ARIANNA'S MEGA-BLOG
Ten Days and Counting
Ten days have passed since Arianna Huffington launched her celebrity mega-blog The Huffington Post. Little of note has occurred since our last report, other than the fact that we just discovered — much to our chagrin — that we missed an important public statement issued by Andrew Breitbart on April 26, through Roger L. Simon's blog.
In his statement, Mr. Breitbart finally confirmed for the record what most of us had already figured out — that he has left his position as co-editor of The Drudge Report in order to run Mrs. Huffington's Web site. Mr. Breitbart insists that he still holds conservative views, though with a caveat. He writes:
"[T]he last election cycle gave me an ulcer. As a Dennis Miller/South Park kind of Republican, I am offended by both 'Bush is Hitler' rhetoric and fetus-in-a-jar political speech.Over the years, Andrew Breitbart has been a good friend to David Horowitz, to CSPC, to this blog, to the conservative movement, and to your faithful correspondent. We wish him the best — even if we do not necessarily share his faith in the power of amity, jocularity and bonhomie to resolve fundamental conflicts in the political realm.
"What the world needs more of is amicable — even jocular — disagreement. Bringing my former boss and longtime friend Arianna 's intriguing friends to the blogosphere, the ultimate level playing field, makes perfect sense to me, and I am thrilled to be committed to such a groundbreaking project. Will my pals on the right have a place to offer their two cents at the Huffington Post? Absolutely. Will I agree with everyone's written word? Of course not. But that's precisely the point. May the best ideas win."
Good luck, Andrew. Keep your nose clean. And do watch your back. I'm sure The Huffington Post is a cheery, amicable — even jocular — sort of place. But keep your back to the wall, nonetheless.
31 Comments:
I love her "blog" because it provides me with such "blogfuel" for my site. It is also good for a laugh. Although, unlike Scappleface it is unintentional
It isn't that bad at all. I just wish they'd fix it so we can comment on the blog entries, though.
Anyway, what's with this "back to the wall" attitude, Poe? Are you really expecting someone to slip a knife into him?
J
Mr. Breitbart said, "May the best ideas win."
He has either lost his mind, or he got a ton of money!
Hmmm!
Perhaps he lost his mind and got a ton of money, just like Arianna Huffington!--God what a boring, hackneyed, anti-SUV broad she is.
SHE REMINDS ME TO MUCH OF ZA ZA GA-BORE! DARLING!
Yea, he better watch his back. If you hold even slightly right of center views, even on a few topics that crowd will eat you alive.
They will smile to your face as long as you are useful to them. Then find some way to put you down. There is no nice guy left on the left. Well, maybe Alan Combes, thats about the only one I can think of.
Mr. Tremlett inquires: "Anyway, what's with this `back to the wall' attitude, Poe? Are you really expecting someone to slip a knife into him?"
Of course.
Mr. Breitbart is a hated figure on the left. Now he has aroused their envy by getting a plum job that many leftists believe should have gone to one of them.
To survive in that environment, he will have to master a ruthless style of organizational infighting that I don't believe he ever had reason to learn before.
Tremlett>> You are a babe in the woods, aren't you? *amazed*
You are a babe in the woods, aren't you?
No - I just grew out of the "perfect paranoia is perfect awareness" stage of mental development a long time ago.
Try it sometime. You may be amazed at the results.
J
Mr. Breitbart is a hated figure on the left. Now he has aroused their envy by getting a plum job that many leftists believe should have gone to one of them.
To survive in that environment, he will have to master a ruthless style of organizational infighting that I don't believe he ever had reason to learn before.
Possibly.
Or maybe he changed sides, and they'll all love him now that he's "come back from the wilderness."
Or maybe he never really had a side to begin with, and has always been for sale.
Or maybe he's actually dealing with adults, for a change?
We'll just have to see, won't we?
J
J.E.T.'s not a babe in the woods, he's a babe in the desert!
Aha hA HA HA!
Oh Rightminded you're such a card!
P.S. God forbid J.E.T.! But do you ever get paranoid about getting snatched by one of those sons of mahound?
DOES IT EVER EVEN ENTIRE YOUR ANT BRAIN?--There's another one--Aha Ha HA, Rightminded's on a roll, someone, please, stop him!
