I roughly agree with you, ogged. But are kidding me on quoting Kaus on this? If there is a question about pledged loyalties on Meier, particularly as regards being selected President, there was a question about it on Roberts, too (who worked for Bush on the election issue in '00). I don't remember Kaus bitching about that then.
Kaus is such a hack. I almost e-mailed you the precise piece you point to as evidence earlier today.
Aaarrrgh. Must go think of 47 year old balding men and ponies to get to my happy place.
What's with all the political blogging, eh? Plus, Kaus' joke at David Brooks' expense earlier in the day is hilarious. He's a smart, funny writer, albeit somewhat demented.
I came here to commend you for your seriousness -- you're the one who made it so that a second political thread got sidetracked with my stupid little abbreviation. This is on your head, Ogged.
SB -- Yes, that works too. But isn't Ogged a little young yet?
I thought the general rule was: the younger the chump, the fewer the pumps. Anyway, I was mostly inspired by your abbreviation's resemblance to a common means of inducing vomit.
not having seen the movie, I don't understand 22. And 23 reminds me: There was a move afoot to offer new regulars a fruit basket. Apo, would you be willing to supply it?
I'm going to threadjack by mostly copying an extremely inappropriate comment I left at The Poor Man:
So I sort of agree with [the Editors] about the competence factor–that Miers is the most likely we're going to get to be not a right-wing maniac, and her incompetence won't kill as many people as Brownie, Chertoff, and Perle–I think the Dems need to point out that she is a goddamn crook, and in bed with DeLay and Abramoff. Something like "The Republicans are so corrupt, they want to corrupt even the Supreme Court."
(I also think digby, who gets a hat tip for the second link above, may be right about the dangers of a machine justice. [i.e., what Ogged said].)
Any measure of newness should be tied to requests for explanations of intra-blog jokes. The more recent the initial joke that needs explaining, the more "new" the regular. If (like Becks, I think) you have never needed a joke explained, then you have never been "new". OTOH, if you constantly need jokes explained, then you are constantly new, no matter when you first came across Unfogged.
I'm more than totally noob; I'm completely noob by chronology. By the joke standard, I keep my head low and don't ask, so I'm only moderately new by that metric.
I tend to lurk at sites for a couple of months before commenting to get a feel for the place. For a prime example of why this is important, I offer up Hilde.
Still, Ogged and I got off to a bit of a rocky start. How far we've come. Awww...
Can I possibly be the only person who read the title of this post, read the post, read the title again, and thought "what does this have to do with Mohamed Atta?"
Disturbing; I have just had a dream in which this website and its commenters/proprietors were featured. Does that mean I have passed over some n00b threshold?
Don't remember too much, except that there was an Unfogged book that got published, and it was funny. Kinda like the Onion books.
Threadkiller that I am, I'm gonna have to wonder why nobody seems to be asking Republicans the obvious question about all of this executive power they're suddenly so keen on: Do they want Hillary to have it? I mean really, since so many Rs seem to have this weird fantasy that Hillary is going to swoop down in the black helicopters and personally scoop out their brains, do the really want to give the executive the right to hold Americans indefinitely without trial? And if they think no Democrat is ever going to be president again, why are they even bothering with the facade of favoring democracy? Why can't they come out and say they're fascist and proud of it?
Executive power was my concern about Roberts too. Hamdan bothered me a lot.
Randy Barnett is on WGBH discussing the failures of Miers now, though it's in the context of a discussion of the right-wing blogosphere's disgust.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 5:25 PM
And Richard Viguerie, the demon of right-wing direct mail, is on, and he's pissed.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 5:30 PM
Wasn't he the guy who said Bush should have nominated Ann Coulter?
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 5:32 PM
I don't think so. He wrote a book recently that got published by Regnery. And he was on NOW with Bill Moyers a couple of times.
Here's a link to that interview which includes links to Viguerie's articles.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 5:41 PM
I roughly agree with you, ogged. But are kidding me on quoting Kaus on this? If there is a question about pledged loyalties on Meier, particularly as regards being selected President, there was a question about it on Roberts, too (who worked for Bush on the election issue in '00). I don't remember Kaus bitching about that then.
Kaus is such a hack. I almost e-mailed you the precise piece you point to as evidence earlier today.
Aaarrrgh. Must go think of 47 year old balding men and ponies to get to my happy place.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 5:47 PM
What's with all the political blogging, eh? Plus, Kaus' joke at David Brooks' expense earlier in the day is hilarious. He's a smart, funny writer, albeit somewhat demented.
Posted by Matthew Yglesias | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 6:03 PM
The thing with Roberts is, he was objectively qualified for the job, so there was that.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 6:08 PM
What's with all the political blogging, eh?
I have to justify our continued existence on the blogrolls of various lefty sites. (The Brooks stuff made me laugh out loud.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 6:26 PM
I like the new serious tone here. It is more becoming. More appropriate.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 6:36 PM
Fuck you, dog fucker.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 6:37 PM
Not getting enough ip2eac lately, eh?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:00 PM
"Lately" is such a vague word.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:03 PM
Less pumping, more crying: ipecac.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:12 PM
Why do I have a feeling "ip2eac" is going to become Kotsko's "fetch"?
