When Peter Daou of the normally-serious Salon described some audience-boosting flatulence from Glenn Greenwald as "seminal", I took a bit of interest. What I found was an utterly generic diatribe bashing Bush and his supporters.
Normally I follow the tack of most sensible bloggers and ignore these tirades - since they represent a near-automatic link from Atrios, Kos, and a few of the other blogs that traffic in this nonsense, I have long imagined that they were simply a useful device for boosting readership. Hey, people like to vent, there is a readership for this, so live large.
But "seminal"? Please - it never occurred to me that these rantings are meant to be serious objects of discussion. The readers had their fun, move on - a few weeks ago the right was "frightened bedwetters", today Greenwald's seminal effort has us pegged as "Authoritarian Cultists", and a few weeks hence we will be something new (any chance of making the next one alliterative? "Corrupt Christo-cultists", maybe? Nah.)
My view remains that serious discussion of these Bush-bashing riffs makes as much sense as pondering the intellectual output of an open-mike beer-belching contest at spring break in Fort Lauderdale. OK, that is a bit of a flawed analogy - with the Bush-bashers, it is a year-round activity.
However, Mr. Daou is deeply concerned about "Unanswered Challenges", so I am exhorting him to answer mine. First, let's recap Greenwald's Garglings:
Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is.
E-Z, yes? Criticize Bush, and you will be re-labeled a "liberal". Breakthrough stuff.
So, my three part challenge:
(1) As James Taranto noted, Greenwald's links don't actually lead to any supporting evidence - for example, careful link-followers will note that Andrew Sullivan implies that Brent Bozell re-labeled him, writing "All of that makes me a 'liberal.' " However, Mr. Bozell (or whoever wrote this) said that Andrew "has been off the conservative reservation for at least a couple of years." The word "liberal", which Andrew quotes, is applied to The New Republic, and I doubt they would object.
Or - if Messrs. Greenwald and Daou, or their supporters, could find real evidence of Cult leaders actually re-labeling Bush critics as "liberal", that would advance this seminal effort and deepen our understanding of this important work.
(2) Let's test the predictive power of this new social science hypothesis by applying it to the experience of Heather Wilson (R, NM). On Feb 8 she broke publicly with Bush on NSA oversight, so the Cult has had almost two weeks to attack her.
Greenwald specifically cited Hinderaker, Malkin, Goldberg, Hewitt, and Goldstein. So, and this couldn't be easier - how many of these five have re-labeled Heather Wilson a "liberal"?
Full Disclosure - I spent about five minutes with the Powerline search function and came up empty on "Heather Wilson". I have not bothered to check the others. Suspenseful, yes? Let's fly under the bridge!
And please - if this is a cult, I expect the leaders to lead it. Somewhere, in someone's comments section, almost anything can be found. But if the best evidence anyone can find of Cult relabeling is from some unknown commenter at Protein Wisdom, bring it in so we can mock it.
(3) If any of Team Daou/Greenwald are still with us, please try to respond to the point made by Taranto and others - if this is a Cult, why did so many conservatives rebel over Harriet Miers? Or, to pick another, how about immigration reform?
This is so exciting - don''t you love it when a "seminal" work provokes discussion? The old back and forth, conducted with mutual respect and motivated only by a desire for the truth?
OK, speaking for the Cultists, I can't say I sense a lot of mutual respect. And given the absence of evidence on offer, I don't think either Daou or Greenwald hold any real evidence in advancing anyone's understanding or discerning "the truth".
But wasting a few more minutes highlighting the vacuity on display at Salon is fine with me. If I had that perch, and was interested in promoting lefty bloggers, I hope I would push myself to offer my readership a bit more than the latest Bush-bashing ravings linked by Kos and Atrios - most folks who want that sort of intellectual pornography probably can find it with no help from Salon.
Just to give Mr. Daou a boost to get started - pick a post at random from The Anonymous Liberal. Or check out The Next Hurrah - they aren't exactly undiscovered, but they aren't the Blog Monsters they could be, either.
OK, that's enough kisses of death for one morning.
FINAL: Mr. Daou has his own little challenge "proving", to his satisfaction, that the media tilts right, with specific emphasis on the Cheney Valentine's Weekend Massacre. And he is troubled that none on the right are rising t ohis challenge. Gee - call folks "Authoritarian Cultists", and they tune you out - who wouldda thunk?
Besides - the VP shoots a man, and the press does not get told for nearly a day? Of course that is news, and of course the press over-reacted.
Some quick thoughts:
(1) If a coin touted as "fair" comes up heads seventy-five times in one hundred trials, color me suspicious. And please don't offer the twenty-five "tails" as proof that the coin is fair.
In this context, even if the media sometimes tilts right, that hardly proves it mostly, or always tilts right. A real test would look at "all" the Cheney coverage, and who is going to do that?
(2) David Gregory apologized for his outburst; Dana Milbank was scolded by the WaPo ombudsman. Since these two were targets of criticism from the right, does this mean we win?
UPDATE: I'm getting a real Protein Shake on the old traffic meter. But will it stay down?
Actually what is missing on the left is a sense of humor. And I refuse to loan them mine.
Posted by: Sue | February 21, 2006 at 03:10 PM
I second the nomination for Kim as Oracle.
Posted by: maryrose | February 21, 2006 at 03:13 PM
First things first. We must do an environmental impact statement thick enough to keep a bum warm on a park bench in Traverse City in December.
The study must include such things as black capped viros, thompason kangaroo rats, snail darters and bugs in caves.
Only after that is completed can we move on the government approval process which in itself may take months or years.
In the menatime your virgins, may ... well lets say no longer qualify.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 03:13 PM
Clarice,It has to be a Sacred Grove,with a grotto for the oracle.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 03:14 PM
Gary,This is a cult,it has all the attributes of a religion get ACLU on the case.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 03:19 PM
Oh man, a grotto is going to involve the Coastal Commission and maybe the Corps of Engineers. "Sacred Grove" implies trees - that EIR that Gary mentioned is going to need to be a lot thicker.
Btw - Gary, they're virtual virgins - ya know - like "virtually germ free".
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 03:23 PM
A Sacred Grove,with a grotto for the oracle it is. I'm authoritarian, but I can listen and accept a good idea.
Kim as oracle works. Rick will be keeper of the golden books (that is he'll set the gate and tally the loot). PeterUK has such a fine way with words, I think he should write the sacred text.(And get lots of white out, honey, from time to time we want to make the immutable, mutable, if you get my drift.)
I don't want to leave anyone out. There's a place for everyone.
Posted by: clarice | February 21, 2006 at 03:31 PM
Duh I thought it meant "virtuous" not "almost" ( ie virtually) . If your definition holds does that mean even Madonna can apply?
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 03:33 PM
Gary,
If she takes the virgin studies course at UCLA for a refresher.
There is just the problem of where to put the giant marble statue of George Bush.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 03:43 PM
Not sure UCLA has a virgin studies course. In fact I remeber my alma mater had a long standing legend about what might happen to the bell tower when the first virgin graduated, but perhaps we are getting too far afield...
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 03:47 PM
Thank you Clarice,but i think this should be an oral tradition,that is what the Oracle is for.What is required is a body of priests and priestesses to interpret to words,a bit like the Supreme Court but with better dress sense.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 03:48 PM
Gary can assist with fundraising because with his CPA he's very good with numbers.,if he would like to do that.
Posted by: maryrose | February 21, 2006 at 03:49 PM
It would be an honor to be keeper of all the sets of the golden books. Such an honor in fact, that I will be willing to serve without pay, asking only that all reasonable expenses incurred should be covered upon presentation of appropriate vouchers. Since Gary has the requisite background and skills my first act will be to draft an agreement whereby he will verify every nickel of income received and every dime of necessary outlay as detailed in the primary set of records. Everyone should be satisfied with that.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 03:56 PM
Oh hell no. I want to be one of the honor guard at the citadel of the virgins!!!
Do you have any idea how many civic organizaiton just assume you want to be the treasurer? I could just scream sometimes.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 04:05 PM
The terms of agreement would assuage any fear that this might be a voluntary effort. And it's verification not keeping any of the sets of books. Just a signature once a year saying that all nickels and dimes are accounted for. Surely some arrangement can be reached, I'm sure occasional duty as part of the honor guard might be arranged.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 04:11 PM
Mr Ballard,
Do you want to acquaint Mr Maxwell with the,er, physical requirements that are traditionally demanded of the honour guard of Virtual Virgins?
It would be unfair not telling him what he is cutting himself in for.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 04:27 PM
I'll take Obscuracle. Tom's the Oracle.
===========================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 04:43 PM
The perfectly cheeky comment I would have expected from a limey! You know those signs in the Waterford crystal shop, "Look but dont touch?" Seems applicable here.
Posted by: Gary Maxwell | February 21, 2006 at 04:48 PM
Who needs virgins when we've got trolls to sacrifice, with great ritual.
============================================
Posted by: kim | February 21, 2006 at 04:55 PM
Mr. Uk,
I'm sure that Mr. Maxwell will be up to the task in every respect. Besides, key man policies will be maintained on everyone seving in the honor guard. It seems only prudent.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 21, 2006 at 04:58 PM
Gary,
I refer you to the priests of Isis,hope it doesn't make your eyes water.
Posted by: PeterUK | February 21, 2006 at 05:23 PM
Gary
"Only after that is completed can we move on the government approval process which in itself may take months or years."
