Saturday, July 23, 2005

Hey, I Got Noticed!

I don't know how it works, but somehow Technorati tracks blog links to Salon stories, and it picked up old Bellhorn at bat talking about that John Roberts story. Also mentions this "Compare and Contrast" post on a blog called Fagistan (good name). This guy also notices how unpleasant it is to have a Black Seat and Lady's Seat on the Supreme Court. Maybe he'll notice me now that I've linked to him; according to Technorati, he has 23 links while I have zero.

Do I sound desperate to be noticed? Ok. Because I am, you know.

Comments:
In fact, my post made Farhad Manjoo all pissy.

I'm glad someone else opposes the Lady Seat. I found it terribly offensive that Bush's shortlist initially, from most accounts, included no women until Sandra Day O'C retired instead of Rehnquist, and suddenly women dominated the list. I think many of those women would be fine justices, but let Bush appoint one of them to replace Rehnquist! That would be awesome.

Thanks for the linkage -- though the 23 I have is quite pathetic in an over all blogsphere sense. I'm still hoping someday to break 100.
 
And so are you still confused as to why it may be thought that you're turning Republican, after recent posts where you rail against the intelligent, logical Democrat and side with the outspoken Republican who can't spell?
 
All right, Anonymous, quit trying to start trouble! ;-) Which bad-spelling Republican are you referring to? I hope you're not referring to my first-ever commenter who is not related to me... Anyway, I do need to make it more clear that I'm not Republican, it's just that this blog is a great way for me to vent my frustration with my fellow travelers on the left.
 
And yet you don't appear to have any frustration to vent with your fellow travellers on the right...
 
Well that's really not true. See:

my post about dumbass Republican remarks:
http://bellhornatbat.blogspot.com/2005/07/no-i-am-not-republican.html

or Rick Santorum:
http://bellhornatbat.blogspot.com/2005/07/you-talking-about-boston-boston.html

and all the Terry Schiavo stuff.

But I must admit, I don't feel as angry when conservatives are stupid or vile because I expect to oppose them. But it bothers me when MY party is stupid.
 
Or one could just look at recent quotes from your posts instead, such as -

"Bush has an excellent record"
"I have no problem with Bush"
"More evidence of how disturbingly obtuse...liberals can be"
"the continuing moral obtuseness demonstrated by outspoken...liberals"
"You have to give him (Bush) credit for that"
"some lefty conspiracy-theory type element"

- and wonder where the confusion about your political leanings arises from. Hmm...
 
And as for entitling a post "No, I am not a Republican", well, methinks the lady doth protest too much...
 
Nice use of selective quotes there, buddy.
 
And you're really going to hate my latest post...
 
And don't even get me started on this quote from you -

"Bush...is a fun and cute...kindly...moral...person...who...I...want...for...my fiance"
 
And what would I do with him?
 
I hope I'm the Republican who can't spell. This would be awesome for so many reasons. I get called a Republican all the time, despite my ferocious partisan identification with Democrats. This is because Democrats (like Republicans) are deeply thoughtless, uncritical morons who can't stand anyone who spends three seconds engaging with their ideas. If one criticizes Howard Dean for being an obnoxious, raving mad pussy suddenly one is a "Republican."

Nevermind that I believe that civil marriage should be outlawed, abortions are in no way "morally ambiguous" but, in fact, totally great, recreational drugs should be legalized, and Terri Schiavo's "life" was no more morally relevant than a sack of beans and meat. I'm still, apparently, a Republican. Except when I'm a Gay Nazi.

Even if I'm NOT the Republican who can't spell (I thought I spelled purty good) I sympathize with your plight, bellhorn.

PS: Dear Anonymous, I like how the "intelligent, logical" side is racist. Typical of leftists.
 
Yeah, I thought you spelled just fine too. I think Anonymous is "winding me up" as the Brits say. It is interesting how many people's synapses sputter when someone has political views that don't precisely track with accepted party lines.

I'm still beyond excited to have new people (ok, person) looking at the site. I'm going to hop on over to your site to see what's going on and see if I can steal ideas for making my blog more known.
 
Yes, the comment was made more to antagonise bab. But since you bring it up...

I'm as white as white can be. I've experienced "reverse" racism at times; and do get annoyed and irritated when a claim of racism is used as a distraction by people attempting to get something undeserved. But I took no offence whatsoever at Farhad Manjoo's article, and hadn't considered it or him to be racist at all. And I think this was because he was making me understand his point of view in a reasoned and well thought out manner. Rather than being deliberately bellicose, cantankerous and argumentative just for the sake of it, like some of the posters here appear to be.
 
Geez you two, take it outside.

Actually, I agree that the article was not racist. Like I said, I have no gripe with Manjoo's point that it's better to have a diverse Supreme Court than a homogenous one. I just happen to think that replacing one "minority group" judge with another one is a condescending, and perversely kinda racist, way to do it. And I think that Bush is very likely to consider non white male candidates if and when he has a chance to replace a white male judge.
 
Majoo's article's subhead declared that is was "abusrd and wrong" for Bush to give the job to a white person. That's more than an endorsement of diversity, it's saying that John Roberts is not qualified to replace Sandra Day O'Connor because he is white and a man. It's no different than saying that it's absurd and wrong for O'Connor to take a "man's job" or Thurgood Marshall to take a "white man's job."

I wouldn't have appointed John Roberts, but he is by no measure an "absurd" or "wrong" candidate. As I pointed out in my post, Democrats have made a career out of blocking Bush's minority judicial nominees. Most of these nominees deserved to be beaten, and had he nominated Janice Rogers Brown, Manjoo would be writing about how she "doesn't represent" people of color because of her extremist views (the same "house negro" racism that surrounded Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell.) He (and anoymous) can't have their minority-cakes and eat them too, unfortunately.

PS, BAB, in reading your blog I think we have strikingly similar takes on many issues, only you avoid anal sex jokes. That's the real trick to getting people to read. You have to get Google hits from people looking for she-males and penetration. Also, link to Salon all the time, because people will find it through their techonrati links.
 
also go to sitemeter.com and get a sitemeter. It's free, and you'll get to see where people are finding your blog.
 
Anal sex jokes...I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the tips, and for reading. I've been reading your site. I keep meaning to put links to non-knee jerk liberal sites -- haven't yet worked out quite what your views on the Iraq war are, but there is lots of interesting, non-kneejerk stuff. We disagree on steroids in baseball though. In professional sports, they're wrong and bad and bad and wrong. However, if YOU want to ingest steroids, have at it.
 
That's because you haven't embraced the post-human future yet. That's okay.

I opposed the war in Iraq. It's a complicated progression of thought but -- I knew Iraq posed no physical threat to us, and the worst of the human rights abuses had happened in the 80s. By the WMD standard, why weren't in invading N. Korea? By the humanitarian standard why not Sudan? I still believe that. I believe the war in Iraq has hampered our ability to fight terrorists with police tactics and has hampered our ability to intervene for moral reasons anywhere else for some time. And that was George Bush's doing. But, Saddam's regime is toppled, something like democracy is starting, we can't abandon the effort now. An early pull-out would simply compound the damage we've caused. We have a moral obligation to make sure that the good that came of our actions not be squandered. So, in that sense I guess you could say that I'm now "pro war" although, it's clearly more complex than that.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?