Van Jones is gone, and writers on the left are gnashing their teeth. Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake laments that “he’s been thrown under the bus . . . for signing his name to a petition expressing something that 35% of all Democrats believed as of 2007 — that George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11. Well, that and calling Republicans ‘a**holes.’” David Sirota, writing at the Puffington Host assails Glenn Beck, the talk show host the left blames wholesale for ending Van Jones’ deservedly brief career in federal government, as “the man who leads a 21st century lynch mob looking to hunt down anyone (and especially anyone black) who has ever been a part of progressive movement politics. I don’t use that term ‘political terrorist’ lightly.”
But, see, the thing is that David Sirota and other people on the left do use terms like political terrorist lightly when it comes to criticizing conservatives. Likewise racist, witch hunt, and lynch mob. They conjure up with alacrity the ugliest, most hate-filled relics of our nation’s darkest days and apply these to conservatives for merely disagreeing with them. I defy any liberal to come up with examples of serious mainstream conservative commentators who have used similar language in regard to Democrats. I’m not even sure what those terms would be.
And an even bigger problem is that liberals cut themselves slack for things they would never countenance from conservatives. Hamsher notes, as though it’s a badge of honor, that 35% of all Democrats believed George Bush knew in advance about the attacks of 9/11. I don’t know if she is quoting a reliable source, but in the end she is supporting the argument that because a sizable percentage of Democrats believe a ridiculous conspiracy theory that it is somehow not a problem that one of the president’s special advisers believed it as well? I don’t know that anywhere near 35% of Republicans believe that Barack Obama is not a legal citizen of the United States, but as a blogger I can’t imagine citing their numbers as support for some other nut who believes the same blather and argue that he should therefore be given a pass.
Liberals’ favorite slur against conservatives is that they lack compassion and tolerance. Yet they dismiss out of hand Van Jones’s baseless, absurd — and intolerant — claim that white environmentalists hate black people so much they want to poison their neighborhoods. They write off the use of crass profanity he employed gratuitously to describe the opposition party, this as a representative of the federal government.
Van Jones may well have been the towering figure in the environmental movement that the Washington Post has painted him as. There may have been some merit to Barack Obama’s hiring him, provided you believe what Obama believes about the environment. What is undeniable about Jones is that he is racist, a self-avowed Communist, and believer in inane conspiracy theories, and for those reasons alone the nation is better off without him. Liberals might themselves recognize this, if they would just grow up.
Comments 61
Does the left not find it ironic that they found nothing wrong with Van Jones’ former group Color of Change trying to get Beck fired for calling Obama a racist, while they are throwing the term racist all over the place because Beck tried to get Jones fired. Jones called the entire white race racist, repeatedly, but since he’s black and a leftist (you must be both), that didn’t count, I guess. Leftists can call anyone a racist and it’s fair game. A conservative does it and you try to silence him and drive him off the air.
September 8th, 2009 at 10:29 am
So when Limbaugh or other gasbags equate Obama to Hitler that’s not as ugly as saying lynch mob?
September 8th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I think this ugliness is due to the fact that politics replace religion on the left.
Zealots burn non believers at the stake.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:07 am
@fuster — It’s extreme but not as extreme. I have been doing some reading lately on Hitler Youth and the concept quite frankly has similarities to this silly citizen’s militia Obama has spoken of, especially when tied to Obama’s earlier efforts to create a voter youth movement.
Returning to the main point, I have no problem with people going after elected leaders. I think there need to be limits — for example, calling a president a monkey is pretty ugly — but beyond that running for public office makes a person fair game.
Equating people who disagree with your views with a lynch mob is over the top, partly because there is no basis for that ugly claim on any level. To assume I’m a racist because I don’t like the president, who happens to be black, is as offensive as it fallacious.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Howard, a lynch mob tortures and kills an innocent person or two.
Being compared to a lynch mob member isn’t as extreme as being compared to Adolf Hitler?
Better you should rethink that soon
September 8th, 2009 at 11:21 am
@fuster — Thanks for the imperative. Last I checked it was still a free country. You are welcome to your own views, but don’t take a page out of Fearless Leader’s book. They are your views and they clearly differ from mine.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:26 am
@scientific socialist – Funny that you should use a religious terms like “Zealot” in saying that non-religious people are fanatical.
Overall, isn’t it equally easy to find examples of murderousness amongst the religious as the non-religious? Replacing an over-emphasis on religion with an over-emphasis on politics seems to me to merely be more of the same.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:29 am
@Howard Portnoy -Sorry if you took it that way.
It wasn’t meant as a Commandment.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Please provide actual quotes in context in which Limbaugh or anyone else of significance equated Obama and Hitler.
More generally, if a guy goes around with the political equivalent of a Hitler mustache, but is in every other way a good fella, then we have every right to say, “Hey, that mustache of yours is Adolphian – it gives us the Willies – how ’bout shaving it off or letting the sides grow out?”
September 8th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@CK MacLeod – http://www.antibvbl.net/index.php/2009/08/20/conservative-pundits-compare-president-obama-to-hitler-when-will-the-craziness-end/
September 8th, 2009 at 11:39 am
@CK MacLeod – http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGJhMTg5OTRjYjQxY2ExZjI1YWM2NzFkZDExODRlYWU=
September 8th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Typical, fuster: What’s left out is what Limbaugh was responding to – some major Democrat attacking conservatives as Nazis, as is in fact a commonplace on the left, and has been for as long as I’ve been active in politics.
He never calls Obama a Hitler – I don’t believe he even mentions Obama by name. He cites a series of similarities between liberal/Democratic Party statism and Nazi statism. Again, the main point was that IF you’re going to start throwing Nazi labels around, there’s plenty of material on both sides, and, arguably, better material against those who tend more to collectivism and statism than those who resist it.
The attack on Coulter in the piece you link is equally dishonest and alarmist. She never claims that “Obama = Hitler,” as the Youtube title deceptively claims. The video comes from a Hannity show during the middle of the ’08 campaign, apparently prior even to the end of the Dem primaries. Coulter suggests that Obama’s autobiography confirms a racist outlook on the world, and, playing along with LLL Alan Colmes, who is the one insisting that she’s “equating” Obama and Hitler, she concedes that Obama might qualify as a “dimestore Hitler.”
September 8th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
@fuster — OK, so now find a link to a leftist commentator that explains on a point-by-point basis in what way conservatives/Republicans are like a lynch party.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Oh, let’s decry the comparison between Obama and Hitler. *Now* political discourse is degraded, and the name-callers are over the top. We had eight long years of completely crazy comparisons between Bush and Hitler by know-nothings, but when Rush Limbaugh actually shows that there is real Fascism going on that is completely in keeping with what the left has always done, that’s gas baggery. Please.
The coercion of the private sector through outright bullying, bribery, “crisis bailouts” and legislation to restrict markets (Healthcare Reform is all about making insurance companies subsidiaries of the Feds) is pretty classic Fascism. Obama’s policy preferences and proclivities all point to a desire for government to dictate the private choices of citizens, and while a direct comparison to Hitler doesn’t work for me for several reasons, I’m sick of the hypocrisy of the Left.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The Cliff May piece is part of the same syndrome. Apparently he’s referring to some segment where Limbaugh does refer to Obama by name. Again, the context is left out. May goes on to offer a High School essay on Nazism, while pointing out that the wild accusations come first, repetitively, and more often from the left in our political culture.
I wish I could take you on my own political journey, to all of the places where I’ve been called a Nazi or a KKK member or similar – member of a movement that has destroyed the country/the world, that deserves to be stamped out, etc. – by everyday representatives of the liberal left. In academic and other polite circles, it’s expressed more politely, but the implications are well-understood (and pursued with vigor at all levels). It’s a light joke in the TV and movies, that liberals believe Republicans and, fetch the smelling salts, especially the religious right are monsters, worse than Hitler, like Attila the Hun, etc. Engage in a little turnabout, however, and you’re in danger of permanent banishment from “polite” society.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
@CK MacLeod – CK, gimme just a small break. You asked for stuff where Limbaugh was making the comparison. I put some up.
Did he do it or is it everyone just imaging it?
I can probably get more. There’s stuff from the ADL about it, stuff from the Wiesenthal Center, etc.
You didn’t ask me for the history of political discourse and I didn’t put up the Limbaugh video because of anything about Coulter.
Watch the video and forget the text.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
@Barbara I’m sure you’ve every reason to be sick of hypocrisy, but you’re unlikely to improve much unless you recognize that it’s coming hot and heavy from both ends, not just the left.
BTW, you might of heard five years of constant carping about Bush, not eight.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@CK MacLeod – Both ends, CK. Polite society doesn’t existon the tips of the wings.
Some of the larger idiots at dead-Contentions loved insisting that anyone not supporting hardline Israeli repression just had to be an anti-Semite.
I got that label about a dozen times.
Of course, on FDL I’m a Zionist disinformation agent.
September 8th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
I asked for quotes in context. You presented quotes out of context.
A) If you call me a Nazi, I may just call you a Nazi back – neener, neener, neener.
B) National Socialism was a gigantic phenomenon. Genocide is what it’s nowadays mainly remembered for, but there is and was much more to it. Refusing to examine what else Nazism consisted of can be a dangerous act of social psychological displacement and repression.
The elevation of pseudo-science or scientism to controlling political ideology is the essence of modern technocratic politics. Collectivized and massified, it logically leads to totalitarianism, its measures frequently justified under some heading of social hygiene – as in the mass extermination of “undesirables,” but also in many other ways. If it had only ever happened once, in Germany, then there might be more of an excuse for isolating it and declaring the discussion forbidden and useless.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
@CK MacLeod – CK, be a little more fair. You think I’m going to get a whole big bunch of 30 or 60 minute clips off the internet?
September 8th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
@fuster — I’m still waiting for you to find examples spelled out point by point justifying the claim that conservatives are racists, a lynch mob, and conducting a witch hunt. These were the items I quote from Sirota that generated your initial response. Give me proof of the equivalence you are arguing for.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Just go over to stalin.com (salon.com) and criticize the rubbish coming from Sirota, Greenwald or Walsh, and see what happens.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@Howard Portnoy – Howard, I’m unsure why it is that you wish me to replicate the exact terms coming from the other direction.
From my POV, the Hitler stuff is at least equivalent.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
@scientific socialist – What happens is very much like what happens when you criticize Beck.
Some people are too thin-skinned and weak-minded to debate.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
@fuster – what’s fair is that if you make an extraordinary claim, you present the extraordinary proof. The examples you cite instead provide further evidence of constant, reflexive, pervasive, facile and dishonest demonization of the right.
It frequently gets even more absurd, as when, quite recently, Mark Steyn was subbing for Rush Limbaugh, and said “Obviously, with Obama we’re not talking personality cult on the level of Kim Jong-Il,” and the accusation was spread around the world, largely via the NYT syndicate, that Steyn had compared Obama to Kim Jong-Il.
September 8th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
@fuster — It’s not equivalent — that’s my point. An argument can be made that there are some similarities between Obama and Hitler that make it more than name-calling. What substance can you find that informs the slurs hurled at the right by liberals? In what way are we racists, lynch mobs, etc.?
September 8th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
@CK MacLeod – I didn’t make an extraordinary claim. He said it. He repeatedly made the comparisons.
He repeatedly denied saying he was comparing Obama to Hitler. He said he only meant that they were acting alike.
If that was true, why did he repeatedly compare them and keep using the word Nazi?
Why say that “Obama was sending out his brownshirts?”
Why say that the health plans before congress were modeled on the Nazi health plan?
If you keep on using the words, you don’t get to credibly deny intent.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
@Howard Portnoy –
There are some similarities between chalk and cheese, Islam and Judaism, elephants and donkeys.
It’s nasty name calling.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
@fuster — First, I edited out your profanity. Control yourself.
As to the content of your post, that’s your opinion. In my world — the real one — calling names and making insinuations, regardless of how far-fetched they might seem to some, are two very different things. What the flame-throwers on the left have done is to hurl insults and ugly slurs. What Limbaugh did is draw connections that may be disquieting and even (I grant) far-fetched. If you can’t see the difference, that’s your problem.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
@Howard Portnoy – Howard, comparisons that are ridiculously far-fetched are nothing but name calling.
When you say that a case can be made for comparing Obama to Hitler, rather than saying that some of the policies advocated by Obama might tend to produce some results similar to policies advocated by Hitler, you are engaged in very unreal world name calling and quite deserve that the pungent characterization I gave it.
In the schoolyard, we played a game called H-O-R-S-E.
You had to duplicate shots your opponent made.
Each failure got you another letter until it was 5 and you lost.
Each time you link the names Obama and Hitler is another failure.
You’re past the -E- on this one, buddy, and headed for -T-.
Let’s try to get back to the origin of the argument. You said that the right doesn’t employ ugly demonization as the left does.
Can you say that maybe it does, a little, and that the left is quicker to do it and does it more?
Maybe we can meet around there.
(BTW deleting the word and not the entire comment was right good.)
September 8th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Your claim was that Limbaugh and others “equated” Obama and Hitler. You wrote:
A non-extraordinary claim would have been that Limbaugh and others have noted similarities between aspects of the Obama program and the Obama approach and aspects of Hitlerian policy and politics. An accurate description of the facts would be that, after having been called names otherwise explicitly compared to Nazis and fascists, Limbaugh and others have replied that Obamaism (or statist liberalism) has more in common with Nazism than contemporary American conservatism does. I think that there is a strong argument there.
I’ll go further, however, and say that the appeal of elements of National Socialism shouldn’t be surprising: Germans were human beings, too, and Hitler didn’t emerge out of a vacuum. Modern technocratic liberalism of the American sort in many respects emerged out of the same non-vacuum, though the specifics of the American predicament allowed it to follow a different, but not entirely separate and dissimilar path.
The Germans of 1933 weren’t envisioning 1945, though it’s true that, as survivors of massive military defeat and massive economic and political turmoil, they were already a much more widely and thoroughly brutalized people than we seem to be. Hitler and those around him already seem to have had genocide or at least massive “ethnic cleansing” in mind, and the Germans weren’t on the whole ready to reject the notion, but the basis of the Nazis’ appeal wasn’t advertisement for genocide, and the creation of a state capable of genocide (as well as totalitarianism and wars of conquest) was mainly justified for other reasons.
A charismatic, movement-driven technocratic liberalism is likely to take on elements of corporatism and fascism as well, and to overlap in numerous respects with Nazism. In some cases, the overlap is merely aesthetic. In other cases, aspects of the program recall aspects of the Nazi program like a bonsai plant recalls a tree. In more worrisome instances, more ambitious aspects of Obamaism threaten to step us further down the path toward technocratic collectivism, whose endpoint has frequently been catastrophic.
If you can’t handle that, then you can’t handle an open-minded discussion of these issues.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
@fuster – WHAT? I heard 8 years: I first heard him compared to Hitler BEFORE 9/11 by some UT student who was complaining about him on the radio here in Austin. Give me a break.
“but you’re unlikely to improve much unless you recognize that it’s coming hot and heavy from both ends, not just the left.”
If by “improve” you mean I’d be more like you, I’ll pass, thanks.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
@fuster — Having to strain the generalization to “some of the policies advocated by Obama might tend to produce some results similar to policies advocated by Hitler” is parsing.
I am not saying that it’s a 5-tissue match — that Obama is Hitler reincarnated. I am saying that Obama, like Hitler, seems very extreme at times. Example: This comment from American Thinker that has still never been adequately explained:
What in the world was he thinking when he said this? At times he sounds Hitlerian, or at the least very scary.
Sorry, much as I’d like to say sure, let’s meet at some point along the continuum, I can’t in good conscience concede that there are the same kinds of crazy flamethrowers on the right that there are on the left. People like David Sirota, whom I quoted in the post, go way too far. I’ll never admit that I see the same lunacy on the right.
September 8th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
@CK MacLeod — Colin, I can take some of these points a step further. As noted earlier, all this business about Obama v. Hitler — which, NB, fuster, I am not saying is a one-on-one comparison — got me curious about the Hitler Youth movement. Some of the speeches Obama has made have notable similarities to speeches that Hitler made.
When I have the time, I’ll document some of these.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
@CK MacLeod – Who says I can’t handle it? I can listen to a near endless amount of stupidity.
I can handle it much better, however, when you lay out the argument by noting similarities of policy and result without the name calling, as you’re doing instead of simply flinging the fudge.
Rush Limbaugh is a human being so it’s not surprising that he’s a overweight drug addict willing to demonize anyone and everyone, in a contemptible manner, if it will continue to bring him great monetary reward.
It still stinks if I say it that way, but when I call him “the fat guy with the oxy” it stinks worse.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
@Barbara – Barbara, perhaps you did hear it from some kid, but I don’t think you heard it much, or as hot and heavy as it’s been handed out from the beginning of Obama’s term.
I’ll grant that it was all there the last five, but doubt you can go the whole eight.
I wouldn’t want you to be more like me, ma’am, some of us lefty treehugger types, like to promote biodiversity.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
@Howard Portnoy – Howard, the more you can document, the more you’ll be shutting my little green yap.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Limbaugh speaks for 15 hours a week, week after week, and his legion of detractors manage to find a de-contextualized minute here or there to demonize him as a demonizer.
Where did Limbaugh engage in “name-calling”? The only evidence of name-calling I’ve seen in this discussion is from the left. People like Sirota and, sad to say, yourself, are so used to it, they don’t even realize that they’re doing it.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
@fuster –
OK, fuster, we’ll start with an easy one. Read the following two statements:
A. “…our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Because thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition.”
B. “Our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common interest before self-interest.”
One is a quote from Hitler, one Obama. Which is which?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
@Howard Portnoy – Quote A is from the Gospel of Mark.
Quote B is Churchill.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
@CK MacLeod – Would saying that parents kept their kids out of school today rather than let “some socialist radical have at them.” be a bit of name calling?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
@fuster – could be. Depends, as ever, on context. For instance, if the speaker, presumably Limbaugh, was attempting to characterize what an irate parent was thinking, or attempting to characterize what a leftist assumed said irate parent was thinking, then it wouldn’t be name-calling at all on Limbaugh’s part. If Limbaugh on the other hand was, in his own voice as it were, on his own part, urging parents to keep their kids home rather than let “some socialist radical have at them,” then probably it would.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
@CK MacLeod – So if I said that any honest person reading your response would say that you’re a ” ——–”
it wouldn’t be anything that had anything to do with me.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
fuster, here’s a surprise and a disappointment for you: I don’t need you to validate my memory. And, calling someone a socialist radical when they are one, isn’t name-calling. It’s “describing.”
September 8th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
@fuster – no. And any honest and intelligent person reading your post would understand that your example does not equate with the examples I gave. It would come closest to the third example, since the characterization “any honest person” suggests approval of the statement in form and content, which isn’t implied in either of the first two examples.
September 8th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I’m always both surprised and utterly dismayed whenever you scorn my overtures, Barbara, m’dear.
Your statement that it’s not namecalling but accuracy in description just validates the whole dagnabbed thing. You’re so objective and centered that I was wondering if this had anything to do with it.
http://books.rediff.com/bookshop/bkproductdisplay.jsp?Moe-Barbara-Coping-With-Pms&prrfnbr=80832972&pvrfnbr=82207430&multiple=false&frompg=_Health+%2F+Maturing
Is this something that you authored?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
@CK MacLeod – Are you implying that intelligent people are reading my comments?