Be not afraid, the Goddess can set us up by executive order in no time flat.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 22, 2006 at 07:17 PM
The left needs to stop psychoanalyzing the right and turn their attention to their own. Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Daou would better serve their party if they tried healing their own...
Posted by: Sue | February 22, 2006 at 07:20 PM
Right after the 2002 mid terms, the left said we weren't angry enough. We gave Bush a pass. So they cranked up the anger for the 2004 general election. Right after the 2004 election they said we didn't get our message of God and country to the 'faith based'. We need to send people into the heart of red country to find out what makes these people tick. They came for a few weeks, looked around, and promptly skedaddled right back to where they came from. Reporting to party leaders they once again said we were not angry enough. For a minute there, they almost got a glimpse of what is wrong with their party. For a minute there...
Posted by: Sue | February 22, 2006 at 07:25 PM
I OBJECT to the very CONCEPT of Vestal Virgins!
Aside from the fact that volunteers are not exactly swarming the hive here, they just look so damn silly in jack boots. Does anybody take them seriously any more? If they're really de rigeur, let 'em serve up the mead & honey till they can manage to prove they're good for something other than wafting about. What this cult really needs is a constellation of media whores.
I was planning to apply for emince grise status, but unfortunately my shady CV has been ferreted off by parties unknown who are apparently grisier than I am. So I'm left casting about for gravitas instead, and suddenly, I hear my Muses whisper Pontiff-icator, not in a good way, which is probably about all you need to know about the troubled history there.
So I settle in to think some more, but all I can come up with is, why not? And yeah, maybe it sorta kinda fits, like, well, a wet T-shirt really. And it's better than my last role as H.R.H.Drama Queen (which I must say, I managed to play to excellent advantage), and it's not like I can't dress the thing up a bit. I mean a Pontifficator gets robes for sure, which would hide the snake boots. Can't stand the snakes, but a Cult's no Cult without snakes, now is it?
So. If the Oh So Authoritarian Goddess approves, I'll take Pontifficator. (What? OK OK OK) And a stipend for my beMUSEments, please. (No, the Goddess doesn't hand out health insurance, get real...Geez, could you maybe stop bugging me for just one second? If you're not careful I'm going to tell the Divine One I need a new set of MUSES not another stack of vellum...Sheesh!)
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 22, 2006 at 08:42 PM
This is what I love about the people here. Go to Mr. Greenwald's or Mr. Daou's comments section and notice the difference in tone from their posters and those here. And I still refuse to loan them a cup of my sense of humor...
Posted by: Sue | February 22, 2006 at 08:47 PM
Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Daou would better serve their party if they tried healing their own...
Psychotherapy is the art of the possible (I think).
Posted by: TM | February 22, 2006 at 09:06 PM
JMHANES;
Come and join us on Friday night for our tall tales and dream sequences, as a Pontificator you have a lot to offer.
Sue; I love the sense of humor on display here and wouldn't trade it for any other. I found JOM via Instapundit. I always enjoy the postings and it's fun to hear different points of view and opinions. Each poster has a unique personality that comes out in their writings. It's an interesting way to get to know each person's individual strengths.
Posted by: maryrose | February 22, 2006 at 09:21 PM
maryrose
"a lot to offer"
Hmm......Offerings......Now there's a concept...:) Always liked mine rare, which is probably why divinity escapes me to this day.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 22, 2006 at 09:29 PM
Psychotherapy is the art of the possible (I think).
Ahh...well, that explains why there is no attempt on their part.
Posted by: Sue | February 22, 2006 at 09:31 PM
Syl,
You defend Bush "all the time?" That only proves Greenwald's point. If you are simply loyal to Bush come hell or high water, you are indeed part of the Cult of Bush. I would think it better to defend or oppose Bush on individual issues, on the merits.
Posted by: swmap feller | February 22, 2006 at 09:34 PM
I would think it better to defend or oppose Bush on individual issues, on the merits.
Shoot, feller, we don't have time for that. We are too busy deciding on the Goddess's court and the outfits we'll wear. Snake or no snake? What do you think?
Posted by: Sue | February 22, 2006 at 09:50 PM
Geesh, I hope the HR hire shows up soon. I'm just the bookskeeper.
OK, JMH - You're applying for the position of Pontificatrix, right? Now, that position has an annual fee of $48,000 which is payable on a quarterly basis in advance. Plus you will need 2 pr (mid thigh, snakeskin, 3" heel) boots, 4 robes (set, inner and outer garment, WetT weight), 2 tiara (1 ea - wht/reg), 1 crown (formal - no more than 4 carats of studding), 1 stole (reversible red/black) and 1 crop, (riding). The total for that comes to $30, 246.12 with additional payments of $12,482.14 due on the 10th of the third month following initiation and so on.
Will that be cash or charge? There is a 2% discount for cash with an additional 1% off for payment in used bills of no more than $20 denomination.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 22, 2006 at 10:19 PM
Can I pick the right person for the right job or what?
Posted by: clarice | February 22, 2006 at 10:27 PM
How did I miss all this yesterday?
Geez- must catch up -I was doing Ports!
RB:
Goddess wardrobe must include:
Isadora Duncan Scarves
Elbow length pale leather gloves
Jeweled Clouches
JMH
"The Authorian Cult" is that the
now agreed upon name? I thought
it was "authoritarian" but yours
will cost less for embroidered items. And we have that T.A.C.,
which certainly gets our war mongering across.
On another thread AB today called
me " dyslexic", and now I have found that he has bestowed a terrible high honor upon me:
Clarice & Peter UK
Peter, you were example A, little old me was example B, and
Clarice was cited as example C.
Cannot believe I have been placed in such exalted company standing on the same line.
Thank you AB
Rick Ballard
"Oh well, Greenberg will do another poll showing that the "ship" is drawing every nearer - and it's a big ship,"
OneCosmos' :End-Time Panic and The Liberal Ghost Dance
describes two of the crisis cults that certainly apply to the left today.
The Ghost Dance was developed by American Indians in the 19th century:
The Ghost Dance was a fantasied solution to all their problems, involving the widespread idea that "a new skin would slide over the old earth, covering up the whites and all their works, and bringing upon it new trees and plants, great buffalo herds, the ghosts of the dead, and the great departed warriors and chiefs." This utopia would come about if only each person in all the tribes danced the elaborate Ghost Dance.
And those big ship waiters:
Another famous example is the "cargo cult" of early 20th century New Guinea. There, the natives couldn't help but notice that they had to work very hard, while the white colonialists seemed to sit around a lot, and received great stores of goods simply by sending out little scraps of paper. They reasoned that this had something to do with the mysterious cargo ships that left with native products and returned loaded down with all of the machines and other items that seemed to make the white men so powerful. The New Guineans developed the idea that these powerful objects were fashioned by their ancestors in a far-off volcano and were actually meant for them. But in order to ensure receiving them, they would have to imitate the behaviors of the white men by "sitting solemnly and speechlessly around tables," waiting for their ship to come in, so to speak.
......... After all, progressives are having to cope with a catastrophic collapse of their world and all of its comforting myths. As each myth crumbles in succession, they become increasingly frantic in papering over reality with the downright strange beliefs of their progressive crisis cult.
The left has combined those two into a Ghost Dancing Cargo Cult - banging
drums and stomping feet while staying in exactly the same place accomplishing
absolutely nothing.
We have so much to teach them - now we have to add how to be an effective
cult to the list. They are terribly troublesome.
Posted by: larwyn | February 22, 2006 at 10:28 PM
JMH--I thought you knew..virtual virgins are not-um-exactly virgins..Like covert is not exactly covert, outed is not exactly outed, harm to national security is not exactly harm to national security, and first in the line isn't exactly first..Indeed, like obstruction is not about obstruction of a legitimate investigation of an actual applicable statute.
*whooosh* I wave that magic Fitzcape and *poof* everything turns to its opposite.
Posted by: clarice | February 22, 2006 at 10:33 PM
These outfits are amply cut and elastic waistbanded, I presume, like, you know, pajamas?
Might as well be authoritatively comfortable while we're comfortably authoritative.
=========================================
Posted by: kim | February 22, 2006 at 10:53 PM
Skinny people in tight clothes never look authoritative. Think Churchill.
Posted by: clarice | February 22, 2006 at 10:59 PM
By far the most authoritative person I've ever met was a Borough Park shadkhn, and by no stretch of the vernacular could she be described as skinny, nor her habiliments as tight.
==========================================
Posted by: kim | February 22, 2006 at 11:19 PM
Herr Doktor'd Booksmeister Ballard:
That would be Pontifficatrix. The extra f'ing will cost you $48K. As for duds, I'm quite covered up in tiaras & related paraphenalia (and would never voluntarily consent to crowning, in any case, which I find simply too ponderous for words -- Not. Good. In. A. Px). My personal dry cleaner is on call 24/7, I can launder my own money, and will not require initiation as I've been credentialled quite enough.
Please feel free to haggle over hidden fees with my MUSES (NOT recommended). Sounds like we're good to go, no?
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 23, 2006 at 03:28 AM
Goddess -- You too have your way with words, I see, as, of course, you would, wouldn't you, have your way with everything, that is.
Virgins of most any ilk still seem a little useless in a 21st c. Cult, don't you think? I s'pose we could keep a few around, for tossing overboard in case we come up short on excommunicants.
Posted by: JM Hanes | February 23, 2006 at 04:05 AM
Many knowledges I have found here I would come back http://spankzilla.spazioblog.it/
Posted by: gay spank | January 01, 2008 at 09:27 PM