When I read crap like this, I really wish the Beauchamp affair had permanently destroyed the New Republic. Between Jon Chait’s Free Tibet movement (obligatory fifteen comments linking to his Amity Shlaes takedown- I don’t care, what he did to Freeman was reprehensible) and Marty Peretz, the place really does seem to be nothing but a platform for enabling the worst of the right’s excesses and serves as the foundation for any smear the Corner or the Weekly Standard wish to launch.
I still like Eve Fairbanks and Zengerle and a couple of the other bloggers (the names are escaping me atm), but man, what a wasteland.
You do get the underlying reasons for the smears, don’t you?
She’s divorced, and since divorce is always the woman’s fault, she must be an unstable bitch.
She’s Puerto Rican, which makes her dumb, like all minorities.
If I didn’t know any better, I’d say Patrick J. Buchanan wrote the damn thing.
joe from Lowell
I had a subscription to the New Republic for years. It was sort of a battered woman syndrome.
I’d get fed up, and I’d be like “Screw you, New Republic. I’m tired of you smacking me around!”
And the New Republic would be all “No, joe, don’t leave me! Remember the good times! Remember when we criticized Bush vs. Gore?”
And I’d go all “Oh, New Republic, I can’t stay mad at you.” XXXOOO.
Then, two months later, the New Republic is calling me a Jew-hater for noticing that Israel lost that war against Hezbollah.
Uh, what are the consequences for Jeffrey Rosen, exactly?
Unless we’re willing to talk about what this hack has cost himself, all we’re doing is giving him an indulgent giggle.
In what spheres does Jeffrey Rosen travel, and why should they receive him anymore?
Short Bus Bully
But but but but JOHN! We haz to rite SOMPFING!!
The real sad thing about the rise of the interwebz “journalism” and the decline of the MSM is the sense that this overbuilt industry crammed with hacks and filler pieces is not actually getting smaller as the economics of the situation would have you believe, instead people are just relocating and continuing to write vacuously. It would be a real blessing if the end all result of the bankruptcy of so many grand ole’ papers would be LESS comment and a smaller punditocracy, but it appears to be just the opposite.
How fair is that?
I agree with you. My one quibble is that it’s not fair to lump Chait or any of the others there (not even that wacky book critic) in with Peretz.
Peretz is probably crazier than most right-wing bloggers. I really think he’d stick every Arab in the world into an oven if he could. His rhetoric really, really bothers me.
Oh dear. Here we go. I find nothing on earth so tedious as the torrent of “opinion” that is unleashed when it’s time to pick a Supreme Court justice. All the pundits lick their pencils and start writing and it seems nothing can stop them.
All of this blather about the personality and intellect of a person these people don’t really know? It sounds for all the world like the gossipy chatterings of a bunch of old ladies.
Make it stop, in the name of everything holy.
Judging by his severely whacked-out racial opinions, Peretz is a Republican. And “The New Republic” is a Republican magazine.
Once you realize that “The New Republic” has the exact same purpose as Fox News, it gets a lot easier to ignore what they say.
Jeff Rosen has been one of the worst launderers of the reputation of people like Justice Roberts and others on the right, and so stuff like this does not surprise me. I to ogave up on TNR. There are plendy of other publications on the left that do as good or a better then TNR (like the American Prospect, Mother Jones or Harpers) without the hardburn of trying to sell you some of the s–t the right’s bs (particularly the hard right Isreal stuff).
I think the takedown by the socialist publication The Masses was pretty effective about a century ago, when the New Republic took on as its task explaining why all peace loving liberals had to use World War 1 to crush the Hun menace.
All I can hope for, when I see a disgusting circle jerk like the one going on with TNR and wingnuts, is that it’s inside baseball — that most of the public has no idea this is going on and it won’t influence anything.
Except I know that’s naive: everyone here knows that this trash talk is going to show up on the Sunday shows and eventually become CW.
Did anyone try to put “pundits” in the hate crime legislation? I hope not.
The Other Steve
If I recall correctly, The New Republic was purchased by a bunch of neocon republicans and is basically just a mouth piece for the same folks who publish at the Weekly Standard.
It’s part of the old GOP pogrom where you fake Democratic advice so that you can show even Democrats hate Democrats.
I personally hope that Obama nominates Sotomayor so that Sen. Jeff Sessions (Bigot-Georgia) will call her a baby killing wetback on national television.
>>I really think he’d cheerlead someone else sticking every Arab in the world into an oven if he could.
