Desperate for Equivalence

Comments

33 responses to “Desperate for Equivalence”

1. 

   Kermit

   May 31, 2008

   Oh yeah? Well Jesse Ventura was in Playboy too, and he…um…ah…
   Oh never mind.

2. 

   peevish

   May 31, 2008

   Mitch,

   It’s called satire – and oh god, he used the words nipples and bestiality – oh no! He was mocking the culturally uptight moralists, of which you have so clearly shown yourself to be both a member when it suits you, and not when you want to portray yourself as ‘cool’. You’ve said far worse than he did in this article.

   Here’s another one – in case you were wanting some more drivel – err evidence –

   In June 2003, Franken wrote a satirical letter to then Attorney General John Ashcroft in which he asked Ashcroft to be a role model for the youth of America by sharing “a moment when you were tempted to have sex, but were able to overcome your urges through willpower and strength of character.” Please put that up to, as it might just give some context to Franken’s comments – context you very conveniently left out.

   Apparently we can no longer engage in adult conversations in magazines sold to adults – I guess Sarah Jessica Parker had best never consider running for office. I wonder what lines we could find that Ahhnold ever said, or maybe – as compared to satire, we could just point out that Ronald Reagan said, in 1966 that “Any landlord or property owner who wants to discriminate against negros, is entirely within his right to do so.”

   The first amendment just died. Congrats fool.

   BTW Mitch, Franken also has repeatedly put his ass on the line in Afghanistan and Iraq, something Coleman has done FAR less often, and Franken didn’t do it for political photo-ops, he did it as a tribute and in service to troops. Where is your smug condemnation, your You-tube video demanding Coleman go to Iraq and Afghanistan?

3. 

   peevish

   May 31, 2008

   BTW Mitch, go read O’Reilly sometime – but then again, O’Reilly inappropriately pressured a staffer for sex, calling her at her hotel to have discussions about how excited he was, how attractive he found her, .. Franken’s comments (contrastingly)were tongue-in-cheek, but it is obvious you don’t get that.. and that you don’t get he’s been a faithful, married man for almost thirty years (as memory serves). I’m sure that writing an article for Playboy makes him a deviant, while O’Reilly’s problems with sexual harrasment are FAR less worht note.

   You’re too dim to get that he was playing you.

4. 

   Kermit

   May 31, 2008

   Gee, is O’Reilly running for the US Senate? Why no, no he’s not.
   God, I’m getting tired of idiots.

5. 

   dbrauer

   May 31, 2008

   Hi Mitch –

   Thanks much for the link; got us 20 hits as of Saturday afternoon.

   If you read the entire item – all 82 words! – I make it pretty clear that the tenor of the two pieces was quite different, and that does matter.

   Still, I think it’s worth a grin that WFBIII was in the same mag with Al.

   BTW, I’m the guy that spend a hour in the Minneapolis Public Library pecking out extended excerpts of Franken’s Playboy juvenilia into MinnPost’s publishing system so readers could experience the fullest flower themselves. Betraying my liberal roots yet again!

   (Playboy, for you aficionados, is on black-and-white microfiche – didn’t check to see if they had the mag version.)

   Write anytime,
   David

6. 

   Mitch Berg

   May 31, 2008

   20 hits? Not bad for a Saturday and my lil’ ol’ blog.

   And you are right, it is a tad on the funny side. And I frankly think this controversy (as opposed to the tax thang) is a little overblown; next thing you know, they’ll find out he read Playboy, too…

   I’m the guy that …[pecked]… extended excerpts of Franken’s Playboy juvenilia into MinnPost’s publishing system so readers could experience the fullest flower themselves. Betraying my liberal roots yet again!

   Dunno if it’s partisan – but it’s gonna bring in plenty of stray Google searches. Marketing is marketing, whatever the politics!

7. 

   BradC

   May 31, 2008

   Gee, is O’Reilly running for the US Senate?

   Don’t get the guy started, Kermit. When Mitch wrote something about Sara Jane Olson’s release from jail in March, Peev (aka mikey, jbauer, donkeyman, ted, molly) took the opportunity to take a shot at every alleged GOP-sympathizer. The obvious question in response to PB’s perpetual idiocy was “Was ———- released from prison today?”

   http://www.shotinthedark.info/wp/?p=2297#comments

   By the way Pee-fish, point me to the post where Mitch has ever defended O’Reilly. Not that it’s relevant since, as Kermit noted, O’Reilly’s not running for anything.

8. 

   Mitch Berg

   May 31, 2008

   point me to the post where Mitch has ever defended O’Reilly.

   Doesn’t exist. I’ve never liked O’Reilly. And, by the way, he’s no conservative.

   Franken’s comments (contrastingly)were tongue-in-cheek, but it is obvious you don’t get that.. and that you don’t get he’s been a faithful, married man for almost thirty years (as memory serves).

   Actually, Peev, as usual, I am the one who “gets it”, and you miss it. I personally don’t care who Franken writes for, or what he writes; it’s not a major issue to me.

   The point of this thread (not that that ever matters to you, Peev) is that as I saw it, David Brauer was doing what the MN Monitor does whenever any lefty is accused of anything; try to find some “moral equivalent”, so as to say “Ah, but Republicans are even worse!”. (Mr. Brauer wrote to take issue with my take on his post, which reasonably presents food for thought).

9. 

   Mitch Berg

   May 31, 2008

   Oh, and Peev?

   Make sure you drop a line to Betty McCollum and tell her that she’s deaf to satire and killing the First Amendment.

   What was the word you used?  Rhymed with “tool?”

10. 

    peevish

    June 1, 2008

    Yes, Mitch, you’re a fool, and frankly, McCollum was one too on this issue. Gosh, there, I said something you won’t probably EVER see Berg say, that a Republican was a fool on an issue. I’m such a lefty!

    Brad – I don’t recall you having anything constructive to say ever – good to see you haven’t broken the string – but as per normal, all you liliputians can do is personal attack. And thanks for mischaractarizing my comments – try again Brad to understand – my point was that Mitch is so terribly one-sided in his reporting – he ONLY reports upon the release of someone, only seems to be concerned about the impacts of some criminal – when it suits his purposes politically. Perhaps you can’t quite grasp that, so let me say it again. Mitch only seems to put up articles which contribute to and support his political agenda – or discuss his personal interests in life – rather than providing broader commentary on society, or being even-handed in his treatment of issues. Sarah Jane Olsen was and is a means to an end. His handwringing over her impacts looked to be alligator tears – do you get it now?

    Mitch – if this is ‘more overblown’ than the ‘tax thing’, of which of course the MN GOP is FAR more at fault for misdeeds than Franken EVER was – and which you NEVER commented on, then why did you post the exact excerpts, hyping it all up with the language, rather than saying, “It’s a lot of wind about very little?”

    And Mitch, while you’ve criticized O’Reilly, you’ve certainly stood by Limbaugh, Hannity, Medved, Savage.. all of whom are cut from the same cloth of hate-mongering to which you so studiously aspire (Islamofacism, Hajib, Tic). Limbaugh goes to Puerto Rico for sex, boasting about Viagra, Newt Gingrich divorces his wife and tells her of it while she’s in bed in the hospital (if memory serves), Mark Foley sends pornographic text messages to Congressional Pages, Ted Haggerty and Larry Craig are closet homosexuals, all of those involed ACTUAL misconduct, rather than commentary intended to make fun of your neo-con hypocrisy about pornography (hate government intrusion, except when you love it).

    Brauer made the same point to you, in a different vein, than I did, first he challenged openly your claim of bias on his part – and was right of course – but more – he said that Bill Buckley was in the same mag, i.e. that Repubicans do it too. More than that, you changed the apparent goal posts, where in your post do you say it was about the fact that liberals defend themselves by pointing out conservatives do it worse?

    Brauer (whom you named as being liberal – pointed out you’re wrong from his viewpoint to even characterize it that way) and then pointed out that Bill Buckley was in the mag, exactly what you say you were pointing out, but now it’s food for thought? How?

