Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 27, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE END OF SATIRE....Michelle Cottle writes today about World Ahead Publishing, a publisher of conservative books that recently launched a children's division called Kids Ahead:

Thus far, the new imprint has only one writer in its stable: Katharine DeBrecht, the pen name of a mother of three whose authorial debut, Help! Mom! There Are Liberals Under My Bed!, generated major buzz and sold some 30,000 copies after receiving an on-air plug from Rush Limbaugh. In the wake of DeBrecht's success, Kids Ahead is moving forward with an entire Help! Mom! series. Help! Mom! Hollywood's in My Hamper! hit stores in March, Help! Mom! The Ninth Circuit Nabbed the Nativity! will be out in time for Christmas, with Help! Mom! There Are Lawyers in My Lunchbox! to follow.

Is Cottle serious or is she making a joke? It's hard to tell these days when you read descriptions of conservo-land. And it's hell on satire in liberal-land. I mean, how can you create mock book titles for your next homage to Jonathan Swift if the real ones have titles like that?

Anyway, just for the record, it turns out she's serious: those new titles are genuine.

Kevin Drum 4:43 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (225)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Help! My NeoCon 15 Minutes of Fame is Over!

Posted by: clone12 on June 27, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Help! There are Reactionaries in My Bank Account, My Phone and Internet Records, and My Bedroom!

Posted by: Alek Hidell on June 27, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm so confused, mommy! Rush is a celebrity, so does that mean he's wrong?

Mommy, why do all the caricatures have big noses and look like Jews? Didn't God say to love all people?

Posted by: KW on June 27, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

It's never a joke. Those sort of movement conservatives, or whatever's an apt description, that's the level they operate on and that's what conservatism is now. It's a big tent covering the very least reasonable and rational people we got. Conservatism: the new Stupid Asshole.

Posted by: The Tim on June 27, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

And it's hell on satire in liberal-land. I mean, how can you create mock book titles for your next homage to Jonathan Swift if the real ones have titles like that?

Allow me to try:

Help! Mom! There's a Homosexual in My Closet!...hmmm, not quite right. Too many hidden meanings.

Help! Mom! There's a Catholic Priest in the Rectory!....again, no. People could read something into that.

Help! Mom! Bill O'Reilly's On the Phone!

Help! Mom! Bill O'Reilly's in the Shower!

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Whoa. Fafblog has some serious competition. Check out this logic from the Author's Blog:

Larry Kudlow rightly pointed out on his show the other day that if, as is alledged, the Senate's bill were to allow in 100 million new immigrants over the next 20 years or so, that would do nothing more than replace the babies we've killed through abortion.

Whether you're for opening the border or building 50 foot walls along its entire length, I'll bet you've never run across that argument before!

Posted by: sglover on June 27, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Help, wingnuts! My drawings suck and the children's book field is overcrowded!

Posted by: HeavyJ on June 27, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Help Mom! There are DEA Agents in my vicodin stash!

Help Mom! There's a federal prosecutor in my medical records!

Help Mom! There's factual information that contradicts everything I say!

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh on June 27, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's no armor in my Humvee! Enjoying your tax cut?

Posted by: mister pedantic on June 27, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives have no sense of humor to begin with, particularly the religious right (why else is Ned Flanders so funny?), and irony and satire are well beyond their understanding.

Posted by: JeffII on June 27, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

I smell a Colbert appearance!

Posted by: KW on June 27, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

and sold some 30,000 copies

Not exactly a best seller...

Posted by: tripoley on June 27, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Thank God. Every six year old I know is absolutely obsessed with the Ninth Circuit Court; it's nice to know what to get them for Christmas.

Posted by: Ted Barlow on June 27, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

I've never had a chance to observe, so I wonder, when they read the Mallard Fillmore, do they laugh out loud? Do they chuckle heartily? Every day, right next to the Doonesbury, I see it and wonder, is it funny to someone? It just seems so humorlessly obnoxious.

Posted by: david on June 27, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's a FEMA Trailer Where My House Should Be!

Frankly, this stuff writes itself....

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Every six year old I know is absolutely obsessed with the Ninth Circuit Court;

What's a Nine Circus Court?

Posted by: Six Year Old on June 27, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! A village in Texas lost its idiot!

Help! Mom! The fascists have stolen America!

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on June 27, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

30,000 copies ,That is all of Rush Limbaugh's listener's. Help Mom i've lost my schtick!

Posted by: Consevative and Ugly on June 27, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's a Doughnut Hole in Grandpa's Prescription Drug Coverage!

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

The thing about these books is they are not just silly and wrong-headed, they are simple futile. Pre-teen children simply don't have the cognitive ability to understand politics. Back in the 60's I remember peace marchers who took their children along. You would ask the kids what it was all about, and they couldn't get say anything beyond a sentence or two.

The problem is children can't think in abstract terms, or imagine very well the larger world or the span of history, all of which are essential for political thought. What happens is they go along with whatever is told them, without really understanding it. Then when they become teens, they start to think politically and question what their parents have been telling them, and decide on their own if what they were taught is right or wrong.

Posted by: Les Brunswick on June 27, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds. But it's not okay for conservative children's books to be published? Um, okay..

Posted by: American Hawk on June 27, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

What happens is they go along with whatever is told them, without really understanding it. Then when they become teens, they start to think politically and question what their parents have been telling them, and decide on their own if what they were taught is right or wrong.

Unless, of course, they become Republicans. Then they just continue on, knowing absolutely what they think is right without ever really understanding or questioning it.

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Help Mom!: The Constitution has jammed my Little Republican shredder!

Posted by: ferd on June 27, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk: For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds. But it's not okay for conservative children's books to be published?

It pisses off American Hawk when six year olds turn down his pedophilic advances. And he thinks it's because of gay recruitment propaganda, lol

Posted by: tripoley on June 27, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk: we're not objecting, we're rolling on the floor, laughing! (I had to crawl off the damned floor to type this, but I'm still guffawing.) No, no objections - more of this, please!

Posted by: RT on June 27, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds. But it's not okay for conservative children's books to be published? Um, okay..

Hawk, leave it to you to prove that it is possible to satire conservatives.

Posted by: Ron Byers on June 27, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

"For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds. But it's not okay for conservative children's books to be published? Um, okay.."

-- SEE! Satire is HARD!

Posted by: Foo on June 27, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Pre-teen children simply don't have the cognitive ability to understand politics.

Which of course makes them perfect fodder for Republican/conservative propaganda. The less cognition required, the redder the voter.

Posted by: Irony Man on June 27, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

I remember those posters, because they recruited me to gayness.

Posted by: American Hawk on June 27, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds. But it's not okay for conservative children's books to be published? Um, okay..
Posted by: American Hawk on June 27, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Please tell me this is sarcasm. If it isn't, we can all easily laugh at you for believing 1) any part of your sentence is true 2) that people can be recruited to "become" gay 3) that it is somehow wrong to tolerate people (after all, kids will see friends with two moms or dads) 4) that anyone is saying the author should not be allowed to write and publish her book 5) that you are not obviously in the closet. I mean, how much gayer can you get than calling yourself "American Hawk"? When I think of that name, I picture a bomber jacket with an eagle hanging in a closet next to a collection of pastel-colored cashmere sweaters.

It is stupid stuff like this book that separate conservative intellectuals who are increasingly alienated from the Republuican Party like Andrew Sullivan, George Will and Francis Fukuyama from movement conservatives. This is how we get House members co-sponsoring bills to hang the 10 Commandments in the House while being unable to recite more than 3 from memory. When are movement conservatives going to realize that the Republican Party's leadership think they are all stupid, largely due to stupid things like this book?

Posted by: Reality Man on June 27, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Reality Man: This is how we get House members co-sponsoring bills to hang the 10 Commandments in the House while being unable to recite more than 3 from memory.

Help Mom! I can't remember the Ten Commandments!

Posted by: tripoley on June 27, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Help ma! There is a mongerer under my bed. He claims to have a stick on loan from Pfeizer.

Posted by: nut on June 27, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Help Mom!: After High School My Life Will Be Officially Over and I'll Spend The Rest of My Years Filing Expense Reports for Black People Until I Die From an Infected Hemorrhoid.

Posted by: enozinho on June 27, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Strange jokes. I don't get it

Posted by: Adche on June 27, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Help George! There's a spy program in my money transfer!

Posted by: terror_financing_dubai_prince on June 27, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK
For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms

Actually, one could argue that its the conservative anti-birth control and anti-abortion Christians, with their big families, that have been doing the gay recruitment, what with their lifestyle making boys more likely to have more biological older brothers.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 27, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! My Stop Loss Order is Forcing Me Back for a Third Tour in Iraq!

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Every day, right next to the Doonesbury, I see it and wonder, is it funny to someone? It just seems so humorlessly obnoxious.

Try and remember the last time you laughed at a Doonesbury cartoon.

After reading Cottle's sniffy article, I think she might be the one who's humor-impaired around here. Maybe she thinks this is high literature. Apparently plenty of reviewers did.

Posted by: Newbury on June 27, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's a customs agent in my Viagra!

Posted by: Gaia on June 27, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

That "Why Mommy Is a Democrat" book looks retarded. Who would buy that shit? Some people just have too much time on their hands.

Posted by: Reality Man on June 27, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Help Dick! There's a congressional contracting oversight committee in my theft of taxpayer money!

Posted by: Halliburton on June 27, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds!


Does American Hawk teach, or was he held back?

Posted by: cld on June 27, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

People who use children to advance a political message are vile, and it is unfortunate that it so often works.

Posted by: Will Allen on June 27, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

Help Mom! Liberals Are Trying to Make Me Think!

Posted by: Jones on June 27, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

OMG! cmdicely, you're right! I'd never thought of that!

