Friday, December 18, 2009

Four out of five doctors agree:
Health care debate causes mental illness

Things are getting crazy, with lots of Left-on-Left action. Via Ace of Spades, Obama's apologists are excoriated by . . . wait for it . . . Glenn Greenwald:
We've long heard -- from the most blindly loyal cheerleaders and from Emanuel himself -- that progressives should place their trust in the Obama White House to get this done the right way, that he's playing 11-dimensional chess when everyone else is playing checkers, that Obama is the Long Game Master who will always win. Then, when a bad bill is produced, the exact opposite claim is hauled out: it's not his fault because he's totally powerless, has nothing to do with this, and couldn't possibly have altered the outcome. From his defenders, he's instantaneously transformed from 11-dimensional chess Master to impotent, victimized bystander.
Barack Obama has indisputably performed his first true miracle. A year ago, Rush Limbaugh was the only guy talking like that. Charles Johnson to accuse Glenn Greenwald of raaaaacism in 3, 2, 1 . . .


  1. I love watching lefties meltdown in the morning. Smells like......victory.

    Is there anyone more useless on the Left than Excitable Chucky? He isn't even any fun. Lefties like Sullivan and Greenwald, the nuters at the DU, crazies at Firedoglake and such are at least fun. Chucky has gotten boring.

  2. There is unfortunately mental illness on the so called right (from Pattrick Frey a/k/a Patterico), and Dr. Goldstein has the cure (Comment by Jeff G. on 12/18 @ 9:31 am #):

    Fine. Unless the writer/speaker wants to be misunderstood or give offense, or doesn’t care either way. Patrick is arguing rhetorical strategy; I’m arguing how language functions to make meaning. In my Hot Air piece, I touched on the differences.

    And so long as Frey keeps in mind that no, a statement doesn’t mean what a reasonable group of people can make it mean, I don’t much else care. The rest is all social con layering: Frey seems to think that writers / speakers have an obligation not to offend him, or to make things clear to him in such a way that he can posit hypothetical “hims” that still might not find the text clear or inoffensive. Writers and speakers don’t have that obligation — though if they want to be understood by Frey they’ll certainly try (and God help them).

    Me, I recognize that “tolerance” is actually your willingness to be offended. And if, after all this, Frey wishes now to claim that all he’s been saying is that Limbaugh should have altered his statement to avoid being misunderstood by those he knew might take him out of context; that Robert Stacy McCain should avoid writing things that some day someone may place in a new context wherein reasonable people will conclude it is “racist”; and David Letterman should have done more research on the Palin family’s itinerary before making a joke at the family’s expense — regardless of what they each intended, and granting that their meaning is theirs — well, then, what’s left to say?

    He’s talking about a rhetorical strategy that is impossible to satisfy, as I pointed out with respect to Bill Bennett. Something “reasonable” in one context will seem completely unreasonable in another. If Limbaugh, or McCain, or Letterman are being cautioned to take care with how they craft their statements, what is it that they are taking care from, exactly?

  3. It's great to see the Left calling in fire on their own leaders for a change instead of our people shooting at each other.

  4. Charlie Johnson was mental way before health care debate.