I’m Going To Start To Count…
By Mitch Berg
…the days until a leftyblogger actually addresses the facts of a Katherine Kersten column, rather than just blurting out facile, juvenile ad-hominem.
Two of her recent columns have drawn the ire of the not-too-smartosphere (here and here)
I’ll start the count at one day right now, based on these two (obtuse and selectively ignorant) posts bits of blog discharge.
We’ll start with obtuse; Matt Snyders, who seems to be on a mission to rhetorically peck at Kersten’s ankles, writes:
Depending on what kind of reactionary observer you ask, these individuals had it coming because they a) blocked traffic, b) taunted police in mysterious ways that the MPD has so far been unable to describe, c) are bourgeois hipsters and bourgeois hipsters deserve to be beaten, g*d damn it!, or d) some combination of all of the above.
Actually, there’s an option “d”, one that I suspect is the real answer that Matt Snyders (and the entire CP staff) dare not whisper: Critical Mass are patsies for other people.
This topic comes up for discussion again a month-and-a-half later for two reasons: first, the resident she-jackal at the Strib [She-jackal? I feel like I’m reading a screed by some Campus Maoist – Ed.] has had a field day with the incident, penning two columns in the past three weeks on her newfound bogeymen. Check ’em out here and here. You won’t be disappointed. (“Minneapolis isn’t the only place where the Mass mob has strong-armed the police and City Hall,” it wrote on October 8, presumably with a straight face.)
One ad-hominem (ad-feminem?), two giggly but unsupported inferences…zero actual beef. I mean – would Snyders at least let us knuckle-draggers in on where Kersten might be wrong?
Secondly, Critical Mass supporters launched a website earlier this week in order to “support the victims of the police violence and brutality” and to “help resist the remaining charges that are being leveled against 4 individual participants so that the cops and the city can save face and have someone to blame for their misconduct.”
Well, that should settle it then.
Look – as I wrote before, as a guy who dices it out with Twin Cities drivers on my bike at least a couple of days a week (having the kids back in school cuts down on my biking time), I’m not unsympathetic to at least the part of Critical Mass’ agenda related to raising awareness about bikers. But Snyders doesn’t apparently feel it necessary to show the reader where Kersten is supposedly wrong about Critical Mass. Perhaps the CP staff knows that their audience is going to reach the conclusion they want no matter what they write – it’s nothing new. Or maybe Snyders needs to work on writing to an actual point, lest he be regarded as “the worst writer in the Twin Cities’ altmedia since the legendary Margaret Grebe”.
You be the judge.
Oh, it gets worse. This’d be the guy from “mobjectivist”, which if you want to get nit-picky about philosphy might be too-telling a name after all:
Trying to understand her obsession over bicyclists, I think the StarTribune columnist, Katherine Kersten, has tried to frame and conflate other recent Critical Mass events with the sanctioned ride.
Well, actually, she wrote about the ride that turned into a riot. Remember that?
And another local assbag blogger, [“Assbag”? Mommy? Is that you? – Ed.] thinks it has something to do with prepping “greens” for bad behavior when the RNC comes into town next year. I guess what better way to practice intimidating conservatives than a bunch of bicyclists roaming the streets?
Prepping greens?
Where on earth did the “writer” get that?
Look, numbnuts “WHT” – I could care less about “Critical Mass”. Indeed, I bike, so if they have something in mind to actually get drivers to stop knocking us off, more power to ’em. Indeed, friends of mine ride with ’em. And as far as “intimidation” goes, most of them are from Minneapolis, and if they ever crossed the river they’d need me to help them get out alive.
But if either of y’all have any ideas about facts that Kersten supposedly got wrong, sound off, m’kay?
(And “Needing someplace to refer to her as a snaggled-tooth witch” isnt’ even warm).
So – one day and counting!
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:29 am
The kiddies at Critical Ass have their comments turned off. What a shock. They must have correctly surmised the extent of their public support.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
I’m pretty sure what drives them nuts about Kersten is her breathless and overwrought tone. Which, to be honest, bothers me also, even though I tend to agree with her fairly often. That said, Nicky C. has a much more advanced case of the same disease, so at least the Strib is consistent in their hiring practices.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I don’t blog, but Kersten’s points are weakly stated, poorly supported, but most important almost always about inane points of little consequence.
The left would do itself a favor by saying, “you know, we don’t care to argue about ‘gay rights.’ We neither oppose civil unions nor feel marraige needs any further protections, but if you do, go for it. That said, we don’t see any need for protected classification for gays – it’s a lifestyle choice, not an ethnic group/race/creed/or religion.’
Then, maybe, we could move on to actually important topics, and Kersten would, if there were any justice, be summarily dumped by the Strib because her one apparent cause d’ celeb had gone away.
Mitch, you give her more air time/space than her columns ever warrant, singularly or in total.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:39 pm
“Kersten’s points are weakly stated, poorly supported, but most important almost always about inane points of little consequence.”
Well, there you go. A well written explanation refuting her point for point. Or not.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:06 am
I’m torn.
I want to rip on peevish for throwing rocks from his glass house, but I also want to be nice. 😉
October 24th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Buzz..
I don’t read Kersten very often, her column isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Candidly, Mitch’s stuff is better.
Troy – I hardly live in a glass house. I neither claim, or pretend, perfection – I don’t fool myself, I sure as hell don’t try to fool others. Yet, though I sin, considering Kersten is awful, when Mitch complains about the fact that no one spends time detailing a reply, what should I say? “Gee Mitch, you’re right, no one takes the time to refute her drivel, what a bunch of cowards?” She has a pulpit, if someone, oh, say like Mitch, chooses to try to suggest that the while people criticize her, you can’t deny her points, well, you know, I think it’s worth saying, “oh, actually, you COULD, if it meant anything, if it was worth anything.”
Lastly, I’m a big boy, certainly with FAR thicker skin than Mitch, say what you like. That said, I don’t very often take off on ad-hominem attacks on people. I may say someone is deceptive, scatalogical even, but I typically am attacking their words, or conduct – if you want to attack my thoughts, you want to conclude my intellect or understanding is flawed, based on those words, want to categorize my conduct as some less than complimentary point, go ahead, I won’t object, it’s certainly fair game. If, on the other hand, like so many of the Lilliputians, you want to simply say vile and often disgusting things, without merit, proof, or substantiation, then, maybe you should hold your tongue and try to be nice. Not for me, but because such conduct is self-indicting.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Boy, read that Kersten column, and I’ve gotta tell ya’, spending time worrying about Bike Nazi’s – MAN- that’s important stuff that is.
Let me take just a moment to refute a Kersten column. Kersten has repeatedly claimed that allowing gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of the family.
Two replies – first – nonsense – the family is determined by it’s individual contributors. What someone next door does – male and male, or male and female – has no bearing on how I will treat my wife, or how she’ll treat me. If they argue, fight, abuse each other, abuse their children, it has NO bearing on what I should or if I’ve got one shred of ethics, WILL do in my own relationships. This is essentially the same as saying ‘admitting to child abuse’ will destory the sanctitity of the family – because it’s not homosexuals living together which Kersten is objecting to, it’s RECOGNIZING it, making it public – even acceptable. Child abuse is a vile crime – so saying it’s the same as ACCEPTING child abuse – is not the comparison, no it’s the recognition that we’re objecting to here.
Second, Gay Marraige, while I don’t much care for it, is the province of the Church, not the state. When you get a marraige license, the authority conducting the ceremony is given authority to recognize that union within that State BY that State. That we give it to priests/pastors/deacons etc.. is an affectation both of our heritage, and convenience. We could just as easily give them only the authority to license/conduct civil unions from a ‘what it means to a State’ point of view, and leave it at that. THEN priests/deacons/pastors wouldn’t have to worry about the fact that a marriage license and a civil union are effectively coincidentally created, and ANY religion that didn’t care to sanction gay marriage, wouldn’t have to.
Third, what the objection then truly comes down to is that some of the more bigotted in our country don’t want homesexual unions legitimized. Kersten certainly being one of those bigots. Why not is my question? Is a child raised in a household with two moms LESS loved? Is a productive household with two dads, less helpful to our economy, less deserving of the ‘civil union’ tax break? Our divorce rate tops 50%, it’s not as if we’re doing such a bang-up job keeping marraiges together as it is, if we can have an example set by a group of people, same sex or different, why not? Moreover, since ‘Gay Marriages’ have a FAR lower divorce rate, especially among lesbian couples, than average, I’m not sure how we conclude they have a negative effect on the stability of unions, or lead to the fracturing thereof.
Now, let me tell you, I’ve just restated what I’ve heard and read in a dozen places, probably a dozen blogs, let alone in dozens of speeches. Mitch’s claim that it’s not been done, is fantasy. So Buzz, there MAYBE was a reason for me not typing all of this – maybe instead I should have simply researched it and pointed out a URL – but I’ll leave that to Mitch who SHOULD have done his own research about things that have refuted Kersten – both before and after her musings are put down on (toilet)paper.
June 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 am
[…] bagged on the City Pages’ Matt Snyders a time or two for his flights into context-challenged, myopically-biased political […]