Fixed for accuracy. You think Marty would do the work himself?
This is just another example of the media phenomenon of using anonymous quotes in a so-called news story that Glenzilla continually decries. Of course, Glenzilla is shrill, so whatever he says matters not one whit, of course.
People used to joke about how you’d read some legal journal or doctoral thesis and you’d get more footnotes in the margins than actual article in the paper.
Would be super freak’n cool to get some footnotes about now, eh? Or, oh I don’t know, a quote maybe?
Any Harry Potter fans see “Rita Skeeter” written all over this?
Pay special attention to the use of “Nearly all of them” and “Nearly none of them” because – given the unspecified number of people our dear intrepid reporter talked to, some but not all of whom were Democrats – this could mean just about fucking anything.
They’re trying to poison the well so Sotomayor isn’t the nominee, since this “dumb and obnoxious” meme will become laughable in the face of hours of confirmation hearings where everyone will be able to judge her for themselves.
until one of these f-tards steps up with the stones to say a certain Justice is an intellectual lightweight, only then will i even listen to the criticism that some potential maybe Circuit Court Judge is not so sharp.
I have argued in front of two different Circuit Courts and not one of the judges impressed me as a judicial rocket scientist, Posner included.
If you want Wile E. Coyete Supergenius, don’t pick a judge.
In fact, I have never been that impressed with socially myopic members of law faculties either.
The notion that there is a Marshall or Holmes or Brennan out there waiting to be placed on the Court is fantasy.
Most pointedly, after A-Rod, the most overrated figure on earth is that over-praised Scalia, whose intellect is average as far as real thinkers go, and whose temparment is perfect, if you consider Earl Weaver your benchmark.
Brick Oven Bill
There was someone smart, and I do not remember his name, who predicted a while back that the USSR would come to be more like America, and America would come to be more like the Soviets. There is much evidence to support this man’s position.
Not everything about the USSR was bad, in my opinion. The US prizes ‘fancy’, while the Soviets prized ‘robust’. One good example of this is in army issue rifles. I saw a The Military Channel show on them once and The Military Channel rated the AK-47 higher than the M-16. The announcer, who was a veteran, said that if he were to be dropped off somewhere in the world, he would feel most comfortable with the AK.
Another example is snowboards. Americans obsess over finishes, and polishes, and composite materials, etc. Russian snowboarders probably spend more time practicing. The Sopranos episode in the woods is a good example of this.
A third thing the Soviets got right, in my opinion, was a policy regarding appointing childless women to high political positions:
“The civilized world needs to think about a decision when single politicians are not allowed to stay in power. This was a common practice in the Soviet political system. The matter of international relations is very subtle and exquisite. One single word or phrase may play an extremely important role in politics. This is not the place, where one can sublimate their personal sexual problems.”
”Complex-prone women are especially dangerous. They are like malicious mothers-in-law, women that evoke hatred and irritation with everyone. Everybody tries to part with such women as soon as possible. A mother-in-law is better than a single and childless political persona, though.”
– Vladimir Zhirinovsky
President Obama should perhaps take this Soviet policy into consideration with Judge Sotomayor, who may be subject to these sublimation challenges. Peace and harmony are very important for the Supreme Court Justices. I have heard this Sotomayor lady speak, and she sounds cranky.
Today I’ve learned that she’s a dumb, obnoxious, *summa cum laude* graduate of Yale law. My head hurts from trying to handle all the contradictions.
BOB – This childless woman says go screw a horse and STFU. Your schtick is tiring.
Shorter New Republic: Some jealous fucks talk shit off the record, and I take them seriously.
As long as you opened the door for criticism of The New Republic , I want to add the names Michelle Cottle and Michael Crowley who for me represent the Tweedle Dumb Ass and Tweedle Bigger Dumb Ass of the magazine.
In defense of the New Republic, their one bright spot were the film reviews of Stanley Kaufmann.
On the subject of talking nonsense about Obama’s upcoming SCOTUS selection there’s this bit of nonsense by that insufferable scumbag Chris Matthews
tripletee (formerly tBone)
Maybe, but have you seen her carrying a trapezoidal plastic lunch tray, BoB? Sexy!
Congratulations on stepping up your game, Bill. This one’s certainly . . . different.
Now get the fuck out of here.
@The Other Steve: The New Republic was bought by CanWest, a Canadian media conglomorate run by the Asner family which is very pro-Isrrael, a couple years ago. A few months ago they got sick of the losses and sold it back to Peretz and a bunch of other investors (not sure who they are).
I absolutely agree. He’s already been accused of being a socialist, so why not go balls-deep and start using Soviet-era appointment policies?
And as far as the oh-so-grave danger of having single, childless women in political appointments, you’re also right. Goodness knows that having a single, childless woman in a position of power is absolutely a recipe for a nation’s utter failure.
@El Cid: #9
Can you provide a cite or a link to this? I am on a huge WWI kick right now. One of my thoughts is that absent WWI, there would now actually be true soci–alism in much of the world, including the United States.
@Hunter Gathers: #12
I expressed that same observation here last week when Souter’s retirement was first announced. Such a statement would really be a great way to solidify the Hispanic vote for the Republican Party!
Agreed. I just got the Posner treatment a few months back before the Seventh Circuit, and I was really disappointed with his questions. In general, legal academics do not have the same heft and intellectual rigor as those in other fields of study. From my conversations with those who have had experience in both academia and the legal profession, legal scholars are typically looked down upon because their work tends to be very shoddy. I think there are several reasons for this: (1) Law schools do not teach critical thinking, contrary to their representations; (2) Other than 3 years of law school, legal scholars do not receive any academic (and I use the word loosely) training, unlike those who receive Ph.Ds and must defend their work in order to get the degree; and (3) All law reviews, and a lot of other journals, are edited by law students, who are not going to challenge the substance of an article submitted by a law professor or a judge; the extent of the work of a law review staff is to check for spelling, grammar and punctuation and to make certain that all legal citations are properly formatted, because thes mighty legal scholars cannot be bothered with such trivialities.
@Brick Oven Bill:
If you think she sounds cranky, BOB, you haven’t met me yet. Apparently, I’m your worst nightmare.
A single, childless woman whose only actual sexual issues are how often would I like to have it and is my man up to the demand.
And in case you were wondering, you could never be my man.
I thought you were referring to Condolezza Rice, but then I saw that your link refers to Queen Elizabeth I. I guess that just goes to show that generalizing about single, childless women (or any other group for that matter) is a sloppy and error-prone way of thinking.
I removed the double post because I went into moderation again.
@John PM: You are correct — having been one of those students selecting articles for publication, the whole process struck me as absurd. I did not have the knowledge of the requisite context for each proposed article (no one could), yet there I was …
for those not familiar with the process involved in selecting artcles, the “best” part….someone will call and say “hey, i just got a lower ranked school to agree to publish this piece, will you please expedite the read?” then, you do. Perhaps you say “we would like it.” Then, the guy/gal calls the lower ranked school and says no thanks. Then, you wait while the author shops it to a set of higher ranked schools. The process runs itself out when the author hears yes or no from [insert your choce as best law school journal].
That is what passes for “peer review.”
tripletee (formerly tBone)
There goes your chances of ever consolidating your power in the Soviet bloc, you shameless hussy. [/BoB]
Brick Oven Bill
I think I already may have been geg6. I’m the one with the white pickup truck if you are the one with the swimming pool.
@John PM: Your wish is my command.
I posted this a while back on Whiskey Fire and others regarding its parallels with the New Republic behavior in cheering on the Iraq invasion / occupation, and again over at Greenwald’s since he reminded people of the New Republic‘s function of justifying right wing and hawk arguments to liberal intellectuals (“even the New Republic says“, in Glenn’s apt formulation).
If you’re reading up on WW1, though, you’d do well to purchase an out of print copy of Echoes of Revolt, the collection of The Masses, a wonderful compendium of a dissident journal destroyed by WW1 era Postal censorship against freedom of thought.
I’d paste it here, but I’m tired of messing around with the messed-up blockquotes, bolding, and paragraphing.
@Brick Oven Bill:
This is not the place, where one can sublimate their personal sexual problems.”
And yet, BOB, you do that here practically every day.
Jeffrey Rosen is a jerk. Always has been, always will be.
Sometimes when he says things that are not ridiculous, one might think he was not a jerk. But then wait til his next public utterance….surprise, a jerk. If you see him on TV and listen to him prattle on in his self-important way, his jerkitude is pretty obvious.
TNR and Rosen suck ass. Him for writing it, and them for printing it. I didn’t go to fancy journamalism school, and I even I know what a ridiculous hit job Rosen’s piece is. I’m enjoying how the comments to his article are running about 100 to 1 against Rosen. And the blogosphere? Well, once again TNR has united liberals in hatred of…TNR.
@HyperIon: Somewhere else, it was noted that this is a preemptive strike to the actual nomination. I agree.
To which I succinctly say, bite me.
Thank you all for parsing B.O.B. All I can add is that I am single, childless, and not in any way struggling with sexual issues–except not getting enough. Given the sexual imbroglios of the married males in politics, I would posit that THEY are the ones who are unfit to be in government/on the court.
@Hunter Gathers: We have enough bigots in GA, we don’t need anymore. He’s from Alabama.
@JL: Damn, I can’t even get the location of where these wingnuts come from correct. I’ve been up way past my bedtime. I suck.
A truck stacked high with crates of Cialis, probably.
Yeah, it was called America 2001-2008.
@Brick Oven Bill:
Sorry, BOB. I’m the kinda single, childless woman who would never go for a guy with a pickup truck, especially a white one. I tried one once, but he couldn’t keep up with me.
Oh, and no swimming pool here. Sorry.
@geg6: Damn right, sister. Damn right.
What B.O.B. and men of his ilk really mean when they spew this kind of crap is that they have issues with single, childfree women who aren’t consumed by guilt every time they (the evil hussies) have sex–especially as said sex is not with them.
Kind of proves your point :
RE: Sotomayor [Mark Hemingway]
Just to clear things up a bit since I’m still getting email by the truckload about linking to Jeffrey Rosen’s article about potential Supreme Court nominee — when I wrote Sotomayor was “dumb and obnoxious” I was only characterizing what Rosen had written about her not expressing a personal opinion of her. Clearly, I was painting in broad strokes, but I don’t exactly think that was an unfair takeaway either. The bottom line, though, is that if you don’t like this characterization of her you should probably take that up with Rosen and not me.
@El Cid: #34
Thank you very much. I read what you posted at the link and I will definitely be getting my hands on that book. Hopefully this does not set off some type of alarm at the Department of Homeland Security or the RNC. :)
Dear momma graduated as a Civil Engineer via the Soviet’s preference treatment (daddy was a Commie). Unfortunately, she graduated (was graduated?) in 1989, and the new gummint was no longer constrained re the hiring of women in what the West thought of as typically male occupations. The Soviet system sucked to the high heavens, admittedly, but they were a bit farther along than we would like to admit. She would not be a beautician today had the system survived.
Purely affirmative action, liberal wusses covering their asses and PRETENDING she was smart. Also. Plus, Al Gore is fat and has A BIG HOUSE. With LIGHT BULBS!!!!!!!
The thing to remember about B.O.B. is that the letters “izzar” are missing from his “handle.” Think “BizzarO Bill” and you’ll understand that all you have to do to succeed is do the opposite of what he suggests.
Remember, Republicans are the only things that are the same in Bizzaro-Earth and the real one.
@Brick Oven Bill:
Oh, like Scalia’s all sweetness and light? Give me a frickin’ break here, we’re talking about a nomination for a justice of the Supreme Court, not a kindergarten teacher.
When the fuck did the GOP start caring about someone’s divorce(s)?
The program in question ended up ranking the AK-47 higher based on attributes like “service length” and “fear factor”. Basically, the AK-47 was mass-produced in huge quantities by every Communist nation that had the ability to make them, so it’s still in wide use today in third-world conflicts. And because the AK-47 was only mass-produced by Communist nations during the Cold War, it was seen as the “bad guy’s” assault rifle.
With the possible exception of easy maintenance, there is no aspect of the AK-47’s function that is superior to the M-16. The AK-47 is a very crude weapon by today’s standards, particularly in accuracy. That is why the design of the M-16 is still in use by the US military today. The AK-47 has not been used by a professional army in many years, even before the fall of the USSR, it was heavily revised into the AK-74. Today, further revisions have been made to further the AK-47’s path to obsolescence.
The one veteran you speak of said that if he was dropped off onto an alien planet and could pick just one firearm, he would pick an AK-47. Not a reality-based situation by any means. Another commentator said that if civilization was collapsing, the AK-47 would be the firearm to have. The AK-47’s prominence in these fantastical scenarios stem only from the weapon’s easy maintenance. For example, Afghan Mujahedeen soldiers cleaned it by running knotted shoelaces, dipped in motor oil, through the barrel.
Any solider, in a professional army with reasonable supply lines, would be better served with the US’s assault rifle.