It was no more stupider than any of the other Coleman column's that I've read (do you have to get to the end for it to count?) The man could be writing a column on Strawberry Shortcake and he'd find a way to bash Bush.

Posted by: Uncle Ben at October 16, 2005 01:29 PM

>>The man could be writing a column on Strawberry Shortcake and he'd find a way to bash Bush.<<

LOL! i just spit tea onto my monitor.. excellent!

Posted by: chele at October 16, 2005 02:03 PM

It seems that if it bashes Bush, it's stupid(er), but if it's poorly written, extremist tripe, it's gold... funny standards.

Mitch, you know I count you among my friends, and frankly, when you have to fill a column every day (like a blog), sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not... good. Some of what you write is decent, but some is also in the latter column, sorry. This column was funny, not roll on the floor funny, but still, funny. His columns are generally better written than most blogs (he gets paid after all, they should be), and from a prose, structure, and flow view, I think he's a bit better than most of what I've seen here (sorry - but they're also WAY better than what I write).

The point is that the President attempted to gain political favor by currying it with fans of a wretched team. It's an interesting/satirical take, not hugely clever, but not hugely bad either.

I think maybe, just maybe, you got sumpin' against him. He's a politcal hack from the other side.. and you're a .. not from that side.. Go figure that you don't like him.

You might want to "not" write about more non-events, but I think you could stop "fisk"ing yourself here.

Cheers,
P

Posted by: PB at October 16, 2005 07:51 PM

"The point is that the President attempted to gain political favor by currying it with fans of a wretched team. It's an interesting/satirical take, not hugely clever, but not hugely bad either."

Pfft..ya just knew there had to be *someone* out there appreciating Coleman's mind numbing bufoonery.

Posted by: swiftee at October 16, 2005 08:49 PM

"It seems that if it bashes Bush, it's stupid(er), but if it's poorly written, extremist tripe, it's gold... funny standards."

On this blog, my standards are both the only standards extant, and as it happens the only ones needed.

"Mitch, you know I count you among my friends, and frankly, when you have to fill a column every day (like a blog), sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not... good. Some of what you write is decent, but some is also in the latter column, sorry."

Well, duh. This isn't a newspaper. It's a diary - that happens to have 3,000 daily readers. It's a daily peek into the "mind" of a schmuck single father and amateur pundit from Saint Paul; it is what it is.

"This column was funny, not roll on the floor funny, but still, funny"

Well, you are half right. It was roll on the floor stupid.

"His columns are generally better written than most blogs (he gets paid after all, they should be),"

No. No, they're not. As a writer, Coleman occasionally attains adequacy; as a reporter, not so good. The fact that he gets paid six figures to do what he does belies your parenthetical.

"and from a prose, structure, and flow view, I think he's a bit better than most of what I've seen here (sorry - but they're also WAY better than what I write)."

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you're comparing (rotten) apples to oranges; this is all opinion, all first-draft (except for my occasional forays into reporting or the more serious stuff, which is written with a lot more care).

"The point is that the President attempted to gain political favor by currying it with fans of a wretched team."

Ah, again with the ex-post-facto history, like the whole "Bush lied about WMDs" fable; this time last year, the Vikes were seen by most to be flawed contenders, but contenders nonetheless. Through Spring Training, people were guardedly optimistic about the 'Queens. It wasn't until the cleats hit the field that suddenly *everyone* knew that the vikes were a disaster, just like *everyone* *knew* there were WMDs until suddenly everyone had *always known* that there weren't.

I mean, you did feed me the straight line...

"I think maybe, just maybe, you got sumpin' against him. He's a politcal hack from the other side.. and you're a .. not from that side.. Go figure that you don't like him."

He's worse than a hack, he's a hack who swears up and down that he's not; he wraps himself in the bogus high-priesthood of journalism, all the while biased to the point of bigotry. I'm honest about my biases.

"You might want to "not" write about more non-events, but I think you could stop "fisk"ing yourself here."

I've written 6,000-odd posts in almost four years. Some of them were throwaways, some of them drew instalanches and 40,000 visitors. If it crosses my mind and the threshold for "something I want to spend a few minutes on", I write it. They can't all be winners; if I squib continuously, then I'd suspect my traffic would start dropping; it's been rising steadily since day 1, so I might be doing something right, even with the occasional squib.

