WorldNetDaily round-up

Avatar

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

34 Responses

  1. The sooner we can get past our obsession with idiots and freaks on both the left and right, the sooner we can deal with the real differences between the progressive agenda and the sane portion of the American public which opposes the progressives. These idiots are not representative of the silent majority, which is more than white Christians, anymore than the loonies on the left are representative of liberalism. These people represent a fringe group of fanatics, that’s all.Report

  2. Avatar Freddie says:

    This is why you can’t spend too much time arguing against the left.

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/09/wanted-a-head-of-state.php

    American conservatism hangs by a thread for reasons that have nothing to do with policy. If the decline isn’t met with the full voice of people who are more than anti-liberals, it may be irreversible. What’s more, there’s no dearth of opposition to leftism. That’s precisely the problem; there is only the party of No, without a positive agenda that represents an alternative to liberalism.Report

  3. Avatar Max says:

    Wow. I actually had never heard of WND, and I consider myself pretty informed…

    Anyway, after skimming their site for a moment, I really have only one question: is Joseph Farah’s mustache real? It looks like my fake one in my blogger profile. I didn’t even realize I was satirizing anyone there!Report

  4. “without a positive agenda that represents an alternative to liberalism”

    if only liberalism had an identity — the serious liberals are caught between their classical roots and the illiberal nature of progressivism. Most who call themselves “liberal” are merely followers of the party, right or wrong.Report

  5. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Walking around WND, I suspect that the comparison to the birchers isn’t a fair one.

    The birchers were merely paleocons.Report

  6. Here’s why I think a “boycott” of World Net Daily doesn’t make a ton of sense: How many members of the Ordinary Gentlemen/the Next Right/the New Majority/(the unfortunately defunct) Culture 11 crowd actually read/link to WND anyway? I mean, I guess I’ve been boycotting WND for years now because I simply don’t read any of the insane tripe that comes out of that website. Who actually takes these fever swamps seriously enough to engage in a “boycott” of their product? Have the O-G ever linked to WND in a non-ironic/non-mocking fashion?

    I dunno…it seems like calling for a boycott is more trouble than it’s worth. The fever swamps on both ends of the spectrum are better off being ignored than confronted.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Sonny Bunch says:

      Boycotts (in this case, as I understand them) are more than merely not going to WND. They also entail telling those who advertize on WND that you refuse to purchase their products until they stop advertizing on WND.

      I don’t know who advertizes there but let’s assume overlap with Rush Limbaugh and pick a name out of a hat:
      Craftmatic Adjustable Beds.

      You would have to call craftmatic and tell them that you have considered purchasing an adjustable bed and watching the free television that comes with it but now that you know that they advertize on WND, there is no way that that is going to happen. You instead purchase an adjustable bed from their competitor, whomever that is.

      Which then brings us to the problem you are talking about… namely, whether LOOGy-types are craftmatic adjustable bed types. I’m guessing “no”.Report

  7. Avatar Ken says:

    Here’s the problem, as I see it: if you read WND, and do not immediately recognize on your own that it is embarrassing nonsense and should only be read for amusement, then how likely are you to be swayed by intelligent arguments in favor of a boycott?Report

  8. Wait, WND is a serious site? I thought it was a big giant parody…Report

  9. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    Motley points:

    > Good to know the League has acknowledhed an ostensible “team” (unless I’m misunderstanding whom the unnamed Frum-like fellow-travelers refer to with “you guys.”)

    > …though threats of physical violence are usually frowned upon. You sure about that?

    > Freddie links to Matt, which gives me entree to an appreciation: Whatever anyone thinks of Yglesias (and I assume he is something of a friendly bête noir/sounding board around here), you actually have to see his output today to believe it. The man is positively on fire. Matt sometims makes some very weird leaps of logic and assumption, and I can go hot and cold with him. But today he has a string of posts (by which I mean every single one) that incisively gets to the nub of the liberal view of an amazing breadth of topics. This of course proves expertise in none of those — more to the glory of the blogging profession. But do yourself a favor: even if you’re not an ideological ally of Matt’s read Matthew Yglesias’ entire Sept. 2 output. You’ll be glad you did.

    By contrast, Megan McArdle has this uplifting take on health care late tonight:

    http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/09/is_there_any_more_point_to_tal.phpReport

    • You misunderstand, if I understand you properly. No one member of this site speaks for the others, nor the site itself.Report

    • Yes, what Scott said. If you’re looking for ideological unity at the League you won’t find it beyond this one commitment to dialogue. I speak only for myself in this post – and certainly don’t reference my co-bloggers as part of a political team. You may have noticed that both Freddie and Jamelle are raving liberals and Dave is an avowed nihilist. And Scott is Canadian. Yes. You heard me right. Canadian.

      In all seriousness, though – we are a group blog with no ideological purpose or unity.Report

    • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:

      What then is the relationship of the person who wrote this:

      My quick answer is that “the team” right now is in disarray and until it’s fixed, until the problems which exist in the movement today and in conservatism in general are dealt with and the ship is righted, then every last critique of liberalism and the current administration will be an exercise in futility.

      To the team of which he speaks?Report

      • Uhm…”the conservative movement” or perhaps “conservatism” or whatever you want to call it. Do you really think I was describing the state of affairs at the League?Report

        • Avatar Michael Drew in reply to E.D. Kain says:

          I’m not asking “who is the team?” but “what is your relationship to it?” Is Frum talking to you when he says that?

          As far as the League goes, I don’t mean to overstep here, but I’m not sure it looks from the outside the way you, from the inside, envision it to look. That’s almost inevitable, so don’t take it as a major criticism. But there are some pretty clearly dominant voices here, especially on the major topics (eg. relating to health policy surrounding more than one sometimes-transitory body part), and they tend to be more in accord than contention. I’m sure some observers (and all the contributors) will disagree with that assertion, but they are wrong.

          Nevertheless, I accept your assurance that the League itself is, in Sullivan’s words, “Of no party or clique.” My observation was mnot made in complete seriousness, and I didn’t think in any case more than a tendency or leaning had been acknowledged (whether officially or as a matter of the relative prominence of the various viewpoints expressed here).Report

  10. Avatar Keljeck says:

    I used to read WND diligently and seriously. Then I, erm, left middle school.

    Always good for a laugh.Report

  11. Avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

    In support of this boycott, I vow to continue not reading WND. Just, more um…. loudly. 😉Report

  12. I started boycotting studidity, but it got the point, I had to grow my own food and make my own clothes, plus I was unemployed — a literal shut-in — I almost died.Report

  13. stupidity — I don’t know who Stu Didy is.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *