Prev | List | Random | Next
The Washington Post looks into the toilets along the Left-wing information sewer and finds... uh... exactly what you'd expect.
In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.Tom Maguire speculates that the Post is responding to recent criticism from Lefty bloggers by trying to marginalize them:
Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.
As for the keyboard, it is where O'Connor finished her evolution from lost soul to angry soul, beginning with that very first rant, which concluded with a wish that Bush, "after contracting incurable cancer and suffering for protracted periods of time without benefit of medication," go to hell.
She wrote it, sent it to Daily Kos, saw it appear online, watched as people responded to it -- and learned something about the effect of being both heartfelt and vicious. "It's impactful," she says. "It gets attention."
It also felt good, she says, transforming even, and soon she was posting regularly to Daily Kos, where she became one of the more widely read diarists with attention-getters such as "Go [expletive] Yourself, Mrs. Cheney" and "Bush Must Be HIV Positive By Now (you can't [expletive] 500 million people and not get infected)."
The front door opens and in comes her 6-year-old son, Terry, home from school, who starts batting around a blue balloon at the other end of the living room, batting it closer to her, closer, closer. She searches through her iTunes library until she finds one of her favorite downloads -- not music, but a speech by a character named Howard Beale in the movie "Network." She presses "play" and turns up the volume. "I want you to get mad!" Beale shouts at one point. "I want you to get mad!" she shouts along, startling Terry. "What?" he says, backing away with his balloon.
Meanwhile, over on Eschaton, Dave is writing, "As a matter of fact -- I do hate Bush!"
On Rude Pundit: "George W. Bush is the anti-Midas. Everything he touches turns to [expletive]."
On the Smirking Chimp: "I. Despise. These. [Expletive]!"
And on Daily Kos and My Left Wing, the responses keep rolling in.
"Thank you, Maryscott."
"Thank you for the kick in the [expletive]."
"I wrote to my [expletive] so-called representatives."
"I also wrote to my [expletive] congressman to get off his [expletive] [expletive] and do the right [expletive] thing."
"You know what?" O'Connor says. "I did a good thing today." And for a moment, anyway, she isn't angry at all.
If your critics are insane, why listen to them? The WaPo continues its tussle with left wing bloggers - I would cite the Abramoff debacle and the recent WaPo editorial on pre-war intel as examples, if I had time to put in any links.Which may be true, but doing so by presenting the facts is hardly unfair. The media has offered these people credibility far beyond what they deserve for quite some time.
The left has become disfigured because the excess that dominates the lefty blogs is absorbed by rank-and-file activists and encouraged by the Democratic Party leadership, which embraces, posts at and praises the blogs that are among the angriest and most vulgar/profane/hate-filled.In very much related vein, read The Euston Manifesto. Had Democrats in the US adopted such an attitude in 2004 they would control the White House and congress today.
You should be happy about this piece; it's basically a right-wing hit piece on liberal bloggers. The article ignores the obvious: that there are many different kinds of blogs. Some left blogs are "angry"; so are some right blogs (look at the unhinged anger of Michelle Malkin, angrier than any "angry leftist"). But the left blogosphere has dozens of policy-oriented blogs that performed brilliantly during the Social Security debate; the policy-wonk bloggers, like Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias helped sink Bush's social security plan by pointing out the problems with it. And Joshua Marshall has turned his blog into a clearing house for old-style "muckraking" on crooked politicians. Then we have the funny, snarky bloggers who are much funnier than anyone on the right, like Sadly, No! and Alicublog. Or how about electioneering strategy blogs like MyDD, or just plain well-written blogs like Digby and Orcinus?
The fact that the Washington Post could look at the incredible variety and diversity of the left blogsophere, and focus only on the "angry left," just shows how clueless and right-wing the Post has become: they constantly accept right-wing frames ("angry left") instead of looking at what's really going on.Posted by M.A. at April 15, 2006 03:46 PM
To such as these, the war is only a convenient club to beat this President with.
Their real beef with him? That he will not endorse as policy the Utopian and/or hedonistic fantasies they have nurtured since the 1960's.
Keep in mind, their platform was and is:
We'll guarantee your right to ...
... get stoned ...
... get your jollies ...
... get a free Band-Aid ...
... and get a check each month, to "get by" ...
... by taking your right to get ahead.>/i>
(and as for your right to live, it depends ...)
They fret that this President might impose a theocracy ... ignoring the FACT that, were he to try to do so, those same evangelicals who they are so worried about would rip him to shreds for doing so.
