Obama's Cupcakes

I'm afraid I can't agree with your assessment. I've been at the front of the line when it comes to taking MD to task. And rarely has my beef with MS focused on his whimsy. In fact, I and others have complimented many of his most whimsical posts that have focused on the first lady and his travel. We have thoroughly enjoyed his travel musing they clearly consist of lighter fare until he used language that was demeaning to his subjects. He has a talent for making us all insiders and that we all appreciate. However, MS also has a talent for characterizing events in a way that sets them a part from the truth. As long as MS does not intentionally or unintentionally demean his subject because they are not a member of the favored class, he can be as light and funny as he wants. But, truthfully you don't help his cause or yours when you characterize our critique in such a way when we have made it clear we object to his pension for getting his facts wrong, he's unfair and unbalanced and he doesn't always do his homework.

I love whimsy and levity, Exiled, but I don't see this as a puff piece. I may be the only one saying this (naturally), but to me a person's birthday is never trivial.

Syncopated trumpets - I been moderated ag'in!
.
Le's give 'er another shot:
.
neoexile -
.
Blast it, man, 'ave ye been drinkin' th' salt water ag'in?!
.
Ye go fer days an days...sometimes weeks...exhibitin' a fine level o' rationality, then in a whale o' a jibe ye go off th' deep end rantin' 'bout th' Swampcritters hate an' discontent wi' cupcakes! Are we even inhabitin' th' same Swamp?
.
Thar be plenty 'ere who be appreciatin' a bit o' light-hearted whimsy now an' ag'in - whar in th' name o' Poseidon's fork did ye get this brain fart bow shot fr'm - one o' yer friend spongy's a$$eh*les?
.
Give yerself a rest, ye addlepated p**p slupper!

YARR!

Memo to TIME High Sheriffs: can we build in a translator so that all posts must speak in a sublanguage such as pirate, sarah palin, valley girl, deranged economist, etc.? And instead of moderating against pottymouthed words, make them mandatory in all posts? Thank you.

Pirate
~
I must say, I find your critiques of my irrational thought patterns to be highly entertaining. More often than not when I see one of your posts directed at me I pray that I am about to receive a nautical tongue-lashing. Perhaps you are the cause of my irrational tendencies. Subconsciously my insatiable hunger for your colorful criticism influences my rhetoric, sort of a driving-force which ensures that the future may be blessed with many more of your histrionic onslaughts. I think I love you...

Dee
~
I direct you to the latter half of my post in which my critique of Swamper outrage rested not on MS's whimsical ways, but his refusal to indulge progressive themes. He is a distraction from the perceived 'real' issues.

Exiled @ 1.5,

"I pray that I am about to receive a nautical tongue-lashing".

There's nothing wrong with a little desire for S & M games, but pirate wench is a little older and much more experienced. She'll hurt you. Deliciously.

You've been warned. Forget "safe words" too. I don't she would pay any attention to them.

Cliff
~
I am aware. I was merely curious to see if the MS antagonists would find JNS's piece to be as irrelevant and distracting from "real" issues.

"Light" posts don't bother me. Stupid light posts, however, are another story. This post is miles from Scherer's juvenilia. I like it.
And it's always nice to have it subtly pointed out that we no longer have a classless, booze-addled jackass in the White House. Happy birthday, O!

You're right - I do find this post to be pointless.
.
And I'll tell ya, I don't like JNS, or her reporting, even a little bit. I'd like to see her gone from Swampland (and I'm not quite to that point with Scherer).
.
At least this post was about cupcakes, instead of something important.

I am not criticizing this article. I am wondering if you find MS's well-written emotion illiciting posts to be an offense to journalism, while adoring equally off-topic, yet ideologically "sound," fluff-pieces by KT or JNS?

Yes, JC, but what of the MS lighthearted pieces? An affront to the obligation of journalists, yes, even those posting on non-influential online blogs?

N-R,
~
Did you just use the word "journalist" in the same breath as "MS"? B/C, if so, you lost me right there. MS did journalism once, when he was with M-Jones. Then he got a lucrative contract with a big studio and starting making radio-friendly pop.
~
What I'd ask is (despite the ideological abyss separating us) your take on MSM? Not merely the so-called "liberal media" but the whole shebang--cable, the leading papers, dental publications? When they're not doing lighthearted pap, are they a functioning 4th estate, IYO? Or are they, as is my contention a pox on the body politic?

As I was explaining to Dee in the previous post, my view of American media is cynical at best. While the 4th Estate dedication to accountability is the proper role of media, in truth, at least in the US, the role of media is to placate accountability by actually acting as willful, yet subtle, enablers and preservers of power. They may market themselves in a manner that suggests an affinity for liberal/conservative thought; they may remain critical of any and all administrations, even relying on irrational criticism and opposition talking-points to pander to the largely disillusioned American populace; they may even occasionally hit a truthful cord. However, realistically, the media is corporate driven and lashes out with a vengeance against that which may prove damaging to the sordid interests of the aristocratic corporate few.

If you re-read my very first post in this thread, I stated that I have no qualms with this JNS piece, well actually with this Sophia Yan piece. My only intent here was to discern whether those who detest MS's distractions would also come down hard on this thread as well. And, true to form, they have not. There has been a meager attempt to qualify this discrepancy, but I am not convinced.

…so do you object to MS's distractions? Or Jay's, other than piece? We appears to agree (!) that this piece is okay.

No, I have no problems with anyone's alleged distractions. This is an online blog, it rarely has much substance to it. It is riddled with quickie, thoughtless posts, often times merely links or video clips. What makes the Swamp anything at all is the discourse of the commenters, not the substance of the thread posts.

Exiled, its kind of hard to debate with you when you insist on categorizing the nature of the debate in a less than honest fashion.
.
You cannot win the argument that commenters are biased against anyone right of center by first insisting the critiques against Scherer's work is the result of our disdain of whimsical pieces, then provide as proof of our bias, the lack of criticism of Jay's post.
.
First, let me remind you that no one here hesitates to critique Jay's work when it is sub par!
.
Second, the principal critique against Scherer has nothing to do with a distaste for whimsy.
.
In fact, he was given a great deal of praise for his whimsical posts from the road. Most of us here thoroughly enjoyed the attention to detail and felt that he allowed us to feel part of the behind the scenes goings on, by providing an insider view of the mundane and the whimsical.
.
The critiques against Scherer usually focus on his tendency to massage the facts in the name of context, his tendency to dismiss and demean those on the other side of the ideological divide, and most importantly, Scherer gets criticized for his hypocrisy.
.
I think its unfair to categorize the criticism in ways other than how they are most often offered simply to set up an argument that you can win. I am trying to refrain from making a broad generalization, but you make it hard when you keep creating examples of your misreading, misinterpreting, or taking license with others' words so they fit neatly within your argument frame. Perhaps you don't mean to do this, so I hope you will consider giving your thoughts greater consideration. Perhaps the old carpenter's edict would be of help here: Measure twice and cut once. If you think of reading our posts as measuring and your response as cutting, you might not make so many mistakes.

I refer you yet again to post number 1. And, while you are in the area, my reply (1.6). This has nothing to do with whim. And maybe you should read the entire thread, take a gander at all of my posts here. No dishonesty about any of it...

JC
~
It's reconciled in that I do not view TIME blog as a journalistic endeavor, but more of an entertainment venue. And over the last 5 years, I have ceased to consider TIME magazine as anything other than a peddler of mediocrity, feel-good nonsense and behavioral analysis.
~
Cliff
As I was noting earlier to Dee, both the Republicans and Democrats shamelessly exhort corporate drivel. However, the ideologies of conservatism and liberalism are neither malevolent nor driven by greed. I have great respect and admiration for liberalism, although I do not subscribe to the majority of its tenets. Philosophically, however, I remain faithful to the principles of conservatism. Corporate superiority over the individual is not a conservative notion.

"Greed and malevolence have become huge components of conservatism."
.
The use of liberal and conservative are about as accurate as the use of capitalism and communism in our society. They are ease of use titles and not factual definitions in any way, shape, or form.

Or rather, not factual definitions of the things to which they are most commonly prescribed in our modern society, that is.

Hmm, do we agree too about undue corporate influence? Maybe Jay can bake cupcakes to celebrate. If corporations squawk about getting govt. out of the way and reviving the ghost of Ayn Rand, then why did so many banks accept Fed bailouts? Or why do insurance cos. rain cash on corporate senators? Or the MIC defense contract funnybiz such as the *still*-unresolved Air Force refueling tanker war / Boeing vs. Northrop-EADS…when N/E had won the contract? I thought Rand opposed companies that sought government favors. Then again, in “Atlas Shrugged” she had the judge rewrite the Constitution at the end of the novel – who gave him that authority? The leaders of Galt's Gulch also printed counterfeit money. But worry not; we can always disagree later about McDonalds / Hathaway vs. BRIC taking over the world….

Cliff
~
While I would like to continue this, it is futile. You are, for whatever reason, allowing your inner ideologue to prevent your ability to actually hear what I am saying. If your fallback is merely "conservatism is bad," "conservatives cause all the problems" and "conservatism causes unbridled capitalism which in turn destroys American politics" then no headway will be made between us on this issue. The destruction of American politics came from lenient FEC rules allowing cash to dictate campaign outcomes. You seem nescient to the fact that the Democratic party has a miserable track-record on corruption and is as staunchly pro-corporate interests as the GOP. It comes with the territory of holding office, much like support of Israel through AIPAC influence. Only once we rid our system of the corrupt campaign finance scheme and force AIPAC to register as an agent of a foreign government and a Political Action Committee, will we be free to enact our respective political philosophies in governance. There is no liberalism or conservatism in American politics. There is Democrat/Republicanism, both of which betray the principles for which they purportedly stand. Both parties subscribe to Corporatism, in rejection of both true liberalism and conservatism.

I suspect I agree w/ most if not all you put there Exiled. I'm not certain Cliff ever said that the Democrats were somehow "better" than the Republicans in the overall sense though. I certainly don't give either a pass, but the original quote you seemed to not comment on. "Rampant racism on the left?" I can only prescribe that towards the most fringe left that sees the "human race" as the source of all evil and as such holds racism against itself. Now I'm speaking from left/right ideology and not from Dem/Rep standpoint as they have totally different source motivations as political parties. So could you clarify your meaning on the rampant racism on the left? Just to be clear, are we speaking in Western culture or a historical context of the world, or are we talking about political parties?

You are, for whatever reason, allowing your inner ideologue to prevent your ability to actually hear what I am saying.
.
Project much? There may be medication for that.
.
Just so we're clear: f--k the Democrat party. Right in the ass. They'll get no more money from me until I see some actual progress
.
Now, are you able to point out examples of racism on the left or not?

Interesting question, Maurice.
~
I suppose it is an indictment of human nature. People are, with many exceptions though, inherently tribalistic, group-identifying individuals who gravitate towards likeness, whether that be religiously, politically, culturally, or racially. Thus, with the vast divides between us on these many fronts, it has been ingrained through centuries upon centuries to support the group to which we are bound. I think this is fairly evident by way of the history of tribal warfare, nationalism, imperialism, religious wars, class-struggles, segregation, etc etc. Racism is merely one aspect of human nature whereby we elevate ourselves, our ideas, our convictions and principles, our nations, our ethnicity above those of others. Now this is certainly not without equivocation. Also, it is partially to be expected and in many occasions not all together malevolent. Much of it has to do with pride and respect for tradition and heritage. However, I am digressing.
~
So, in my opinion, racism is a worldwide prevalent mentality. I have seen no evidence suggesting that America is immune. While race is often employed for political/social gain, and is not necessarily always indicative of true racism, it is without dispute that America has a long history of racism. Many on the left particularly tend to emphasize this point in allegations of minority-oppression and institutionalized racism. While I will not contend the merits of this assertion, I find it unrealistic, if not a slight bit racist in and of itself, to suggest that racism in America is one-way. To argue that Caucasian-dominated society is prejudiced and subjugates minorities in a systematic, albeit subtle, manner is to profoundly misconstrue a social inevitability: the group mentality. Those most vocal in arguing that racism exists tend to paint a most-negative caricature of white-America. These people are harboring the same mentalities, racial bias and lack of tolerance for which they so criticize their counterparts. This takes me back to the original point that, even amongst those who bemoan racism, it is an unavoidable instinct to which they also indulge. We're all just a little racist, only some are able to acknowledge their racial deference and adjust accordingly. I am not indicting the left, nor liberalism, by any means. This is merely a critique of not only human nature, but wholesale American society, as well. Left and Right.

These people are harboring the same mentalities, racial bias and lack of tolerance for which they so criticize their counterparts.
.
That, right there, seems like the point that needs proof the most.
.
How is that anything but an unfounded assertion?
.
Do you even have anecdotal evidence for this?

Oh, come now,Cliff. Are we really resorting to the tired medication come-backs? I am attempting to have a dialogue, but you're obviously in a testy mood this evening, so I believe I will bid you adieu.
~
Before I go, though, let me be clear. You are asking me to prove what can only be proven through the human experience. My views on racism come from personal interactions, observations, readings of supposed champions of righteousness, and myriad other encounters that have illustrated, to me, that racial bias exists in all of us, even if subtly. That you have not reached the same conclusion in your years and that you still adhere to such idealism of the purity of your political cohorts is suggestive of either a very sheltered existence or, dare I say, loyalty to the group of like-minds?

Yeah PD, but I think we all realize (after serious consideration) that this is more a function of our inarticulate (and oft lazy) use of language. This is particularly true of American discourse where we hold several meanings for the same word that can commonly have no association or even exact opposite connotation.
.
We sadly expand that to political and cultural discourse as well. We all do it to varying degrees and it is so well indoctrinated that it is hard to imagine this changing anytime soon. Where that becomes very frustrating of course is when someone is trying to be 'serious' or in a more structured setting, less formal usage can be viewed as argumentative. Also, this tendancy means that the average American sees anything written with structure as "legaleeze" to the extent that even those trusted to decide on the document need extra staff to decipher it or read it at all.
.
For an easier example, count how many meanings and uses you can come up with for the word "dog". For a more serious/complex question: when you hear someone say "the conservatives" do you think that term really defines the mindset of the group being identified? How many other terms can you think of right off the top that get commonly applied but don't mean what the word really means?

I've always said that possibly the largest misgiving of our nation's onset was that it did not prioritize education as a fundamental tenant. Obviously there were a great many other priorities that did make it into our core structure that make this nation great, but education as a national priority is one area that would have had the most far reaching benefits into all aspects of our democracy as it evolved over the years.
.
Of course hundreds of years later this is now MUCH harder to correct, along with the numerous side effects of that missed opportunity. Dare I say, it is not correctable without a total dismantling and recreation of the system, and that is neither practical or desirable.