That's why there are so many of those pedophilic priests going after altar boys too, I'll bet. All those Catholics with so many children ... so many older brothers ... and, of course, anyone who is, you know, that way being encouraged towards a supposedly celibate life...

That explains it all!

Posted by: Ducktape on June 27, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Holy crap. I thought those titles were made up. And not especially funny at that. To learn that they're ACTUALLY THE TITLES OF BOOKS she's written...I need to have a lie down.

Posted by: Mean Gene on June 27, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Oh please you moron liberals. Like you know anything about thinking! Or being patriots! Or trying to make our children good, strong, God-fearing Americans! Where are you Norman Rogers? We need you here now to show these morons who's in charge! Don't let us down!

Posted by: justanhonestguy on June 27, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and A.H.--I am gay, a parent, and a former teacher in a large public school system and I can assure you that no one is putting "gay recruitment propaganda" in any classrooms! And here's the kicker: Nobody wants to! Only in your most fervid fantasies are you and your spittle-flecked brethren being "recruited." Most of us (grownups, I mean) realize that sexuality is pretty much an individual and very private thing, not at all relevant to the business of the classroom. In fact, the only people to ever bring sex into my classroom were the little fundamentalist kids and their parents, who seemed quite obsessed with it. You may be shocked to learned that many teachers (gay and straight) are totally committed to EDUCATING kids to think, read, write, appreciate science and art...oh, nevermind.

Posted by: Gaia on June 27, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

I'm afraid American Hawk just went the way of Al and TBrosz, and we'll never nomore be able to tell if it's the 'real' American Hawk or not.

S/he's a legend in s/his own mind.

Posted by: serial catowner on June 27, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, Friends: Those books aren't for children at all. They are carefully written so wingnuts can read them and understand them.

Posted by: CT on June 27, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Bingo! CT wins the cigar.

Posted by: serial catowner on June 27, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

In the past when people had much larger families there must have been a larger percentage of gay men around than now.

I wonder if there is a study about the development of the explicit anti-gay prejudice that we've seen over the past century. While in the past there was certainly anti-gay prejudice, I wonder if you could show that it wasn't of the same vindictive, explicit quality that we have seen in our lifetimes.

Posted by: cld on June 27, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I want to act out my unresolved Daddy issues by becoming President!

Posted by: Irony Man on June 27, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

AH should be a lot of help with the Help Mom stuff.

Posted by: Conservative and Ugly on June 27, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

As if, Halliburton.

Posted by: Boronx on June 27, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Late as usual...

Help Mom! Theres a drunken fool saddling me and my grandchildren with debt.
Help Mama! An infidel Army has occupied our land!
Help Mom! The Norks are going to launchUmmm. Can I have a cookie?

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 27, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

CT wins the cigar

Help! Mom! There's an Northeastern Liberal waving a cigar in my face!

Posted by: Ann Coulter's Id on June 27, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Rush is claiming to be Consevative,Why does one need so much oxy-cotin to be Conservative.

Posted by: Conservative and Ugly on June 27, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

These Ann Coulter books and the Help MoM books.These are just like the Arabs telling there children Jews are pigs. No diffrent.

Posted by: Conservative and Ugly on June 27, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Great now Rush will be taking up all of the ACLU's time again.

Posted by: Conservative and Very Ugly on June 27, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Help Mom this bitch keeps correcting me when I say nuclear.

Posted by: Conservative and Very Ugly on June 27, 2006 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

That's quite the line-up that Wood A Head Publishing has for sale.

Theyve certainly come up with a namby-pamby list of Hilary quotes for their contest.
I hope, that at this stage of her life, Hilary can be more vicious then that.

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 27, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Your Goddless. If you must talk to me please say SIR.

Posted by: Mann Coulter on June 27, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Only 3 days left to enter the "What Does 'GOP' Stand For?" Contest.

Say what you think the acronym "GOP" stands for, and you could win an iPod, an Amazon.com gift certificate and other great swag.

Posted by: AvengingAngel on June 27, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Help, Mom! Rush Limbaugh's In Our Medicine Cabinet!"

Posted by: buddy66 on June 27, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

When I was 6-years old, American Hawk put a picture of a big strong soldier in my room and now I'm Gay!

Posted by: hawk, jr on June 27, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

Help, Mom! The Senate won't pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning!

Posted by: Vincent on June 27, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

I do have to say that the Help! Mom! series of titles

Posted by: cmdicely on June 27, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

She wrote an op/ed in the LA Times a couple of weeks ago. I don't remeber what it was about but they listed the book in her profile and I remember laughing pretty hard at the title. I seem to recall laughing at the op/ed as well.

Posted by: Mike S on June 27, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

I do have to say that the Help! Mom! series of titles captures the spirit of American conservatism: a bunch of infants crying out for someone to protect them from the fact that people different from them exist in the world.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 27, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

You know, though, I sure don't want my kids to grow up to be mindlessly jingoistic, homophobic, class war-mongering conservatives. So I guess I can dimly imagine the angst of conservative parents. The Ninth Circuit book sure sounds like it'll fly off the shelves, though, doesn't it?

Posted by: Wendy on June 27, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! The Religious Right Won't Stop Sniffing My Panties!

Posted by: Reprobate on June 27, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

The thing about these books is they are not just silly and wrong-headed, they are simple futile. Pre-teen children simply don't have the cognitive ability to understand politics...

You misunderstimate the Alex P. Keatons of the world. He'd have had a full shelf of these things as a kid.

Posted by: Reprobate on June 27, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

...crying out for someone to protect them from the fact that people different from them exist in the world.

Even the most sheltered, Children of the Corn, home schooled conservative has known about the existence of people who are different. Everything was fine until the darkies and women and fags started asking to sit at the same table. That's what has had them in a seemingly never ending conniption fit.

Posted by: enozinho on June 27, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Mike S

It was about Pitt and Jolie's extra-marital procreation and the media's adoration thereto, despite the clear intimations of sin and morality in the situation.

Posted by: nut on June 27, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk sez:

For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds. But it's not okay for conservative children's books to be published? Um, okay..

So, Mr. Hawk, you are saying that when you were six years old, and the policeman and fireman visited your classroom, it was, like, a homoerotic experience for you? That's very interesting.

Posted by: xmd on June 27, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

GOP: Gigantic Open Pustule.

Help! Mom! There's a heartbeat in my dead Iraqi!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

Gay recruitment propaganda pamphlet written for six-year-olds:

Hello boys. My name is Kendrew and I'm here to tell you all about the wonderful joy of being a boy.

Touch the skin on your arm. Now rub it back and forth. Doesn't it feel good ... mmm ... so smo-o-o-th. You have lots of body parts that feel good when you touch them. Just ask your best friend!

Err ... this stuff writes itself so I had better quit while I'm, umm, ahead.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Why is every other post on Kevin's site a link to TNR? Are they owned by the same company? Share editors?

Cuz TNR can bite me.

Posted by: luci on June 27, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's a penumbra in my pants!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's Least Harm Doctrine in my leotards!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's moral nihilism in my nighties!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Help Mommy! The president pooped his pants when he read "My Pet Goat".

Posted by: 2.7182818 on June 27, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's radical relativism in my Raisinets!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

Having grown up here in the west, where remarriage isn't frowned upon and children are cherished even from single mothers and fathers...

...There's many ways for a child to end up with more than one mom and one dad.

We don't cancel out the biological parent when we add a step parent. Why should we?

So why is it such a big deal that there may be gay parents as well? Who knows?

Do these childrens' books even make sense?

Posted by: Crissa on June 27, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's neomarxist historicism in my Hershey bar!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's hermenuetics in my hamburger!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Help Mommy! The president is as stupid as he looks!

Posted by: 2.7182818 on June 27, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's anomie in my applesauce!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's Unbehagen in my underwear!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's Liberation Theology in my lemonade!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's intersubjectivity in my icepop!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

"Help! Mom! Conservatives want me to pay back all that money they borrowed!"

Posted by: Dave Curtis on June 27, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds. But it's not okay for conservative children's books to be published? Um, okay..

Ah yes, I fondly remember the "Fun with Dick and Dick" books of my childhood....

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's judicial activism in my jujubees!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's social engineering in my soda pop!

A Nanny State in my Nabisco!

Welafere dependency in my Weebles!

Failed policies of the past in my french fries!

Overregulation in my Ovaltine!

Disincentives in my donut!

Tax slavery in my Tic-Tacs!

Big government in my stuffed Barney!

Waste, fraud and abuse in my Wienerschnitzel!

Unfunded mandates in my macaroni!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 27, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

Help me mom. My dik is in the bob.

Posted by: nut on June 27, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

AH: For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds. But it's not okay for conservative children's books to be published? Um, okay...

Stefan: Ah yes, I fondly remember the "Fun with Dick and Dick" books of my childhood....

And of course that paean to autoeroticism: Fun with Dick. It opened Whitmanesque worlds.

Posted by: snicker-snack on June 27, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum - has anybody ever called you a "whiner" before?

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on June 27, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

Hi Frecuntsee

Nice to have you aboard.

Join In! It'll be FUN.

Help Mom!....[You fill in the rest}

C'mon try. You can do it

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 27, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

The real satire contest should be to come up with better positive reviews for the book on Amazon.com, or better book recommendations. I was reading through the customer reviews and was disappointed to find that the liberal reviewers were all reacting with horror at the indoctrination rather than mockery at the title, when it would be so easy...

Posted by: Eric L on June 27, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Further conservative classics:

Help! Mom! The Poor Kid Doesn't Want To Give Me All His Lunch Money

Help! Mom! The Poor Kid Won't Do My Bidding

...and that red flag to class warfare

Help! Mom! The Poor Kid Thinks He's My Equal

...and a Canadian plaint

Help! Mum! Why Are Our Conservatives So Boring?

Posted by: snicker-snack on June 27, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Join In! It'll be FUN.

Help! Mom! Uncle Sam Thinks I'm Too Young!
Help! Mom! The NSA Won't Let Me Report You
Help! Mom! Jesus Says Killing Is Bad

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on June 27, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

30,000 copies 25,000 to the Heritage Foundation.

Posted by: klyde on June 27, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

excerpt from "Help! Mommy! There are Liberals Under My Bed!":

"...And as Mommy left the room once more and closed the door behind her, little Joey settled back into his comfy little conservative pillow, dreaming about Jude Wanniski Gold Standards and Lawrence Kudlow Tax Cuts. But suddenly, the gruesome, half rotting arm of a liberal swooped over him! Little Joey's mouth and nose were completely covered, and he kicked and struggled in vain to escape. Out of nowhere, a much larger liberal descended on him and sank its twelve inch fangs into the boy's abdomen. Blood spurted out of the little boys eye sockets as the evil liberal, with Osama-bin-Laden-birthday-parties in his eyes, lifted his mandibles away with the boy's still-quivering intestines dripping from his jaws. Then the liberals, gazing upon the dead boy-conservative's body slunk back under the bed, off to find another young conservative who escaped his rightful abortion."

Posted by: forsythe on June 27, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Goddamn Grandma! There's a drunken ex-cheerleader at the head of a coup that is destroying our country!

Fucking hell Jesus! What's wrong with all of the assholes who say they follow your teachings?

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on June 27, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

They can dish it, but can't take it. Pathetic really.

Posted by: Jay on June 27, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Nobody likes me
Help! Mom! Why am I such a bonehead?
Help! Mom! I sometimes feel so useless
Help! Mom! I don't want to be a nerd
Help! Mom! Will you hate me if I'm liberal?

Posted by: Jay on June 27, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

and a starter reader series for semi-literate teenagers like moi.

Help! Mom! What are these stains on my bedsheets?
Help! Mom! I get aroused whenever he's around
Help! Mom! Did you see George in his flight suit?
Help! Mom! I have no conscience
Help! Mom! I'm such a schmuck

Posted by: Jay on June 27, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

Think of Jay! Which part of not taking it is he not getting?

Posted by: cld on June 27, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

That was a lot of pent up sexual frustration that just poured out. I am proud of you and hope you feel better.

Posted by: Jay on June 27, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

How sad that some conservatives (not all -- just some) are so steeped in irrational hatred for their fellow Americans who dare to disagree with them, that they feel compelled to deprive their own children of their innocence by indoctrinating them with such inappropriate and grotesque political bigotry.

Such persons will only prove that prejudice isn't genetic in origin, but is in fact a learned trait.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 27, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Anyway, just for the record, it turns out she's serious: those new titles are genuine."

Hol-- whoa. I mean, holy f-- no, come on. Holy fu-- no seriously.

Wow. Holy Fuck.

Will there ever come a time where we can stop taking these stupid assholes (and I choose that phrase advisedly) seriously?

Posted by: KPatrick on June 27, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

off topic, but this is good on the contrast between the 1994 and 2006 elections:

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/6/26/20224/1167

personally, I am surprised by the strength of the "borders first" constituency; they are having an impact, and their impact is not diminishing.

Posted by: republicrat on June 27, 2006 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

They can dish it, but can't take it. Pathetic really.

What I wanted to say was

Help! Liberal! I want to be the top for once (I always seem to be taking it)

I am proud of you and hope you feel better.

Uh-oh. That's my split personality burst out. I'm having conversations with myself again. Yes, other me, I do feel better. Whew.

Posted by: Jay on June 27, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

OK, I give in. Here's my contribution:

Help! Mom! Cheney's Got a Gun!

Help! Mom! The Bush Twins Drank My Pitcher of Margaritas!

Help! Mom! Rush Limbaugh and Patrick Kennedy Arte Stoned on Oxycontin Again!

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 27, 2006 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

personally, I am surprised by the strength of the "borders first" constituency

Help! Mom! Help me push away the world

Posted by: America First! on June 27, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINK

You can find similar, and even more pernicious right-wing rubbish at www.worldnetdaily.com, Joseph Farah's oft-sued website. Farah got his fame and fortune flogging the "Hillary killed Vince Foster" myth for ten years. These are the heralds of the modern GOP, God help us all.

By the way, why do conservatives always say, "And God bless America"? Don't you think God, if he is as nice as they say he is, probably blesses everyone?

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 27, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Murtha cut and ran in my pants!
Help! Mom! Teacher appeases the bullies!
Help! Mom! Dukakis let Dad go on a walkabout!
Help! Mom! W won't stop sniffing coke off my ass!
Help! Mom! Frist doesn't tip me at the strip club!
Help! Mom! I think I'm half Mexican!
Help! Mom! Don't let the liberals pull my plug!
Help! Mom! Cheney thought I was a deer!
Help! Mom! Rush got his Viagra prescription refilled!

Posted by: Reality Man on June 27, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! The Bush Twins Drank My Pitcher of Margaritas!

A keeper!

Posted by: kona on June 27, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

I can't believe that this is the day I was too busy to read Political Animal. It's the mother lode of straight lines!

How about:
Help! Mom! I've got two moms!

Posted by: craigie on June 27, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. So, teaching kids the basics of human socialization (be nice, share, accept differences between you and others, learn to disagree and get along) is no longer sufficient. Now, we have to make sure our kids learn to fear and hate others, just to make sure our political persuasion gets passed down.

Posted by: Will on June 27, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

How about:
Help! Mom! I've got two moms!

Oooh, excellent.

Posted by: shortstop on June 28, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Help federally-approved Village Caretakers that it takes to raise me! My mom has been replaced by a dystopian liberal fantasy!

Posted by: trex on June 28, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Get a load of this pup-tent!

Posted by: Googles McGurk on June 28, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Jesus sounds like a liberal!

Posted by: Gas Gluefish on June 28, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Cheney's Got a Gun!

Someone needs to rerecord Aerosmith's Janie's got a gun.

Posted by: snicker-snack on June 28, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I'm being brainwashed by crazy right wing zealots!

Help! Dick! Some guys crashed into the World Trade Center and I have no idea what to do! Also, what's this word after "Pet"?!

Posted by: craigie on June 28, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

"Mommy ... what's a liberal?"

"Well, Joey ... a liberal is a person with a good heart who means very well. A liberal believes that if he, or she, cares about people very much, and if everybody cares as much as they believe they do, that then the world will become a better place for everybody."

"Wow, Mom ... that sounds pretty good."

"Well, dear ... it isn't. It's actually very very bad."

"Why, Mommy?"

"Because liberals don't put their faith in people -- like you, me, Daddy and your sister -- to do the caring. They don't believe in ordinary people, like us, or the Crawfords next door, or your teacher Miss Beemer. They believe that the government should do the caring instead."

"Government ... you mean like the president, Mom? I thought we liked President Bush."

"Your father and I like President Bush very much indeed, and you should as well -- so should everybody. But government is more than just the president or the men and women in Washington that he works with to pass our laws and keep us safe."

"Who else is in the government, then ... the ones that the liberals think should do the caring instead of us ... you said, right?"

"That's right, my precious Joey. The other ones, the ones that Daddy and I, and Mr. Crawford and Miss Beemer didn't vote for or choose ... they're the ones who do the day-to-day work of running things. And they're called bureaucrats."

"Boo-row-cats? What are they, Mommy?"

"You know the man who delivers the mail?"

"Yes."

"And the ranger man dressed like Smokey Bear when we went to the state park for vacation?"

"Yep."

"And remember when you went with Mommy to renew her driver's license and we waited in that horrible long line?"

"Sure, I remember all of that, Mommy."

"Well ... they're what grownups call bureaucrats. Say it with me -- Bu-reau-crats."

"Bu-row-craps."

"Hehe. That, too, my silly boy. Or we also call them government employees."

"Employees ... like what Daddy is!"

"Well, no, not exactly, Joey. Daddy works for a big company that makes important things people buy, not the government."

"But didn't you say that these boo ... row ... people run things for President Bush while he's in Washington?"

"Well in a way ... yes, sure. They do."

"Well ... aren't those things important?"

"My Joey ... they are."

"I like the mailman. He threw the ball back to me yesterday."

"Our mailman is a nice man."

"But they aren't as important as what Daddy does, right?"

"No, my love ... as important as the mail is -- it's not as important as what your father does. He works in the private sector."

"Private sec..tor? Is that like a place where you go potty?"

"Oh my silly silly boy. No, not at all. The private sector is what people are employed by if they're not employed by the government."

"So Daddy works at the private sector."

"Well ... we would say that Daddy works *in* the private sector. His company is in the private sector."

"And it's better than working in the government."

"Yes it is, sweet child. It makes a mother's heart ache with love to see you learn so well."

"And these liberals then ... they think the mailman ... and the Smokey Bear guy at the park ... and all those fat ladies at desks when we went that time ... these liberals believe in them -- and not you, me, Daddy and Kimby? Or Mr. and Mrs. Crawford and Miss Beemer?"

"Oh darling ... what a smart, smart little boy you are!" *kisses son on the head*

"I'm tired, Mommy."

"Well ... we should probably go to bed."

"Where's Daddy?"

"He's at the office late again ... *sigh*"

"When will he be home?"

"Not tonight, Joey. He has a ... project that's due first thing in the morning. He has to work all night to finish it."

"Oh."

"Come to bed with me, Joey. Sleep with Mommy tonight."

"Okay ... sure."

"Settled in?"

"Yes."

"Are you comfy?"

"Yes, Mommy ... *yawn*"

"Now repeat after me, Joey: 'I am a Conservative Republican.'"

"I am a Conservative Republican."

"Again ... 'I am a Conservative Republican.'"

"I am ... a .. Con .. ser .. vvvv ... *zzzzzzzzz*"

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Don't laugh too hard, people. This is based on a true story. My mother literally pulled this crap on me when I was like 9.

