shotbanner.jpeg

June 02, 2006

Dolt Opens Blog: Nobody Cares

Some people can handle free speech. Others have a hard time with a simple, civil conversation [*].

Let me introduce you to "Liverspot", writer of "Minneapolis Upside Down", a leftyblog I linked for the first and last time yesterday. Lil' fella thinks I just discovered free speech.

He's wrong, of course.

I was a libertarian - small "l" and big - back when Democrats, Greens and Maoists all over Minnesota and the nation thought that little things like worrying about eroding civil rights was something done whilst wrapped in tinfoil.

But no. Lefties discovered civil liberty. They never existed until the left discovered them!

It was a big day for Upside Down yesterday as the right-wing blogosphere discovered my humble little pinko blog on the day that Tim Pawlenty announced that he is running for reelection.

Who would have known that the right-wing blog boys were such supporters of free speech? Apparently, it takes a Democratic "sin" to awaken a sense of justice in these boys.

Oh, lil' fella. If I'd had a blog in the nineties, when Clinton was dishing out wiretaps and wiping stains off dresses with the Tenth Amendment...

MUD is further proof that the Twin Cities' leftyblogosphere is largely a wasteland.

Oh, and not very bright, to boot:


Mitch Berg, my recently converted free speech advocate bitch at Shot to the Groin (or some such), was "so deliriously happy with Tim Pawlenty" on the day that Pawlenty floated this free speech tax.
Um, yeah - and I explained why. Not that "Lumpyslut" apparently trusts his "readership" to be able to read it and make up their minds for themselves. I wrote against the practice of giving meaningless, token fines to people arrested during "civil disobedience" - or rather, certain politically-correct forms of it. The whole point of "civil disobedience" is that you break a law and bear the consequences. But in the Twin Cities, it's a lot cheaper to protest against Bush or the War or against pro-life gatherings than it is to protest against, say, Planned Parenthood. When prosecutors have the discretion to charge some civil disobediants to the full extent of the law, and allow others to skate through the system with only token arrests and meaningless fines, it gives tacit approval to some speech, and taxes the rest. I praised Pawlenty's proposal for being even-handed.

If you're a MUD reaeder, you probably don't exist "Luckystool" didn't think you needed to know that.

One wonders what "Lickitung" had to say when pro-life protesters nation-and-statewide were subjected to different standards and rules than pro-"choice" demonstrators? Well, no - one does not wonder.

Case in point: When the city of Eagan barred protesters from picketing the fronts of homes of Northwest Airlines execs, I complained about that, too. Where was "Loofastash"?

(Oh, yeah - he makes an especially dim point about the "callouses" that Becky Lourey allegedly has and that I allegedly lack, as if that ennobles her speech in some way. Of course, it's also wrong; Lourey does not have more callouses on her hands than I do, neither literal (string instrument players are famous for them, in fact; I can not draw blood from any of my left-hand fingers) or, except for the loss of a child, metaphoric. But then, "Limpidtool" isn't burdened by dealing with facts. Why bother, with all those convenient stereotypes?)

Here's a guarantee: I will be fighting for free speech - the real thing, not the stylized, convenient version that people like "Lottaspackle" caterwaul about - long after people like him have followed their leadership back to "tinfoil" land.

(Apologies to Moses at "Yowling from the Fencepost": Your blog is not, after all, the biggest waste of time in the Twin Cities blogosphere).

UPDATE: I see that his name is in fact "Loosestrife", not "Liverspot" or whatever it was. It was an honest mistake; he rants like a cranky old drunk. My brain made a faulty association. I'm deeply sorry.

My bad. Sorry. Won't happen again.

[*] Nope. Not me. Some of my best friends are Democrats. I hang out at "Drinking Moderately", even having civil, interesting conversations with the likes of The Wege and Chris Dykstra.

"Lickspittle Loosestrife", I suspect, couldn't pull that off. Not that anyone would care.

Posted by Mitch at June 2, 2006 05:12 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I read the guy's article, and his response, and Ken Avedor's article. They all seem like graceless assholes.

Not sure why you bother linking to any of them. None of them are ever worth reading.

Posted by: Jay at June 2, 2006 05:57 AM

Is that anything like Purple Loosestrife? That's one nasty, invasive weed.

Posted by: Kermit at June 2, 2006 07:49 AM

This argument is so confidently spun, while so completely devoid of sense and reason, that I can only assume you're trying out your law school application essay on us.

Jeeziz, Mitch, I know it's fun to fancy yourself a libertarian, but it's kind of inconsistent with being an apologist for secret domestic spying by the federal government. As a pal, I'd suggest you just keep quiet about the whole libertarian thing for awhile, cause it makes you look foolish. You're as convincing as some 50 year-old Algebra teacher trying to "relate" to the kids by casually sprinkling his conversation with hip-hop phrases gleaned from Newsweek.

Embrace what you are: a conservative who has hitched his star to the policies and political success of the current administration. Libertarianism requires you to condemn government overreaching, whichever party happens to be in power. You won't do that. When it comes to libertarianism you're - at best - a poseur, a dilettante; at worst, a phony.

As for the idea that lefties have just "discovered civil liberty," let me refer you to the ACLU, founded in 1920. I know, they don't promote free access to guns or back a flat tax, so they can't be promoting *real* civil liberties. But please, let's just be quiet about the relative bona fides of the left and right on libertarian issues. Cause you're just not in a position to make the argument without looking kind of silly.

Posted by: angryclown at June 2, 2006 08:09 AM

"Jeeziz, Mitch, I know it's fun to fancy yourself a libertarian,"

I do more than fancy:

'http://www.lp.org/lpn/9901-election-results.html

I am, and have always been, the real thing.

" but it's kind of inconsistent with being an apologist for secret domestic spying by the federal government."

A "secret" that was briefed to senior members of Congress bla bla, and is an extension of Clinton-era policies (which I opposed then - which opposition, IIRC, you and our friend in the AUSA's office called "paranoid")

"Embrace what you are: a conservative who has hitched his star to the policies and political success of the current administration."

How about I embrace what I really am? A conservative libertarian, who works through the inconsitencies, paradoxes and zigzags of that path the best he can?

By your leave?

" Libertarianism requires you to condemn government overreaching, whichever party happens to be in power. You won't do that. When it comes to libertarianism you're - at best - a poseur, a dilettante; at worst, a phony."

Poppycock. I have attacked government overreaching on both sides, and always will. My analysis may not agree with yours; it doesn't make me a "phony" - certainly not so much as those who, up until January, 2001, thought that fussing about government overreach was "paranoid".

"As for the idea that lefties have just "discovered civil liberty," let me refer you to the ACLU, founded in 1920. I know, they don't promote free access to guns or back a flat tax, so they can't be promoting *real* civil liberties."

They are very selective in promoting civil liberties; they have their ups and downs. I have attacked them more than I've praised them, to be sure, but I've done both, and I support them (at least in principle) all the same.

"But please, let's just be quiet about the relative bona fides of the left and right on libertarian issues. Cause you're just not in a position to make the argument without looking kind of silly."

And, uh, you are?

That's what you're aiming at, right?

I am not a big-"L" Libertarian-party purist anymore. I am a small-"l" pragmatic conservative libertarian. There's really no way around it.

Posted by: mitch at June 2, 2006 09:23 AM

Sorry Mitch, I have to disagree.

Yowling from the feverswamp is indeed the biggest waste of time in the Twin Cities Blogosphere.

Even the stalking dumpster divers provide comic relief and a great running gag.

Posted by: swiftee at June 2, 2006 12:38 PM

Gee, this page -- http://www.aclu.org/about/index.html -- says the ACLU is non-partisan. Guess that means they don't consider themselves lefties, at least when they file their taxes.
One example of how far the ACLU has drifted from their civil libertarian goals can be seen in Gratz vs Bollinger and Grutter vs Bollinger. These are respectively the University of Michigan undergrad & and U Michigan law school cases where the Supreme Court decided in favor of allowing racial bias in a public university admissions policy. You can read the ACLU's celebratory piece on what they consider a victory for civil liberty here: http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/aa/15809prs20030623.html
Thus the ACLU celebrated while the scope of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment was reduced in order to achieve what they consider the greater goal of "racial justice".
Anyone who believes that the ACLU sets the gold standard for civil liberties is wildly mistaken. Or perhaps, like the ACLU, they believe that the cause of civil liberties is only worth pursuing if it promotes a leftist political agenda.

Posted by: Terry at June 2, 2006 01:13 PM

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.

Posted by: furniture at July 7, 2006 09:35 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi