Re: A Bunch of Stuff...
S. Alexander Jacobson
Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:42:32 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
You mailed me backchannel so I replied
backchannel. I think it is a common courtesy to
ask before posting backchannel email to a list,
but perhaps this courtesy is not so common.
Making troll accusations about backchannel email
is just bizarre. It does not help that you
simultaneously attempt to wrap yourself in the
first ammendment while simultaneously having
issues with my being "allowed on FoRK."
On the substance, the core points here which
1. The march was organized by ANSWER
2. ANSWER is OBVIOUSLY anti-american
3. Marching or endorsing the march without
condemning its organizers represents either an
endorsement of ANSWER (and its anti-americanism)
or simple ignorance.
Since you are pleading ignorance, I take issue
only with your stridency.
Regarding Lott and Falwell, if you were not
ignorant you would know that they were condemned
by right-wing bloggers and commentators accross
the board including writers for the National
Review and Commentary, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn
Reynolds, and many others. More to the point,
Lott was condemned and deposed by George Bush
himself with the support of most of the Republican
Note, I am not saying the right is entirely clean.
I am saying that they are generally more careful
about getting rid of their wackos. There is a
popular bar here in NYC called KGB. I am not
aware of a correspondingly popular SS or
Gestapo bar somewhere else. Please correct me if
PS If you want to be spanked, just name the time
and the place ;- )
S. Alexander Jacobson i2x Media
1-212-787-1914 voice 1-603-288-1280 fax
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> First off, I have to admit, I was so shocked by your post that I had
> to figure out who you are. Please tell me you don't actually live in
> SAJ> http://www.instapundit.com/archives/006871.php#006871
> And? This is tripe. Furthermore, its tripe thats poorly written.
> What's his point? He denounced Falwell. BFD.
> SAJ> Are you condemning ANSWER?
> SAJ> I condemned Falwell at the time and am happy
> SAJ> to do so in the future.
> I don't even (or didn't) know who ANSWER was. I don't particularly
> care. I don't need to denounce something I don't affiliate myself
> with, as I'm neither left-leaning, nor affiliated with protest groups.
> I don't condemn them any more than I condemn Falwell. See, there's
> this miraculous thing called the First Amendment. ANSWER, Falwell,
> and Bush (as well as everyone else for that matter) are entitled to
> freedoms of speech, religion and (I know this is tough for you),
> association. They can do whatever the hell they want, and provided
> it doesn't affect me in the slightest (and it doesn't -- Falwell was a
> device used mostly to point out that both the Right and the Left have
> their devils -- neither side is driven as the pure snow, and neither
> side's devils advocate the entirety of that side's mindset. Neither
> side has also 'removed' said devices from their repitoire. Condemning
> doens't do shit if it falls on deaf ears.
> SAJ> If you don't disavow ANSWER, if you marched
> SAJ> with them this weekend, you are dirty.
> I can't beleive you were allowed on FoRK. I mean really. Sure, you
> have a right to say what you said, but are you -serious-? I couldn't
> help myself from laughing whilst googling. 'I'm Dirty'? Har. I
> mean, this is so far below Godwinism, that they've come up with a new
> category -- its called 'Troll'
> To answer your question 1) ANSWER and I are not affiliated. I don't
> give a fuck what they do, and they don't give a fuck what I do. End o
> story, morningglory. 2) I didn't march. I don't really see a need
> in standing in the butt-freezing cold with rah rah signs while people
> drive down main street and dont' acknowledge their presence. I'm sure
> it serves some cathartic purpose, but not for me. Instaed, I did
> drive by, gave them a congratulatory honk, and curled up in my house
> to read a book. I give them props for braving the cold bitter weather
> of NH, but thats about all.
> So, if I'm dirty for honking, then I'm a baaaaaadd Girl. Spank me
> SAJ> More generally, there was widespread condomnation
> SAJ> of both Falwell and Lott on the right. Where is
> SAJ> the widespread condemnation of ANSWER?
> Nah. There was widespread condemnation of Falwell and Lott on the
> news, which as you and others have noted, is largely run by the left
> anyway. While some righters did condemn Lott, it was mostly as a
> device for a power grab, and because unlike ANSWER, these are public
> figures who argue that they 'speak for America'. I don't think
> ANSWER, or any of those groups argue that they speak for anyone but
> Why don't you try getting out of the rhetoric spin dance o' glory and
> come back to reality? I mean shit. Even John can argue without Ad
> Homeneim. He certainly can do it without calling me 'dirty'.