Even assuming that this post was one...

Posted by: mitch at October 16, 2005 10:19 PM

PB. Step away from the Coleman. Do it carefully. This was a dumb column. Even dumb by Coleman standards (and I'll admit he has a good one from time to time, as most broken clocks do).

"The point is that the President attempted to gain political favor by currying it with fans of a wretched team. It's an interesting/satirical take, not hugely clever, but not hugely bad either."

Coleman was so all over the place, and so completely his ADD self, this column appeals only to the person who wrote the letter to the editor he mentioned, and apparently to people like you, PB, who sprout a hard on whenever Bush is painted as chimp-in-chief.

"It's an interesting/satirical take, not hugely clever, but not hugely bad either."

Ah, a Michael Moore fan, eh?

Posted by: Ryan at October 16, 2005 10:21 PM

Agh! Damn you, Mitch. We apparently defend our views at exactly the same time!

That said, Nick Coleman's still a dumbass.

Posted by: Ryan at October 16, 2005 10:26 PM

Yep, it's opinion.

BTW, your supposed line.. sorry, neither accurate nor funny.

First, not EVERYONE believed there were WMD, nor does EVERYONE say they knew there weren't. I said it was probable that there were (yes, even I believe some of what comes out of this President's mouth), but what I said also, what several others said was,"what though, if we are wrong, does he produce?" The point of disproving a negative being the hard part. From a logic standpoint, you can post all of the epithets you choose, but you can't defend that point of illogic, because you know full well it was/is a form of rhetorical trick. Only fools fall for it, or allow it to be used.

Regarding the Vikes, your take is also flawed. First, when Bush made his pitch, it was the middle of the 2004 season, when most of us (not all) knew the Vikes "D" was inadequate. Second, that we "knew" or didn't was the point of Coleman's column. Perhaps one of the reasons you dislike him so much is that you see things that are not really what he was saying. You then go on to build an argument on that straw man, and then claim to be clever(er). Coleman's EXACT point is that hindsight has proven (laugh, like you could prove a curse) that the Vikes cursed the President. It was satire, but you reacted as if it weren't. Do you really think Coleman believes that the President is cursed? Or even that the Vikings are?

So sorry, but your follow up was even less sensible than the starter.. as I said, you probably need to stop "fisking" yourself here.

P

Posted by: PB at October 17, 2005 02:21 AM

"BTW, your supposed line.. sorry, neither accurate nor funny."

LT HAUK: "In my heart I know I'm funny..."

"First, not EVERYONE believed there were WMD, nor does EVERYONE say they knew there weren't."

Oh, you wanna play obtuse, do you?

Every significant government in the world - us, the Brits, Frogs, Krauts, Ivans, all of 'em - believed that there were WMD, as did Clinton.

"Regarding the Vikes, your take is also flawed."

No. My take is that of a person who gives not a rat's ass about pro football (except for the Bears, of whom naught more need be said but "w00t w00t!"

"Coleman's EXACT point is that hindsight has proven (laugh, like you could prove a curse) that the Vikes cursed the President. It was satire, but you reacted as if it weren't."

I didn't react at all to any specific piece of substance, except to say that it was a stupid post.

There was enough flawed, bogus subtext to have supported a fisking royale. But life's too short.

"Do you really think Coleman believes that the President is cursed? Or even that the Vikings are?"

No, and irrelevant.

Sheesh. I'm actually going to have to go and fisk this for real, aren't I?

"So sorry, but your follow up was even less sensible than the starter.. as I said, you probably need to stop "fisking" yourself here."

What are you, Eva Young?

Well, I know that you're not, but still...

Posted by: mitch at October 17, 2005 07:38 AM

Mitch,

Your stating something is irrelevant hardly makes it so.

You constructed an irrelevant strawman that both put words in my mouth I never implied, stated, or meant, misrepresented me in that, and which was a poor strawman in the meantime.

As for Obtuse, you want to know who didn't believe it.. France, Russia, Germany, because the weapons inspectors said, and I quote, "The intelligence from US Sources is proving to be wild goose chases." Mitch, you REALLY need to stop making blanket statements, the world is not black and white. When they didn't believe it is significant also, while they thought it was PROBABLE in December 02, by March 03, they had stopped, and questioned our haste and need to throw out the weapons inspectors. The weapons inspectors ALSO didn't understand (I think the word is incredulous) our desire to cut short thier actions. They, like me, believed Bush's pressure to get them access to Saddam's Palace's, was terrific, but once there, on not finding anything, knew pretty well there probably were not other places, but wanted to complete the job (which they knew could be done). Bush didn't want them to do so, because he wanted a war. He concocted a BS reason (if they don't prove the don't have them) and meant to go to war from the start, the UN was something forced on him by public opinion, and when it appeared they might actually COMPLETE their job, he booted them and invaded.

Regardless, again, you are off on a tangent that is meaningless.. as I said not EVERYONE, but certainly MOST.. why are you arguing a non-point? Well, I know the reason (you've learned from Karl), argue the point you want to rather than the point that is.

The funny thing is though, the small chance that he didn't have them, and just couldn't prove it, didn't only occur to me, it occured to a fair number of folks who still believed it was unlikely, but something that had to be accounted for, and it proved to be true.

I'm now going to do something I don't like, becuase it takes things way out of context and fails to capture the overall spirit of comments. I"ve told you repeatedly that it is a tactic of a poor argument, and generally not respected, sort of like telling folks to disprove a negative.. but as you insist on continuing, let me reply in kind..

"BTW, your supposed line.. sorry, neither accurate nor funny."

LT HAUK: "In my heart I know I'm funny..."

"First, not EVERYONE believed there were WMD, nor does EVERYONE say they knew there weren't."

Oh, you wanna play obtuse, do you?

No, you've got that covered for me... the funny thing is of course, my "obtuseness" also proved to be true...

Every significant government in the world - us, the Brits, Frogs, Krauts, Ivans, all of 'em - believed that there were WMD, as did Clinton.

At some point, sure, but that was never the point I made Mitch, try staying on topic..

"Regarding the Vikes, your take is also flawed."

No.

Yes..(wow, how petty we seem).

My take is that of a person who gives not a rat's ass about pro football (except for the Bears, of whom naught more need be said but "w00t w00t!"

Well, gosh thanks for telling me the limits of what should be said, or not...

I didn't react at all to any specific piece of substance, except to say that it was a stupid post.

Well, that's of course saying I said you did react to his specifics, which I didn't. You have a real penchance for putting words in my mouth.

There was enough flawed, bogus subtext to have supported a fisking royale. But life's too short.

Except of course, you DID write about it.. which is akin to saying, now I'm not saying your wife is fat but... so your column was BS in the first place. You called it tripe, you called it idiotic..you attacked it and then denied doing so, which is in itself, tripe.

"Do you really think Coleman believes that the President is cursed? Or even that the Vikings are?"

No, and irrelevant.

Oh, it's entirely relevant in that you attacked it here, first saying that Coleman is a better writer than you, and then that he doesn't deserve his salary. So then it apparently wasn't the prose, but the substance (or as you want to subterfuge it, subtext), which is really just saying what I said at the outset, you don't like his politics. It's not the construct of the article, it's not that it's idiotic (i.e. stupid text), except that you just don't like it. Well, that's opinion, and nothing less... and all I called you on was that it was opinion. Others (me) found it mildly humorous, even clever, because he poked fun at a President (whom he despises) for sidling up to a team that was poorly managed (by McCombs), and has, to no one's ability to predict, fallen even further. He did it in a clever way by tying it to a non-existent curse. I really shouldn't have to explain this stuff. Now it was mildly clever to invent a curse that rubbed off on the President, and it was satirically clever in that he of course doesn't believe a word of it.

The fact you don't like it doesn't make it tripe, it means you don't like it. Pretending that you aren't criticizing it, when you are, isn't clever, it's tripe. And that's my opinion, and why is it tripe, because tripe means it's old hat, tired-out, cliche'd.

Sheesh. I'm actually going to have to go and fisk this for real, aren't I?

Feel free, the column has it's own weaknesses.. but at least have the guts to say you are and why, rather than the innuendo BS kind of "see there are weaknesses, but I'm not gonna say what they are" kind of tripe. Because then we can all gauge whether your arguments are valid. For example, your opener with me that we all expected the Vikes to be better, was pathetic. It was temporally flawed, at the time they were still owned by Mr. Cheap, and were looking pretty bad. It also argued a point not being argued, whether we ALL thought the vikes would be bad. I never stated we ALL thought Iraq had WMD, and as well, it was not even close to the point of the argument anyway. So "fisk" away. Someone, (probably not me, I'm irrelevant), might take up your words and challenge them.

"So sorry, but your follow up was even less sensible than the starter.. as I said, you probably need to stop "fisking" yourself here."

As for Eva Young, I'm still wearing pants... are you trying to come on to me?

P

Posted by: PB at October 17, 2005 08:20 AM

Pfft. Mitch doesn't have to fisk it. I already did my own half-assed fisk. No sense doubly tramping on the man's impending grave.

Posted by: Ryan at October 17, 2005 08:40 AM

That a columnist for the Minnesota newspaper of record would exploit the managerial and personnel problems of the Minnesota Vikings to attack the President of the United States is not clever, nor is it satire. It is pedestrian; it is a parlor game not usually played beyond gradeschool though accurately reflects the editorial standards of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, which is, beyond any reasonable doubt, a greater embarrassment to the great State of Minnesota than any football team ever could be.

Nick Coleman is a propagandist doing exactly what he is paid to do, writing the "troops" are all doomed because the "leader" is doomed or vice versa --doesn't matter. His job is simply to express we are all "cursed" for supporting "dark forces" or for being the "dark forces" ourselves for the purpose of destroying morale. When the hometown team is in trouble, Nick Coleman is there to pour gas on the fire, which of course any damn fool can do. The irony is he sets himself aflame in the process and has neither the sense nor the character to realize he only dishonors himself.

Worth a buck, though. To Nick Coleman anyway......

Posted by: Eracus at October 17, 2005 11:59 AM

That's what I love about coming here, the responses are almost never to the points raised, or conflate them to something else entirely.

By the way, self correction, tripe is not tired out, cliche'd stuff, its pointless, useless. Sorry folks, off the cuff reactions sometimes beget off the cuff tripe :).

Having said that, it is interesting that the "non-elitist" crowd likes terms like Ad Hominem, parenthetical, and bloviating, words that come up SO often in discussion. Regardless, while you can call it useless Mitch, that is, in the end, just opinion, and one which you both refused to justify, but then went on to say "but I'm not saying," a logical game. What you did was hackneyed, cliche'd and fairly boorish.

As for Eracus, Coleman is hardly given marching orders any more than is O'Rielly. They don't say, "Go report on this" they say, "these are the kinds of opinions that will get printed/aired." No one of any sense, certainly not me, will argue that the Strib has a liberal bent (except when it comes to their own pockets **cough**stadium**cough). Regardless, the news stories they print are mostly reprints of other sources, or is it all just a vast left-wing conspiracy in your mind? Not withstanding that more than 90% of the newspapers in the country would be classified as conservative (ok, that's just me using facts to twist a reality - readership is much more evenly split - sorry but it's about as tripe-ish (is that a word?) as the oft quoted article from 1990ish that 88% of the reporters in Washington are socially identified with Democratic policies - the point is so what - their owning organizations aren't - see you made the point that the Strib gives Coleman marching orders - and from that I can assert that it's immaterial what the politics of reporters are - thereby rebuking the "liberal bias" foundation - gosh this is just too easy.

Mitch... do you have readers who actually want to participate in real discussion outside yourself? I am interested in discsussing facts and doing so civily, but gosh darn it, outside you and Will, they just don't seem to be out there.

Again, sorry for the misuse of tripe.. my bad. (man saying you f-ed up really isn't hard, someone should clue in Clueless George).

P

Posted by: PB at October 17, 2005 06:35 PM

Again, you're just making stuff up, PB, "using facts to twist a reality," which would explain your twisted reality.

Posted by: Eracus at October 18, 2005 08:47 AM

Again, you're just making stuff up, PB, "using facts to twist a reality," which would explain your twisted reality.

Posted by: Eracus at October 18, 2005 08:53 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments: