriously by a bunch of men, something that was unheard of before feminism. So, yeah, as long as she is ungrateful to her feminist elders for being able to read and write? Off with her head. :)

Even Sarah Palin gives lip service before going off on her ridiculous tangents.

I totally agree that some "male feminists" are pigs, I learned that back in the day also... the prototypical 70s "lounge lizard" with a razor blade and coke spoon around his neck (cue Frank Zappa: "My shirt's half open, to show you my chains and the spoon for up my noooose") often called himself "feminist", especially in trendy spots like California or New York. Yeeeeuch. What I have learned as I have aged, a so-called anti-feminist like Tony Dellaventura (see November 30 post) can be far more respectful to women, actually HEARING/UNDERSTANDING what I am saying (even if they disagree with me, as you do too) than the so-called male feminist who doesn't listen but is busy lecturing (since he knows everything already) and listening to himself talk. Now, what's up with that? It's about the labels, politics, perceptions of feminism, etc. I do find that fascinating, as when I see "butch" women (Palin, TB, Michele Bachmann) who are anti-feminist. Style over substance? Just the concern over the labels? I admit, I dunno, still correlating!

DaisyDeadhead said...

Jon, gonna link that piece in my end-of-year Odds and Sods, if I ever get a change to write it! My nerves are shot from listening to LITTLE DRUMMER BOY five thousand times on the store overhead. (Review: Best one was by the Temptations, worst one by Michael McDonald.) I have pa-rumpapumpum lodged permanently in my head and I might be headed to the rubber room next...

Jon said...

Dammit! I can't find my copy of Joan Jett doing "Little Drummer Boy". I think I only had it on cassette.
By the way, it's really been bothering me that I did not specifically address the issue of legalized incest. I think I was so completely creeped out that I just couldn't go there.

Jim said...

Butch anti-feminist women - I depends on what type of butch. A lot of men, especially blue-collar types, like tomboys and Annie Oakleys. So putting on that face is a way to pander to men. "She shoots her own food! Woot!"

Remember back in the 70's when no one could call themselves progressive unless they agreed with feminism? The high-minded types, the ones who saw the ills of the world, the prophetic voices, went one of two ways. Either they became End Timer Fundies or they became various flavors of sanctimonious crusaders on the left. peole like this are not open to a lot of debate. As feminists they mansplain a lot.

You and TB are peas in a pod - fighters. I don't think she or her age cohort are capable of giving the previous generation of feminists their due, because that generation was so successful that they obliterated the conditions to measure their achievements by. That's huge. It's not acknowledgement from these young'uns, but it's proof.

Her frame of refernece is feminists of her own generation, whom she regards as spoiled frauds, liars and bigots. but there is a more nuanced way of doing this emerging. Check out April at ethecofem. She comments on Feministe occasionally, where she doens't call people spoiled little liars, frauds and bigots, but she calls out that behavior and that kind of commnetary. She calls herself a feminst and sems quite clear on the debt she and we all owe 2nd Wave feminists - I have benefited greatly myself.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Jim, did you ever read this post of mine, back when I first made myself totally persona non grata in Blogdonia, over a (can't resist this) Dead Kennedy?

First I got thousands of hits, then I was promptly de-linked in DROVES. Over a MAN. ((shakes head in disgust))

I got lots of hits alright, but mostly linked in ABJECT HORROR for pointing out that this rich white man allowed a poor working class (and possibly pregnant) secretary to drown. (how bloody rude of me) [IMPORTANT FEMINIST NOTE: This tells you how far we have to go, that the NYTIMES would not even allow references to Kopechne on TK's obit page.] Exactly what you are talking about!

Eric, that asshole in the post, was exactly the leftist you refer to. He talked a very good game, but then shook me (hard; he was an ex- football player) in front of a bunch of self-righteous leftists (male and female, including one who defined herself as an ultra-hard-ass lesbian-feminist) too scared to confront him. I'd like to say that was rare in lefty circles, but I know better.

That behavior had been virtually eradicated now, and similarly mouthy women like TB have never had to put up with it. I just wish they would acknowledge why.

I was shaken damned hard for TB's sins! (LOL)

Jim said...

Yeah, well, it's an established pattern, Bill Clinton got nothing but cover from all the federally-funded feminist groups like NOW over the Jennifer Flowers thing. Of course all those righteous white ethnics in all the East Coast organizations were more than ready to stuff a lying piece of white trash from ....where was; quick lemme get a map, and besides, he's done so much for....he's on the side of the angles. we have to see the big picture, think strategically.

Oh, and ref those articles you cite - thank you thank you thank you for crossing swords with that hate-filled bigot Ginmar. She stops at nothing - so now she's a PTSD veteran, why are you so ungrateful as to call her out when she is letting her demons do all the talking? I really do believe she has PTSD - living wiht her in your head would do that to anyone.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Jim, you won't find anything nice about Bill Clinton on this blog, I'm proud to say. According to the book about the last election, GAME CHANGE (page down here), Hillary was BEGGED by her staff to confront Bill about his ongoing shenanigans, which would have torpedoed her campaign if she had been made the party's nominee. All Bill's partying (which has never abated) would go public and mess up everything. (There was a persistent rumor about a possible affair w/a movie star, whom I believe is Sharon Stone. Bill used to call Air Force One, "Air Fuck One"--seriously!) She categorically refused to confront Bill and tried to get her staff to do it. (!) It was like he was the Pope or something, not her husband. I was really shocked that a woman who seems like such a strong feminist, could not even take on her own husband. I think it speaks volumes about their relationship... and her own limitations as well. (Interestingly, as I was saying about "butch" women, I can't imagine Margaret Thatcher putting up with that shit!)

I was similarly taken to task here, for saying she "couldn't keep the dog on the porch"--which I think was accurate then, and accurate now. I still don't understand why so many feminists thought that was an UNfeminist thing to say. (It's a southern-woman expression, maybe that's it?) It turned out to be exactly what her own staff was saying, only in more highfalutin language.

Re: Ginmar. I finally isolated the IP and blocked her for good. It was difficult at first, since I was getting so many hits, but I finally used her own blog-comments about her location to narrow it down. (Sitemeter and StatCounter are great when used in conjunction; not so good when used individually. I needed both of them to do it.)

Ahhhh, peace and quiet! :)

Anonymous said...

Richard Carlson author of "Don't sweat the small stuff" (and he's a Buddhist) suggests "soften your opinions" by listening to opposite sides of an issue. He subscribes to an ultra lefty and an ultra righty newsletter, and reads both of them, so he won't get too biased or extreme in his opinions.

You can learn a lot by listening to extreme opinions. You will learn patience and tolerance, if nothing else. Sometimes there's humor in the tension- if you can avoid getting upset!