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:12 PM
And, come on, ip[2]eac is far funnier and more pathetic without the "e".
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:14 PM
I came here to commend you for your seriousness -- you're the one who made it so that a second political thread got sidetracked with my stupid little abbreviation. This is on your head, Ogged.
SB -- Yes, that works too. But isn't Ogged a little young yet?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:37 PM
I meant "Becks -- Yes, &c."
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:38 PM
I thought the general rule was: the younger the chump, the fewer the pumps. Anyway, I was mostly inspired by your abbreviation's resemblance to a common means of inducing vomit.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:42 PM
The name of such a means, obviously.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:43 PM
SB, I also thought of ipecac.
And since Ogged has defended my honor in the past, I will defend his manhood by linking to this.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:51 PM
So what's a fetch?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:57 PM
fetch
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 7:59 PM
Fetch.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:03 PM
not having seen the movie, I don't understand 22. And 23 reminds me: There was a move afoot to offer new regulars a fruit basket. Apo, would you be willing to supply it?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:08 PM
Didn't I just?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:10 PM
If I'm considered a new member, then you guys really are as cliquish as they say.
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:14 PM
I think Matt meant Becks.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:16 PM
"I like the new serious tone here."
We serious lurkers skip the posts and only read the comments, scrolling to get to the dirty parts.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:19 PM
I had no particular new regular in mind. Cala and Emerson, maybe.
Why does Kotsko replace "regular" with "member"?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:22 PM
I'm going to threadjack by mostly copying an extremely inappropriate comment I left at The Poor Man:
So I sort of agree with [the Editors] about the competence factor–that Miers is the most likely we're going to get to be not a right-wing maniac, and her incompetence won't kill as many people as Brownie, Chertoff, and Perle–I think the Dems need to point out that she is a goddamn crook, and in bed with DeLay and Abramoff. Something like "The Republicans are so corrupt, they want to corrupt even the Supreme Court."
(I also think digby, who gets a hat tip for the second link above, may be right about the dangers of a machine justice. [i.e., what Ogged said].)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:27 PM
I had thought we mostly offered sausage here. The German kind.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:29 PM
26: Anybody who started posting after, I dunno, February 18, 2005--total noobs.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 8:51 PM
Any measure of newness should be tied to requests for explanations of intra-blog jokes. The more recent the initial joke that needs explaining, the more "new" the regular. If (like Becks, I think) you have never needed a joke explained, then you have never been "new". OTOH, if you constantly need jokes explained, then you are constantly new, no matter when you first came across Unfogged.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 9:02 PM
I don't get it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 9:05 PM
I'm more than totally noob; I'm completely noob by chronology. By the joke standard, I keep my head low and don't ask, so I'm only moderately new by that metric.
I
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 9:07 PM
That last sentence was actually directed at me, bg, so you're well ahead of some of us.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 9:13 PM
I tend to lurk at sites for a couple of months before commenting to get a feel for the place. For a prime example of why this is important, I offer up Hilde.
Still, Ogged and I got off to a bit of a rocky start. How far we've come. Awww...
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 9:31 PM
That last sentence was actually directed at me, bg, so you're well ahead of some of us.
The fact that I missed that, though, is just more proof of my status as a newbie. That, or my ineptitude.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 9:40 PM
Ditto to 37. Except for me it was Gary.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 10:19 PM
Can I possibly be the only person who read the title of this post, read the post, read the title again, and thought "what does this have to do with Mohamed Atta?"
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 11:18 PM
W/D, that was my first thought, too.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 10- 4-05 11:23 PM
teofilo, I wouldn't take that personally.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 4:19 AM
Disturbing; I have just had a dream in which this website and its commenters/proprietors were featured. Does that mean I have passed over some n00b threshold?
Don't remember too much, except that there was an Unfogged book that got published, and it was funny. Kinda like the Onion books.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 7:15 AM
"Oh, but it wasn't a dream! It was a place! And you - and you - and you - and you were there. But you couldn't have been, could you?"
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 7:17 AM
There's no place like The Mineshaft.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 7:22 AM
Ha ha
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 8:08 AM
OT:
Oh no! the Sox have crushed the Sox! will the Sox be able to turn it around, and give the Sox the trouncing they so richly deserve?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 8:35 AM
Can't they just compromise and be the Pink Sox? Then everybody's a winner.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 8:42 AM
Can't they just compromise and be the Pink Sox? Then everybody's a winner.
Not only that, it's an easily effected compromise, because all they'd have to do is put their sox in the same hot water load.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 8:45 AM
Threadkiller that I am, I'm gonna have to wonder why nobody seems to be asking Republicans the obvious question about all of this executive power they're suddenly so keen on: Do they want Hillary to have it? I mean really, since so many Rs seem to have this weird fantasy that Hillary is going to swoop down in the black helicopters and personally scoop out their brains, do the really want to give the executive the right to hold Americans indefinitely without trial? And if they think no Democrat is ever going to be president again, why are they even bothering with the facade of favoring democracy? Why can't they come out and say they're fascist and proud of it?
Posted by Doug | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 3:28 PM
Because coming out and saying that might lead to a Democrat being President again, unless you mean literal military coup scenarios.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 10- 5-05 3:43 PM