    Fundamentally Mitch, you’re probably right, many of us who aren’t to the right of Strom Thurmond, find your sanctimonious hand-wringing to be hollow and false. You bitch about some sort of conduct, conduct which in this case was a joke, was satire, was promoting nothing, was pointing out that you all need to get your heads out of your rears – but you bitch about it, and can’t stand up to the light. NO ONE is saying being a pedophile is acceptable, or excusing it by pointing that out, that’s just your desired spin. NO ONE said in the case of Mark Foley, that had you found a Democrat who as a pedophile that saying because Foley was a pedophile, it was excusable for the Democrat. That’s BS, and you know it, or damned well should. So, once again, here you are saying and telling me what I think – and you are, once again, totally wrong. I actually care a fair amount – I care enough that I keep writing here, despite your obdurate insistance on avoiding actual discourse on difficult subjects, to try to engage you in real discourse. I’ll await your apology for the accusation for you once again claiming to know what I’m thinking when you don’t, btw. But where exactly, in the words you posted did it say ANYTHING about that this was about pointing out Democratic duplicity in defending themselves via attacking Republicans? It doesn’t, and I think you know it. If it was in David’s column, ok, but you surely didn’t point it out. Had you made your point in that way, you’d have gotten THIS response instead.

    No, what you posted was a purient article designed (it appears) to paint Franken as some sort of deviant. You made NO mention of your view that this was overblown, that you understood it to be satire, that it was intended to try to get us to take ourselves less serioously, or that it was YOU critiquing Brauer on Democratic duplicity. It was merely you pointing out that Franken wrote it, not Bill Buckley.

11. 

    peevish

    June 1, 2008

    Mitch,

    I’ll think I’ll respond in the way you normally do.

    >Doesn’t exist. I’ve never liked O’Reilly. And, by the way, he’s no conservative.>

    Says you – he’s most assuredly a conservative – he attacks people personally rather than on facts, he expects behavior he can’t live up to, he wants smaller government, except for the things he likes, he judges the world from his own lens only, he’s a myopic ethno-centric, faux patriot. He is the EPITOME of a (paleo)conservative. But let’s not stop there, Limbaugh (as opposed to Franken) went to the Carribean with viagra for a ‘sex vacation’, Mark Foley sent pornographic text messages to Paiges, Larry Craig and Ted Haggerty were closet homosexuals who; hired prostitues and engage in rampant gay-bashing, saying gay marraige would destroy the ‘sanctity of marraige and the family’. So yes, Mitch, you’re right, as compared to that, Franken’s a helluva lot better guy. He’s also – and you ignored this point – someone who put his own life at risk for NO political gain.

    >Actually, Peev, as usual, I am the one who “gets it”, and you miss it. I personally don’t care who Franken writes for, or what he writes; it’s not a major issue to me. >

    I’m sure, that’s why, on this ‘over-hyped’ story, you chose to a. post material that is copyrighted (note, I didn’t say in violation of the law – I’m not an attorney, I can’t truly say – but you surely had your undies in a twist yesterday about my doing something similar – is this not then a similar violation?) – but more importantly, b. chose to past in seemingly every purient detail you could. If this was about Democrats (or as you identified Brauer – ‘liberals’ defending themselves by saying others were far worse (namely republicans) – then why not directly say so and leave the scatology aside? Certainly you could have made your point without the depth of comment. In fact Mitch, you didn’t ‘get it’ at all – but you did, as is your wont, brag ceaselessly about your superior grasp, (again, and again, and again). I made no point about WHO Franken writes for, or more specifically that you cared, I made the point that Franken didn’t put this out in the public space – YOU DID, and O’Reilly did – you know, a conservative talk show host (ok, a Republican talk show host) and since you’ve framed this in the defense of Democrats and Republicans, then this isn’t about ‘conservatism’ but rather ‘Republicans.’

    >The point of this thread (not that that ever matters to you, Peev)>

    Actually Mitch, I’ve proven time and again that it matters – but thanks for telling me, yet again, what I think, or what I know, or how much more than me, YOU know. I appreciate it. Actually Mitch, with any level of thought, you’d have grasped that I care a fair amount about the over-arching point, that I’ve tried to discuss those points with you, over and over and over again, only to have you delve off into minutae to engage in a personal, usually ad hominem attack. In fact, as we all know, you’ve never mocked me in lieu of engaging me, as we all know, right?

    is that as I saw it, David Brauer was doing what the MN Monitor does whenever any lefty is accused of anything; try to find some “moral equivalent”, so as to say “Ah, but Republicans are even worse!”. (Mr. Brauer wrote to take issue with my take on his post, which reasonably presents food for thought).

    Yes it sure does, considering he debunked your entire assertion that he was doing what you said – but more than that – Mitch, exactly WHERE did you make that point plain? I can see from your explanation NOW that you meant it, but it was more easily seen as something where you were taking the opportunity to over-hype a satirical article – either because you didn’t ‘get it’ which I doubted but appearance was appearnce, or because you were, once again, taking ANY opportunity to make political points with garbage, as you have so often done – and as both Flash and I have noted, and AC has commented on from time to time. If that was your point, you said it pretty damned obliquely. Regardless, if that was your point, and I’ll grant you it was – then why the need to paste in every graphic comment? It was intellectual overkill, and redundant.

    But let’s go to your point. You know, the one I don’t care about – and by the way Mitch, I’ll do something I’ve never once seen you do. Betty McCollum rhymes with tool – and you – whether you intended to assail Franken for his satire, the net effect of your post was exactly that – and you inadvertently stepped on ANY private figure who ever has aspirations of office, from ever posting EVEN SATIRE in a public space. Congrats. McCollum is a fool for the same reason. If she can’t graps Franken was making fun of our hypocritical puritanism about sex, then I hope her Republican opponent wins this fall. Let me know when you say something similar.. mmkay?

    But back to the point – first, there are a great many instances when we non-neo-cons see you attacking others for conduct which you’ve done in spades worse. Case in point, William Jefferson (not Clinton) who was doubtless guilty of accepting bribes – while he deserves to be in jail, the point isn’t defense of Jefferson when we say, “but what about Halliburton, what about Ken Lay, what about Duke Cunningham, what about 1.5 Trillion wasted in Iraq” it’s to say , just as I’ve said above, you neo-cons don’t actually seem to care about violations of the law, you only seem to care about what political hay you can make from the misdeads of others. You white-wash or ignore your own misdeads. Put it this way, there were neo-cons who said “I only started to like Nixon when I found out about Watergate” – Karl Rove cheated to become head of the Congressional Republicans… none of these seem to matter – including the overreaching arm of the DOJ at Gitmo to you – you expect us to care about Franken, but you DON’T care about Limbaugh. In short, we don’t think you have any serious commitment to integrity.

    Second, when, EVER has anyone said – well pedophilia by a Democrat is ok, because Mark Foley engaged in immoral conduct with under-age paiges? We (non-neo-cons) don’t, we say, your concern seems like alligator tears. I certainly agree there are Democrats who defend Clinton’s infidelity by attacking Bob Livingston (for example) – but that’s a horrible defense if it’s sincere. I think instead the point, the one which you either refuse to get, or can’t get, is that we find your concerns to ring hollow – you don’t seem to care when it’s ‘your guy’, even when veritable smoking guns are found – like say Douglas Feith coming straight out and saying the Iraq invasion really wasn’t about WMD – which is EXACTLY what Scott McClellan said. It seems like you’d rather just ignore that, and keep pointing fingers at other’s misconduct (others outside your party). Democrats (a few – very foolish ones) may seek to defend other Democrats by attacking Republicans – but most of us are instead pointing out that your handwringing seems impossibly sincere. If it’s sincere, where is the condemnation of Bush’s statements covering up the Plame affair, when after the fact it’s been shown he in fact knew about it? He lied bald-faced to the American people when he said he didn’t know – or so it very much appears. I condemn people like Jefferson, I’ve OPENLY vilified Bill Clinton, so cliaming that Democrats, even a majority, actually are seeking to defend Democratic misdeeds by pointing out even larger Republican excess, is wrong, and points out you in fact don’t ‘get it.’ It’s that so often, we see you Republicans engaging in far more coordinated, systemic, and pervasive ‘bad acts’ that you bitch about, that we think your complaints are sheer political opportunism, and nothing else. Considering your blog is dedicated to presenting things in a purely one-sided view, why exactly would anyone think you were any different?

12. 

    peevish

    June 1, 2008

    Did you close this post to comments, Mitch?

13. 

    peevish

    June 1, 2008

    hrmm.. I left two replies which apparently weren’t accepted.

    Mitch, Betty McCollum is a fool – you won’t get argument from me on it – on this point.

    But let’t talk about your premise – the one which you didn’t in any way make plain – instead you posted purient points in needless redundancy – sorry, but you’ve not exactly shown that kind of subtelty in the past. It appeared you were, once again, looking to make points at Franken’s expense – and thus, looked to be evincing the normal neo-con trait of double-standards. If your intent was that a Democrat was defending anotehr Democrat by pointing out the worse excesses of a Republican – well, you certainly picked a poor example. Brauer in now way attempted to excuse Franken by citing Buckley, in fact, he pointed out Buckley didn’t engage in even one satirical pornographic comment. So, I’m sorry, but your point was both, not stated, and in fact, not on point.

    Further – you said – Actually, Peev, as usual, I am the one who “gets it”, and you miss it. I personally don’t care who Franken writes for, or what he writes; it’s not a major issue to me. ”

    Actually Mitch, that wasn’t my point, and I should think you could have seen it. I pointed out that Franken put his comments in an adult magazine, they weren’t in the public view, for kids to see. I didn’t make claim that you cared whether it was in Playboy, nor did I think that you cared – but thanks for trying to read my mind. As usual, your claims to intellectual superiority, and braggadocio, is more pomposity, than substance.

14. 

    peevish

    June 1, 2008

    Just in case it was a length issue – I’ve caved it up.

    “The point of this thread (not that that ever matters to you, Peev)”

    Actually Mitch, you should know full well it matters to me, given the number of times you deflected my attempts to engage you in the larger points of your posts, and your insistance on deflecting it off into either personal attack, or minutae which wasn’t even in argument. I’ve stated time and again an interest in actual discourse, which you’ve very very rarely, engaged in.

    “- is that as I saw it, David Brauer was doing what the MN Monitor does whenever any lefty is accused of anything; try to find some “moral equivalent”, so as to say “Ah, but Republicans are even worse!”. (Mr. Brauer wrote to take issue with my take on his post, which reasonably presents food for thought). ”

    It is, especially considering Brauer completely debunked your argument that he was promoting bias. Will you apologize for your mischaracterization of his post or MinnPost? (oh, I’m kdding)- but since you asked, I’ll bite –

    Franken wrote satire, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Mark Foley, Ted Haggerty, and Larry Craig, all engaged in ACTUAL sexual misconduct – including perhaps committing crimes in 4 of 5 cases under US law. (Newt didn’t). While you haven’t defended O’Reilly, I’ll grant you that, you’ve certainly defended Limbaugh. How do you feel about him taking a ‘sex vacation’ to the Carribean? When you complain that Democrats defend conduct by citing Republican conduct which is worse – in this case, at least – it was. More than that, what if Republican conduct, despite the claims of moral superiority, WAS worse?

    The point, and I’m quite sure you can get it, is that in fact damend few Democrats, or anyone sane, would sincerely defend illegality by saying ‘but you did it.’ Instead, they are saying, “You have complained about this conduct (like Bill Clinton’s) – but don’t appear to care a whit about conduct within your own party.” What is instead being said, is that when confronted with insurmountable evidence of misconduct, you Republicans seem not to care – but expect us to focus the debate incessantly upon any Democratic misstep. In short, just as in the case of enormous financial mismanagement in Iraq, while we CARE about William Jefferson, expecting us to lose sleep, when it is contrasted against your wilful disregard for the 15 Billion lost by Paul Wolfwitz and the CPA, we think you are crass political opportunists – who in fact HAVE done far worse, and are merely looking to use Franken as a smoke screen and diversion.

