ooooh,Feingold
Blessing on your mom, Jane
mommybrain |
03.23.06 - 7:41 am | #
Okay, time to start the over/under betting on Box Turtle Boy's tenure at WaPo.
genoasail |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 7:43 am | #
I'll second that mommybrain.
Millineryman |
03.23.06 - 7:43 am | #
Re: Box Turtle Ben:
Oh, no HE DI-IN'T!!
I'm sorry, this kid needs an ass-whipping in the worst kind of way.
I'd be more than happy to do it, too.
patrick |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 7:45 am | #
I can tell that today is going to be another sizzling day at FDL. You guys are cooking on high. I'm not going to get any work today if you guys keep it up.
lisadawn82 |
03.23.06 - 7:46 am | #
when word gets out on the street in Washington DC exactly who the new white-azz punkboy working for the Post really is ...
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 7:47 am | #
Okay, time to start the over/under betting on Box Turtle Boy's tenure at WaPo.
genoasail | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 7:43 am | # I have no idea what the parlance is, but I'll bet he doesn't last the rest of the month.
Jane, thanks for putting this information out there. This guy is a real bad actor. Once people connect him with his public utterances, he's toast. What a disgusting prick. I was considering homeschooling my boy, but if BTB is indicitive of the outcome, forget it.
mommybrain |
03.23.06 - 7:48 am | #
Thanks, mommybrain & Millineryman. I'm off to the hosptial soon but when I saw this I just had to take the time to let my good friend Jim Brady know he's in trouble.
It's the least I can do.
jane hamsher |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 7:49 am | #
maybe Bennett can take Box Turtle Ben out for a night of gambling and swap genocide efficacy tales ...
Wilson46201 |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 7:49 am | #
Stick a fork in WaPo and test for doneness.
Yup, cooked. Through and through.
I'm forwarding a copy of this post to my friend on the Civil Rights Task Force of Progressive Democrats of America. Thank you, Jane and everyone else doing due diligence on this matter.
Rayne |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 7:50 am | #
This is guy is already gone even if it takes the Washington Post another week or two to realize it.
A terrible choice, all wrong -- reflects so badly on whoever hired him that that person deserves to lose their job.
Slothrop |
03.23.06 - 7:53 am | #
WaPo stepped on a pile of dogdoo when the made Howell ombudsperson. They have stepped into a mountain of shit by hiring Domenech to be their rightwing spokesman. In both cases they hired people whose assets are way below their pay grade.
My solution is to never go near WaPo online. It's easy to do a boycott online. You don't have to go anywhere. Just don't log in. And spread the word via the Internets.
WaPo is in desperate straits and they can't afford to make too many mistakes. They do not have the octopus-like business model of the Times to weather the online news revolution. Getting online hits and ad clickthroughs are crucial to their survival plans.
orangejumpsuit |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 7:54 am | #
Jesus. I thought the guy might be a bit over the top, but Jesus.
I wonder what the urban Washington community will think about this guy.
I can't believe a major paper would actually allow someone like this to write for them. Are they trying to pick up the Coulter crowd or something?
Zergle |
03.23.06 - 7:54 am | #
OT: Arlen is off the reservation again on congressional oversight?
Jane - God, I love your nastiness. I have to ask though, "What's wrong with being a Communist?"
Is a Communist better or worse than a fascist? Trick question, yeah? The Commie's an apple; the Fascist a prickly pear (orange is too benign, eh?).
Communist should not be a "bad" word IMLTHO. After all, it describes, primarily, an economic system; a pretty fair one in principle, don't you think?
That Communists have been supporters (and victims) of Totalitarianism is no more or less relevant than small-time Capitalists having been the victims of Fascism.
It doesn't serve our understanding of what's happening in the world, let alone our country, to mix forms of government with economic models.
I think we should just say no.
Cranky Curmudgeon |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 7:56 am | #
But but blowjobs are much much worse. Right?
moeman |
03.23.06 - 8:00 am | #
If Box turtle Ben is really Augustine (and, c'mon, do we really doubt it?), not only should Brady step up, but where are any of the WaPo reporters, who should have at least some sense of decency.
If this is true, where's Howie...or maybe he approves of these comments.
dratty |
03.23.06 - 8:00 am | #
>We would all be better off if there >were fewer of them.
WTF is wrong with WP? Did they not do due deligence on him. He seems young, inexperienced and unworthy to be at WP at any capacity.
Ajay |
03.23.06 - 8:00 am | #
Sorr to go off topic, but I just called my Senator Ken Douchebagpussywimpfingerinthewind Salazar, he STILL has no position on Feingold's censure, but I suggested, with all the politeness my rage could allow me, that he issue a statement condemning the RNC's blatantly demogogic "Feingold wants to censure the president for fighting the war on terror." I think this would be a good half step while pressure builds on censure. I'm going to call Reid and Kerry too. It's the least they can do.
ColoradoBlue |
03.23.06 - 8:01 am | #
OT -- Gussie -- I am sorry; I hadn't read your post before I just replied. I can't do it right now but I'll dig up some stats for you so you can see just how asymmetric this situation really is. It's an eye-opener, and quite disconcerting, but real.
Now, to read this post, which looks delicious.
dannyboy |
03.23.06 - 8:01 am | #
Sorry, forgot to put my bet in.
I give it six days.
On the seventh day, Box-Turtle-Boy Ben can rest.
And look forward to his future as Box-Boy-Ben.
genoasail |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:01 am | #
Cranky Curmudgeon
The issue here is not whether Communism is a good, bad, or indifferent ideology. The issue here is that someone named Augustine, a putative screen name for Domenech, accused Coretta Scott King of being a Communist without evidence or proof, only a few days after her death. And this person did so by while hiding behind a screen name.
And it does not take a rocket scientist to know that calling someone a Communist in this country, esp. among the rightwing, is not a compliment.
orangejumpsuit |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:02 am | #
Good one Jane.
I can't believe that Domenech's undercurrent of racism went unnoticed when Jimmy & crew were evaluating his earlier posts for 'spongeworthiness'.
At least since 'Augustine' has been unmasked the WaPo must come to terms with its hiring of a man who waxes poetic about a holocaust in the name of crime prevention.
I bet he doesn't last through next week, and even that's too long.
Over a thousand comments at WaPo Blog and not a sound from Brady/Howell/Downie
Dadhusker |
03.23.06 - 8:04 am | #
"The extermination of anti-social elements does,"
stop right there, just stop right there
that is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen in print and I consider myself god's own cynic
Was enjoying the popcorn thinking Brady had simply stepped on it by hiring a cultural illiterate, but trust me, I am no longer laughing
cbl |
03.23.06 - 8:06 am | #
you can’t rise above ego
Whatever is he gonna do?
Can't stay, can't go, in the words of my old time faves Jade and Sasparilla.
Jane, I'll forever lament my thinking that Mr. Brady had a clue.
Keep up the snarking--I'm off to Hilary's and Chuck's offices. It's a good thing they're within a block of each other here in Manhattan. Russ inspired me last night.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
jayackroyd |
03.23.06 - 8:06 am | #
You can't convince me that WaPo didn't do a thorough investigation into this guy's writing and blogging. I have to think they picked him knowing all this.
cathy |
03.23.06 - 8:07 am | #
Great work, as always, Jane. That passage from Augustine/Ben made me ill. Am hoping, frankly, that not only do they broom Benny-boy, but that they sweep Brady and Howell out with him.
Jane, hope things improve with your mother; will keep her, and you, in my thoughts and prayers.
Anne |
03.23.06 - 8:08 am | #
Jane Hamsher, I'm really proud of your blogging lately. You go girl!
Balzac |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:09 am | #
This blog is unreadable in Mac OS X 10.3 using Safari. All the text is squeezed into a column less than one inch wide.
John H. Farr |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:10 am | #
genoasail | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 7:43 am | #
Put me down for April 2.
Also, I'd wager heavy that comments NEVER become a feature of Box Turtle's blog.
Back to finish reading. Wow Redd, wow.
anotherpawn |
03.23.06 - 8:11 am | #
a somewhat controversial history
Is that like saying Benni is somewhat of an asshole?
I am shocked by what he wrote. Shocked that in this day and age someone of his years not only thinks like this, but feels perfectly comfortable telling the world that he thinks like this.
Makes me wish somewhat that there were still pressgangs and Benni would wake up in his own real video game in Iraq.
Especially if it meant one stop lossed soldier could wake up in his own bed.
Bionic |
03.23.06 - 8:11 am | #
Atrios has a good story today on Ben -something about him saying he would pay back a scholarship he had for college, and then questioning if he was going to do that now that he had a paying gig. Or some such.
JWC |
03.23.06 - 8:11 am | #
Jesus Christ, I had to force myself to read that excremental piece of "literature".Speaks for itselef ,doesn't it?
Bustednuckles. |
03.23.06 - 8:12 am | #
This whole thing makes me feel "oogy." I felt sick when I saw "Red America" for the first time, and just disdainfully clicked out of WaPo.
Now I'm heartened to see the uproar against this Domenech person. BUT: The thing to be vigilant about is the accusation from right-wingers that moderates/liberals just want to squelch voices from the Other Side.
It'll be tricky to get rid of Domenech while reminding everyone of the real reasons (i.e. he is offensively unqualified and unqualifiedly offensive).
P.S.: I like the new format of your blog, Jane. My scroll-finger was getting pretty worn out at the old site.
Septimus |
03.23.06 - 8:13 am | #
Curmudgeon, I've read your comment a couple of times now and I have to say that it weirds me out.
Nastiness, the real deal, is that racist tripe that RedState purveyed.
Rayne |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:14 am | #
Gosh, this post would make a great insert for the Sunday papers.
Those homeless guys selling papers will take $10.00 per 100 to insert them. And that is a fact. Been there, done that.
ccmask |
03.23.06 - 8:15 am | #
Let's get them copiers printing, folks!
ccmask |
03.23.06 - 8:16 am | #
"The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, have a somewhat controversial history. One thinks, perhaps inevitably, of the Holocaust,"
Shithead. (It's one word, not two.)
I can't print the other words I'm calling him, they're not for public consumption. That sentence alone should get him expelled from WaPoo land.
mommybrain |
03.23.06 - 8:16 am | #
Holy. Shit.
The Washington Post, (blesstheirholynameforbringingdownRichardNixon), has hired a Red State rascist? This is big, this is huge, this is... what the hell is this..? Just when the majority of the country is beginning to wake up to the fact that those whom they've worshiped have been secretly raping them and their children the WaPo runs hard to the most disgusting and vile elements of the insane right? And giving the vile voice the inherent credibility and prestige of one of the nation's most important newspapers to this scum?
This is large - and this is scary. Fuck the tin-foil hat - what the hell is going on here?
jayt |
03.23.06 - 8:19 am | #
This blog is unreadable in Mac OS X 10.3 using Safari. All the text is squeezed into a column less than one inch wide.
John H. Farr | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 8:10 am | #
But 10.2.9 works great (so far, X(that's crossed fingers))
mommybrain |
03.23.06 - 8:20 am | #
As a veteran of several dysfunctional companies (one in publishing) I can safely say that:
- all sane and competent people at the Post are polishing resumes and networking their contacts
- any Post alumni that apply to other jobs will need to deny all support for Brady and Howell
- management is still utterly clueless, even as the best employees continue to leave
- eventually the board will wake up and fire the idiots, but there won't be much left of a reputation to save
-
Cassius Chaerea |
03.23.06 - 8:20 am | #
They better pull the plug today. TODAY.
anotherpawn |
03.23.06 - 8:20 am | #
CO Blue,
I, too, have been writing our sorry senator about supporting Feingold. Here is his "official" (weasel) position:
"Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Feingold's resolution to censure the President concerning warrantless wiretaps.
I believe that warrantless spying on Americans is extremely serious. I also believe that Congress must insist on collecting all of the facts about any warrantless spying program and thoroughly accounting for precisely what actions were taken by the Administration before considering other action.
Censure of an American president has occurred only once in our history, back in the early days of our Republic, when Andrew Jackson was President."
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Ken Salazar
United States Senator
Our DINO is now in Iraq assuring the troops that our mission there is not over. However, according to Rumsfeld, "Iraqis Now Capable Of Conducting War Without U.S. Assistance." This morning I sent Mr. Salazar this piece of good news and told him that he must demand that the troops come home NOW.
In addition, he needs to spend his vacation in CO. It is time for him to start answering questions from the people who got him elected: his Democratic constituents. He has A LOT of explaining to do.
What do you want to bet that I get more boilerplate from him?
susan |
03.23.06 - 8:21 am | #
This racist blogs with the name of a philosopher ? What an ego-- sorta fits with the whole supremacist theme. Wonder what mommy and daddy think of their boy wonder-- are they proud???
angie |
03.23.06 - 8:23 am | #
Jane,
That was some nasty reading, but it should do the trick. If any of this sticks to the boy wonder, he'll be sent back home for more schooling very soon.
As a D.C. resident, I appreciate the efforts of all the out-of-towners to help us flush the toilet from time to time.
We may not have to march in front of the building this time, although it's clear that the problem over there goes beyond one crazy blogger.
What kind of a newspaper promotes ignorance? Not one with any long-term plans.
clem |
03.23.06 - 8:24 am | #
eventually the board will wake up and fire the idiots, but there won't be much left of a reputation to save
-
Unless these decisions are coming from the board itself, which I strongly suspect is the case. I seems like they are doing exactly what Bush is doing. Hanging on to an ideology that doesn't work and going down with the ship.
cathy |
03.23.06 - 8:26 am | #
John H. Farr | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 8:10 am | #
I guess I crossed the wrong fingers. Now I have the opposite problem from yours....the post fills the entire middle of the screen. The borders seem to have expanded to twice their usual size. Too much fudge, Jane?
mommybrain |
03.23.06 - 8:28 am | #
Two comments...
First, the long, disgusting commentary that Jane posted was not written by the Box Turtle, as it contains words that he cannot spell or comprehend. But it was posted and essentially endorsed by him as the leader and founder of the big-time right-wing blog. It was red meat for the red people. I guess this is the kind of stuff they slober over in the way we comb through Fitz filings. I'd be interested to know if anyone on the wingnut site had the guts to call him out on it, or are they all as disgusting?
Second, Augustine almost certainly is a reference to St. Augustine. Among many things, the original Augustine, the theologian, is known for his teaching of predestination. So, more or less, Ben is using that screen name to imply that he is a chosen favorite of the most high God. As a Christian, THAT is truly offensive.