God forbid J.E.T.! But do you ever get paranoid about getting snatched by one of those sons of mahound?
Not really. Goddess usually protects Her own.
How about you, Mr "Stop 'em at Dixie?" It sounds like you've put an awful lot of imagination into your own, private apocalypse. Watched "Red Dawn" a few times, have we? ; )
J
Mr. Tremlett writes: "Or maybe he's actually dealing with adults, for a change?"
Now that's a curious statement. What exactly are you suggesting, Mr. Tremlett?
Arianna Huffington has positioned herself on the left wing of the Democratic Party. I am hard-pressed to think of anyone in that quarter who could be plausibly accused of adult behavior.
Who did you have in mind?
Now that's a curious statement. What exactly are you suggesting, Mr. Tremlett?
That maybe, just maybe, he will be treated like a valued individual for the skills he brings to this endeavor, and the people he's hung his hat with will swallow their partisan pride, realize that we're all Americans at the end of the day, and work with him, rather than against him.
That is how one would hope mature adults would handle that sort of situation.
Arianna Huffington has positioned herself on the left wing of the Democratic Party. I am hard-pressed to think of anyone in that quarter who could be plausibly accused of adult behavior
Somehow, Mr. Poe, I'm not terribly surprised that you consistently find childishness and immaturity exactly where you go looking for it.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back inside, as it's raining irons... ; )
J
Mr. Tremlett proposes: "…maybe, just maybe… the people he's hung his hat with will swallow their partisan pride, realize that we're all Americans at the end of the day, and work with him, rather than against him."
Hmmm. I wonder what would have become of this country had our Founding Fathers chosen to deal with certain of their fellow Americans in the manner you prescribe — I mean, specifically, those of their fellow Americans who adhered to the loyalist cause.
How about you, Mr. Tremlett? Do you practice what you preach?
How do you approach people with whom you disagree on issues close to your heart — for instance, on the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live?
As I recall, you showed damned little amity, jocularity, bonhomie, esprit de corps or live-and-let-live sentiment during those discussions.
Terri Schiavo is one of your fellow Americans too — or at least she was one of your fellow Americans, until your side won the, ahem, debate.
P.S. You're not bucking for a job with Mrs. Huffington, are you?
J.E.T. writes,
How about you, Mr "Stop 'em at Dixie?" It sounds like you've put an awful lot of imagination into your own, private apocalypse. Watched "Red Dawn" a few times, have we? ; )
No J.E.T., not a paranoid private apocalpse, but a belief in these words--
"There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men."--Edmund Burke"
These sons of mahound, and their "apologists" have proven they are capable of anything at any time. However, my faith in God and my link to the good, God fearing people among us sustains me!
The following has never been more appropre, but alas, I am afraid it will be wasted on the likes of you.
"Whilst men are linked together, they easily and speedily communicate the alarm of any evil design. They are enabled to fathom it with common counsel, and to oppose it with united strength. Whereas, when they lie dispersed, without concert, order, or discipline, communication is uncertain, counsel difficult, and resistance impracticable. Where men are not acquainted with each other’s principles, nor experienced in each other’s talents, nor at all practised in their mutual habitudes and dispositions by joint efforts in business; no personal confidence, no friendship, no common interest, subsisting among them; it is evidently impossible that they can act a public part with uniformity, perseverance, or efficacy. In a connection, the most inconsiderable man, by adding to the weight of the whole, has his value, and his use; out of it, the greatest talents are wholly unserviceable to the public. No man, who is not inflamed by vain-glory into enthusiasm, can flatter himself that his single, unsupported, desultory, unsystematic endeavours, are of power to defeat the subtle designs and united cabals of ambitious citizens. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."--- Edmund Burke, (1729-1797), "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents"
P.S. BEST OF LUCK WITH YOUR MOVE BACK TO "GOD'S COUNTRY."--Hopefully you will not hear, Allaahu Akbar! on your flight, as did our fallen heros on 9/11 flights!
Hmmm. I wonder what would have become of this country had our Founding Fathers chosen to deal with certain of their fellow Americans in the manner you prescribe — I mean, specifically, those of their fellow Americans who adhered to the loyalist cause.
Before or after we started shooting?
And I have to say: that is a fascinating metaphor for you to employ.
How about you, Mr. Tremlett? Do you practice what you preach?
How do you approach people with whom you disagree on issues close to your heart — for instance, on the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live?
Depends on my relationship with them, and what I'm trying to achieve.
Far off extremist foes whom I am most likely never to work alongside, much less enter a dialogue with? They get the full on treatment, whenever it's relevant.
Someone I disagree with but have to work with? Well... then I have to decide how strongly I feel about having my name next to theirs. If I can deal with it, then I soldier on, and if I can't then I leave for less compromising climes. Simple.
That's not to say I can't continue to disagree with them, and loudly. I had some pretty freaky people sharing my bylines at American Partisan, but I either shot off at them at the forums, or in my columns.
But here's the thing: I did not ever - ever - try to talk any of the editors into letting those people go. I would call said BSers on their BS, yes, but knifing people in the back when we're working on a common cause is not my style. Why shoot holes in the boat?
Now... as for complete strangers on a blogroll:
As I recall, you showed damned little amity, jocularity, bonhomie, esprit de corps or live-and-let-live sentiment during those discussions.
When I'm having a rough-and-tumble on a forum, I'm in sacred clown mode: I say what I think needs to be said, and give as good as I get when someone responds: kindness for kindness, sarcasm for sarcasm, point for point. I prefer to be silly instead of mean, but once it's clear we're going around in circles I leave the racetrack and go have a beer.
That said, your recall is faulty. If you go back to those posts, and see what was said by whom, you will discover that both yourself and others were a hell of a lot more rude and mean than I was.
(I playfully teased Rightminded by calling his Grandpa, yes. He doesn't seem to mind, though.)
In fact, I was reasonably polite with people who were outright insulting towards me - especially on this rather contentious thread... at least until you came in and said the following:
"Mr. Tremlett – with his parrot-like cry that Mrs. Schiavo's brain is "soup" and that the "polls" say she should die – will, of course, be the second to go.
"Anyone who cites "polls" in an argument concerning life-and-death issues lacks the intelligence, maturity, knowledge of history and – most importantly – the depth of character to bring any value to a discussion among adults."
When the moderator of a board's first real interaction with you is to insult you in the 3rd person, and threaten to have you removed (there was no "nuance" there, Mr. Poe), then you're not long for the forum. And if that's the case, this clown pulls out the chainsaw.
So after that, it was pretty much downhill between you and I. If you, sir, had acted like a mature adult towards me, I would have treated you with politeness and respect. In the past, I had both for you.
But you said yourself, on the same thread, that you are only rude when you choose to be. Well, you chose to be rude to me, and that's just what you got in return.
And that's what you're continuing to get, in some measure, too.
P.S. You're not bucking for a job with Mrs. Huffington, are you?
"... but the frozen mask just smiles." >: )
J
P.S. BEST OF LUCK WITH YOUR MOVE BACK TO "GOD'S COUNTRY."
Thank you very much : ) Your kind thoughts are appreciated.
J
"... but the frozen mask just smiles." >: )
Lord have mercy it's true, you dippity-do, spike your hair!
How can a cowlick ever be cool? Let alone a bleached cowlick!
Mr. Tremlett states: "I was reasonably polite with people who were outright insulting towards me…"
Mr. Tremlett, there is no polite way to call for the murder of a helpless woman in her sickbed.
Mr. Tremlett proposed: "…maybe, just maybe… the people he's hung his hat with will swallow their partisan pride, realize that we're all Americans at the end of the day, and work with him, rather than against him."
I responded: "Hmmm. I wonder what would have become of this country had our Founding Fathers chosen to deal with certain of their fellow Americans in the manner you prescribe — I mean, specifically, those of their fellow Americans who adhered to the loyalist cause."
To which Mr. Tremlett countered: "Before or after we started shooting? And I have to say: that is a fascinating metaphor for you to employ."
Mr. Tremlett, the shooting did not begin all at once in the American Revolution. It began gradually, in slow stages, over many months.
God forbid that our generation should face such a conflagration as that. No decent person desires it.
But, in case you failed to notice, the shooting phase of our current political crisis has already begun. The last election saw an extraordinary outbreak of organized political violence, some of it involving gunplay, and virtually all of it directed against Republicans.
If you rely on the mainstream media for your news (as you appear to have done in the Terri Schiavo case), you may not be aware of these troubling developments, as they were severely — indeed, unconscionably — underreported.
You can get up to speed by reading my blog entry of October 26, 2004, "Anti-Bush Forces Using Violent, Criminal Tactics." It begins:
"ACROSS the country, Bush/Cheney campaign offices are under attack. Gunmen have fired shots through office windows; burglars have stolen computers containing confidential data; and mobs of union thugs – in some cases, 60 to 100 strong – have forced their way into campaign offices, assaulting Republican campaign workers, screaming obscenities and vandalizing property." continue…
Mr. Tremlett writes: "When I'm having a rough-and-tumble on a forum, I'm in sacred clown mode…"
Ah yes. The sacred clown.
Having studied at Naropa Institute in the early '80s and having observed at close quarters the much-celebrated sacred clownsmanship of the late Tibetan guru Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche, I must say that I have grown disinclined — to say the least — to accept that particular excuse for bad behavior.
Mr. Tremlett writes: "When I'm having a rough-and-tumble on a forum, I'm in sacred clown mode…"
From a Buddhist Web site, here's more on Chogyam Trungpa's sacred clownsmanship:
"He drank a prodigious amount of alcohol, bedded many women, never denied either. It was `enlightened drinking,' `enlightened sex.' There was never a PTL-style scandal. It was simply The Way. In the end, the official Buddhist-reported cause of death was cardiac arrest and respiratory failure; the unofficial version was cirrhosis. There was no autopsy. Some, nay, many, said he drank a gallon of sake a day."
Hmmm. Enlightened sex. Enlightened drinking. Why not enlightened trolling?
P.S. I must admit that I acquired quite a taste for sake at Naropa Institute. We used to drink it at room temperature, neither hot nor cold. Must be a Tibetan thing.
Mr. Tremlett, there is no polite way to call for the murder of a helpless woman in her sickbed.
How do we go from this -
"As I recall, you showed damned little amity, jocularity, bonhomie, esprit de corps or live-and-let-live sentiment during those discussions."
- to the above?
The question was not whether I was espousing an "impolite" position, but how amicable, jocular, and live-and-let-liveable I was with the people I was disagreeing with while stating my positions.
Other than my taking you to task for how you approached me, on that thread - and, admittedly, calling Rightminded "Grandpa" - can you point me to anything else I said to anyone else regarding the late Mrs. Schiavo that can back up your assertions?
J
ps: I didn't even know Nepal had sacred clowns. Thanks for the info.
Mr. Tremlett chides me: "The question was not whether I was espousing an `impolite' position, but how amicable, jocular, and live-and-let-liveable I was with the people I was disagreeing with while stating my positions."
You seem to have misunderstood my point, Mr. Tremlett. Let me reiterate.
You previously suggested that, if only people would "swallow their partisan pride" and "realize that we're all Americans at the end of the day," we ought to have no trouble working "with" one another, rather than "against" one another.
I countered this claim with a metaphor — that of the American Revolution — a war which most of us are taught to believe was just and good.
But how can it be just and good for Americans to make war on their fellow Americans, as "patriots" made war against "Tories" during the Revolution? Why didn't the two sides talk it out? Negotiate? Compromise? Behave like "adults?"
The fact is, if we accept that the American Revolution was just and good, then we must believe that some conflicts exist in this world so fundamental that they cannot be resolved by any means but force — which is to say, by one side physically overpowering the other.
Having made this point — or at least having tried to make it — I then put the following question to you:
"How about you, Mr. Tremlett? Do you practice what you preach?
"How do you approach people with whom you disagree on issues close to your heart — for instance, on the issue of whether or not Terri Schiavo should have been allowed to live?
"As I recall, you showed damned little amity, jocularity, bonhomie, esprit de corps or live-and-let-live sentiment during those discussions.
"Terri Schiavo is one of your fellow Americans too — or at least she was one of your fellow Americans, until your side won the, ahem, debate."
My point, Mr. Tremlett, was that you did not seek a middle ground in the matter of Mrs. Schiavo. You did not seek to negotiate. You did not seek compromise. You did not "swallow" your "partisan pride." You did not attempt to "work with" rather than "against" Terri Schiavo, her loved ones and her supporters, even though you claim this is your way of approaching conflict.