She's been dead since I was 13, may her tormented alcoholic soul rest in peace.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Don't laugh too hard, people.

Oh, trust us; we're not.

Help! Dick! Some guys crashed into the World Trade Center and I have no idea what to do! Also, what's this word after "Pet"?!

Hee.

Posted by: shortstop on June 28, 2006 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

What exactly is your problem?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

sglover,

You would lose that bet: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640987/posts?page=24#24

Posted by: John on June 28, 2006 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

John:

Heh, I guess Freakonomics opened up *that* can o' worms with the drastically reduced crime rate in NYC = missing dysfunctional generation from legalized abortion in '73 argument.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think there's a problem there, Bob. She was agreeing with you and then expressing appreciation of Craigie's suggestion.

My sympathies. I lost my mom at about the same age. My dad? When it came to generalities, he was conservative (here we disagreed). When he came to specifics, he was liberal (and here we agreed). He voted his generalities. Really he was parked in the wrong camp.

Posted by: snicker-snack on June 28, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

You said it, Bob. As for the thread topic, I note that Jonathan Swift wrote "serious" pieces too, and satire didn't "end" with those.

Posted by: John on June 28, 2006 at 1:45 AM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack:

Oh Jesus Christ -- did I completely misread that?

And, given some previous knowledge, I'm sure now that I did.

Shortstop: My humblest apologies.

The previous knowledge is what took me aback that you'd snark at me for that very thing.

I never thought I'd need a sardonic irony detector tuneup ...

*sigh* It's a sensitive area of my life. Probably too sensitive to try to turn it into a moment of witticism ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK

As for the ironic, I can't wait for a Bush impeachment trial just for this type of argument to re-surface on the other side of the aisle (from Sen. Dale Bumpers defending Bill Clinton):

"If you have difficulty because of an intense dislike of the president -- and that's understandable -- rise above it. He is not the issue.

He will be gone. You won't. So don't leave a precedent from which we may never recover and almost surely will regret.

If you vote to acquit, Mr. Leader, you know exactly what's going to happen. You're going to back to your committees, you're going to get on this legislative agenda, you're going to start dealing with Medicare and Social Security and tax cuts and all those things which the people of the country have a non-negotiable demand that you do.

If you vote to acquit, you go immediately to the people's agenda.

But if you vote to convict, you can't be sure what's going to happen. James G. Blaine was a member of the Senate when Andrew Johnson was tried in 1868, and 20 years later he recanted. And he said: "I made a bad mistake." And he says "as I reflect back on it, all I can think about is having convicted Andrew Johnson would have caused much more chaos and confusion in this country than Andrew Johnson could ever conceivably have tried."

And so it is with William Jefferson Clinton. If you vote to convict, in my opinion you're going to be creating more havoc than he could ever possibly create. After all, he's only got two years left. So don't, for God's sakes heighten people's alienation that is at an all time high toward their government."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/21/transcripts/bumpers.html

Posted by: John on June 28, 2006 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Bob,

I don't think you misread shortstop at all.

Posted by: John on June 28, 2006 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I Accepted a Bribe From Jack Abramoff!

Posted by: Irony Man on June 28, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Duke came through with the whores and the cocaine, but he forgot the Viagra!

John:

Hey -- if it's an ambiguity, I'd rather err on the side of graciousness.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I put the cash in the freezer, but I forgot to cover it with the leftover macaroni salad!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I took the check from the Indian chief, ran out of small talk -- and told him that F Troop was my favorite TV show as a kid!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 2:20 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I replaced Noelle Bush's Xanax with Folgers crystals!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I paid Armstrong Williams to write a piece on Louis Farrakhan's flying saucer interior decorator for The Weekly World News!

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

Help. MOTHER. There are Brobdingnagians under my dome! Come AND cut them out or else I would WAR!

Posted by: Jonathan Swift on June 28, 2006 at 3:17 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Make those strange people go away!

Posted by: Mrs. Golliwog on June 28, 2006 at 4:01 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Rush Limpbaugh is in my medicine cabinet!
Help! Amchickenhawk is hiding under my bed!
Help! Cheney's coming with a shotgun!

Posted by: merlallen on June 28, 2006 at 5:53 AM | PERMALINK

Help Mom, there's someone listening on the phone!
Help Mom, that commentator's a druggie!
Help Mom, my President's a liar!


Posted by: Cyby on June 28, 2006 at 6:46 AM | PERMALINK

And in the background, I hear someone humming a song from "South Pacific" -- "You've got to be carefully taught".

Today's Republican values are the values of a lynch mob:
1. Be angry!
2. Be afraid!
3. Don't think!

Posted by: Jim Ramsey on June 28, 2006 at 7:48 AM | PERMALINK

Help! There are Lawyers in my Loincloth!

Posted by: Noumenon on June 28, 2006 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

As Rogers and Hammerstein put it:

You've got to be taught, before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught.

Posted by: Rod Hoffman on June 28, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Help! There are loinclothes on my lawyers!

Posted by: Uouemnou on June 28, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's a Republican In My Government!

Posted by: Indiana Joe on June 28, 2006 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

How sad that some conservatives (not all -- just some) are so steeped in irrational hatred for their fellow Americans who dare to disagree with them, that they feel compelled to deprive their own children of their innocence by indoctrinating them with such inappropriate and grotesque political bigotry.

I'm with you, Donald from Hawaii. Kids should have their innocence, if only for the parents' sake. It's hard enough to keep them from being selfish, rude and belligerent, now is not the time for someone to come along and say "hey, we've got a political philosophy for that!"

Posted by: sweaty guy on June 28, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

Hey -- if it's an ambiguity, I'd rather err on the side of graciousness.

Bob, John's a troll. He's just trying to incite.

Posted by: Stefan on June 28, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I'm a Young Republican and They're Making Fun of Me For Not Enlisting for Iraq!

Posted by: Stefan on June 28, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! There's a Republican In My Government!

Yikes! The scariest title yet!

Can I add a subtitle?

Help! Mom! There's a Republican In My Government! (and We Didn't Elect Him)


Posted by: aw shucks on June 28, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

So what's her real name?

=

Posted by: JRI on June 28, 2006 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Just how do you get "Hollywood in My Hamper" anyway? What the hell does that mean?

This conservaloony abuse of language must end!

Posted by: craigie on June 28, 2006 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Hint to American Hawk: Gay recruitment propaganda is NOT why you can't get laid.

It reminds me of when I was single and out with friends, and guys would hit on us and we'd politely rebuff them, and one of them would say, "What are you, GAY?" To which I was tempted to reply, "Are you the alternative?"

Now, I'm married, but of course that is in dire jeopardy from the homos. If they are allowed to marry, then my marriage is clearly in humongous peril and will fold like an Isaac Mizrahi sheet.

Some more titles:

"Help, Mom, the Bushes stole my country!"

"Help, Mom, that ranting, skinny bleached-blonde woman is way older than you and still dresses like my junior high classmates!"

"Help, Mom, they want to draft me to Iran!"

"Help, Mom, I'm drowning in federal debt to pay for rich folks' tax cuts!"

"Help, Mom, the air is chewy!"

"Help, Mom, Disney World is under water!"

"Help, Mom, Rush Limbaugh is playing ring-toss with something funny!"

"Help, Mom, Grandma was nabbed for stealing digitalis again!"

"Help, Mom, Rick Santorum is saying weird things about men and dogs!"

"Help, Mom, somebody stole my student loan!"

"Help, Mom, Dick Cheney's hunting in the backyard!"

Posted by: sullijan on June 28, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

This many comments, and no one has alluded to Tom Lehrer's quote yet?

Posted by: K on June 28, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

K:

Oh the Hindus hat the Moslems
And the Moslems hate the Hindus
The Catholics hate the Protestants
But everybody hates the Jews!

Oh it's -- National Brotherhood Week
National Brotherhood Week
The New Yorkers love the Puerto Ricans cuz it's very chic

So, go and shake the hand
Of someone you can't stand
It's only for a week, so have no fear

Be thankful that it doesn't last all year!

--Tom Leherer

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

That's a song, not a quote.

Posted by: K on June 28, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

rush limbaugh's latest dity: help! mom! some limp-dick liberal put viagra in my suit case!

Posted by: mudwall jackson on June 28, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

K:

Well gee wilikers then, why don't you clue us IN, man ...

:)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1: And, given some previous knowledge, I'm sure now that I did.

Shortstop: My humblest apologies.

The previous knowledge is what took me aback that you'd snark at me for that very thing.

Twice with the "previous knowledge" business. What "previous knowledge" is that, Bob?

Posted by: shortstop on June 28, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know which is more amusing, the titles and the mindset behind the amazing Help!Mom! series...or the many, many parodies on this thread.

Help! Mom! The liberal posters on Washington Monthly are making me laugh!

Posted by: PTate in MN on June 28, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

The previous knowledge (gleaned from passing comments on other threads) -- which I didn't want to baldly state because I have no intention of rubbing this in your face, but now you're insisting I tell you -- that you're a recovering alcoholic, shortstop.

That's why I was so shocked by what I read as a snarky comment after revealing the death of my mother from that disease.

Why, incidentally, do you think we have such a signal failure to communicate, btw?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, I did try addressing this in e-mail early this morning, only to be ignored. I couldn't believe you were doing what I thought you were doing. But you were. I'll be damned.

If you actually, honestly think I snarked your mother for her alcoholism, I'm not holding out a lot of hope that you're going to get what I'm about to say to you. But I know from reading these threads that others have a more sophisticated understanding of this disease than you exhibit, and that many share my opinion of your posting style. So this is probably worth posting for them.

As it happens, I am a recovering alcoholic, a fact I'm neither ashamed of nor likely to announce to the entire readership of a political blog.

Every single comment I've made regarding addiction on these threads is equally likely to have come from a person who has knowledge of addiction and recovery from a) her own experience, b) her experience watching or living with an addicted family member or loved one, c) education or a job in treatment, such as a healthcare professional, or d) some combination of the above.

