Letters to the Editor
-
Suggested book title
How about "Real men have a narrow stance".
Love your writing Glenn.
-
The Chickenhawk Dance
It's singalong time!
"Georgie Dubya didn't go! Dickie Cheney didn't go!
Hell, no! Hell, no! (Clap! Clap Clap! Clap!)
"Karly Rove, he didn't go! Freddy Thompson didn't go!
Hell, no! Hell, no! (Clap! Clap Clap! Clap!)
"Mitty Romney didn't go! Giuliani didn't go
Hell, no! Hell, no! (Clap! Clap Clap! Clap!)
"Billy Frist he didn't go! Newtie Gingrich didn't go
Hell, no! Hell, no! (Clap! Clap Clap! Clap!)
CHORUS:
Here come the GOP Mighty Warriors
Hear their Mighty Roar!
Yes, it's the GOP Mighty Warriors
To lead the nation into war
"Ronnie Reagan didn't go! Johnny Wayne he didn't go
Hell, no! Hell, no! (Clap! Clap Clap! Clap!)
"Larry Craig, he didn't go! Rushie Limbaugh didn't go!
Hell, no! Hell, no! (Clap! Clap Clap! Clap!)
"Bill O'Reilly didn't go! Jonah Goldberg didn't go!
Hell, no! Hell, no! (Clap! Clap Clap! Clap!)
CHORUS:
Here come the GOP Mighty Warriors
And they've got Victory in the bag
Yes, it's the GOP Mighty Warriors
If you don't like them, then you're a fag!
(Repeat verses ad infinitum until you run out of GOP names... actually you can use pretty much any GOP name except "John McCain" or "Barry Goldwater".
-
Tucker Carlson as poster boy for the new "tough" guy
Put in the context of Glenn's post, Tucker Carlson's homophobic comments become more understandable. More than likely it was Tucker himself who was roughed up in the boy's room in junior high. His braggadocio about roughing up a gay man who propositioned him is pure fantasy and is likely the revisionist version of the story that he shared with his nerdy friends in the lunchroom. Men with bowties shouldn't boast about beating up other people. It is simply not believable.
Book titles:
The Revenge of the Nerds: How overcompensating for social ridicule turned American politics into a schoolyard fantasy
The Cheerleader in the White House: Image over substance in American politics
Pseudo-Macho: The myth of leadership in conservative politics
Peacocks, Prisses and Political Makeovers
It's Personal: How the right wing brought the playground to politics
Lord of the Flies becomes President of the United States
Bullies, braggarts and yes-men: a successful strategy for right-wing ascendance
Too mean to ignore: How name-calling won political power in America
Sticks and stones, Bombs and ballots
Secret Desires and Secret Fears: How right-wing psychology intimidates American policy
Rude Boys with Grudges: Karl Rove's winning strategy
The Grudge Report: the revenge of the schoolyard victims
From Dungeons and Dragons to World Conquest
-
Ah, I get it, it was a joke!
If. You. Claim. That. Something. Was. A. Joke. Shouldn't. It. At. Least. Be. Funny?
-
title
Given the 11-year-old nature of many of the right's arguments, how about "I Know You Are But What Am I."
-
Book Title
How 'bout, "The Wingnut Mind: Why I Hate Myself and Why I Hated and Still Hate High School" or simply "Compensating" or "The Neocon Wannabe Mind: I'm so Lonely in Here, Can't Anyone Hear Me Screaming?"?
-
nother title
It's a Joke: virility and the right.
probably already suggested some 350 posts ago.
-
How about
Oedipus Reps?
-
A couple more
Defining Reality: The Rise of the American Palace Eunuch
The Charge of the Light Charade
-
Book Title
Two suggestions:
The Macho Myth
“How Republican Faux Courage in Politics and Media is Destroying the World”
The Toughness Myth
“How Republican Faux Courage in Politics and Media is Destroying the World”
Apologies if these have already been suggested.
-
Glenn, either we're wet or you are
psyberdawg is exactly right, as were Alden and Orson (both of whom understandably dropped out of the discussion around the time the codpiece debate started, but whose points have never been adequately answered) and Holly McLachlan.
You've done this sort of thing before, Glenn, posted or linked to some pundit's picture, without any more elaborate comment than something like, "Here's what this person says. Now take a look at what he looks like." It always surprised me, especially when you got called on the practice and you defended it.
I don't care if it's Rush f---ing Limbaugh, it doesn't matter what the creep looks like, just whipping out his picture and saying triumphantly, "and here's the guy who talks so much about manliness," is not worthy of someone as smart as you.
Especially since, as someone pointed out, either Alden or Orson I think, you refuse to put in words just what the physical attributes are that stamp Mark Hemingway (or your other targets in the past) as unmasculine. Looking at the picture, I see that he's bald and pudgy and soft, rather than athletic. Your argument is, then, what? That bald, flabby people shouldn't criticize others for lacking masculinity? Is this really an argument that you are willing to put into words and defend? Because I can't see anything else there.
You write in self-justification,
This is examining their relevant attribtues to see if they embody the virtues they accuse others of lacking.
But you are the only one who decrees that the person's physical appearance is "relevant." And it's not. Somebody can write in praise of warrior culture or traditional manliness or whatever, and the appearance of the writer doesn't make any difference to his argument as an argument.. It is of no interest to any rational person. I believe Harvey what's-his-name, the Harvard right-winger who wrote the book on Manliness, is in his 70s or 80s and therefore presumably would also, like Mark Hemingway, not look like someone you'd put in front-line combat. But whatever his argument (I didn't read the book but I heard him on NPR and boy, is he an idiot), it has to be argued against on rational grounds. Otherwise, what next? Attack him because his name is Harvey?
When a similar objection was made before, you replied that the other side does it, so we can do it, too:
It's nothing more than taking the standards which someone espouses and applying it TO them
Maybe this would be the case if you offered quotes from the person you're attacking, showing how the person attacked others in similar ways and on similar grounds. But you don't do this. You quote Hemingway calling David Souter a "sissy mary." I'm not sure what this means - I'm sure it's highly coded in ways I don't understand because I don't read the National Review and haven't followed the Right's attacks on Souter - but I don't see how it can be read as a slur on the judge's appearance.
In a separate argument, you say that many war advocates
obviously perceive themselves to be weak and lacking in what they understand to be manly virtues, and they compensate through the feelings of power they get -- through war, a strong leader, many things.
Perhaps this is an argument worth making (though I personally have little interest in how Limbaugh, Hemingway, or [insert name-of-right-wing-gasbag here] feel about themselves), and no doubt you can make it brilliantly. But you don't make it by posting someone's picture for everyone to laugh at. Surely it's obvious that no one, from looking at these snaps of Hemingway, could possibly know anything about what he might feel about himself.
I know you feel confident that you're in the right on this, but before you move on I hope that you read again the posts by Alden, Orson, Holly McLachlan, and psyberdawg just to make sure that we are all wet in criticizing you on this photo thing.