Just as the Founding Fathers of this country reached a point where they believed they had no choice but to take arms against their fellow Americans, you, Mr. Tremlett, reached a point where you decided there was no room in your America for a living, breathing Terri Schiavo.
In your America, Mrs. Schiavo had to die.
If you think your words were civil and courteous, try to imagine speaking them directly to Terri Schiavo's mother and father. Only when you learn to listen to your words through the ears of your victims will you hear them as they really are.
Well, if that was the point behind your question, you made it very poorly while asking it. And that's not the only time you've been very confusing in what you ask, and what you say.
You need to learn to communicate better, Mr. Poe. I'm shocked to have to say that to someone with your writing credentials, but you wouldn't be the first published author who couldn't write clearly.
As for your now-revealed points, I reject them as meaningless. If you cannot see the difference between liberals and conservatives working together on a common goal, in spite of some contentious differences, and people pitted against one another by wanting entirely different goals - so different they've had to go to court on several occasions to get relief - then you have severely missed the boat.
I will join you in hoping that Breitbart prospers in his new position at Huffington's blog, and dodges any flying daggers that might come his way. But I'm very sad to see that the only way you can riposte my optimism for his prospects is to engage in such poor argumentation.
And with that, I'm off for the beer.
J
Mr. Tremlett writes: "I'm very sad to see that the only way you can riposte my optimism for his prospects is to engage in such poor argumentation."
Constructive criticism is always welcome, Mr. Tremlett.
However, I think I have spent enough time jousting with you on this blog to know that if you found my argument poor, you would have rebutted it.
By the way, I never said that conservatives could not work with "liberals" — by which I gather you mean leftists — in pursuit of "common goals."
See, for instance, my post of March 6, "Bloggers of all Parties, Unite!"
I do, however, believe that conservatives who work with leftists need to keep their backs to the wall at all times and learn to sleep with one eye open.
J.E.T. states,
"You need to learn to communicate better, Mr. Poe. I'm shocked to have to say that to someone with your writing credentials, but you wouldn't be the first published author who couldn't write clearly."
Unbelievable!
Personally, I have found Mr. Poe's writing to be extremely perspicacious. Some of the best I've read, and my wife calls me a voracious reader.
Your writing J.E.T, I find to be hackneyed twaddle!
"And with that, I'm off for the beer."
That's a wise decision, because you are in over your head. That's good, delude yourself into believing you're leaving the race track because you're going in circles (more twaddle), and not because of a clock cleaning.
However, I think I have spent enough time jousting with you on this blog to know that if you found my argument poor, you would have rebutted it.
Naah. After a certain point I just say "bleh" and retire, like I did on the aforelinked thread when the debate over Ms. Schiavo turned into Godwin-a-go-go
I do, however, believe that conservatives who work with leftists need to keep their backs to the wall at all times and learn to sleep with one eye open.
"Perfect paranoia is perfect awareness"> ; )
J
That's good, delude yourself into believing you're leaving the race track because you're going in circles (more twaddle), and not because of a clock cleaning.
*checks clock*
Seems to be working just fine to me, and it says the thread has jumped the shark.
J
Of course it works fine, it was thoroughly cleaned!
Mr. Tremlett wrote: I'm very sad to see that the only way you can riposte my optimism for [Andrew Breitbart's] prospects [at The Huffington Post] is to engage in such poor argumentation."
To which I replied: "Constructive criticism is always welcome, Mr. Tremlett. However, I think I have spent enough time jousting with you on this blog to know that if you found my argument poor, you would have rebutted it."
Upon which Mr. Tremlett retorted: "Naah. After a certain point I just say `bleh' and retire…"
All right, Mr. Tremlett. You said "bleh," you retired… and now you have returned!
Welcome back. Can we now take up where we left off?
You implied that people who differ profoundly on political issues can work together toward common goals, provided they behave as "mature" "adults."
I agreed with you, up to a point, but wondered whether you regarded this rule as universally applicable.
I therefore sought to discover whether you considered our Founding Fathers' inability to reach an amicable accord with the British to have been a sign of immaturity on their part — on the part of our Founders, that is.
Let's take up the thread there.
What say you, Mr. Tremlett?
*finally reads this, thanks to Rightminded*
What say you, Mr. Tremlett?
"The way... is shut."
J
Post a Comment
<< Home