ShowMePatriot |
03.23.06 - 8:29 am | #
For clarity, Jane didn't say that Ben wrote this. Ben posted a quote without comment from First Things implying his solidarity with the position.
Pach,
But how long will Specter stay off the reservation before the Rovians snap his leash and pull him back in?
BTW, C-span's weeklong airing of the 2-day conference at the JFK library about Vietnam is fabulous. Right now on C-span2, the topic is presidential tapes and what they reveal about Vietnam, the next topic is inside the WH with Ted Sorenson, Haig, Kissinger, & Jack Valenti. I caught part of it last evening, and it was fascinating.
Tonight on C-SPAN is Vietnam and the media and the role of public opinion -- maybe we should all go to school on this one.
This racist blogs with the name of a philosopher ?
angie | 03.23.06 - 8:23 am
And a theologian.
Stephen Parrish, CPA |
03.23.06 - 8:31 am | #
I don't really know who is who's boss at WaPo, but this whole thing smells to me like some big clueless boss got yelled at by his Republican friends/handlers over something their "liberal media" had done, again.
Shit flows downhill in corporations. And it ended on somebody's desk who was getting really really sick of it. So they say, fine, you want to hire a rightwing blogger, I'll find you a rightwing blogger! Now he/she is just waiting for their boss to get fired (not the big boss, just some midlevel expendable hack).
Good job, whoever you are.
Alopex Lagopus |
03.23.06 - 8:32 am | #
Comments are open on post.blog. Scroll to the bottom.
Everybody should e-mail questions to the waPo's 'Live talk' reporters today linking to this and asking if, since they have said nothing about Box Turtle Bill, do they support his statements. I'd love to see what Dana priest has to say when told that THIS is what her paper's come to.
We need to get more than just Brady involved.
The reporters of the WaPo will be the one's to get this guy canned, if they can be shown how this reflects on them.
dratty |
03.23.06 - 8:38 am | #
Wow. Did anyone read what he said?
You read the first two lines and then don't read any further.
He was making the same point bill bennett made that was taken out of context--how abortion is destroying the black community and that people who are racists can then correlate abortions with crime statistics and black people and bam: you have a scientific rationale to get rid of black people.
And he criticizes black leaders for being complicit in this genocide of black children.
Yes, jane posted the whole thing, but no one here read the whole thing if they walk away thinking this guy is part of the Klan.
What a case of illiterate nutjobs you guys are! Please READ the piece.
LLP - Aaron |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:40 am | #
Jane, Redd - hope the site is ready for some serious traffic today.
anotherpawn |
03.23.06 - 8:40 am | #
On Wapo corporation: I bet that the board is behind this. It was also the case with Summers at Harvard and the promotion of a rightist agenda. Slightly off topic, but a little over a week ago, the public editor at the NYTimes noted that Kirkpatrick had been hired because of his conservative religious ties and to present related stories. He was also the lead writer on many of the Allito pieces which claimed the judge was a moderate, a good father, etc. It would be interesting to check Kirkpatrick out, in part because here clearly opinion pieces were being presented as journalism. This was no doubt a corporate move as well.
Richmond |
03.23.06 - 8:41 am | #
Help me out.
How does William Buetler unmask Domenach as "Augustine"?
His Hotline blog post inserts "Augustine" into Ben's name, but I don't see how that is grounds to say that Augustine is Ben?
Has someone confirmed the connection with Buetler?
Thanks.
Gabriel Sutherland |
03.23.06 - 8:41 am | #
Did anyone on this list actually READ that excerpt?
It is PATENTLY OBVIOUS that the argument that he is raising is an argument made by OTHERS and that he finds that sort of argument MORALLY ODIOUS.
In short... he is attacking those who justify abortion on grounds that it reduces crime because the means of doing so is through ethnic cleansing.
How can you tell? Because he friggin' says so!
"What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution."
Call me a contrarian, but repeat what I wrote yesterday that I am happy they hired the pig. Now the whole world gets to see the true evil and extremism that lies in the hearts and the brains - don't flame me for saying they have brains, they do, although small or malfunctioning ones - of the NeoNuts.
The adage "Be careful what you wish for" applies as much to the NeoNuts as any other group.
You can't "spin" this guy. His voice might echo with the True Believers, but it will alienate most others - do I hear 20% approval for Chimpy and repugs in general? I think I do.
So much of the NeoNuts power grab was based on saying yes while meaning go fuck yourself. Now, there is no question as to what the words mean, they mean go fuck yourself. Let the shithead write. And, to use a Marxist thought - the NeoNuts will provide us with the means to their own downfall.
With respect to "communist," it is certainly not a good word, because you can't disassociate it from the SOCIO-economic system in which the economic system exists, and, thus, you can't disassociate it from the failed totalitarian societies created in its name. It was how it was implemented in practice, not what Marx thought it might be theory, that is important to the present meaning of the word, and its use as an accusation, a slur.
And, at least in America, communist is a worse slur than fascist, for the simple fact that the leading fascist powers were eliminated in WWII, while the leading communist powers became our enemies. If fascist states had survived as powers the word fascist would, most likely, carry the same charge. Blame the cold war.
Evil Parallel Universe |
03.23.06 - 8:42 am | #
Any word yet how many posts were scrubbed when the RedPo blog -ahem- "exceeded it's bandwidth" about 2am or so? Scrolling through this morning one poster mentioned 50-60 had disappeared already but it was more towards the middle section, I have no idea now that it's back online.
Another poster suggested all references to that blog start with this headline:
WASHINGTONPOST.COM HIRES A RACIST BLOGGER
What's next? Smearing us Native Americans? Oh, wait...
Shez |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:44 am | #
It's the least I can do.
jane hamsher
Oh, Jane. You're all heart.
Thesaurus Rex |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:46 am | #
@ Guvnah:
Are you kidding? You try reading it. There's a bit of tsk tsking over abortion, but the main point is, look, abortion has an upside.
Look at the way the article starts - the opening thesis:
"People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them."
With that odious beginning - two statements with an utterly racist premise - everything that follows goes on to drive home that point. Only the willfully ignorant can't see that.
NickM |
03.23.06 - 8:46 am | #
This is hilarious. You people don't get it. The author of that piece is against abortion - and is highlighting the hypocrisy of the left in celebrating a drop in crime caused by aborting black babies. Maybe you found it hard to understand because there were no swear words.
Jeff Burton |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:46 am | #
Read the entire excerpt, geniuses. He basically says that abortion is reprehensible on any grounds, including racial cleansing/eugenics masked as crime reduction.
Citizen Grim |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:47 am | #
The Guvnah,
Good try, but no.
Let me explain slowly. He makes it seem like that's his argument, but the assumption that blacks are the root of crime, well.....
steve_gilliard |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:47 am | #
St. Augustine, St. Augustine, gosh, where was that guy from? Oh, I remember, Africa.
dannyboy |
03.23.06 - 8:49 am | #
We seem to be having an epidemic of trolls this morning. Did someone link this on one of the red wannabe-blogs?
P J Evans |
03.23.06 - 8:50 am | #
The first things entry is posted without comment, just as Jane wrote..."without comment".
Reading comprehension issues, scrubbing, editing? What's going on?
marky |
03.23.06 - 8:50 am | #
jayt | 03.23.06 - 8:19 am |:
The Washington Post, (blesstheirholynameforbringingdownRichardNixon)
FYI: The head of the RNC during Watergate was GHW Bush
You get the picture?
Folks ought to read Neuhaus' entire piece rebutting Steven Leavitt's "Freakonomics" book in which Leavitt argues that abortion has been the greatest weapon against crime.
The context provided by Steve Gilliard(a reliable source if ever one exists) and quoted by Hamsher, are inadaquate portions to fully review Neuhaus' argument against Leavitt's thesis on abortion.
Gabriel Sutherland |
03.23.06 - 8:51 am | #
Jane:
As usual, right on the money.
This whole issue is much deeper than Benji, of course.
One of the things that has sustained me during the Bush years, is my faith that our institutions will overcome the damage inflicted on them once the individuals currently occupying those institutions pass on (I mean, get fired or arrested).
The Press, too, as an institution has taken some beatings the last few years, first by the Administration, then the blogs, and now, practically everyone. The WaPo, by hiring Benji, has shaken confidence-again-in its credibility.
A(nother) fuck up of this magnitude will soon render the Post completely irrevelant, and deliver another blow to confidence in the Press as an institution.
The Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary, and now the Press. And thanks to 2000 (and 2004) it's enough to make you quit voting.
But, Lordy, some days I think Jane and Christy will singlehandedly (bihandedly, dualhandedly?) save the country. FDL is a premier example of the potential, ascendency, and influence of blogs. Serious work by serious people is getting done here-and all with grace and humor.
In all seriousness, the blogosphere is becoming quite the Institution itself. And the best thing is it ain't goin' away.
mc |
03.23.06 - 8:53 am | #
Ok, I get it.
Some moron is defending the "first things" piece.
I thought Ben's defenders were claiming he had distanced himself from that offal.
I couldn't believe someone would actually defend the garbage in the excerpt.
marky |
03.23.06 - 8:54 am | #
Man, you moonbats really can't read, can you?
This piece was written by Richard John Neuhaus, a RC Priest, whose civil rights credentials are impeccable (try using Google sometimes, people). The first three sentences, which is apparently all y'all have the attention span to follow, were written with the same ironic rage as Dicken's "Are there no prisons? Are there not workhouses?". Neuhaus' clear point is that our self-congratulation over crime reduction is based on a darker reality.
Its a good thing this crew wasn't alive a few hundred years ago...no doubt, you'd have had Jonathan Swift up on child abuse charges for 'advocating the eating of children' in A Modest Proposal.
-M- |
03.23.06 - 8:54 am | #
P J Evans: Ramesh Ponurnu linked to Jane from National Review Online's "The Corner".
Gabriel Sutherland |
03.23.06 - 8:55 am | #
I guess it takes very white skin and a very low IQ to read
"People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them."
as an attack on abortion.
marky |
03.23.06 - 8:55 am | #
Sorry,
'you get the picture 'was not supposed to be so emphatic...stupid preview...I think you get the pict
mkultramaroon |
03.23.06 - 8:56 am | #
Totally OT - but want to draw attention to this link:
Have read it ... it's still racist. Where are the poor whites and Hispanics? Invisible? Non-existent?
P J Evans |
03.23.06 - 8:57 am | #
This is hilarious. You people don't get it. The author of that piece is against abortion - and is highlighting the hypocrisy of the left in celebrating a drop in crime caused by aborting black babies. Maybe you found it hard to understand because there were no swear words.
Jeff Burton |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 8:57 am | #
It was on this day in 1775 that Patrick Henry gave the speech that made his name, ending with the words, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
I agree with Curmudgeon on the Communist thing. This country could use a little raising of Community Conciousness.
And as far as the Washington Post goes ... they're walking in the shadows now. Disturbing devoultion yet indicative of the blind eye of the public face of this malajusted country.
abarefootboy |
03.23.06 - 8:57 am | #
I read it 3 times now-- it is an antiabortion piece filled with racism.
here: White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership
We CAN read and comprehend-- interpretation is up to you.
angie |
03.23.06 - 8:57 am | #
What Angie said.
Is Dr. Trex around today?
Evil Parallel Universe |
03.23.06 - 8:58 am | #
I have googled Neuhaus and civil rights.
Staunch supporter of civil rights for blastocysts these days.
For gays? not so much.
Just getting started here, but I highly recommend a google of
"Richard John Neuhaus" AND civil rights.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:01 am | #
Gabriel Sutherland ,
The supposition alone about blacks and poverty is racist.
White women are the single largest group of poor people in the US. He didn't start his article with that fact, did he?
And why would crime go down if there were fewer blacks, statsitically blacks go to jail at higher rates, but white commit far more crime, being 75 percent of the population.
Neuhaus's argument is racist to the core.
steve_gilliard |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:04 am | #
Its not racist...its coherent writing. The piece is an indictment of the black political leadership/civil rights leaders complicity in the 'culling' of their own race. What do poor whites and Hispanics have to do with that?
-M- |
03.23.06 - 9:04 am | #
OK, looks like the FDL comments here are turning into a Yahoo board. All we now need is a sprinkling of "libturd" and "contard" adjectives.
It would do to keep our Eyes of the Prize -- the murderous Bush administration's myriad daily crimes. This lightweight Ben dude and his crap are just that; distracting crap.
_
BobbyG |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:04 am | #
And he criticizes black leaders for being complicit in this genocide of black children.
I read the whole thing and it's the last 2 paragraphs that I felt were what made the whole thing truly twisted
I came away with the impression that the author was not criticizing black leaders, but rather was looking for a way to justify the earlier statement by saying in effect, hey their leaders endorse this too.
If I'm wrong and it was meant as satire - well this is no Jonathon Swift.
Vivian Darkbloom |
03.23.06 - 9:04 am | #
The timing of hiring this wingnut is amazing. Anyone paying attention will know that the narrative is slipping away from the right-wing demagogues. When the Dems win in November most of these clowns will go back into their ratholes...and become a footnote in history.
Edward Deevy |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:05 am | #
Evil Parallel Universe | 03.23.06 - 8:42 am
And, at least in America, communist is a worse slur than fascist, for the simple fact that the leading fascist powers were eliminated in WWII, while the leading communist powers became our enemies. If fascist states had survived as powers the word fascist would, most likely, carry the same charge. Blame the cold war.
Actually, the anti-communist American attitude was developed by the Gestapo Nazis that Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles smuggled out of Europe after the war -- they were instrumental in creating the CIA propaganda machine, which helped whip up the Red Scare of the 1950's.
Nixon, McCarthy, Bush, Dulles, and their Nazi ex-pats -- these are the people that made communism and socialism dirty words in America.
"What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing."
This is racist how?
Jane, you might wish to take care the forces you unleash with such tactics. Robespierre could tell you...
Bezuhov |
03.23.06 - 9:07 am | #
I always knew you leftists lived in an alternate universe, but I thought you at least had some reading comprehension skills. Apparently not. So far I have not seen anyone respond to the thoughtful arguments made by "trolls" here today. Why? Is it because you don't have the capacity to understand what Augustine/Ben is saying or is it due to your predisposition to lying and demagoguery of conservatives? This is a great example of why your propaganda only resonates with a fraction of the populace. You are liars, racists and, above all, loons. Please, try and respond honestly to some here who disagree with you.
peteah |
03.23.06 - 9:07 am | #
Vivian,
I think you nailed it.
Neuhaus is a horrible writer.
Try looking at some of his other musings on "First Things".
He rivals Tacitus and Jeff Goldstein for sententiousness.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:08 am | #
"There's a bit of tsk tsking over abortion, but the main point is, look, abortion has an upside."
You are willfully misreading this, and making yourself look like a fool in the process.
First, the excerpt was written by Richard John Neuhaus, a fervent opponent of abortion.
Second, anyone who (1) can read, (2) has a minimal amount of context, and (3) has an ounce of good faith will come to the obvious conclusion that the author of the excerpt finds abhorrent the idea of aborting babies (of any race) in order to reduce crime.
The knee-jerk herd reaction in these comments reflects very poorly on the people involved.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:09 am | #
Re: Box Turtle Ben:
Oh, no HE DI-IN'T!!
I'm sorry, this kid needs an ass-whipping in the worst kind of way.
I'd be more than happy to do it, too.
patrick |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:10 am | #
"Later that p.m., a RedState post titled "We Need John Shadegg" was posted by "The Directors" -- Krempasky, Ben "Augustine" Domenech, Erick Erickson and Clayton Wagar -- urging in bright red oversized letters: "Call (202) 224-3121 and urge your congressman to support John Shadegg for Majority Leader. This matters."
It would appear then that Ben Domenech is the Red State poster Augustine.
Didn't see a link, we can google it.
Shez |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:12 am | #
"the author of the excerpt finds abhorrent the idea of aborting babies (of any race) in order to reduce crime.
well duh.
Who ever advocated that? what's next? pro-choice-ers will be accused of trying to keep grade school education costs in check? Holding anti-Pedialyte sentiments?
Vivian Darkbloom |
03.23.06 - 9:14 am | #
See what happens when you hire a partisan Right Wing blogger...
There is no place in the liberal blogsphere that perpetuates more "hate per word" than I just had the severe displeasure in reading....NOWHERE.....
You stated that the comments posted regarding the Abramoff issue with Ms. Howell were vile and outrageous...fair enough even though that represented 1 percent of all the commnets posted .....You now choose to address this issue by employing someone who has consistently made over the top vile and outrageous comments regarding race, politics and religion and that in your mind somehow solves the issue....well Mr Brady if you continue to use such a hate mongering jerk for your paper I will do everything in my power to tell everyone I know that the WaPO now advocates the elimination of the black race..........
I know the guy was bad but he truly is "Mann Coulter"
lib4 |
03.23.06 - 9:14 am | #
take a breather, FDL - Jim Brady serves up a patsy & you hit it out of the park already. No need to go after the baby seal w/ a nailgun every day, once or twice a month will be just fine. Save your ammunition for the big targets.
killtherich |
03.23.06 - 9:14 am | #
Jane,
I think the Post's response to criticism will be to hire a progressive blogger. I nominate you for the job. You should consider running a poll to see who your readers would like to see as a balance to the turtle.
Sgt Dan |
03.23.06 - 9:15 am | #
Vivian and Marky apparently never got to the Aquamarine level in the old SRA Reading Labs
-M- |
03.23.06 - 9:15 am | #
More gems from Neuhaus:
I got this from
"http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/"
Search on the page for "gay" or "adoption"
and you'll find the following paragraph:
The Church says it has “rules” that preclude the gay placements. What has not appeared anywhere is a reasoned case that such placements are bad for the children, and it is the interest of the children that must come first. (For a critical survey of the studies and arguments relative to placing children with homosexual couples, see cosmos-liturgy-sex.) The claim that 50 or 60 percent of children reared by male homosexuals turn out to be homosexual or bisexual doesn’t cut any ice in some quarters. So what’s wrong with being homosexual or bisexual? And, if the incidence of sexual abuse of children in such settings is many times the norm, well, isn’t it time we reconsider the legitimacy of intergenerational love? The Church’s position is very straightforward: Children need a father and mother, and to deny them a father and mother is a form of child abuse. Put differently: Children should not be made the objects of “progressive” social experiments in redefining what is meant by a family.
---
Etc.
This moral degerate, who converted to Catholicism in 1991,
left behind his civil rights roots to become a spokesman from the world's number one pedophile organization, and has the nerve to discuss gay adoption as if it were a NAMBLA operation---unspeakably vile.
The wingnuts have gone further than we expected: rather than defending Ben for posting Neuhaus's racists musings, they leap to Neuhaus's defense, and beg us to do further research.
BRING IT ON, ASSWIPES.
Being a Roman Catholic priest gives Neuhaus all of the moral authority of Michael Jackson.
At least MJ is not a racist.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:15 am | #
"I read it 3 times now-- it is an antiabortion piece filled with racism."
Sorry to hear that your misunderstanding is persistent.
Maybe you're one of those people who thought Swift was serious with his Modest Proposal?
Neuhaus is no racist:
"Richard John Neuhaus is a Lutheran minister and a leading authority on the role of religion in the contemporary world. He has worked with organizations dealing with civil rights, international justice, and ecumenism, holding presidential appointments in the Carter, Reagan and Bush administrations. Among his best known books are Freedom for Ministry, The Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America and The Catholic Moment: The Paradox of the Church in the Postmodern World. He is the President of The Institute on Religion and Public Life, a interreligious research and education institute in New York City."
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:16 am | #
BobbyG | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 9:04 am | #
Yes.
Satire or not, the writing is not the issue. The issue is the Post's judgement in hiring this guy.
If Brady wasn't fully aware of Benji's background, he should be. And if Brady WAS fully aware of Benji's background, then why is Brady and the Post supporting hate speech? And if it's not hate speech, then what is it?
Accountability. It's all about the accountability.
mc |
03.23.06 - 9:16 am | #
It might be of interest for someone to FOIA young Ben's personnel records from his brief time sucking on the taxpayers' collective teat.
The Dawg |
03.23.06 - 9:17 am | #
good idea, sgt dan! kind of like the koufax thingy.
chicago dyke |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:17 am | #
LLP, Guvnah, Burton, Chris, it's you guys that don't get it.
First of all, people who try to make nuanced ironic arguments without paragraph breaks are doomed from the get-go. Especially long-winded, tinder-dry, self-obsessed theologians like Neuhaus. I take it you've looked at the whole piece from which that excerpt is taken? The guy's a fucking dominionist who picks on Calvin College? Jesus wept.
Too, it's pretty rich for people who came to power by attacking nuance to be begging the polity to "TRY READING" 13,000 words of masturbatory pseudo-theological bullshit to clarify that "Oh no, Neuhaus isn't actually saying that, he's saying that other people are saying that." Yeah, the guy's a regular Jonathan Swift all right. Subtle, that one. So we're supposed to stand by admiringly while Neuhaus (and thereby Augustine) conceal their racism by projecting it onto abortion opponents? That only works with the rubes in the media, guys. This here is where the grownups hang out.
See this is the problem with all that coded-language dog-whistle-politics y'all have been relying so heavily on for so many years. It's a frankenstein monster. You want it to go away whenever you feel like talking about the Dred Scott case on its own merits, or bashing somebody over the head about racism, but it doesn't do that. If you didn't want to reduce politics to ten-second sound bites maybe you shouldn't have spent all these years misrepresenting other people.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I got it, and I see no problem with the way Jane framed it. We (at least some of us) get that this is supposed to be an argument against abortion. We just don't care. Just because you go to all that trouble to set up some plausible deniability doesn't mean we're not going to ignore all your nuance and call out the part of the message we don't like. Sound familiar?
Sure, sure, Neuhaus' intent was to suggest that abortion is as abhorrent as eugenics. So what?
radish |
03.23.06 - 9:18 am | #
"I'm sorry, this kid needs an ass-whipping in the worst kind of way.
I'd be more than happy to do it, too."
Wow, missed this earlier post.
Misunderstanding to violence in less than 10 minutes!
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:18 am | #
Go, Jane (and best wishes re your Mom). Go, Redd.
Just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your efforts. The late-night smackdown of WaPo the other night was so good, I needed a cigarette afterwards (and I don't even smoke!!)
And as I said before, Redd, you were priceless on C-SPAN. If Brian Lamb has any brains he'll have you back early and often (better set up some good babysitting for dear Fiona!).
Once again, thank you. As my Dad says, "Keep swinging!"
Dr. Uncle Cap'n Mr. Goto-san |
03.23.06 - 9:18 am | #
question submitted to Dana Priest for today's online chat....
*****************
Dear Ms. Priest:
Although I commend your co-operation with WPNI in participating in these fora, do you really wish to continue your association with Post.com after its hiring of Ben "Augustine" Domenech, who last September posted the following without comment on his Red State Blog...
"People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag...."
As a responsible and respected journalist working for the Washington Post newspaper, do you really want to be associated with this kind of thing through your participation in WPNI's on-line efforts?
paul lukasiak |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:19 am | #
I would love to see the Post hire a leftist blogger. I say put Ben's and the leftist together and make it a debate blog-a civil debate blog. One without the regular vileness and adolescent name-calling found on the leftist blogs. That way you "progressives" could be right at home being taken to thwe woodshed on a daily basis and having your ideas repudiated soundly for the world to see.
peteah |
03.23.06 - 9:22 am | #
Like poster Gabriel Sutherland above, it's not clear to me how jan'es post, or any of the links referenced, identify the schmuck Ben as "Augustine". Where is the evidence of his unmasking?
Anonymous |
03.23.06 - 9:22 am | #
if i were into S & M i would change party affiliation and start writing for powerline because nobody dishes out the ass whippins like fdl. we are in a golden age of smack downs, i hope you all know this.
pukebot |
03.23.06 - 9:22 am | #
Can I just say that I love Jane and I love Reddhedd? Alas, my Republican wife just won't go along to get along....
Seriously, amazing post, wickedly good.
Bruce/Crablaw |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:23 am | #
Muwahahahaa the amusing little trolls out in farcical force, awwww how cute. Please fire up the trusty Trexitron.
Shez |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:24 am | #
"Who ever advocated that? what's next? pro-choice-ers will be accused of trying to keep grade school education costs in check? Holding anti-Pedialyte sentiments?"
Come on. Read what's been written.
Someone was accusing the author (not Ben) of racism based on a blantant misunderstanding of the piece:
"There's a bit of tsk tsking over abortion, but the main point is, look, abortion has an upside."
I corrected that misunderstanding. It is that simple. I never made a claim about the worthiness of the abortion argument one way or the other. I simply demonstrated that the argument of the person claiming racism was based on an obvious misreading. And that remains true.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:24 am | #
An open letter to Jane Hamsher:
Thanks for providing a wonderful example of what social promotion has done to reading comprehension in this country.
Rumpledforeskin |
03.23.06 - 9:25 am | #
Radish = my nominee for funniest post. Attacks Neuhaus for being long winded, self obsessed and 'tinder-dry' in a post full of tendentious phrasing like 'masturbatory psuedo-theological bullshit'. But that's the American Left, where name-calling is the ONLY answer to reasoned argument.
-M- |
03.23.06 - 9:26 am | #
Little rodent Ben incinerated his Bad Self in my eyes when I read his writing on his WaPo "blog" of "imperitives" and Bush's "coherent and just response" to 9/11 -- that included, of course, ravishing Iraq for the sins of Osama et al.
Fucker is irrelevant.
_
BobbyG |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:26 am | #
"The Institute for Public Policy and Religion (IPPR), which backs the central role of religion in public life, and is led by Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest and an outspoken advocate of democratic capitalism. Since its founding, the IPPR has tried to steer American concern away from human rights toward religious freedom. The institute warns its followers against engaging in global warming issues, supports "just wars," and advocates greater Christian participation in public and foreign policy to promote family life, right-to-life, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage programs.
"
So Neuhaus is a right wing, anti-womem, anti-gay, anti-science, racist fanatic whom the Red-Staters adore.
What a surprise.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:26 am | #
ck - I think that is simplistic, and I am not about to lay "blame" for the demonization of communism at the feet of Prescott Bush (who was nonetheless a piece of shit - I know people who had dealings with him). What about Huxley? Solzhenitsyn? What about the fact the fact that in practice all nominally communist societies have been totalitarian police states with really bad economies?
The evils of communism IN PRACTICE weren't invented by anyone. They were true - still are in places like China.
Evil Parallel Universe |
03.23.06 - 9:27 am | #
paul lukasiak,
You lie by omission.
The author of the excerpt is Richard John Neuhaus, no racist.
The excerpt is in no way racist, except to those who want it to be.
Neuhaus on Martin Luther King:
"A few days after the assassination, I took part in a huge memorial service in Harlem. The service was reported on the evening news. The reporter, microphone in hand, stood in front of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church and said, as I recall his words, “And so today there was a memorial service for the slain civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King. It was a religious service, and appropriately so, for, after all, he was the son of a minister.” That rather totally missed the point, as the point has been missed so often in the years since then."
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:28 am | #
Chris | 03.23.06 - 9:16 am
Defend your hero Neuhaus(member of IRD and affiliated with neoconservatives and Scaife) -- fine by me, but you can leave off the sarcastic put downs, kay?
"a RC Priest, whose civil rights credentials are impeccable"
LOL
John Paul II: "...holds that it is not admissible to ordain women to the priesthood, for very fundamental reasons. These reasons include: the example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men; the constant practice of the Church, which has imitated Christ in choosing only men; and her living teaching authority which has consistently held that the exclusion of women from the priesthood is in accordance with God's plan for his Church." http://www.religioustolerance.or...g/
femclrg10.htm
Paul describes "Junia" as an "Apostle" in Romans 16:7.
What "civil rights credentials?"
"try using google sometime"
John Casper |
03.23.06 - 9:29 am | #
"M"...
Are you in drag, by the way?
Check your usage of "tendentious". It doesn't fit.
Of course, Tacitus can't properly use Latinate vocabulary either.
From the OED:
Tendentious:
Having a purposed tendency; composed or written with such a tendency or aim.
I think you meant "mean".
I'm happy to be of service.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:29 am | #
Saw this over at WaPoo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a hispanic I find thefollowing disgusting.
The Post may wish to check the qualifications of its hires in the future. Domenech claims that he was "given the Ruben J. Salazar award by the National Association of Hispanic Journalists" on his bio page ( http://www.bendomenech.com/blog/bio.html )
According to Marissa Silvera, Professional Development Manager of the NAHJ, that organization does not give out a "Ruben J. Salazar award." The NAHJ's overall scholarship/financial aid program is named for Salazar -- so maybe he got some cash from them by claiming Hispanic heritage. (although its difficult to see how he qualified, given that his father is a GOP operative and "financial need" is a criteria, and "Awareness of the Community" is also a criteria -- and its extremely difficult to find anything that suggests that Domenech is "aware of issues that face the Latino community and Latinos in the newsroom". Hell, Domenech betrays no interest in issues that affect the Latin American community---other than to use Latin American traditions to promote his own far-right agenda, like this little bit of racist cant from his blog...
"[I posted this in past years on May 5th - it's a Bendomenech.com tradition honoring Latino heritage. The basic point is this: Cinco de Mayo ought to be properly historically renamed, "Beat Up a Frenchman" day.]....So think about that tonight while you're chowing down on tortilla chips and salsa. And if you get the urge, go beat up a Frenchman. Hey, I'm not even Chicano, but I can understand."
Posted by: Bfuentes | March 22, 2006 11:46 AM
Tinfoil Hat |
03.23.06 - 9:29 am | #
Ah, another favorite wingnut tactic---you are accused of "lying by omission" when you don't say what they want you to say, how they want you to say it.
I predict accusations of fallacious appeal to authority will shortly be flying.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:31 am | #
marky,
"So Neuhaus is a right wing, anti-womem, anti-gay, anti-science, racist fanatic whom the Red-Staters adore."
You get that from the quote above it?
You slander. Neuhaus is no racist. This is a desperate and pitiful thing that you are doing here.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:31 am | #
ladies, you know you've Made It when a thread get this many trolls who are as confused as these are. this thread defines 'cacophony.'
chicago dyke |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:31 am | #
paul lukasiak | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 9:19 am
p luk, great letter, thanks.
John Casper |
03.23.06 - 9:31 am | #
Hey trolls,
I know its probably scaring you know that this Administration has finally succeeded in waking up mainstream America.
Its also probably scary to think that even in the middle of the country, citizens are sick of wackjobs taking over our government with their religion.
And the real scary thing for the religious extremists is that the Administration will do nothing to change this perception. You see, the GOP has pissed off America by lying, stealing, cheating, and shoving their civil liberty-smothering views down the everyday Americans throat.
Prepare for the backlash, trolls. Its going to be the electorate equivalent of a monster bitchslap!
I had a lady who must drink from the same koolaid as trolls share, she told me that conservatives were "outbreeding" liberals at a 3 to 1 ratio. According to her, soon their will be no liberals left.
I told her, what happens to your kids when they hit their teenage years, read some books, go to raves and Spring Break, smoke pot, and actually start thinking for themselves?
get a grip, trolls. Progressive democracy is the only way the U.S. will survive!
wyonate |
03.23.06 - 9:32 am | #
"when word gets out on the street in Washington DC exactly who the new white-azz punkboy working for the Post really is"
Neuhaus is the racist?
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:32 am | #
I read the piece and I saw it started out as an observation that the country would be better off with fewer poor blacks.
He pointed out his dissapproval of unlimited abortion. And then chastised the Black leaders as being complicit in the genocide of the black race because they approved of abortion. He added that Black women have "lots" of abortions, but gave no references.
In a twisty circular argument, he points out that the Black race is self-distructing so why get in their way? They are doubly-worthless so, good-by and good riddens.
AND yes,,, it is red meat for red staters...
vafireball |
03.23.06 - 9:32 am | #
"First of all, people who try to make nuanced ironic arguments without paragraph breaks are doomed from the get-go. Especially long-winded, tinder-dry, self-obsessed theologians like Neuhaus. I take it you've looked at the whole piece from which that excerpt is taken? The guy's a fucking dominionist who picks on Calvin College? Jesus wept."
Fine. He's a dominionist (I'll take your word on it). But he's not a racist.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:33 am | #
Domenech begins:
"People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them... STATED SO BLUNTLY, many readers MIGHT find that wasy of putting the matter MORALLY PROBLEMATIC... The extermination of anti-social elements does, after all, HAVE A SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL HISTORY. ONE THINKS, PERHAPS INEVITABLY OF THE HOLOCAUST...
Again, it is PATENTLY OBVIOUS that Domenech's opening sentences are NOT HIS OWN OPINIONS, but rather how he has "boiled down" the arguments of Levitt and Donohue to their essence.
And then he uses understatement to express the moral problem with that argument to set up its obvious comparison to the rationale behind the HOLOCAUST
And then he expresses his opinion that such an argument is MORALLY ODIOUS, becuase it rationalizes the racial cleansing of blacks.
Fault him for his disfavor of abortion if you will, but there is nothing racist about what he has said.
He is ATTACKING those who would justify the killing of unborn blacks, beause of its salutary effect on teh crime rate.
In other words, he doesn't care if it would reduce the crime rate, it is still morally odious to support racial cleansing as a means of achieving that result.
Seriously, there is NO OTHER CORRECT WAY to interpret this.
The Guvnah |
03.23.06 - 9:34 am | #
Radish = my nominee for funniest post. Attacks Neuhaus for being long winded, self obsessed and 'tinder-dry' in a post full of tendentious phrasing like 'masturbatory psuedo-theological bullshit'. But that's the American Left, where name-calling is the ONLY answer to reasoned argument.
-M- | 03.23.06 - 9:26 am | #
Yet here is how -M- started out his first post on this discussion:
Man, you moonbats really can't read, can you?
Am I the only one that finds that quite comical?
Zergle |
03.23.06 - 9:34 am | #
ROFL chicago dyke, yeppers. Which is why I don't waste my time feeding them. Why bother.
Shez |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:34 am | #
as we noted at skippy's, this is how the slander promulgated by the red state diaper baby works:
"it’s not an argument overly restricted by a commitment to the truth, but as political jujitsu, it’s good – a two-fer if you will – the red meat base gets to hate woman who control the bodies because the desire for such control is racist, and they get to have their own red meat racist world view about the inherent criminality of racial minorities reaffirmed."
Pudentilla |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:35 am | #
"Originally from the Ottawa Valley of Ontario, Canada, Neuhaus had a Lutheran background. Ordained a Lutheran minister, Neuhaus was pastor of a poor congregation in a minority area of New York City. He was active in the Civil Rights Movement, knowing Dr. Martin Luther King."
Racist? More likely, those who accuse him of being racist are ignorant.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:35 am | #
Second, anyone who (1) can read, (2) has a minimal amount of context, and (3) has an ounce of good faith will come to the obvious conclusion that the author of the excerpt finds abhorrent the idea of aborting babies (of any race) in order to reduce crime.
the issue isn't Neuhaus's position on abortion, its his assumptions that
People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor, it is time we recognize that there are more efficient means of eliminating the drag.
the fact that Neuhaus does not find "abortion" an acceptable "means of eliminating the drag" is irrelevant to the question of whether he is a racist for writing
People who are poor and black are a drag on society. We would all be better off if there were fewer of them. Since we have, with little success, spent trillions of dollars over the past several decades trying to make poor blacks non-poor....
That is racist shit, through and through.
paul lukasiak |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:36 am | #
Chris,
Since your reading comprehension seems stuck at SRA "Brownshirt" level, let me help out:
1) Neuhaus is clearly racist, based on the excerpted article at Red State. If you disagree with this contention, respond to Steve Gilliard's arguments, rather than blowing hot air.
2) Neuhaus is clearly anti-gay---and a TENDENTIOUS liar, btw---based on the other excerpts I posted.
3)Neuhaus is anti-science, based on his position on global warming.
4) Whether Neuhaus is against women's rights is more a matter of opinion---the relevant opinion being whether you think women should have any rights not derived from their relations to men.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:36 am | #
Created on..............: 15 May 2001 17:45:47
Expires on..............: 15 May 2006 17:45:47
Administrative Info:
Ben Domenech
1596 Sunstone Drive
McLean, VA 22102
US
Phone: +1.7037901509
Fax..:
Email: bdomenech@hotmail.com
Technical Info:
Ben Domenech
1596 Sunstone Drive
McLean, VA 22102
US
Phone: +1.7037901509
Fax..:
Email: bdomenech@hotmail.com
Registrant Info:
Ben Domenech
1596 Sunstone Drive
McLean, VA 22102
US
Phone: +1.7037901509
Fax..:
Email: bdomenech@hotmail.com
.
BobbyG |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:37 am | #
That's rich. Bush says in reference to Feingold's censure resolution that "If the Democrats believe we should stop catching terrorists, they should put that case before the American people." Rep. Boehner says that he thinks Feingold is more concerned with the health and safety of terrorists than that of the American people. And now they're lecturing us on reading nuance into their arguments - nuance I doubt Ben could pick up himself. Fuck that.
I can read. I can see the careful and coy hedging - genocide is "morally problematic" - how cute! If I had any inclination to give the Right any benefit of the doubt, I might be inclined to see this as a Modest Proposal. Unfortunately, the right has blown all of its moral credibility defending everything torture, its warantless wiretapping, the fraudulent Iraq war, the bungling in and lies about what happened in New Orleans, all the way down to its trivial crap about :man on dog" and the "War on Christmas". I think about Jonah Goldberg laughing about poor blacks in the Superdome returning to the state of nature. Sorry, but the Right no longer gets to be read with nuance in my book.
Everything's a code and a game to you. You can't say you're KKK anymore, well, clever boys, now you're the CCC. So now, I see this argument and I think he's a very clever racist writing for his clever racist audience who reads between the lines and sees the point. I'll save the nuanced reading for people who have demonstrated a talent for morally nuanced thinking. The Right in this country has stopped deserving that consideration.
NickM |
03.23.06 - 9:37 am | #
"Again, it is PATENTLY OBVIOUS that Domenech's opening sentences are NOT HIS OWN OPINIONS, but rather how he has "boiled down" the arguments of Levitt and Donohue to their essence."
They are not even his words. They are the words of Richard Neuhaus.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:38 am | #
bobby G,
What's the point of the domain info on "rodent ben"?
This racist blogs with the name of a philosopher ?
angie | 03.23.06 - 8:23 am
And a theologian.
Stephen Parrish, CPA | 03.23.06 - 8:31 am | #
And a saint. An AFRICAN saint.
Who does this booger-eater think he is?
Sara Anne |
03.23.06 - 9:39 am | #
"Although I commend your co-operation with WPNI in participating in these fora, do you really wish to continue your association with Post.com after its hiring of Ben "Augustine" Domenech, who last September posted the following without comment on his Red State Blog..."
The big lie here is that the statement is racist. It is not. The smaller lie is the careful lack of attribution to the original author, Richard Neuhaus.
The attribution of Neuhaus would have made it perfectly obvious that the statement (however clumsy due to anger) was not and could not have possibly been racist.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:40 am | #
Neuhaus had a Lutheran background. Ordained a Lutheran minister, Neuhaus was pastor of a poor congregation in a minority area of New York City. He was active in the Civil Rights Movement, knowing Dr. Martin Luther King."
yes.....and fifteen years later, he abandoned the Lutheran Church (and, obviously, his commitment to civil rights) to become a Roman Catholic.
Neuhaus is your perfect example of the kind of "limosine liberal" that Tom Wolfe satirized --- he was all for "civil rights" as long as blacks didn't advance too far. Basically, Neuhaus was anti-lynching, and that's about it.
paul lukasiak |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:40 am | #
"However clumsy due to anger"..
THAT's your defense for blatant racism?
What's he angry about---uppity black women controlling their own bodies?
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:42 am | #
"Who does this booger-eater think he is?"
Classy.
Since reading seems to be in short supply here, the author is (again) Richard John Neuhaus:
Originally from the Ottawa Valley of Ontario, Canada, Neuhaus had a Lutheran background. Ordained a Lutheran minister, Neuhaus was pastor of a poor congregation in a minority area of New York City. He was active in the Civil Rights Movement, knowing Dr. Martin Luther King.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:42 am | #
bobby G,
What's the point of the domain info on "rodent ben"?
i've been at the forefront of BenDom, and even i don't quite see the relevance here.
what is more relevant is how his pro-orgy stance seemingly contradicts his conservative bona-fides.
james |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:42 am | #
Evil Parallel Universe | 03.23.06 - 9:27 am |:
The evils of communism IN PRACTICE weren't invented by anyone. They were true - still are in places like China
Don't you mean that beacon of Capitalism, China?
Beware of labels. All systems without effective democracy devolve to extreme fascist or neo-feudal states. Look at history. The evolved democratic nation state is an aberration and accordingly it is under siege by the excesses of the human beast.
See past the labels. Consumerism would have you be a product too.
Y'know, if you can't see what's disturbing about saying, even in this context, that "white racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership," then you really need to broaden your horizons a little bit.
Neuhaus isn't concerned about black poverty; he's using black poverty as a rhetorical cudgel to pursue a totally different agenda; basically the agenda of calling Jesse Jackson a racist baby-killer for not opposing abortion. Sorry, but I just can't respect that. There are plenty of ways to make the same argument without drifting off into racism.
-M-, couldn't help but notice that your response was pure ad hominem with zero forensic content. There's no need to be intimidated though. I'm just some bozo who posts on the internet.
radish |
03.23.06 - 9:44 am | #
anti-lynching! now that's down right radical! someone give him a medal and a cookie.
chicago dyke |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:44 am | #
Those of you who are trying to justify this BS as an anti-abortion screed that laments black leaders' approval of the "culling" of their own flock should really do some self analysis. The racism is in the ASSUMPTION that dead BLACK babies would be committing crime if they were alive. You have blindly accepted that racist assumption. We comprehend what we read. It's just a deeper comprehension than yours.
Haze4Horses |
03.23.06 - 9:45 am | #
What makes it racist is this one word:
People who are poor and black are a drag on society.
If you want to say that poor people are a drag on society you might be able to argue that it's the poor in general. I could actually see that being discussed. But to say that it's a specific race of poor people is by definition racist because you are seperating those people from the rest of society.
So, it's argued, that he's not racist because he didn't actually make that statement. Ok...I'll give you that. But don't you find it a little odd that to make a point about abortion he had to utilize writings that used race to make that point? What's intellectual, reasonable, or high brow about that? Seems like lazy pandering more than anything. Pandering to your audience. An audience which you fully acknowledge has racist tendencies because you try to make your point using racist arguments that should really have never been brought into the discussion in the first place.
I mean, really, do you have pro-lifer's out their shooting down abortion on racial grounds? Moral, and religious grounds, but racial? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Zergle |
03.23.06 - 9:45 am | #
the point? none. In keeping with this entire thread this morning, I suppose. Just some additional irascible waste of bandwidth.
Won't do it again. My Bad.
.
BobbyG |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:46 am | #
"THAT's your defense for blatant racism?"
There was no racism there. Period.
"What's he angry about---uppity black women controlling their own bodies?"
He hates abortion. Is that difficult to understand? But I'm not going to argue abortion, sorry.
He is no racist. There is zero evidence for it, and your continued insistence that there is shows that you are not interested in the truth, you are interested in scoring points.
Note that I don't care much about Ben one way or the other. I just think that angry mobs like the one here are repellant.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:46 am | #
peteah | 03.23.06 - 9:07 am
put down the broad brush and go back to eating your paste
"great example of why your propaganda only resonates with a fraction of the populace."
that would be the
69% who think Iraq was a mistake ?
65% who think the country is headed in the wrong direction ?
62% of Seniors and 54% of military families who want out now?
54% who think Bush should be impeached ?
or maybe the generic 50% who currently prefer Democratic Control of Congress ?
thank god there's no resonance
you must be new here - a large part of this site's appeal is the civil and informed debates/disagreements w/ one another
although civil, your comment indicates a confusion w/ wholesale talking points
FDL'ers, sorry for the troll feeding, but some days they behave like pen raised quail on a South Texas ranch
cbl |
03.23.06 - 9:46 am | #
Neuhaus accuses black leaders who support a woman's right to choose of "racial cleansing"
What is morally odious is the cool and disinterested way in which the commentariat is discussing what might fairly be described as racial cleansing. It's too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution. Meanwhile, those who style themselves black leaders, especially political leaders, are overwhelmingly in support of the unlimited abortion license, thus maintaining their distinction of being the only ethnic or racial leadership in history to actively collaborate in dramatically reducing the number of people they claim to lead.
tell me this scumsucker isn't a racist, when he goes around accusing black leaders of genocide against their own people....
paul lukasiak |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:46 am | #
Meanwhile, Bush crimes continue unabated.
_
BobbyG |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:47 am | #
I started my comment and came back to it. Apparently others have made my point already.....sorry.
Haze4Horses |
03.23.06 - 9:47 am | #
You're setting yourself up here, because you're wrong about the point of the quotation from First Things and its treatment of Levitt's argument, and therefore you're wrong about Domenech's point. Levitt does agree with First Things, but First Things, far from endorsing Levitt's argument, is seeking to put it in the worst light possible. That's the point of the first three sentences: those sentences present what First Things sees as the honest -- and patently horrific -- form or implications of Levitt's argument, which has been dressed up in other terms but actually boils down to the advocacy or approval of what First Things sees as racial cleansing via abortion. And First Things is saying even if, by some utilitarian calculus, Levitt is correct that legalized abortion has reduced crime in the U.S., to even talk about it in those terms is to ignore and sanction what First Things sees as, in effect, racial cleansing and wrong.
I am not saying I agree with First Things. I don't think their argument is correct, on several grounds. But I'm suggesting you're misunderstanding what's going on in their argument and in Domenech's approval of it in a way that sets you up to lose the argument you are trying to start with the Post. Big time.
Jeff |
03.23.06 - 9:47 am | #
Post online politics discussion today didn't take one question about Ben. Have to think Brady is in "full denial." http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...6031601026.html
This will dwarf Deborah.
John Casper |
03.23.06 - 9:48 am | #
Not to muddle even more the muddied waters about the Neuhaus article (which "Augustine" pasted into his own post), but this article by Neuhaus is a labored and obscure exercise in irony.
His opening lines are not neccesarily his own sentiments but his speculation about how some people may interpret the connection between high rates of abortion among blacks and the lowered crime rate.
The irony as he sees it is that people who take comfort in lowered crime rates also take a position against abortion. That this disproportionately occurs in the black segment of the population is the underlying premise. Is this racist? It depends on how one uses these statistics.
Oddly enough you have to read pretty closely to find what position Neuhaus himself takes on this debate. Without having read anything else by Neuhaus, my opinion is that in the ends he cops out and lays the burden at the foot of black leaders.
Reading between the lines, I see someone who likes to pontificate and basks in his own wisdom. But bottom line, this article does not have much to do with whether or not the Post did the right thing in hiring Domenech. That is another issue entirely.
orangejumpsuit |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:48 am | #
"Basically, Neuhaus was anti-lynching, and that's about it."
Keep up the slander. He was at MLK's funeral. He has been active in the civil rights movement. I'd wager his civil rights bona fides against your any day, and I think it would be a good wager.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:49 am | #
Chris,
Keep up with the head-bashing.
Seeing you in here repeating yourself, almost verbatim, without ever answering any points, is like watching Ben D. take on a sumo wrestler.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:50 am | #
Jeff | 03.23.06 - 9:47 am |
Why isn't Domenech making that point?
Are you the same Jeff from TNH?
John Casper |
03.23.06 - 9:50 am | #
Neuhaus is such a bad writer, he should be an editor at the NRO corner.
marky |
03.23.06 - 9:51 am | #
Well, if he changed from Lutheran to Catholic, then I guess he can change from civil rights worker to racist too. Neuhaus is a member of IRD:
The IRD's alleged policy goals include increasing military spending, promoting an interventionist foreign policy, opposing environmental protection efforts, eliminating domestic social welfare programs, and opposing the extension of the US civil rights movement toward homosexuals. (Critics and some former members of the group describe it as nationalistic, homophobic, sexist and racist.)
I posted the link above-- check it out.
angie |
03.23.06 - 9:52 am | #
Perhaps the Mayor of DC, Anthony Williams, should receive some email directing him and his staff to Jane's post about Ben:
Unfortunately, Delegate Norton's site only accepts email from her constituents.
Perhaps making DC's elected officials aware of what the Post has brought under the covers will allow them to make DC residents aware of the Post's new "blogger." Pitchforks and burning bundles of sticks, ahoy!
=========
Had enough?
=========
TeddySanFran |
03.23.06 - 9:52 am | #
I love the fact that Jane and Christy remain above the fray. I never thought I'd write this, but I hope I'm EPU'd.
"President Bush's suggestion on Tuesday that he may add a new senior figure to his White House team raised questions about the future of two of his closest and most powerful aides, Andrew H. Card Jr. and Karl Rove, as they struggle to put Mr. Bush's White House back on course.
Mr. Rove, his senior strategist, and Mr. Card, his chief of staff, have increasingly been forced to fend off rebellious Congressional Republicans, complaints about the administration's competence and calls from within their party for an infusion of fresh thinking into the White House.
Mr. Rove told associates in recent days that he was confident he could resist calls to bring in new advisers. Still, Mr. Bush's decision not to squelch speculation about such a move — "Well, I'm not going to announce it right now," he said Tuesday at his news conference, with Mr. Rove watching — did nothing to restore diminished Republican confidence in a White House team that once promoted a reputation for efficiency, order and impeccable political instincts."
My money's on David Gergen.
mc |
03.23.06 - 9:52 am | #
...so to go with the overall IQ depreciation we have experienced today, what's up in the latest Bradgelina saga?
Zergle |
03.23.06 - 9:52 am | #
"Neuhaus isn't concerned about black poverty"
That's simply ridiculous. Claiming that about someone with his background in inexcusable. Pardon me if I ask you to prove it.
"he's using black poverty as a rhetorical cudgel to pursue a totally different agenda"
He is making an argument by contradiction, for crying out loud! The ignorance is amazing.
"basically the agenda of calling Jesse Jackson a racist baby-killer for not opposing abortion. Sorry, but I just can't respect that. There are plenty of ways to make the same argument without drifting off into racism."
And he chose heavy-handed satire. So did Swift.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:53 am | #
teddy's idea is a good one. people in the area should spread this around. actually, atrios covered a dem congresscritter's open letter to the wapo recently; it appears they are reading blogs after all.
chicago dyke |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 9:58 am | #
"Seeing you in here repeating yourself, almost verbatim, without ever answering any points, is like watching Ben D. take on a sumo wrestler."
Make a point, I'll try to address it. I thought I had been addressing things, and I apologize if I've missed something important.
And, unlike others, I will avoid unsubstantiated changes of racism. I find that to be the mark of low character.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 9:58 am | #
And he chose heavy-handed satire.
Why? Why choose racially tense (at best) satire to make a point that could easily be made with 1000's of other articles. It's called pandering to your reader. That is the point to this whole issue. Maybe he isn't a racist. I'll be generous enough to give you that. But can you deny that by choosing this particular piece he is trying to focus on an issue by using the red meat of another issue (racism) to get the attention of his readers who, you must assume by his choice of literature, are racist?
So anyhow, I was checking up on the latest pretty white person to disappear from their lodge in Quebec when I...
Zergle |
03.23.06 - 9:59 am | #
Don't you mean that beacon of Capitalism, China?
Have you ever been to China? I have. A police state where you have no political rights? Sounds yummy. Capitalist? Hardly. A country with over a billion peasants living in subsistance? A country where in effect every contract/deal is a Haliburton type government dictated deal that can be changed/voided at the Chinese gov't's will? Worker's rights in the workers' paradise - none.
Successful? Gee, what about those billion peasants. If capitalism leaves behind a certain percentage of its society as a built in underclass (which i would argue is a necessary feature of capitalism), then China is going to have one really, really big underclass.
China may or may not achieve a successful economic model, but if it does, it will either be on a capitalist model, or a totalitarian communist police state model, which, despite the "liberalization," is what exists.
Evil Parallel Universe |
03.23.06 - 10:00 am | #
I have seen no unsubstantiated charges of racism here.
marky |
03.23.06 - 10:00 am | #
From Augustine:
"Actually, Dobson's soft-pedaling it. The worst black-robed men and women are worse then the KKK, and not just because they have the authority of the state behind them. They don't even use the vile pretense of skin color - they dismiss the value of all unborn lives, not just the lives of ethnic minorities."
The KKK is better than the Supreme Court.
John Casper |
03.23.06 - 10:01 am | #
marky,
Thanks for the link.
I have some simple points here.
People here accused a respected person (Neuhaus) of racism.
They were wrong.
At least one has threatened violence based on this misapprehension.
They were not criticized.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 10:02 am | #
Who gives a fuck about a racist unspiritual and mere man like Neuhaus? The more important question is why aren't the likes of the racist Ben Domenech in the service over in Iraq?
Why aren't the rest of the pro-war murderers in the military where they belong? It will be a national holiday for America the day Bush and Co are in the Hague standing trial.
Shez |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 10:02 am | #
mc,
Don't think Gergen would hitch his wagon to chimpster. He's got a pretty positive legacy going for a gooper, deserved or not. Doubt that he would want to be around when the roof caves in. This administration looks to be beyond salvage.
On another note, I think we have had an object lesson in the power of a "don't feed the trolls" philosophy. We have to be careful so that threads don't get hijacked as more and more wingers show up.
sonofslothrop |
03.23.06 - 10:02 am | #
Marky,
Nope, I mean to use 'tendentious', as in "marked by a strong tendency in favor of a particular point of view'
I did get past the SRA Labs Aquamarine level.
-M- |
03.23.06 - 10:02 am | #
Even accepting Gilliard's argument, as a rhetorical matter I don't think this is going to work, because what you're essentially saying is: Neuhaus and by extension Domenech accept one premise of Levitt's argument, even though they take issue with the entire rest of his approach. Levitt's premise is widely accepted, and racist though it may be, it doesn't particularly distinguish Neuhaus and Domenech from all number of other folks all over the political spectrum. What's more, they will just respond, we disagree more with and object much more vehemently to Levitt's horrible argument than those on the left.
Jeff |
03.23.06 - 10:03 am | #
The way I read it is Neuhaus is misreading Levitt. Now I haven't read Levitt myself, but from radio interviews, I understand his whole schtick is to show the neat counterintuitive arguments one can make using economic thinking.
Neuhaus, instead, seems to believe that Levitt styles himself as an ethicist and is appalled by what he takes as a pro-abortion argument based on the "upside of abortion". I don't think Neuhaus' writing was racist per se, though the language (subsequent to the preamble) is hardly racially sensitive. The preamble is an attention-getter and not something I gather he subscribes to; on the other hand, one would normally expect more of a rhetorical repudiation of the initial absurdist proposition.
Now, since the Neuhaus item is not terribly clear in its intent, it is hard to tell, from that alone, what box turtle thoughts are when he posts it without comment. Read together with his attack on Coretta Scott King (and wasn't there a glorification of Jefferson Davis he penned), ya kinda know where he stands.
uncle toby |
03.23.06 - 10:03 am | #
anti-lynching! now that's down right radical! someone give him a medal and a cookie.
chicago dyke | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 9:44 am |
Thanks Chicago.
John Casper |
03.23.06 - 10:04 am | #
Wow, do all red-staters congratulate themselves on completing elementary reading courses?
"Hey Ben! Guess what? I got an A in arithmetic when I was 5!"
LOL
And your use of tendentious is lax at best. Try looking up some examples.
marky |
03.23.06 - 10:05 am | #
"Why? Why choose racially tense (at best) satire to make a point that could easily be made with 1000's of other articles."
I'm not a critic.
"It's called pandering to your reader. That is the point to this whole issue. Maybe he isn't a racist."
If you've read my posts, you know that he isn't.
"I'll be generous enough to give you that."
I appreciate that (no irony).
"But can you deny that by choosing this particular piece he is trying to focus on an issue by using the red meat of another issue (racism) to get the attention of his readers who,"
So far, I agree. He is trying to shock. Swift did this in his Modest Proposal. I'm not claiming that Neuhaus does it as well as Swift does. Not many people could.
" you must assume by his choice of literature, are racist?"
No. Do you think that the readers of "First Things" are racist? That's simply (I assure you) absolutely incorrect.
Let me point out that people here were asserting (to the point of threatening violence) the racism of the piece. It is not racist. Maybe you are similarly incorrect about the nature of his readers?
Chris |
03.23.06 - 10:06 am | #
Chris, I think you're getting your tenses confused. Neuhaus may have been concerned with black poverty at some point in the past. He may even have acted effectively on that concern. Now? Not so much. What's the man done in the past ten years exactly? Wait, wait, don't tell me. He wanted desperately to do something, but he couldn't, because "what is sometime still called the civil rights leadership" kept getting in his way, and for some reason he can't seem to get any traction when he goes directly to the black community. Chris, people who are serious about black poverty are concerned with incarceration rates and redlining. They don't go all dewy-eyed and wank off about holding Jesse Jackson responsible for abortion.
Aw fuck it. angie says it better at 9:52. I think -M- is right, and I'm just too long-winded.
Why exactly is it so important that Neuhaus not be called a racist? Do you think that this particular racist behavior somehow negates any earlier, more, uh, Christian things that he's said or done? Or that racists can't do non-racist things, or change their minds, or what?
Or does it just bother you that Jane made a somewhat sloppy and definitely inflammatory argument (I'm certainly willing to concede that she did, and I bet she is too). Are "liberals" always supposed to play fair? What is it exactly that's rubbbing you the wrong way here?
This is polemic, my friend. It's politics. It's not a court of law, and it's not a debating society.
radish |
03.23.06 - 10:07 am | #
Again, nothing I have seen in Jane's post nor in the links off of her post has identified Ben as "Augustine". Can someone help out here?
Anonymous |
03.23.06 - 10:08 am | #
"I have seen no unsubstantiated charges of racism here."
But did you see the threat of violence? Did you have any comment?
Sorry, I'd like to address this, but I have to run. I will do so later.
A good way to test if an argument is racist is to insert another race or ethnicity for the given one.
Try reading Neuhaus's piece with "Jew" substituted for "Black". Imagine Neuhaus writing that piece, and then "Augustine" linking to it.
Admit it---you'd vomit before finishing that article.
marky |
03.23.06 - 10:10 am | #
"Or does it just bother you that Jane made a somewhat sloppy and definitely inflammatory argument (I'm certainly willing to concede that she did, and I bet she is too). Are "liberals" always supposed to play fair? What is it exactly that's rubbbing you the wrong way here?"
Fair questions. I will answer later if you remain interested.
Chris |
03.23.06 - 10:10 am | #
let me second whomever mentioned not responding to trolls; this is a great community bound to attract a lot of trollbots and drooling knuckle draggers as it becomes more popular. take it from a veteran of the eschaton boards: setting phasers to "ignore" is the only thing that works.
chicago dyke |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 10:10 am | #
Chris,
Do come back for your whipping later, okay?
marky |
03.23.06 - 10:11 am | #
Evil Parallel Universe | 03.23.06 - 10:00 am | :
Like I said, if there is no effective democracy you will face collective exploitation.
If you want to use labels use the universal standard for extreme cases like China, a universal standard that must be thwarted: Fascism.
Know it when you see it. Preferably before it sees you.
Chris you are trying to drive a point that you supply no foundation for. Provide us something that tells us that Ben is not racist. Anything. So far you just want us to take your word for it because you say so. You only provide evidence that the guy Ben quoted may not be racist, but that doesn't establish Ben's lack of racism. You still haven't fundamentally addressed the fact that he went out of his way to choose an article that was specifically racist in tone.
But this is pointless. We've spent this entire thread talking about a single article that the person that we should be discussing just happened to quote.
There are reasons to believe that Ben is a racist than his use of this one article. Many people in many places have pointed that out in very clear terms. However, (and I'm sure you will take this as victory over the crazy liberals) I do not wish to spend the next hour or two convincing you that he is because what I see as racist, you do not. We have obviously differing definitions of the term so we are at an impasse.
Based on that, it's simply a matter of agreeing to disagree.
Zergle |
03.23.06 - 10:12 am | #
sonofslothrop | 03.23.06 - 10:02 am
agree w/ you. Kennedy School of Govt., a full talk show dance card - to do something he's already done - nah
if he did, it would indicate the Bush41 gang finally got the Chimp's attention
cbl |
03.23.06 - 10:13 am | #
Zergle,
I believe my 10:10 should decide the matter, frankly.
marky |
03.23.06 - 10:14 am | #
Chris, you don't have to parse every sentence to get the overall impression that the point being made is that since giving money to poor black people isn't working perhaps we've decided to kill them in the womb. I understand the implicit renunciation in his writing of the idea that an overt attempt at crime control through promoting abortion for black people is abhorrent. I really do. He may only be guilty of not repudiating the premise of the argument as racist. But to gloss over that racist premise to make his point about abortion, and more importantly his position that abortion is a failure of black leadership with regard to abortions performed for black women just goes to prove that he is, if not racist, then thoroughly untroubled with using racist arguments to make his larger point. So I guess I have to say that this writing doesn't make its author racist, just someone who tacitly approves the racism of others. That's a nice distinction.
TritoneSub |
03.23.06 - 10:14 am | #
I agree chicago dyke, ignore and the Trexitron Goddesses are the best medicine against trolls.
Meanwhile Bushco is still lying to America.
Shez |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 10:15 am | #
Thanks (non-snarky thanks) for taking the question seriously. I gotta go shortly too but will try to check back in later.
BTW have to agree with Zergle that this drifting off into talking about Neuhaus is sorta beside the point anyway. For Neuhaus this isn't even (IMO) deliberate racism. It's just a one (overlong ;-) paragraph of take-it-for-granted racism out of thousands of words of contemplative writing (I'm trying to be polite -- you obviously respect the man, and that counts for something).
Domenech's view however, is pretty damn clear.
Anonymous, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that Ben is aka Augustine, including timing and content of posts, references by others, the way he names some other things... I think if you look at comments in some of the earlier FDL/BenDom threads you'll find some original research on the subject, but I can't recall who posted it.
radish |
03.23.06 - 10:21 am | #
I bet "Chris" goes back to the batcave and tells his fellow towel snappers he told those FDLers a thing or2 -- I can just see him getting off on this exchange. They love this sort of 'foreplay.'
I have this image of the basement in the White House with these youngsters trolling the blogs to start fights just like this. "This guy wasn't a racist." They demand we take it back. Ack.
Audience, for the next act, they will try to persuade us that bush is not a liar.
GrandmaJ |
03.23.06 - 10:25 am | #
Leave you guys alone for an hour or so to work on my taxes and just look at all the trouble you get into!! Don't Jane and Christy have enough to do without having to fire up the trexathon for you, can't you kids just monitor yourselves???
I guess you guys are new here, huh?
We don't do racist.
Nice try.
If you don't calm down I'm putting the plates and spoons away.
zennurse |
03.23.06 - 10:25 am | #
Please, please STOP feeding the trolls!
McGee |
03.23.06 - 10:27 am | #
The original article is clearly an anti-abortion screed.
The way the original article begins is designed to startle the reader, as it appears racist.
Linking to the article without comment, in the context of the Red State blog, is at best clumsy.
I think anyone who supports the modern Republican Party and its racist Southern Strategy is guilty of supporting a racist institution.
But that being said, the article in itself is not racist. Linking to the article without further comment may or may not be evidence of racism.
But then what further evidence of racism is needed, other than to say that Augustine clearly supports the Republican Party?
Nick |
03.23.06 - 10:28 am | #
I am liberal, progressive, want to see Bush ridden out of town on a rail, think WaPo has sold its soul, and I agree with almost everything Jane writes. However, I am also a trained expert in English and this Neuhaus quote is so badly written that anyone's analysis of it could be supported (or attacked). If one wants to hang Augustine, it's the wrong rope.
Argonaut |
03.23.06 - 10:28 am | #
Please try to remember this is firedoglake, not HuffPo or LGF. There aren't a lot of rules, but there's baiting here and it's not pretty.
zennurse |
03.23.06 - 10:29 am | #
Bowties flapping in the wind? Bye Bye..............
wilbo |
03.23.06 - 10:32 am | #
"It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution."
Hey Chris,
Neuhaus may be a pastor, but so was Father Coughlin.
And as for the issue of class? Nothing's tackier than a troll, you ignorant turd toucher.
Sara Anne |
03.23.06 - 10:42 am | #
I am liberal, progressive, want to see Bush ridden out of town on a rail, think WaPo has sold its soul, and I agree with almost everything Jane writes. However, I am also a trained expert in English and this Neuhaus quote is so badly written that anyone's analysis of it could be supported (or attacked). If one wants to hang Augustine, it's the wrong rope.
Argonaut | 03.23.06 - 10:28 am | #
-----------------------
I agree.
Steve Gilliard's instincts are excellent and his writing incisive. I have little doubt that Augustine is a nasty little bigot. But this is the wrong cross on which to hang the faux Christian.
Nick |
03.23.06 - 10:43 am | #
When he says that "It's too bad" line, he's portraying those who advocate abortion as a means to reduce crime. I guess, for you to understand better, he should have said "Evil people will say 'It's too bad about....". I guess he'll have to dumb down his posts at the Wapo for this crowd.
jsb |
03.23.06 - 10:51 am | #
...so to go with the overall IQ depreciation we have experienced today, what's up in the latest Bradgelina saga?
Zergle | 03.23.06 - 9:52 am | #
y'know I heard they've been house-hunting in Kalorama - above Dupont Circle...
Vivian Darkbloom |
03.23.06 - 10:52 am | #
You go Ben boy-- drive Jane and her insufferable ilk absolutely crazy
Fidel Cigar |
03.23.06 - 11:01 am | #
I have re-read the article and I believe it is about abortion more so than racism.
both Neuhaus and Domemech are anti-abortion Zealots
My original post at 9:32 a is how I see Domenech interpreting the artical. This was the point was it not?
There are 4 different opinions
here:
Jane Hamsher's (why did she post it)
Neuhas's (NOT a racist)
Domenech's ( gives tacit approval of the whole thing by posting w/o comment)
Levitt and Dubner's theory (unproven)
vafireball |
03.23.06 - 11:02 am | #
There really is no honest defense of the rightwing position on much of anything. They've vehemently supported a regime that has single-handedly and in pretty short order ruined so much of what made America great.
When the wingnutty trolls argue, it's disingenuousness and outright dishonesty that provides their comfort zone. They don't know any other way to defend their disgraceful positions and I for one don't take kindly to the fact that they're complicit in the demise of our democratic experiment. Leave, there is no defense for your belief system.
Jay |
03.23.06 - 11:03 am | #
I'm betting March 24, if that long. He'll be leaving WaPo in a red state...
Todd |
03.23.06 - 11:04 am | #
What I find very humorous is that Saint Augustine, the first patron saint of the Catholic Church actually decided that abortion was not a crime until the time of quickening.
vafireball |
03.23.06 - 11:05 am | #
WTF?
A Modest Proposal, circa 2006?
whatinsname |
03.23.06 - 11:20 am | #
I send an email to the Ombudsman at the Washington Post and I got back an email telling me that complaints should be directed to the washingtonpost.com - not the Washington Post. There may be a turf battle going on over who is responsible for this disaster.
Edward Deevy |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 11:23 am | #
The argument runs something like this: The Washington Post a major American institution and media outlet hired a conservative blogger of dubious abilities and negligible experience for “balance” without sufficiently vetting him for his decidedly out of the main stream and even disturbing views. According to other bloggers with established track records for veracity, Ben Domenech is the blogger “Augustine”.
Augustine posted a review by Neuhaus containing anti-abortion sentiments without comment, indicating that he was in essential agreement with the views stated.
Neuhaus chooses a less than rigorous text Freakonomics as a vehicle to attack abortion. Following the admittedly racist remarks of William Bennett, he argues (satirically according to trolls) that abortion is a good since it lowers crime by disproportionately decreasing the number of black males who are themselves responsible for disproportionate levels of crime.
While Neuhaus does drop his satirical persona and rejects the “pro” abortion side of his argument, calling it odious, he does not do the same for its equally odious racist content. It is this which many commenters here find so repugnant. To use a racially charged and tortuous argument of dubious intrinsic merit to advance one’s viewpoint whatever that viewpoint might be –and not disavow it- is not “satirical”. It is racist.
Domenech as Augustine gave his support to these offensive and racist views. The Washington Post by hiring a purveyor of such views can not avoid the stigma of promoting them.
Hugh |
03.23.06 - 11:45 am | #
whoever wrote that article is one sick puppy
ivan |
03.23.06 - 11:49 am | #
Spent the last hour or so reading the comments on the WaPo Redstate page. The "conservatives" have apparently arrived. Those that aren't just writing badly written insults of "libruls" of one or two sentences duration are advising us that if we don't like it, we should go away. As someone responded, we wish they felt that way about abortion.
I'm still just amazed that the Post has hired this guy. He's a moron, seems to have accomplished absolutely nothing in his life besides writing about how angry he is at the rest of the world, and he's a protege of the current Presidential administration.
Didn't anyone but MSNBC learn anything from the hiring and inevitable firing of Micheal Savage?
Cujo359 |
03.23.06 - 11:56 am | #
How dare anyone compare this offal with "A Modest Proposal"?
I knew Jonathan Swift. Jonathan Swift was a friend of mine. You Ben Domenech, are no Jonathan Swift.
John Arbuthnot |
03.23.06 - 12:01 pm | #
I am extremely conservative. I am also a very active and enthusiastic participant of a 75% minority church. I am in a inter-racial marriage. I am also a professional editor and writer.
I don't know if that gives what I'm about to ask any weight, but here goes:
Couldn't everyone just look up the dictionary definition of IRONY, soak it in really well, and then go back and re-read the piece in question?
Nathan I'm a conservative, and a conservative Catholic to boot. Quite a few people who comment here are conservatives. None of us tolerate racism.
Now having done my part in troll feeding for the day I'll bid you farewell.
markfromireland |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 12:11 pm | #
This blog is unreadable in Mac OS X 10.3 using Safari. All the text is squeezed into a column less than one inch wide.
John H. Farr | Homepage | 03.23.06 - 8:10 am | #
But 10.2.9 works great (so far, X(that's crossed fingers))
mommybrain | 03.23.06 - 8:20 am | #
I use Safari, 10.3.9 and I've never had a problem with this site.
Delphyne |
03.23.06 - 12:14 pm | #
Here's another good word; ultracrepidate.
TritoneSub |
03.23.06 - 12:17 pm | #
Markfromireland: I hate racism. I tolerate irony. Apparently you tolerate neither.
Nathan |
03.23.06 - 12:18 pm | #
Wingnuts can compare Bush to Lincoln, and Neuhaus to Swift, without blushing.
Now THAT is what I call irony.
marky |
03.23.06 - 12:26 pm | #
I've tried to resist commenting here... but...
There's no way to avoid one conclusion about the Neuhaus quote: It's horribly written.
I don't believe his intent was racist, but I agree with Radish that "people who try to make nuanced ironic arguments without paragraph breaks are doomed from the get-go."
And it was so densely packed with nuance, that coming to the conclusion that it was racist is not unreasonable. I believe it's an incorrect conclusion, but not an unreasonable one.
So, if there's anything to be learned here it's that it pays to write clearly with declarative certainty. And that's something Jane Hamsher does with every one of her posts.
It makes reading her worthwhile even though I rarely agree with her.