    Put it this way, a fairly well-known comment among neo-cons in the 70’s was “I never liked Nixon until Watergate.” The point was that dirty tricks were fine – even to be encouraged, as long as the right-wing won. Your complaints of hypocrisy are rather shallow, as I’ve never once heard a Democrat say – underage sexual abuse is ok, because Mark Foley did it. Yet, when I discussed Norm Coleman’s infidelity with you, rather than deny it, you attacked Bill Clinton. Brauer was pointing out something I wasn’t, but you conflated to me, namely that WFBIII wrote in Playboy (more than once by the way) – I didn’t care – and it wasn’t my point. But if your point is that Dems defend their actions by attacking worse Republican conduct, my reply is one. Hogwash, we are saying you only seem to CARE when it’s a Dem – and b. even if true (and it’s not) does that excuse excesses like the CPA? Isn’t government waste of ANY form to be assailed? Why does the lens of Democratic conduct even come into play when truthfully and fully discussing real problems of the day, unless your aim is merely to deflect blame and play politics?

15. 

    joelr

    June 1, 2008

    I thought the piece was very funny. Of all the things wrong with Franken — and there’s a lot — this Playboy article isn’t one of them.

16. 

    BradC

    June 1, 2008

    Franken wrote satire, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Mark Foley, Ted Haggerty, and Larry Craig, all engaged in ACTUAL sexual misconduct.

    Are any of those individuals running for Senator of MN?

17. 

    BradC

    June 1, 2008

    BTW, does anyone know what sexual misconduct Rush Limbaugh engaged in? I know he was caught with a bottle of Viagra a couple of years ago but that hardly constitutes “sexual misconduct.”

    Hmmm. It appears Peev is once again talking about legal issues in an area of law he doesn’t specialize in.

18. 

    Mitch Berg

    June 1, 2008

    JoelR,

    I agree. And – peev, please take note – my piece isn’t about Franken’s piece, but about the DFL’s various reactions: McCollum’s tossing him under the bus, Brauer’s (like peev’s) “look, Republicans are as bad or worse).

19. 

    Mitch Berg

    June 1, 2008

    Peev,

    It’s a beautiful Sunday. There is much to do. And answering about 2,000 words of whatever you were cranking out into the wee hours isn’t one of them.

    But this:

    Brauer (whom you named as being liberal – pointed out you’re wrong from his viewpoint to even characterize it that way)

    His viewpoint isn’t the issue – and he was sarcastically pointing out that he was maintaining some detachment in his coverage of the story. It was a valid point.

    I don’t think he’d claim not to be a liberal in his personal politics – if he did, there’s a fair case to be made that he’d be disingenuous; he’s left quite a paper and audio trail over the years.

    So yet again, your reading comprehension has not only failed you, but left you up feverishly scrawling at…

    SWEET JEBUS, you were up for an hour and a half between 2 and 3:30 AM writing those comments?

    (And my comment system puts both new posters, and posts from approved posters that include unknown links and/or “key” words, into the moderation queue. Not sure why you got queued, but I could probalby figure it out).

20. 

    BradC

    June 1, 2008

    Brad – I don’t recall you having anything constructive to say ever –

    That’s because you’re such a pompous windbag that you wouldn’t give any comments the time of day which don’t pertain to you. Besides, I actually have the guts to start my own blog that provides an outlet….as opposed to, say, constantly hijacking someone else’s comment section.

21. 

    Mitch Berg

    June 1, 2008

    I don’t recall you having anything constructive to say ever

    What Brad said. He’s a blogger in his own right; his “constructive” commentary is over there; his “comments” on peoples’ blogs – like my comments on others – are just that; comments. Remarks. Notes. Not magnum opii.

22. 

    Paul

    June 1, 2008

    Peev: Did you close this post to comments, Mitch?

    Mitch: It’s a beautiful Sunday. There is much to do. And answering about 2,000 words of whatever you were cranking out into the wee hours isn’t one of them.

    […]

    SWEET JEBUS, you were up for an hour and a half between 2 and 3:30 AM writing those comments?

    (And my comment system puts both new posters, and posts from approved posters that include unknown links and/or “key” words, into the moderation queue. Not sure why you got queued, but I could probalby figure it out).

    Mitch, maybe your moderation queue doesn’t allow 800-word meandering screeds. (Really, Peev: Scott McClellan? Watergate? Bill O’Reilly? On a post that has nothing to do with any of the three?)

    By the numbers:

    838: word count of first comment
    1378: second comment
    8: third comment (quoted above…a rare moment–a brief Peev comment!)
    913: fourth comment
    3137: grand total word count

    and…
    20000+: keystrokes, all wasted because of failed reading comprehension.

    I can’t decide between mock or pity.

23. 

    Mitch Berg

    June 1, 2008

    Pock.

24. 

    Kermit

    June 1, 2008

    Or moty. Jebus, that’s a lot of effort for no discernable benefit.

25. 

    Yossarian

    June 1, 2008

    I opt for mocking limericks:

    On a weather glorious Sunday
    One which would otherwise be quite a fun day
    Peev drones on and on
    Until the Sunday is gone
    A Peev comment thread reads like a Monday.

26. 

    Mitch Berg

    June 1, 2008

    that’s a lot of effort for no discernable benefit.

    To be fair, you could say that for most blogging, as well.

    To be incredulous; as a guy who usually gets 5-6 hours of sleep a night, my response is “ho lee crap, that’s a lot of precious zzzzz time wasted”. I know he has kids, a spouse, and a job – I can’t imagine squandering that kind of irreplaceable sleep time.

27. 

    Paul

    June 1, 2008

    Yoss, if there was a thread that deserves your octogenarian limerick for Peev, this is it.

28. 

    Yossarian

    June 1, 2008

    I wholeheartedly concur:

    Peev, the quintessential contrarian,
    Can drone on like a scolding librarian.
    If you take time to read
    His meandering screeds,
    You’ll emerge as an octogenarian

29. 

    joelr

    June 2, 2008

    Oh, sure — McCollum’s sense of humor and anything resembling spine were apparently shot off in the War Between the Sexes.

30. 

    Badda

    June 2, 2008

    Did Peev say ANYTHING of use in the hundreds and hundreds of keys he typed?

    Does Peev actually understand satire? Maybe, maybe not… but simply saying that those who dislike or even take issue with Franken have no sense of humor, don’t “get it”, and are tone-deaf to satire is Peev (once again) making claims he cannot back up.

    What’s more, he wont even try.

    Can you even trust his opinion? No, it is untrustworthy, and therefore his judgment is often in question (which puts him on The List). Also, we can easily see in numerous comments here on Shot in the Dark that Peev cannot grasp irony (much less sarcasm).

31. 

    phipho

    June 4, 2008

    Good Lord peev,

    I’m on your side and still I must say that was just too d$%^ long. You must get out more. If you can’t say it in 500 words or less try publishing it in a magazine, or in your case write a book, and a trilogy at that.

    Mitch,

    While the media is definitely biased in many instances I think your take on Brauers article was way off. The essence of the article was the following

    “Sadly for Franken defenders, the recently deceased conservative icon was not opining about Sexbots or erect nipples. Instead, Buckley name-checks Immanuel Kant and Ayn Rand and H.L. Mencken — none imagined with their clothes off.”

    Hardly a rip on Buckley or a defense of Franken.

32. 

    pianomomsicle

    June 4, 2008

    i’d be interested to find out what keywords people are using to find you after this post:)

33. 

    Mitch Berg

    June 5, 2008

    Phipho,

    Fair enough. I think you have a point.

    PianoMom,

    I know that when I wrote a piece about the Vikings Sex Cruise, my traffic went up 35%.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.