That you would conclude from my comments that I had somehow publicly identified myself on this blog as an alcoholic speaks to your unfortunate tendency to jump to conclusions. To then use this conclusion to make cryptic and, as one other poster has described them, vaguely threatening remarks is beyond the pale.

To do what you just did is so far out of bounds it's coming around the other side.

You're a world-class dick, Bob.

Posted by: shortstop on June 28, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Do I hate the right people yet?

Posted by: Miller on June 28, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK


RMCK1: I have no intention of rubbing this in your face, but now you're insisting I tell you
Feel for you, poor fellow. This reminds me of the way my ex-wife, by simply looking at me in that way of hers, used to make me beat her.
RMCK1: Why, incidentally, do you think we have such a signal failure to communicate, btw?
Could it be because you speak a dead language, understood only by those who are dead inside?


Posted by: jayarbee on June 28, 2006 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

No, my dear, *you* are a world-class bitch.

What an over-the-top, completely inappropriate response.

1) As many people know, I run a non-multitasking interface. I haven't checked my email since early afternoon, and you live two time zones away. So I did not "ignore" your email; I simply haven't seen it yet.

2) As snicker-snack pointed out, I misinterpreted your post. I *apologized* for it. When John tried to stir things up, I said I'd prefer to err on the side of graciousness.

3) I used "previous knowledge" precisely to speak in code to you alone so I wouldn't have to rub this in your face. You insisted on asking me publicly what I meant -- when the context of my apology should have made it painfully (and it was painful for me) obvious. So -- in answer to a direct question -- I told you.

4) I did not jump to conclusions. I used inference and intuition -- and I was correct. I've dated a recovering alcoholic; I'm familiar the 12-Step community. I know the lingo (and lords know you'd think I would -- after witnessing my mother's liver rot away like a skid row drunk on our living room couch for the last nine months of her life). You don't have to make a direct admission for a person experienced in that world to pick up on the way you talk about drinking.

5) "Threatening?" That's merely your own paranoia. I haven't the remotest clue what you or anyone else could be referring to.

Shortstop, we haven't fought in anything like a prolonged fashion, but for the six or so months I've been posting here, you've exhibited a tendency to take potshots at me, and I've never quite figured out why. So when you snarked at the wit of my post -- after I had made an admission like that -- well, considering your experience with the disease my mother died of, to be perfectly honest my first impression was to think that this was pretty goddamned mean-spirited of you.

Then snicker-snack alerted me to another explanation -- that you meant my post wasn't funny (which it started out to be; I had no idea at first that topic-inspired scenario would wind up where it did in the end) because it was so damned horrific. You weren't dissing my wit; you were acknowledging the pain.

So I apologized for my initial one-line reaction. And I referenced "previous knowledge" for the sole sake of letting you understand why I reacted the way I did.

I bent over backwards to be gracious and discreet.

And I got a flame up my ass for my trouble.

Darling -- this is entirely your issue, not mine.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

You are without any question one of the most consistently pretentious, self-important posters I've ever had the misfortune of reading on a blog.

Try reading in context. It's less overrated than you think.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

For YEARS, liberals have put gay recruitment propaganda in classrooms filled with six year olds.

And why do all these homosexuals keep sucking my cock?

Posted by: American Hawk on June 28, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

One final point about this, because it's really kind of important.

I never in a bazillion years would have publicly identified you if it wasn't in direct response -- let's be honest -- to a rather beligerent question.

The answer to it, I might add, that you really should have strongly suspected.

I was perfectly ready to let the whole thing drop. I had apologized. John tried to stir it up, and I demurred. Nobody here would have known what those cryptic comments referred to, and if you were really curious -- instead of jumping to the conclusion that I had ignored you, you might have waited a little bit until I got around to reading and responding to my email.

If you don't want to hear the answer -- don't ask the question.

It's really just that simple.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

Well, I just checked my mail, and either I'm going blind or your post didn't go through.

Understand I run PINE and have no junkmail filter, so I manually scan through and delete pages of crud at a time. I don't miss stuff, though. I correspond with people on this forum there, and in fact that's my only email address.

I have no idea if your address is fake. Please feel free to re-send, if you'd like to hash this out; I have no desire to become or remain your "enemy."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Bob, what you don't seem able to get, and what jayarbee illustrated so perfectly--that analogy was dead on, if you could just once see how you come off to others--is that you had other choices besides dropping "code" messages and "rubbing my face in it" (honestly, can you not hear yourself and see what's wrong with this?).

You could, for example, have recognized that one person expressing, snarkily to be sure, the widely held disregard for your posting style does not translate into mocking your dead mother's alcoholism. Instead, you lashed out, feeling that you had no choice, no, sir, but to turn your issues with alcohol--your issues, Bob: your post, your assumption that all responses to it were about your mother's addiction rather than about your endless verbal masturbation--onto me.

You used another person's addiction as a weapon in a public forum. Do they run the program differently where you live, Bob?

I know you're not ever going to get it. You never do, to our everlasting rolling eyes. But have the grace to shut your fucking mouth for a little while now.

Posted by: shortstop on June 28, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK


RMCK1: I bent over backwards to be gracious and discreet.
That's only true if your gracious, discreet, backward bend = holding a club over someone's head and threatening to bring it down hard if they don't acknowledge your wit and intuition.

It's only true if "inference and intuition" = "previous knowledge."

It's only true if "dissing my wit" = a need to "speak in code," else a necessity to "rub this in your face."

Listen, you stinking piece of shit, your wit, such as it is, is not protected, either by moral obligation or by rules of this public forum, from any and all disses which may be levied against it. On the other hand, the personal and very private struggles which your fellow commenters may have faced are not fair game under any standard of decency for either your coded or open speculation about them on the basis of your intuition, psychic abilities or any other phony talents your deranged ego assigns to itself.

You're through here, pal. You haven't exposed shortstop; you've exposed yourself as a damaged personality, no less rotted than your mother's liver.

You're far too immersed in your piggish wallowing in both self-pity and self-delusions to realize it--and too divorced from wisdom to act wisely--but the only wise course for you is to go away quietly.


Posted by: jayarbee on June 28, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

> Bob, what you don't seem able to get, and what jayarbee
> illustrated so perfectly--that analogy was dead on,

Well, with a poster like jayarbee as your ally ...

> if you could just once see how you come off to others--is
> that you had other choices besides dropping "code" messages
> and "rubbing my face in it" (honestly, can you not
> hear yourself and see what's wrong with this?).

Empathy? I've bent over backwards to try to be charitable to you,
to spin what *was* indeed a nasty dis (as it turns out) into a darkly
ironic comment -- the way snicker-snack read it. Why don't you try
for one split-second imagining what it felt like to read a snark like
that *after* I had just made myself so vulnerable on a public forum.

> You could, for example, have recognized that one person expressing,
> snarkily to be sure, the widely held disregard for your posting style

"Widely held disregard for [my] posting style?" By whom? What kind
of 14-year-old lunchroom BPD game is this? I'm going to sound like a
self-important idiot for saying this, but you forced me into it. My
posts get tons of praise, shortstop. Don't believe me -- scan the
comments when I'm in a thread. You won't drop the names of this
vast horde of Bob haters, but I *will* drop a name. Go talk to
Windhorse. He and I have a tight email relationship and he thinks
(with an absurd amount of praise that I really don't deserve) I'm
one of the best writers he's ever seen on a blog. Jesus Christ.

> does not translate into mocking your dead mother's alcoholism.

Cute straw man. Like I'd ever believe in a gazillion years that
were the case. But a cheap snark after an admission like that
doesn't have to remotely address my mother to be entirely vicious.

> Instead, you lashed out, feeling that you had no choice, no,
> sir, but to turn your issues with alcohol--your issues, Bob:

I have *knock on wood* no issues with alcohol, dear.

> your post, your assumption that all responses to it
> were about your mother's addiction rather than about
> your endless verbal masturbation--onto me.

WTF? A one-line reaction -- and then a one-screen apology. With a
charitable interpretation that you apparently didn't remotely deserve.

And I was all set to let the whole thing drop until you provoked
a confrontation by freaking out at an answer to your own question
which you should have damn well prepared yourself for beforehand.

Yeah, shortstop. These really are all my issues, aren't they ...

> You used another person's addiction as a weapon in a public
> forum. Do they run the program differently where you live, Bob?

I used an oblique reference no one else would catch to another
person's addiction in a public forum to promote understanding.

And then I truthfully answered a direct question that was
apparently designed precisely to sucker-punch me into this.

> I know you're not ever going to get it. You
> never do, to our everlasting rolling eyes.

"Our." How very Borderline Personality Disorder.

Like this mythical hoarde of Bob haters is now going to
swarm PA to highfive you for such a righteous takedown ...

> But have the grace to shut your
> fucking mouth for a little while now.

Makes you feel real powerful to issue commands like that, huh.

Why don't you just own up to the fact that you got a real charge out of kicking me immediately after I shared the story of how my mother manipulated me into sleeping with her.

You're in denial about your own malice, shortstop.

And let's see if *you* ever manage to get it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

You're not a regular here. You're a freakazoid radical leftist troll who shows up for the occasional driveby.

There's not a prayer that a dude like yourself could ever get under my skin.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Go talk to Windhorse. He and I have a tight email relationship and he thinks (with an absurd amount of praise that I really don't deserve) I'm
one of the best writers he's ever seen on a blog.

I do happen to think you're one the best writers on this blog, something I've made clear not only to you but to others I've corresponded with here.

But your behavior in this thread has been reprehensible. You had no right to reveal personal information about anyone here that is emotionally sensitive and potentially damaging to them no matter what the reason, no matter how vulnerable you felt (which was a choice you made, by the way).

And then to casually justify your actions and dismiss the enormity of their implications just because you feel that person has been snarky or belligerent to you lately is just beyond the pale.