Otherwise, I throw my prayers atop the pile already accumulating for your mom Jane.
John Pearley Huffman |
03.23.06 - 12:32 pm | #
Stop being an apologist for what was blatant racism Nathan. There's a difference between that and irony but then as you're just masquerading as a conservative it's too much to expect you to understand that isn't it?
markfromireland |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 12:35 pm | #
I think Brady's briefs are in a bunch right about now. It has undoubtly cutoff circulation to his brain.
By hiring that poor excuse for a mammal, Around the Ben(d),Brady might as well have produced an online version of the World Funniest Home Snuff Videos.
This whole incident needs to be doused in pure grain alcohol to purify it, hung around Brady neck, and lit up like a fancy french dessert for all the other diners to see.
Let's make a party favor out of Brady and his bunch.
.
Gentleman Jim |
03.23.06 - 12:37 pm | #
Yes, it was horribly written, but substitute "Jew" for "black", and the racist construction of the argument will be perfectly clear.
marky |
03.23.06 - 12:40 pm | #
Jane, how confident are you that Ben is actually Augustine? I read the blurb identifying him but it could be just spectualtion on the writer's part, right? I'm not saying Ben *isn't* Augustine. All I'm saying is that attributing that vile, racist post on an innocent person doesn't help our cause. Of course, if he confesses, then he's toast because I can't see WaPo wanting to be associated with that even if they have gone over to the twilight side. So, can we get some confirmation? If he is, we pile on, demand an investigation and shame the Post and anyone associated with hiring him. If he isn't, we can just ignore him and stop giving him free publicity and legitimacy.
portia.vz |
03.23.06 - 12:42 pm | #
the "yourlogohere" blog has a lot more evidence that Ben is Augustine.
marky |
03.23.06 - 12:46 pm | #
BD has "confessed" by way of a lame ass explanation for his (Augustine's) remarks about Correta Scott King-see Wapo
Dru |
03.23.06 - 12:52 pm | #
Hugh | 03.23.06 - 11:45 am |
This is also based on what seems to be a misreading of Levitt in Freakonomics. Levitt does not suggest that abortion is justified based on the reduction in the crime rate. He only suggests there is a correlation and that this is one of many factors involved in the reduction. The source article by Neuhaus does take Levitt to task over not mourning the lives that never happened, but that was never Levitt's point to begin with. The moral aspects of abortion vs. crime don't enter into it.
On the question of race, Levitt specifically states that the crime trends run across all demographic groups. This notion that a decline in crime is tied to a rise in abortions in a particular ethnic group seems to originate in Neuhaus's article. It does not belong to Levitt.
Best of luck to your mom, Jane.
bushismycousin |
03.23.06 - 12:52 pm | #
Jane:
It could be that Church Lady Brady already knows what the king has planned. The concentration camps are all in place, staffed, and so on. Maybe King George and his lords are just waiting for the right time.
Seems the entire Congress would probably cooperate.
Prayers for your mom, Jane, and thanks for exposing this.
Margot |
03.23.06 - 1:07 pm | #
Yes, this article is horribly written.
Here is the last sentence and I believe it exonerates Neuhaus from racism:
"Today's black leaders are more compliant [towards abortion], much to the satisfaction of those who think we would be better off with fewer black people."
However, I do not think it exonerates Ben Domonech from the same.....
vafireball |
03.23.06 - 1:13 pm | #
[i]Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. In one interview, Levitt said his findings had little or nothing to do with race; his research on the correlation between crime and unstable family situations was based on Scandinavian research. Well yes, but nobody to my knowledge has suggested that the problem of crime in the United States is significantly related to the problem of Swedish immigration. Levitt, like Donohue, is also careful to say that he is not a supporter of the unlimited abortion license. I notice that many other commentators make a point of saying that this discussion is not about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime.[/i]
This was the racist part, thanks for asking.
Swift contributed to a discussion about Ireland. Neuhas jumped into a discussion about abortion, and injected race into it, using a series of unironic racial assumptions that Levitt had explicitly rejected.
Without the unironic fact that the Irish were dirt poor and starving, Swift would have had no essay. Without the unironic assumption that black men commit crimes and black women get abortions, Neuhas would have had no essay.
Dude Love |
03.23.06 - 1:14 pm | #
PS - I suck for not using the preview tag to see that my italics tag didn't work.
/the more you know
Dude Love |
03.23.06 - 1:14 pm | #
FYI -- There's a charge in a Kos diary that Ben plagarized a piece he wrote for his college newspaper:
Not one of you realizes that this piece CONDEMNS
Andy |
03.23.06 - 1:47 pm | #
A proven plagiarist, a right-wing sewer-dweller without a journalist bone in his body, a clear racist, a red-baiter McCarthyite, a liar and a hypocrite who didn't mind taking the affirmative action money when it suited him. Wow. Red America should be renamed "Red-Faced America." And, a big ole picture of Jim and Debbie should grace the masthead. Shame, shame, shame, WaPo. You look like idiots.
Tennessean |
03.23.06 - 1:53 pm | #
Not one of you realizes that this piece CONDEMNS the very thing you think it espouses??? Are you serious???
He calls it "morally odious" that people are coolly discussing what amounts to racial cleansing.
He chastises black leaders for being too compliant, "much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people. "
Everything he says is a refutation of what you all somehow think HE believes. When he writes, "It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution," he's not taking that position, he's stating his DISGUST with people who glibly take that position, or who even consider it a position worth debating.
Seriously, take some reading comprehension classes. Or any kind of classes that'll force you to think before you open your mouths. Truly disgusting.
Andy |
03.23.06 - 1:56 pm | #
Argonaut (10:28) has it right.
But if one is blind to the clumsy nuance of Neuhaus, the gist of the article is "Abortion is bad; blacks are bad; black leaders are badder than bad."
I think it legitimate to question "Augustine's" intent in publishing the quote without comment, but to ascribe racism to either person, based solely on Jane's quoted text, is not justified.
Jane should acknowledge her misunderstanding.
naptime |
03.23.06 - 2:15 pm | #
Andy, read the posts here. It is the assumption that race is the underlying factor that is race.
1) Levitt argues that it is unwanted children of mothers who are not ready to parent them that would have a higher likelihood of growing up to be criminals. He explicitly disavows a racist interpretation (as well as any moral argument).
2) The article Ben quoted ASSUMES that it is the black abortions that are reponsible for the drop in crime.
In my book, Black=Criminal is the bedrock foundation of "polite" racism (i.e. Southern Strategy, etc..)
A non-racist would have made the same abortion point differently: e.g. "wiping out the poor and uneducated via abortion is a lousy solution to the problem of crime." However, it does not pack the same punch (substitute "poor" for "black" in the article, and see how it reads. In addition to losing the "genocide" hook, it also shows the solution to the "problem" to be more complex than the right wing good-evil dichotomoy he's peddling (i.e. help those who are not ready for parenting to become ready for parenting so that in due time they will become parents if they want to).
Anyone who is willing to embed racist assumptions into an article to score better rhetoricals points (see also Bill Bennett) is a racist....and approvingly quoting that argument is a racist act.
oopsie - mean to say "It is the assumption that race is the underlying factor that is racist."
glassonion |
03.23.06 - 2:32 pm | #
Andy - Whose position is Neuhaus refuting? It certainly isn't Levitt's. At best, he's created a straw man. At worst, he is guilty of the vary racism you say he abhors.
Levitt says the correlation between abortion and decreased crime crosses all demographic boundaries. Neuhaus sees genocide in that because he equates crime and abortion with a particular ethnic group.
Who's the racist?
Neuhaus presumably is staunchly anti-abortion. As such, he takes tremendous offense at the notion that abortion could have a positive outcome. He wishes Levitt would take the position that the decrease in crime was not worth the loss of life. The problem is that Levitt wasn't commenting on the morality of the relationship, simply the existence of the relationship.
bushismycousin |
03.23.06 - 2:39 pm | #
glassonion | 03.23.06 - 2:30 pm |
You said it better.
bushismycousin |
03.23.06 - 2:39 pm | #
glassonion, you attribute to Neuhaus what he himself is claiming the other disingenuous "commentaries" are carefully side-stepping: the obvious racist undertones of the discussion (abortion/crime reduction) in the U.S.
Again, clumsy nuance or deviously racist rhetoric, but not possible to make the call solely on this quote.
naptime |
03.23.06 - 2:55 pm | #
Just check out Neuhaus's writing on gays if you want to find out what a hateful, lying bigot he is.
marky |
03.23.06 - 3:00 pm | #
Naptime -
"obvious racist undertones of the discussion (abortion/crime reduction) "
Again, why are there any racist undertones at all to the discussion unless you believe that criminal = black? I just don't get it - Levitt made a causal (non-moralistic) argument based on the age / class / education of the mother - what's race got to do with it?
Remember, without the racist hook, Neuhaus's article has nothing - if it's really about young unwed black and white women waiting until they're better situated in life to have kids, there's no genocide. If it's about parents, black, white, other not wanting to have multiple additional children that their resources can't provide for, there's no genocide.
The "genocide" argument is an explicitly false one (regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion on moral grounds), and he seems only too happy to make it despite its explicitly racist foundation.
Draw your own conlusions, but it seems open and shut to me. I'm not saying he's an irredeemable KKK-type racist; I'm saying that the racism is insiduous, especially the Black = criminal equivalency that's pretty widely peddled. If you don't think making that equivalence is racist, then I'm not going to convince you...but history won't judge the "polite" racists very well either.
glassonion |
03.23.06 - 3:23 pm | #
bobby G,
What's the point of the domain info on "rodent ben"?
i've been at the forefront of BenDom, and even i don't quite see the relevance here.
=======
From what I've read of young Ben's writing here and elsewhere, if he's still around next week, I'll predict that every loose brick in Washington, DC, is going to find its way through the office windows of The Washington Post Company.
Wonder if Cornyn or the White House is going to hire him back again when he loses this gig? :) Nah, but Regnery certainly will.
punpirate |
03.23.06 - 4:01 pm | #
I've been gone for 2 weeks. You moved while I was gone!
This Ben guy seems a bad, bad choice for the Wapo. It's almost like they did it on purpose (Fear?) Or they are not too bright. Take your pick.
I love this blog/community.
colleen military mom |
03.23.06 - 4:02 pm | #
"Of course, most of the commentaries steer away from a too-explicit reference to race, although everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks and the equally inordinate incidence of abortions procured by black women. "
Is this statement true or false?
Andy |
03.23.06 - 4:03 pm | #
glassonion - I am not saying that there is no racism in the article. What I am saying is that all the egregious statements are implied to originate with "other commentators". Clever or clumsy, I can not make the call on this quote alone.
Had Jane backed up this quote with explicit evidence of Neuhaus' bigotry, than her argument would be surer.
naptime |
03.23.06 - 4:04 pm | #
Slightly off-topic, but I find it amusing that on my very low traffic blog (which has gotten fewer comments in three years than this FDL thread has gotten in one day), within an hour of posting something about our good friend St. Ben the Augustine, someone commented about moonbats on parade getting panties in a bunch.
You'd almost think folks were being paid to troll. In my case, why even bother?
Seth Anderson |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 4:05 pm | #
Wish I could get paid to troll -- I'm just procrastinating, which is almost as motivating....
Naptime - you're either disingeneous or have a very high threshold. No one was out there saying what Neuhaus attributes to the commentariat. Without the racist foundation, there is no point to the article.
Andy - once you're defending the statement "everybody is aware of the astonishingly inordinate incidence of crimes committed by young male blacks" against a charge of racism, you've lost the debate. Yes, claiming that young black males are more likely to commit crime than young males of other races with comparable circumstances is the archetypal racist statement.
glassonion |
03.23.06 - 4:18 pm | #
glassonion - i wasn't defending the statement. i was asking if it's true or false.
Andy |
03.23.06 - 4:21 pm | #
The Levitt study suggests that the decreasing number of unwanted and uncared-for children brought about by the legalization of abortion resulted in the eventual decline of the adult crime rate. Obviously, it does not suggest that a decrease in the number of African Americans led to the drop in crime.
Only a racist would assume that a significant abortion-related drop in crime must be due to the abortion of unborn African Americans. Only a racist would re-publish, unchallenged, comments based on that assumption.
It is true that Augustine, Bennet, and Neuhaus all claim to be horrified by the idea of 'killing' black babies as a crime fighting tecnique. But that idea is theirs. Either consciously or subconsciously, they cannot help but equate decreased criminality with 'dead' African Americans.
BullGoose |
03.23.06 - 4:27 pm | #
It's no secret that the biggest demgraphic of drugs (both hard and soft) are White, Suburban Young Males. It's also no secret that the highest demographic of Incarcerated "Drug Crime" Prisoners, is overwhelmingly Black Males.
Enter the D.A.R.E. Program. Their Modus Operandi is to nail young, white kids with the biggest crime that they can create, and charge the living HELL out of him/her. THEN, they tell the young person that they will happily drop all or most of the charges, or lower the charges from, say, Felony to Misdemeanor or to a C.I. IF the young reprobate will provide 3 (or more) 'good" arrests.
...You all know where this is heading, I know...
So. The (scared shitless) kid says, "OK, let's try," and fires off names, addresses and "charges" against a number of his brown or black dealers with whom he has either a very casual relationship, or has some sort of bad blood. He/She thinks about preserving other, more valuable relationships, and looks to "help" those really good connections.
So, three or more "others" go to prison, families totally fuct up, Justice is served, "HAAALLELUIA!!!", and the kid gets off with his/her Misdemeanor or C.I. (spongeable after 24 months, or so, with no further Court issues). If Daddy is a BIIIIG political player, then, the kid will give the names and charges, and then get off scot-free.
Yeah. That's how it really DOES work, and if there is a Public Attorney involved, you can bet the kid will be short of options in extremis. This particular scenario will be the only option presented by said PA... Unless that PA is either new, or DAMNED Honorable, and on his way out the door.
I wonder if L'il Special Ben has ever been busted with a big bag of grass and a bowl? Somehow, I suspect that L'il Special Ben's Very Special Daddy took care of things FOR him.
I see little reason for his nasty vindictiveness and blaming of those brown people, if he didn't feel himself somehow above them, orharbors a resentment or latent guilt.
Somehow, I get the feeling that L'il Special Ben is not only a rascist, wingnut plagiarist, but is also being deeply dishonest with his own Bio.
So, maybe Ben meant it as irony, I don't think so. I think he "misread" it as a racist screed and put it up approvingly.
Why?
Well, when you call Coretta Scott King a communist and admire Jefferson Davis, I think calling you a racist is both fair and accurate, and your explainations are pathetic bordering on the comical.
As many other posters have explained, associating black birth rates with crime is racist on its face. And just because someone worked with King doesn't mean they don't have racial biases.
To repeat: there is no known link between black birth rates and crime.
Oh, and crime has declined steadily since 1979. If you check the Michigan survey, which my friend did for his masters in criminology, you'll find a declining arrow with some bumps.
But you know, the Neuhaus article is just offensive, it was calling King a Communist which indicated his racism. Google King and Communism and you'll get a a basketful of race hate.
steve_gilliard |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 4:57 pm | #
I'm also having no problem with Mac OS X 10.3.9 and Safari
sponson |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 5:31 pm | #
First of all...
To those who are still trying to question whether "Augustine" is Ben Domenech, I suggest you read Domenech's "mea culpa" regarding the smear of Corretta Scott King on the day of her Funeral.
See, Augustine at RedState called her a commie...but Domenech at Red America is apologizing.
Couple that with the Blogometer reference to Ben "Augustine" Domenech (regarding the Shadegg run for House Majority Leader), and the fact that Ben Domenech was an RNC blogger for RedState...yet the articles posted to RedState consist of contributions by krempasky (known), Trevino (known), Nick Danger (unkown), and Augustine (unknown)...add into the mix the extreme large volume of quotes, references and usages of Augistine, Augustinian and so on on Ben Domenech's blog (bendomenech.com)...including a quote by Augustine posted on the same day that Augstine first posted on RedState...
And it is pretty much an open and shut case.
Regarding the Neuhaus article:
1) Where in Freakonomics is the CORRELATION argument between increased rates of abortion and decreased crime converted into a CAUSATION argument? (Hint: it isn't).
2) Where in Freakonomics is it explicitly or implicitly suggested that specifically increased rates of abortion IN THE BLACK POPULATION are the fundamental driving factor for the correlation between more abortions and lower crime rates? (Hint: it isn't).
3) Where in statistics can it be shown that the "Black = Crime" construction holds up to any kind of scrutiny? It cannot. Where did that argument first rear its head with respect to abortion? Bill Bennett.
4) Where in the statistical data can you show the required massively disproportionate abortion rate among blacks sufficient to give any weight to the argument Neuhaus is "proposing" in order to discredit? You cannot. Neuhaus proposed a blatantly racist strawman argument in the service of his anti-choice rhetoric. The use of such blatantly racist assumptions and assertions is telling, and the blanket acceptance of that argument, without comment, by "Augustine" is telling as well.
So, Domenech is Augustine; Strawman arguments explicitly linking blacks to crime, and blatantly proposing that the CORRELATION between abortion and lower crime is the same as a CAUSATION specifically and predominantly within the black community are racist in their governing assumptions and assertions, REGARDLESS of what rhetorical argument those strawmen are used to promote; and finally, mute reposting of said arguments without comment implies approval and acceptance.
Also, note the timing of that repost. Sept. 30, 2005...right after Katrina. Hmmmmmmm....
RedDan |
03.23.06 - 5:32 pm | #
Thanks for the laughs folks. You thoroughly embarrassed yourselves by revealing your inability to read, and now you're trying to salvage your pride by saying, well Ben's racist anyway, despite the fact that he says things such as, "vile pretense of skin color" and calls racial cleansing, "morally odious."
Calling Coretta Scott King a communist on the day of her funeral certainly crossed the line of proper decorum, but it's hardly racist, and no more tasteless than Jimmy Carter's performance at her funeral.
pg |
03.23.06 - 5:40 pm | #
pg,
read for comprehension (if you are able).
The root assumption asserted at the outset is that blacks are more responsible for crime than any other group, and that blacks have more abortions than any other group.
Both assumptions are racist, regardless of their use either for or against abortion, welfare, drug laws or whatever.
The appellation of leading civil rights activists as "Communists" has a long, long history...and guess who the prime culprits were? Birchers, Klansmen, and all sorts of racists. Why would that be?
RedDan |
03.23.06 - 5:44 pm | #
I just went to the WaPo blog and posted the entire "Augustine" quote posted here, and attributed it to Benji. How long do you think it will stay up?
neurophius |
03.23.06 - 5:48 pm | #
Well, when you call Coretta Scott King a communist and admire Jefferson Davis, I think calling you a racist is both fair and accurate
Steve - Totally agree, nothing I said was meant to disagree with that.
When he gives us so much material to work with, there's no need to rely on relatively weak claims that are unlikely to persuade, that's all.
Jeff |
03.23.06 - 6:32 pm | #
oh, I'm sorry, ben, the answer we were looking for is "plagiarism." "Plagiarism."
JC |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 6:37 pm | #
I was just over at the Post site. Looks like they may have scrubbed him out already .
I could be wrong...
Downpuppy |
Homepage |
03.23.06 - 6:50 pm | #
Hey, this Red State dude?
He said, no kidding,
"pro life intellectual"
Can you say oxymoron?
UnMask911 |
03.23.06 - 7:08 pm | #
Posted at WaPo blog:
Mr. Brady:
I hope you know what you are getting into messing with bloggers. Remember what bloggers did to Dan Rather and CBS over Bush's national guard records? That's nothing compared to what the left blogging community is going to do to Ben Domenich. Every word he has ever published is going to be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. It's one thing to knowingly hire a raving right wing bigot--maybe you are willing to put up with the flak you are getting from your mainstream readers over that. But a plagiarizer? Come on. You know that is not acceptable by today's journalistic standards. You are going to have to bite the bullet and cut him loose (sorry, I just mixed my metaphors). Domenich's serial plagiarism may actually be a blessing in disguise for you, however, if you have the sense to see it that way. Now you can fire him for blatant violation of one of journalism's most sacred proscriptions, instead of admitting what a horrible mistake you made hiring a hateful,obnoxious, immature, talentless right wing kook. Better luck next time.
I find it refreshing to know that the people who were on the wrong side of every issue have always felt the same way about those issues, it makes it easier for us to identify them. The excerpt was not about "black people" it was about "them" in America the "them" that need to be exterminated to create bliss are black people now, but they were native Americans earlier, sometimes they were Irish people for a little while they were Japanese and often the default people to hate have been Jews not to say that other groups have not been singled out and crapped upon. But never have they been rich WASP's for some reason if one was a rich stiff upper lipped person of means, no one ever thought that that person and the life they demand may actually be the causative ying to everybody else’s yang.
I find it very strange it is that the same group of people who funded death camps (Prescott Bush) are now advocating for a concentrated area to keep "Jews" as though this group of people have no right to live anywhere but in that spot. The idea of Israel was dreamed up by religious wakos who have no intention of seeing Jewish people live in peace. They want Armageddon to come in a hurry and they created this state for their own reasons and pumped it full of weapons to help that along. If I were Jewish I would remind all these crazies that "accept him or not, Jesus Was Jewish, and if it had not been for Capitol Punishment, and an oppressive government, like other men of his time, he may have lived a fuller life."
Abortion was created by nazi's to get rid of undesirable people and the underlying racism among these Machiavellian throwbacks is that the people getting the abortions are not the undesirables, it is their own it should give the movement pause to consider that abortion would not be an issue at all if the only people getting them were poor black, Latino or white youths.
The issue here is the same as it has always been, the undesirable ones aren’t exterminating themselves quickly or cheaply enough to satisfy the holier than thou. The racists who blame Black inner city youths for all the drug problems never ask themselves who is buying all these drugs, and why do we export the chemicals needed to make cocaine to Columbia and why are there no controls on the manmade materials essential to the production of Meth-amphetamines, and why don’t we estimate the multi-million dollar bottom lines of companies who are allowed to fly private planes back and forth with absolutely no inspection and very little oversight. As far as anyone knows there are no crops of coca and marijuana growing in the ghetto.
Those undesirable ones are not as willing to do the fighting, cleaning, and shutting up and dying as they used to be when they were under the gun. What will the answer be when the majority of middle class white America stops paying taxes for illegal wars, and their children begin to fall behind in schools that see dwindled funding, and they find that their leaders are not listening. Will the answer be to kill them? It probably will, these people don’t hate blacks or jews or Latinos or anybody just because they are different on the outside they hate us because they cant get us to buy their garbage and they will kill their own mother if they think she hasn’t the stomach to go along with it. Imminent domain shocked many in the black community because it was a sign to us that the frontier is back open, personally I heard someone say, “they are taking white peoples stuff now” sooner or later the America that Black and brown people know will begin to eat away at its own. What will the magic bullet be then? Who or what will be at fault then ? Communism? Socialism? Terrorism?
Sorry about the rant
Karen |
03.23.06 - 8:44 pm | #
I find it refreshing to know that the people who were on the wrong side of every issue have always felt the same way about those issues, it makes it easier for us to identify them. The excerpt was not about "black people" it was about "them" in America the "them" that need to be exterminated to create bliss are black people now, but they were native Americans earlier, sometimes they were Irish people for a little while they were Japanese and often the default people to hate have been Jews not to say that other groups have not been singled out and crapped upon. But never have they been rich WASP's for some reason if one was a rich stiff upper lipped person of means, no one ever thought that that person and the life they demand may actually be the causative ying to everybody else’s yang.
I find it very strange it is that the same group of people who funded death camps (Prescott Bush) are now advocating for a concentrated area to keep "Jews" as though this group of people have no right to live anywhere but in that spot. The idea of Israel was dreamed up by religious wakos who have no intention of seeing Jewish people live in peace. They want Armageddon to come in a hurry and they created this state for their own reasons and pumped it full of weapons to help that along. If I were Jewish I would remind all these crazies that "accept him or not, Jesus Was Jewish, and if it had not been for Capitol Punishment, and an oppressive government, like other men of his time, he may have lived a fuller life."
Abortion was created by nazi's to get rid of undesirable people and the underlying racism among these Machiavellian throwbacks is that the people getting the abortions are not the undesirables, it is their own it should give the movement pause to consider that abortion would not be an issue at all if the only people getting them were poor black, Latino or white youths.
The issue here is the same as it has always been, the undesirable ones aren’t exterminating themselves quickly or cheaply enough to satisfy the holier than thou. The racists who blame Black inner city youths for all the drug problems never ask themselves who is buying all these drugs, and why do we export the chemicals needed to make cocaine to Columbia and why are there no controls on the manmade materials essential to the production of Meth-amphetamines, and why don’t we estimate the multi-million dollar bottom lines of companies who are allowed to fly private planes back and forth with absolutely no inspection and very little oversight. As far as anyone knows there are no crops of coca and marijuana growing in the ghetto.
Those undesirable ones are not as willing to do the fighting, cleaning, and shutting up and dying as they used to be when they were under the gun. What will the answer be when the majority of middle class white America stops paying taxes for illegal wars, and their children begin to fall behind in schools that see dwindled funding, and they find that their leaders are not listening. Will the answer be to kill them? It probably will, these people don’t hate blacks or jews or Latinos or anybody just because they are different on the outside they hate us because they cant get us to buy their garbage and they will kill their own mother if they think she hasn’t the stomach to go along with it. Imminent domain shocked many in the black community because it was a sign to us that the frontier is back open, personally I heard someone say, “they are taking white peoples stuff now” sooner or later the America that Black and brown people know will begin to eat away at its own. What will the magic bullet be then? Who or what will be at fault then ? Communism? Socialism? Terrorism?
Sorry about the rant
Karen |
03.23.06 - 9:28 pm | #
I believe that Jane's implication that Box Turtle Ben is Brady's proxy payback to our side for the Miss Gulch shitstorm just weeks ago is an underlying part of this.
The fact that it's backfired so quickly and so completely warms the cockles of my mean old lib heart. Obviously Whiny Brady needs another trip to the woodshed.
I get discouraged at the CONSTANT insults to my intelligence and the assaults on my sense of fair play when this blatant bias and calculated disrespect to our side's values and point of view.
What better way to put us in what they think our place should be by creating a position for one political view and filling it with a home skooled, bigoted, well connected little chickenhawk troglodyte? That's quite the fuck you to all those commies who've thwarted their online presence, which is vital to their future.
I read somewhere (maybe Americablog), that to show them that their credibility is toast, none of us should link to Pravda Online, nor click on banners advertising their biased, unethical, racist luving brand.
How do we know if this hits them where they live? The reference to the 10% layoff in the newsroom is an indicator. plus two online shitstorms can't be good.
A lot of predictions are being made that BTB will be gone soon. I don't think so, not unless this hits the African-American community in their market share. Usually people or an organization who haven't learnt a lesson after one trip to the woodshed are chronically stupid.
We'll see a repeat hateful left meme. I hope I'm wrong but to quote a Comedy Central commercial, "you can't fix stupid."
TF-MA |
03.23.06 - 9:38 pm | #
Red Dan,
You miss the point brilliantly, and with such willful ardor, that your post is almost poetically tragic.
The point of the excerpt (and of Bennet's comments on the matter) is that abortion is subtly justified by the left as a controlling influence on criminal behavior and other social ills, even though no one will explicitly say so.
Considering how often the left suggests that the right uses "code words" regarding race (And when they do, I always thing of the bank robbers in Raizing Arizona - "We're using code names!" because that's how lame the accusation sounds) it's interesting that no one picks up on the very real disparate impact abortion has on the black community, given the disprportionate numbers of abortions poor black women have.
The point is that race doesn't get mentioned by the Freakonomics editors (the excerpt said as much explicitly, if you'd bothered to read that closely) but that the underlying impact and possibly intent of abortion is racist. As for correlations of African-Americans and crime, one only need look at the disparity in incarceration to know that blacks are at the very least jailed in greater frequency than whites. One may point to a number of potential reasons for this (disparity in certain laws - including drug laws, a tendency to punish blue-collar crime more severly than white-collar crime, etc.) but the endgame is that the argument in Freakonomics subtly impacts the black community more than other communities, despite the pretentions that no such correlation was sought (or to use your colorful if impotent phrase - 'hint, hint")
Thus Augustine and Bennett are trying to point out and condemn an attitude with racial undertones. The assumption of a link between the African-American community and increase crime-rates could just as easily be directed at the poor and increased crime-rates but the point of the writers is not to make that contention in and of itself but to recognize that this is the underlying point of those who argue abortion has some compensatory effect in society. Your attempts like so many of the others on this comments page, to spin that denounciation of racism on the left into a right-wing version of racism, only works if people bring an elementary school reading level to the text.
Me |
03.23.06 - 9:38 pm | #