The say that this President "lied" ... while ignoring two far bigger lies of their own ... "War is NEVER the answer", and "all you have to do is show up at work to assure your future" (unless you opt for the check noted above)
They accuse this President of "incompetence" -- while ignoring the incompetence they are responsible for ...
... decades of knee-jerk opposition to the decisive use of American force to protect freedom and peace ...
... in the face of the evidence of millions liberated when our leaders ignored this opposition ...
... opposition that made our present conflict far longer and far harder than it needed to be, by giving the enemies the time to grow stronger, and the motivation to grow bolder in the perception that America was a "soft target".
Professing to be wise, they have become fools ... and, worse than the blind men of Scripture, they seek to lead this entire nation into their ditch of delusion, as they have since the 1960's.
We won't be fooled again.Posted by Rich Casebolt at April 15, 2006 04:25 PM
I agree with you that the WaPo's article does not put left blogs in a positive light, (and is not representative) but I don't think Michelle Malkin's "anger" is worse than angry left blogs. She doesn't have to resort to vulgar profanity to make her point. For this reason alone, her arguments carry more credibility and certainly cannot be grouped in with the 'unhinged'.Posted by Idaho at April 15, 2006 07:03 PM
Yep, I'm going to have to challenge you to support your "unhinged anger of Michelle Malkin, angrier than any "angry leftist"" claim with links. We'll establish the quotes above as a yardstick.
Her passion for causes may equal some on the Left, but anger and passion aren't the same thing.Posted by Greyhawk at April 15, 2006 07:17 PM
Anger/passion: On further reflection, the inability to distinguish between the two is why that segment of the Left will allways have the internet - and little more. But once anger is controlled, reason can prevail - and an individual's development of reason leads to an embrace of classical liberal values, and a personal abandonment of the "modern" Internet Left.Posted by Greyhawk at April 15, 2006 07:26 PM
And by the way, no one in the blogosphere is funnier than Scott Ott.Posted by Greyhawk at April 15, 2006 07:32 PM
Interesting post. I dislike most of the popular blogs not because they are too left or right or because they are or aren't angry, but because they are mostly written by pampered members of one elite group or another, who write about various subjects without any acknowledgement of or sensitivity toward how these issues affect the daily lives of ordinary people...most issues of the day are life-and-death to affected groups and yet these are not the people who mainly write blogs; instead they are written predominantly by white American men who rarely go abroad or even meet anyone outside their social circle. They then feel free to make humor and profit out of the life-and-death issues others actually have to live with.Posted by Elizabeth at April 15, 2006 08:41 PM
"... anger and passion aren't the same thing."
True, that. I'd also go as far as to point out there is a difference between "angry" and "shrill" as well.Posted by Gun Toting Liberal at April 15, 2006 08:49 PM
Rich Casebolt captured everything I believe.
Posted by syn at April 16, 2006 12:59 PM
Elizabeth, I find your 'white American men' comment to be sexist and hurtful and I as a women believe you need to attend sensitivity-training classes offered by the Ivory Tower in order to discover why you are so sexist, hurtful and insensitive.
Re my "white American men" comment: It's a fact, not an opinion.Posted by Elizabeth at April 16, 2006 05:36 PM
I think Syn was just yanking your chain.Posted by Greyhawk at April 16, 2006 07:25 PM
But what you *said* about the white American men who blog isn't a fact at all. Never go abroad? Almost never meet people outside their social circle? Where does *that* come from?
syn isn't me but I find I agree with her most of the time.
The "life and death" of the non-male non-white non-isolated people is, for the most part, a big honking chunk of hyperbole. Because it's not really "life and death" is it... unless you're in Darfur. That doesn't mean that various sorts of inequities or persecutions don't deserve attention.
Personally, I think the shrillness and anger and hating is a sort of psychological slumming. Our lives are *too* nice, *too* comfortable, *too* without purpose. So we manufacture purpose and to the extent that purpose defines who we are we have to manufacture a purpose as big as we'd like to be.Posted by Julie (Synova) at April 16, 2006 09:51 PM
I think "Julie" misread what I wrote.
But regarding the tangent: There are life and death issues all over the planet, not just in Darfur.
Everyone needs a purpose in life, and it's not necessary to "manufacture" purposes. Some people find purpose in their families, some in their jobs, some in extracurricular activities, some in a combination. Someone who has no purpose in their life is a pretty sad individual.Posted by Elizabeth at April 16, 2006 11:18 PM
"Some people find purpose in their families, some in their jobs, some in extracurricular activities, some in a combination."
And don't forget, some find purpose with GOD and COUNTRY.Posted by Steph at April 17, 2006 01:39 AM Hide Comments | Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(14) | (Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)