September 8th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I’m guessing, although this is just a guess, that a couple of the guys that read this are somewhat uncomfortable with fuster playing the hormone card with one of the very few females who posts to this blog. Anyone care to weigh in? Any thoughts about having someone’s opinions, memories, observations dismissed because she has a uterus instead of a penis?
September 8th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I don’t like it, Barbara, wouldn’t blame you for deleting it and subsequent related comments, but, really, it’s more embarrassing to fuster than it is to you. Come to think of it – I don’t see why it should be embarrassing to you at all, at least for anyone with a grown-up sensibility. Hard to avoid the sense that fuster’s lashing out pointlessly after having lost the argument he started.
So, like I said, delete it if you want to, but if you do so or want me to do it, I hope it’s more because it’s an embarrassment to the blog and somewhat offensive – kind of a broken rhetorical window – than because it’s an embarrassment to you.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
@Barbara – Barbara, you’re the one constantly playing gender games.
I questioned whether you were correct about it being eight years of heavy hatred toward Bush instead of five. I didn’t dismiss you, I disputed what you said.
Read through the thread and see if it wasn’t you your ownself what made it a tad personal.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
@Barbara — Barbara, I for one, thought of deleting the comment, which was certainly ugly and gratuitous. But then I thought it should remain, as a reminder of how much the left abhors name-calling and petty attacks.
September 8th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I’m not embarrassed at all, so don’t worry on my account. I’ll leave it to the czar and the writer of the original post to decide where to draw the line.
I think that differences between male and female are what makes the world go round, in a general way. I’m so happy to be a woman in the modern Western world. Women elsewhere have much worse to contend with than a few jibes about hormones. I’ve had to defend myself against “friendly” advances, unfriendly ones, disgusting remarks, crude comments, and so on. It just makes me appreciate the genuine uprightness I see in so many men.
September 8th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
fuster, from someone who is frequently on the line, and arguably often over it, you were over the line. Just my humble opinion.
Join me in my cell?
Steven from Indiana
September 8th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Steven- what are you talking about?
September 8th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Barbara…You asked if anyone cared to weighi in. I weighed in. I was attempting to let fuster know that, IMHO, he was out of line playing the hormone card with you.
Steven from Indiana
September 8th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I agree with the assessment, and thank you
for the offer.
September 8th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
@Steven from Indiana – no, I meant about you being in a cell.
September 9th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Barbara…I had told fuster, in a previous post, that I wasn’t afraid of being arrested for being, shall we say…less than PC. I am aware that certain words, and phrases, can act as triggers and lead to bad consequences. It is best to avoid those flaming terms, especially in close quarters…like jail. The following classic video makes the point. Enjoy. Peace be upon you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pQii1L8fGk
Steven from Indiana
September 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am
So we are arguing about whether Bush and Cheney were vilified as Nazis or apes (Bushitler, Chimpy, etc.) for eight years or only five? The Chimpy things came out before the first Bush election; I remember seeing them on a high school history teacher’s classroom bulletin board.
Rush Limbaugh’s remarks were about the policy of nationalizing health care, not about Obama the man.
Fuster’s subtle and not so subtle slams on every poster and commenter here and on everything conservative are not really a problem. The problem is the way he retards the development of ideas by insisting with faux seriousness that everything that people have read a thousand times be documented by some specific source. As a result, real exchange of insight slows toa carwl or vanishes.
September 9th, 2009 at 9:59 am
There are ten thousand voices on the web saying yes on any issue, another ten thousand saying no, and yet another ten thousand saying maybe. I’m glad I don’t come here and read what I could have read in a dozen other places. This is a blog, Margo, not a university classroom or a literary publication. Folks free-wheel it. We see some genuine creativity here. Go back and take a look at the humor and wisdom from any number of posters. fuster may be irritating, at times, sure. No one gets out of the box without a little push. He pushes.
Me? I don’t get into the serious development of ideas because I’m just not that smart.
September 9th, 2009 at 10:43 am
Steven, I appreciate the fun aspects of the blog. But I don’t see pushing so much as poking.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:53 am