You can't see that???

In one of our correspondences you expressed concern that I might reveal sensitive information that you'd shared with me because you'd been "burned" before.

And then you turned around and did exactly that to shortstop.

Just yesterday you complained when Stefan made an "uber serious" diagnosis of Wooten, that such a thing was out of bounds in a public forum like this.

And then you turned around and did exactly that to shortstop.

I don't know how you can be so blind to just how utterly outrageous your behavior has been here.

And when shortstop rightly called you out on your behavior you owed her a further apology, not an an all-out attack back on her. You've seriously hurt someone by lashing out at them unthinkingly -- I can only guess because you didn't get the response you'd hoped for when you shared intimate biographical info in a public forum where the mood is often belligerent at best, in a thread whose topic couldn't have been more inappropriate.

Of course, this is a matter which I would have rather handled by email -- which is exactly what you should have done had you used any sense.

Posted by: Windhorse on June 28, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! Cheney's Got a Gun!

Someone needs to rerecord Aerosmith's Janie's got a gun.
Posted by: snicker-snack on June 28, 2006 at 12:39 AM

Could have have seriously beleived that someone hadn't?

http://www.toonedin.com/cheney.html

Posted by: LeonS on June 28, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse:

Well, good sir, I'm going to have to beg to differ with you -- though not at all on the fundamental principle you're asserting.

I absolutely did not reveal confidential personal information in a public thread, nor would I ever do such a thing.

I made an educated guess, based on my background in the subject, based on a whole string of offhanded public comments. We all form strong intuitions about who each other are, and to pretend that we don't, or that these areas remain isolated from our views of each other's posts is to deny human nature.

I made an oblique reference to this information with no malicious intent whatsoever. In fact, the reference was to convey to shortstop precisely why I thought my initial one-line pained reaction was wrong. I was telling her that this mutual area of life we share is precisely why I *couldn't* read her comment maliciously.

And that interpretation turned out to be entirely wrong ... but I kept with it after being provoked by a troll precisely to keep the peace and shut down the conversation.

There are several mistakes that I am, however, more than willing to own up to.

First, I never should have answered shortstop's direct question. I should have told her we shouldn't talk about that publicly. I read the question as beligerent and provocative -- and I succumbed to temptation.

To be entirely fair though -- I don't think shortstop should have asked the question to begin with -- but I'm only answerable for my own behavior.

As for the psychologizing in the exchanges with her -- it's entirely tacky, I know. In the heat of a flamewar, once again I succumbed to the darker angels of my nature.

Email? Yes, absolutely. I never got the mail that shortstop said she sent me. Had I, I'm sure we could have avoided this entire exchange.

I'm open to email dialogues with all parties if anyone thinks we should take this off the blog at this point.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 28, 2006 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

I'm open to email dialogues with all parties if anyone thinks we should take this off the blog at this point.

Yes, I think any further discussion of this matter if any should be handled by email.

Posted by: Windhorse on June 28, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINK

First, I never should have answered shortstop's direct question... and I succumbed to temptation.

Yes.

but I'm only answerable for my own behavior.

Yes.

I think any further discussion of this matter if any should be handled by email.

Yes.

(I've always enjoyed the postings of bob, shortstop and windhorse; but today I learned things I have no right to know)

Posted by: snicker-snack on June 29, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Moron-Americans have rights too you know.


The voice of Moron-Americans has for too long been suppressed.

Posted by: owlbear1 on June 29, 2006 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

snicker-snack:

> (I've always enjoyed the postings of bob, shortstop and
> windhorse; but today I learned things I have no right to know)

Understood. And let me thank you for being a voice for
reconciliation and peace in your initial contribution to the exchange.

I'm not bringing this up to perpetuate the argument. Lords know, I
detest argument ad-hominem, and this has been the mother *cough* of
all ad-hominem arguments. I really need to take a shower ...

But it's very important to keep this in mind: Every post you write
on a public forum is out there somewhere, googlable. I'm probably
not the only one out there who's learned that the hard way. If
you cite the type of work you do, and somebody doesn't like that
-- expect it to be thrown in your face out of the clear blue sky.

I certainly didn't google during this fracas -- that's only asking for
trouble. I simply used my memory. When you post with the same people
over a period of months, you begin to notice patterns; it's just
human nature. Had you read the same public posts that I did, s-s,
you very well might have drawn precisely the same conclusion. I'm not
clairvoyant and I'm not nosy. Had I leared these facts from a mutual
friend or acquaintence and spilled them here -- I'd be ban-worthy.

That happened to me on the NYT Iraq forum. A charming guy befriended
several folks there who were also my friends. Turns out he wasn't
so charming; he picked their brains of what they knew of me -- truly
private stuff I'd never dream of sharing publicly -- and started
throwing it in my face during flamewars. Who do I blame for this?
The confidences my friends shared were fairly innocent, if private.
I'm not really angry at them for telling this guy. Nobody believed
at the time that he'd turn out to be such an asshole and violate
an unspoken confidence rule that friends are supposed to honor.

So the cardinal rule here is: Don't say *anything*, at *any
time*, in *any context*, that you wouldn't want getting back to you.
It's really that simple. Don't consistently cite past behaviors,
especially in a serious voice, if you'd prefer never to be known
by them. Don't pretend that you can control your story; you
can't. It's not to say that shouldn't share personal stories
or info -- just don't expect what you say to remain *private*.
Even without google, people have memories, and people will talk.

Notice I'm not defending rumor, gossip, innuendo, prejudice,
unjustified inference, false intuitions, repeating impressions
of people as if they were facts. I'm not *defending* the uglier
aspects of human nature. I'm simply saying you have to expect
them, and protect yourself accordingly. If you choose to slam
somebody really hard, and there's something about your background
that would make the slam-ee go "jesus fucking christ, what a
flaming hypocrite!" -- expect that aspect of your background
that you publicly shared to be included in the rejoinder.

Houses, glass, people and stones and all that.

Sadly enough perhaps, this kind of personal
discretion is the price of posting on public fora.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK


RMCK1: Well, with a poster like jayarbee as your ally ...
That's an interesting remark from someone who claims, "Lords know, I detest argument ad-hominem."
I've bent over backwards to try to be charitable to you,
That's twice now in this thread that you've bragged about your amazingly flexible back. Any normal man would be immobile from all that bending over backward. When I think of the pain it would cause me to tell the world that I was such a gracious fellow that, in case of any ambiguity, I was willing to give someone who had been sarcastic to me the benefit of the doubt, well, my back erupts into excrutiating spasms. And so charitable! You just don't stop giving, do you?
what *was* indeed a nasty dis (as it turns out)
A nasty dis! Indeed, as you say! So what was it that she said again? Something about how ugly and stupid and clumsy and pathetic you are, was it? I can't seem to remember offhand. Let me check.....okay, I found it:
RMCK1: Don't laugh too hard, people.
SHORTSTOP: Oh, trust us; we're not.
GASP!!! NASTEE!!! My back is hurting again just thinking about how charitable I'd have to be to not retaliate with righteous rage at that horribly nasty remark. Why, I'd be tempted to wrack my giant brain in order to come up with some intuited "previous knowledge" just so I could avoid having to let loose my fury upon the vicious typist behind those words: "Oh, trust us, we're not."
Why don't you try for one split-second imagining what it felt like to read a snark like that *after* I had just made myself so vulnerable on a public forum.
Snark like that--or, in other words, because I don't think we can say it often enough: "Oh, trust us, we're not." Yep. Doesn't matter how many times I see it, I shiver to my bones. Anyway, every split-second or so, I have been imagining what it must have been like for you...you know, the hideous torture of it. But then I keep coming back to the rather more relevant point that this forum is not Al-anon nor an incest survivors group. Still, your vulnerability is touching--even if it didn't elicit the sort of sympathy you thought was due someone who virtually exposed his naked soul.
What kind of 14-year-old lunchroom BPD game is this?

BPD, eh? Whereas, were it not for the fact that you "detest argument ad-hominem," you'd have accused her of...what? Manic-depression?
I'm going to sound like a self-important idiot for saying this, but you forced me into it.
Self-important idiot? Hardly. It's just that you're bending over backward again, but this time shortstop, a well-known bully--powerfully built--is literally twisting you back like a pretzel with her bare hands.
My posts get tons of praise, shortstop. . . . Go talk to Windhorse.
Would be hard to get tons of praise from the single reference you provide, even if he's a stallion. But, okay, let's see what he has to say about you:

WINDHORSE: your behavior in this thread has been reprehensible.

And then to casually justify your actions and dismiss the enormity of their implications just because you feel that person has been snarky or belligerent to you lately is just beyond the pale.

I don't know how you can be so blind to just how utterly outrageous your behavior has been here.

Just a quick tip for you, buddy...if ever you happen to apply for a job, follow the recommendations of employment counselors who urge everyone to check with individuals before using them as a reference.

Um, anybody else? No? All right, let's move on.

He and I have a tight email relationship and he thinks (with an absurd amount of praise that I really don't deserve) I'm one of the best writers he's ever seen on a blog. Jesus Christ.
Tight? Nice to have friends. But I see you're dropping, along with absurdly phony humility, another name now: Jesus Christ. Is he a good writer too? You guys tight? Taught you everything you know about being charitable, didn't he?
But a cheap snark after an admission like that doesn't have to remotely address my mother to be entirely vicious.
This "entirely vicious" "cheap snark" is one and the same with the aforementioned "nasty dis," right? Time to look at that again: "Oh, trust us; we're not." Tell me, can you think of still more colorful ways to describe shortstop's remark? I've got some ideas if you're running low. How about "inexpensive terrorism?" Or "evil saying." Or "enemy agitation." Feel free to use those.
I have *knock on wood* no issues with alcohol, dear.
In the rapture of your vulnerability you tell us that at age 9 you were sexually abused by your drunken mother who died on your couch of a rotting liver 4 years later, and yet you expect us not to combine that "previous knowledge" together with "intuition" and suppose you just might have an eensy-teensy issue with alcohol?
With a charitable interpretation that you apparently didn't remotely deserve.
No, because anyone who would make a vicious, nasty, snarky dis of a remark like, "Oh, trust us; we're not," is clearly not deserving, even remotely, of any charity whatsoever.
And I was all set to let the whole thing drop until you provoked a confrontation by freaking out at an answer to your own question which you should have damn well prepared yourself for beforehand.
You treat a political blog like it's your psychiatrist's couch where you free-associate your most traumatic childhood memories, and then have the nerve to accuse someone on whom you've practiced your own amateur analysis of "freaking out?"
Yeah, shortstop. These really are all my issues, aren't they
They most assuredly are, Mr. Previous Knowledge.
I used an oblique reference no one else would catch to another person's addiction in a public forum to promote understanding.
You talk about this "oblique" reference (other times calling it "cryptic" or "coded"), implying that it was something that only you and shortstop could possibly know the meaning of--as if only your brilliant mind possesses intuition or whatever the fuck you think you have. But even giving you that conceit, by virtue of the reference being so obviously oblique--so obviously cryptic--you leave open to the entire world the implication that the two of you have some secret shared thing going on away from these columns...as if she might be your disloyal therapist...or betraying lover. Under the guise of protecting her secret that only you could have divined, you lay her open to the wildest possible speculation involving your smarmy and vulnerable self and call it charity. All because she said, "Oh, trust us; we're not."
And then I truthfully answered a direct question that was apparently designed precisely to sucker-punch me into this.
No, you thick-headed basket case, it was designed to give you the opportunity to redeem yourself by telling the truth and apologizing. By saying, "You're right. I have no "previous knowledge" about any private matters in your life. I am truly sorry for implying otherwise. I beg your forgiveness. I don't know what came over me. I can only guess that the topic under discussion must have caused me to relive childhood trauma, bringing about a snap with reality--sort of a battle fatigue, shell shock or post-traumatic stress disorder, if you will. Again, I am sincerely sorry."
Why don't you just own up to the fact that you got a real charge out of kicking me immediately after I shared the story of how my mother manipulated me into sleeping with her. You're in denial about your own malice, shortstop.
She didn't kick you, you raving son of a drunk pervert! Once more, this is what she did: "Oh, trust us; we're not." That is not a kick; it is not malicious. Your "oblique reference" was.

By the way, there was nothing in your rambling, originally-intending-to-be-funny, pseudo-pedophilic dialog that in any way revealed an inappropriate sexual relationship between your mother and you. Not until you seem to be stating that fact (if it is such) above, does it impact your professed vulnerability (and cry for sympathy) or have anything to do with shortstop's "vicious" 5-word critique.

Understood. And let me thank you for being a voice for reconciliation and peace in your initial contribution to the exchange.
There's that graciousness of yours again. It's a beautiful thing. And handy, just in case you find yourself in the future again in need of a character reference.
Lords know, I detest argument ad-hominem, and this has been the mother *cough* of all ad-hominem arguments.
I think you're being too charitable with yourself. Your argument has been the motherfucker of all ad-hominem arguments. (I can say that because of "previous knowledge.")
I really need to take a shower ...
Finally. I think you're expressing the sentiment of just about anyone reading what has amounted to your clinical history.
But it's very important to keep this in mind: Every post you write on a public forum is out there somewhere, googlable. I'm probably not the only one out there who's learned that the hard way.
You haven't learned anything, pal. Don't presume to sit here and lecture us like some wizened, veteran victim of the very shit you spread and toss.
I certainly didn't google during this fracas -- that's only asking for trouble. I simply used my memory.
No, fool...Google is your friend! Use it now and c'mon back and show us what you got! You got nothing! Not one bit of "previous knowledge" will you find, you lying sack of shit. Your memory? You trust that after Mom? Did you inherit your "intuition" from her along with fetal alcohol syndrome?
When you post with the same people over a period of months, you begin to notice patterns; it's just human nature. Had you read the same public posts that I did, s-s, you very well might have drawn precisely the same conclusion. I'm not clairvoyant and I'm not nosy.
You're really amusing stumbling around trying to sound reasonable. You talk abut patterns and human nature as if your own patterns and nature don't point to a woman-hating serial rapist or killer.
Had I leared these facts from a mutual
friend or acquaintence and spilled them here -- I'd be ban-worthy.
You are ban-worthy. Begone!
That happened to me on the NYT Iraq forum. A charming guy befriended several folks there who were also my friends.
Sounds like another reference you can't count on, huh? As for friends, isn't that stretching it a little, Bob? Hmmm?
Turns out he wasn't so charming; he picked their brains of what they knew of me -- truly private stuff I'd never dream of sharing publicly -- and started throwing it in my face during flamewars. Who do I blame for this? The confidences my friends shared were fairly innocent, if private. I'm not really angry at them for telling this guy. Nobody believed at the time that he'd turn out to be such an asshole and violate an unspoken confidence rule that friends are supposed to honor. So the cardinal rule here is: Don't say *anything*, at *any time*, in *any context*, that you wouldn't want getting back to you. It's really that simple. Don't consistently cite past behaviors, especially in a serious voice, if you'd prefer never to be known by them. Don't pretend that you can control your story; you can't. It's not to say that shouldn't share personal stories or info -- just don't expect what you say to remain *private*. Even without google, people have memories, and people will talk. Notice I'm not defending rumor, gossip, innuendo, prejudice, unjustified inference, false intuitions, repeating impressions of people as if they were facts. I'm not *defending* the uglier aspects of human nature. I'm simply saying you have to expect them, and protect yourself accordingly. If you choose to slam somebody really hard, and there's something about your background that would make the slam-ee go "jesus fucking christ, what a flaming hypocrite!" -- expect that aspect of your background that you publicly shared to be included in the rejoinder. Houses, glass, people and stones and all that. Sadly enough perhaps, this kind of personal discretion is the price of posting on public fora.
Listen to you going on and on and on! You sit here warning others about the unsavory people online, not realizing you're describing yourself. Why am I experiencing deja vu right now? Oh, yeah, I know why; it's because upthread you said this about me: "You are without any question one of the most consistently pretentious, self-important posters I've ever had the misfortune of reading on a blog." Apart from Pine and poorly formatted blog comments, projection really is your forte, isn't it, Bob?

Get lost.


Posted by: jayarbee on June 29, 2006 at 7:08 AM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

I'm giving this thead the greatest gift it could have.

I didn't read your posts :)

It's been agreed by the adults to take what remains of the conflict to email. That we have done. No point in rehasing an argument that's already grown quite tiresome for a troll interlocutor.

You know what, jayarbee?

No-one else will, either.

Sad story, huh.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 7:19 AM | PERMALINK


I didn't read your posts :)
Liar :)

Hahaha!


Posted by: jayarbee on June 29, 2006 at 7:35 AM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

I skimmed them. It was all that was necessary.

Look, bro -- you can't flame me. In order for you to flame me, I'd have to take you seriously.

I take shortstop seriously. I take Windhorse and snicker-snack seriously. They're regulars.

You're a troll. A left-wing troll, maybe -- but a troll is still a troll.

And like I say -- it's a sad story.

But there it is.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK


RMCK1: You're a troll. A left-wing troll, maybe -- but a troll is still a troll. And like I say -- it's a sad story.

Tell it to your mom in hell, you sick fuck :)


Posted by: jayarbee on June 29, 2006 at 7:56 AM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

LOL!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

Is there any other trollish response you may have left out when I wasn't looking?

Just as long as, you know, you're working it out of your system.

Mother insults, check. Have you gone through criminality, incest, bestiality? Music taste?

Just trying to be helpful here ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

ah, good morning, mr. jayarbee. Up all night undermining the Republic again? I love that in a troll.

An A-plus--and a big thank you--for your passion, persistence, analysis and rhetorical skill, but he won't ever get it. He just can't.

Come on, I'll buy you a virtual doughnut. The chocolate kind with those little sprinkles on top.* Time to go...

*Extra points for getting movie reference

Posted by: shortstop on June 29, 2006 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop:

You got my email, I hope.

As long as you're here, let me add something I forgot.

I absolutely shouldn't have answered your question publicly. I should have said that if you'd like to know what I meant, we can talk about it in email.

That's really the only major regret I have about the whole thing.

I liked some of what I saw of jayarbee's posts, too. The part about me being a woman-hating killer or rapist was particularly observant.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK


GERARD: Well, think me up a cup of coffee and a chocolate doughnut with some of those little sprinkles on top, while you're thinking.


Posted by: jayarbee on June 29, 2006 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

Smiling broadly...I never doubted you'd get it. C'mon, let's go.

Posted by: shortstop on June 29, 2006 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINK


RMCK1: That's really the only major regret I have about the whole thing.

And that, Mr. Previous Knowledge, is what makes you the troll :)


Posted by: jayarbee on June 29, 2006 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

That would assume that my initial comments had malicious intent to begin with.

As it was, it as an exasperated response to a direct question.

I thought it was kind of trollish for shortstop to *ask* the question, if the point she was trying to make was not to go there ...

But that's not part of the deal that was under my control.

Not exercising proper restraint is what happens to regular posters when they get sucked into responding to provocation.

Oh well ... live and learn.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK


Bob, Bob, Bob...

You're still sitting here flailing away at the truth. It didn't start with this "direct question" you're so obsessed with. It started, as you've been told repeatedly by anyone addressing this matter, with your "previous knowledge" crap. It doesn't matter if you treat alcoholics for a living and were convinced you were right about her, you had no business making any reference, no matter how cryptic or oblique. You crossed a line, pal. You're still crossing it.

But you're on your own now. Forget about posting belated Google searches or saved ones. Just forget it all. Begone with you!

Okay, just to show my gratitude for all your lessons in charity, I'll toss you a bone. You want to make it right? There's one way. Type out what you see below and then post it to shortstop.

"You're right. I have no "previous knowledge" about any private matters in your life. I am truly sorry for implying otherwise. I beg your forgiveness. I don't know what came over me. I can only guess that the topic under discussion must have caused me to relive childhood trauma, bringing about a snap with reality--sort of a battle fatigue, shell shock or post-traumatic stress disorder, if you will. Again, I am sincerely sorry."

Failing that... Get lost!


Posted by: jayarbee on June 29, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

Well, that was interesting.

Posted by: John on June 29, 2006 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

jayarbee:

(Why am I responding to this?)

> You're still sitting here flailing away at the truth. It didn't
> start with this "direct question" you're so obsessed with. It
> started, as you've been told repeatedly by anyone addressing
> this matter, with your "previous knowledge" crap.

G. M. A. F. B. "Previous knowledge" is what you have when you
post day in and day out with a group of the same people on a blog.
I have "previous knowledge" of you, you have "previous knowledge"
of me, shortstop has "previous knowledge" of the both of us and
we all have "previous knowledge" of the trolls.

If you don't want some aspect of your personal life discussed
on a blog, THEN DON'T TALK ABOUT IT. Just have goddamed
difficult is this for you, shortstop or anybody to understand?

This is not a matter of occult knowledge here. There are quotes
of shortstop's I'm recalling now that if I recited them to you,
it would make my conclusion blindingly obvious. You can't say
something about yourself and then decide that repeating back
the obvious implication of what you said is somehow dirty pool.

And the funhouse mirror hypocrisy about this issue is off the
scale. People draw the wildlest, nastiest, most unfounded
conclusions about others here all the flippin' time -- and
assert them as if they were Gospel. Here's an example:

There's a guy here named Jay who is, by his own gleeful
admission, a GOP troll -- but otherwise a fairly harmless guy.
Well, one day Jay was ranting about how Janet Reno torched Waco.
Somebody responded that Koresh was a child molester. Jay's
response was that -- while that of course is henious, it's
still better to be fucked by Koresh than torched alive.

From this fragment of rhetorical hyperbole, several regulars here
-- including shortstop -- started calling Jay a child molester.

A child molester, JRB. With a straight face. That's fucking *libel*.

I was extremely clumsy. I was honestly too naive to accept the
fact that shortstop detests everything about me. So I brought up
"previous knowledge" -- an experience we shared -- as a way of
saying that my initial gut reaction to her post was wrong, because
sharing that knowledge, she couldn't have attempted to attack me then.

Well, my initial gut reaction was right. Because shortstop's
hostile to me, she assumed I was being hostile to her -- when
I was attempting to hold out an olive branch. Instead, she
saw it as a billy club. Had I percieved her true reaction to
that post, I never would have tried any "previous knowledge."

And her ultimate response was to bait me into answering the question.

Which I never should have fucking done.

End of story.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

I tried to warn you.

Posted by: John on June 29, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

John:

You did. And Stefan -- entirely well-meaning, I'm sure -- called you a troll for your trouble.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

No trouble. Sorry you had to go through that in any event.

Posted by: John on June 29, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

John:

It's not a big deal. Lords know, I've been through worse.

It's a shame. I've always respected shortstop. I think she's an extremely intelligent person and a very good writer.

I made a clumsy-ass attempt to try to forge some kind of bond -- and I fell flat on my ass.

But I've learned from it, and that's what counts.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

Her loss. Your a wonderful man.

Posted by: John on June 29, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Wow, my first ever "fake" John post.

Posted by: John on June 29, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

John:

Now waitaminute :)

j/k

And anyway, shortstop's married. This wasn't like a crush or anything -- just a matter of trying to forge respect with a political ally.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

John:

I take an empirical -- nay, phenomenological -- approach to cyber-identities. Essence is elusive in this medium.

You are what you're saying at the moment you're saying it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

John:

I mean for all I know, Stefan could be right and you could be a troll.

Our you could be a perfectly sincere person with a strange sense of humor :)

Hey guess what? Ask me if I care either way.

Librio Ergo Sum (or something like that).

I post, therefore I am.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

THE END OF SATIRE

Indeed

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 29, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Pierre:

You know -- I was thinking the same thing about 10 posts ago ...

Indeed is right.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Help, Mom! There are Fundies in my Undies!

Posted by: David E. on June 29, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! I'm a compulsive kleptomaniac and I'm in love with a wahabi Muslim!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! The Iraqi Security Forces stole all my best porn downloads!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! My Literary Analysis professor told me that Donald Rumsfeld's press briefings don't *actually* qualify as existential poetry -- except as a kind of lame, postmodernist joke!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! A transvestite burgular stole all my Ann Coulter posters!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! My new girlfriend tells me she can't have an orgasm unless George Bush's approval ratings are cracking 40% -- and Rasmussen doesn't count!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Help! Mom! My fraternity brothers want to crash next week's GOP fundraiser and roast a pig in the atrium!

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Understand I run PINE and have no junkmail filter, so I manually scan through and delete pages of crud at a time.

You run PINE in a non-multitasking interface, hunh? What would that be, DOS 3.3? What web browsers run well in DOS?

I think you're both full of it.

Posted by: F'in Librul on June 29, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

F'in Librul:

Not box-dependent, bro. My ISP is a Unix shell.

Nothing -- not even cookies -- gets on my HD unless I download it. I like that very much.

Of course, when my ancient gear dies, I'm going to move to linux, but I dread that day, truthfully.

I'm a text guy. I like to read and write words, and don't care much for the rest of it.

Appropriate needs technology, baby. Makes a nice rallying cry in an age of energy uncertainty ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 29, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

Jason:

Sheesh, why am I resonding to this? Heh, maybe I just like
arguing ... actually it's interesting because it'll help tease
out the way trolls behave on blogs ... Also, because there was
a degree of creepy mass hysteria on this issue that sucked
in a few posters I happen to have respect for ...

> Well, one day Jay was ranting about how Janet Reno torched
> Waco. Somebody responded that Koresh was a child molester.
> Jay's response was that -- while that of course is henious,
> it's still better to be fucked by Koresh than torched alive.

> To you, I call BULLSHIT!

And to you, I say that you're a silly person :)

> You are casually or intentionally 'mis-remembering' something here,
> because the fact of the matter is, this individual made a public and
> open statement that sex with a female UNDER or LESS THAN the age of
> consent (i.e., as young as 12 or 13) was perfectly fine in his book.

Okay, let's examine this for a minute. It's false on its face (I
went back and carefully reviewed those threads; Jay said nothing
of the kind), but imagine for a minute if it wasn't. Imagine that
somebody came on PA and said that porking tweens was cool 'n' groovy.

Obviously, the entire thread would find that beyond creepy.
The person would get flamed hard, somebody might write to
Kevin begging for him to be banned, normally civil posters
would become unhinged, etc. And no doubt there would be a
number of posters who would suggest, in all seriousness
and with any eye toward actually doing it, that somebody
call the local cops to keep an eye on this person.

Now while I personally wouldn't agree with that (reasons in a minute),
I'd absolutely understand it. I wouldn't call that reaction knee-jerk
anti-civil liberties. I wouldn't consider those people insane -- the
way I do you. I wouldn't consider this reaction mass hysteria at all.

I'd respectfully disagree because that sort of behavior -- coming into
a public forum to advertise one's love for schtupping teenyboppers --
simply doesn't fit the criminal profile of a sexual predator. Sexual
predators (as you've doubtless read and seen on TV) tend to have very
carefully maintained false fronts. That's why so many of them are
priests, doctors, teachers, Homeland Security bureaucrats -- positions
of authority and respect in the community. Some lunatic coming into
our forum and saying that underage sex is "perfectly fine" would
more likely be some pimply misfit just attempting to yank our chains.

But we wouldn't know for sure, and a risk level is clearly possible.
That's why I might disagree with the cop-callers but I wouldn't freak
out in the name of civil liberties as I freaked out all over you.

What you're missing here, Jason (aside from having a really bad
memory), is that Jay's a troll -- and trolls live to be perverse.
While Jay was arguing seriously (the usual troll thing of trashing
the Clinton Administration, in this case through Janet Reno), trolls
don't tend to stand their ground when confronted with flustered
accustions: "But-but David Koresh is a CHILD MOLESTER. How can
you say that it's okay for 13-year-old to" etc. and issue fervent
categorical denials. Instead, they snark at us for freaking out
and try to change the subject. That's why it's so hard for you to
remember that Jay actually *did* affirm, several times, that underage
sex is immoral and wrong. He just let a number of those direct
accusations slide, which probably looked to you like he was ducking.

Several people -- Stefan one of them -- were misled by this.
But I've seen enough postings from Jay to know that he's a
garden-variety Republican with garden-variety sexual values.

And that's why the call-the-cops stuff was completely over-the-top.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on June 30, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

我向大家推荐:上海 广告机 公司专业生产广告机产品,欢迎选择广告机。北京 包装设计 厂向广大客户提供包装设计产品及包装设计服务。北京 企业形象设计 厂向广大客户提供企业形象设计产品及企业形象设计服务。您想要了解 VI设计 吗?请到中国VI设计网来寻找VI设计。要想寻找标志设计信息请访问 标志设计 网,各种标志设计应有尽有。上海 家电设计 公司专业生产家电设计产品,欢迎选择家电设计。您想要了解 包装设计 吗?请到中国包装设计网来寻找包装设计。您想要了解 家电设计 吗?请到中国家电设计网来寻找家电设计。中国 广告设计 网,打造广告设计领域专业搜索平台,提供全球广告设计品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找包装设计信息请访问 包装设计 网,各种包装设计应有尽有。

Posted by: dd on July 1, 2006 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly