President Clinton is Back!

Crusty Burgerhead was cracking me up on Twitter yesterday, snarking that "Obama is getting Clinton some coffee right now."

And folks were amazed that President Clinton kept holding forth, taking questions long after Obama bailed. Ann's got more, and at NYT, "Bill Clinton Holds Forth on Tax Plan, for Starters." More at Memeorandum.

The Powerful Corpse of Radical Progressivism

I've been dealing with death-chant progressives all week, so I thought I'd share a few comments on the left that have become available within a short time frame.

At the letters to the editor yesterday, at WSJ, "If Liberalism Is Dead, It's a Very Powerful Corpse":

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. declares that liberalism, as a political movement, is dead ("Liberalism: An Autopsy," op-ed, Dec. 4). Given the permanently expanding role of government, the effective rollback of key elements of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, the redefinition of marriage, ObamaCare and the explosive growth over just the last two years of thousands on thousands of government employees taking home six-figure salaries, it doesn't appear that liberalism's being "dead" makes all that much difference.

That the liberal label has an appeal to only 20% of the electorate is nothing to celebrate because it shows that even with its dwindling numbers, liberalism will nearly always win on policy. In the West Virginia Senate race, Gov. Joe Manchin trounced his Republican opponent by wrapping himself in the conservative label, something that is very easy to do as we keep defining conservatism down, to appeal to any and every viewpoint.

If he'll check the pulse of policy, I think Mr. Tyrrell will find that liberalism is alive and well, and that it is conservatism which has slipped way past rigor mortis and has started to rot.

Douglas Johnson

Chicago

More letters at the link, but Mr. Johnson's really sets the tone. Never underestimate the left's low hanging fog of death. It's hard to destroy.

Another interesting comment was at my post this morning, "Leftists Chant for the Death of Ann Althouse — UPDATED!!" Althouse linked, perhaps sending this fellow over:

Murgatroyd said...

Charles Krauthammer nailed it: "To understand the workings of American politics, you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil."

Anyone who disagrees with a left-winger is by definition evil. Anyone who disagrees with a left-winger and demonstrates that the left-winger is wrong is beyond all possible redemption, and must be hated with the white-hot intensity of the heart of the sun.

Yeah, well, this week sure proved it. Murgatroyd's reference is to Charles Krauthammer, "Speaking of stupid liberals, angry conservatives."

And then there's the big story on Columbia's David Epstein, who has been chared with incest following an alleged three-year relationship with his 24 year-old daughter. Robert Stacy McCain has the epic post on this, "Palin-Hating Columbia Professor, Huffington Post Blogger, Busted for Incest." Flopping Aces digs through the lefty comments at PuffHo. And there's a thread at Memeorandum. But Rob Taylor at NewsReal really exposes the zombie corpse of progressivism, "Leftism Causes Rape and Incest":

The breakdown of traditional morality and taboos, many of which have been a part of Western Civilization since pre-Christian times, is an essential part of leftism but it is naïve to think that it is the only driver of the normalization of sexual predation on the Left. Instead we must look to Marxism’s most fundamental value for an explanation of leftists’ acceptance and promotion of sex crimes – the abolition of private property.

When leftists talk about the abolition of private property, they extend that to your work, whatever that may be (including the “sex work” of adult entertainers and prostitutes), and even to your body. More dangerously the Left teaches that people have an absolute right to sexual gratification no matter how that gratification is achieved. Thus, men who are not having whatever perversion they’ve delved into satisfied are being “oppressed” by the withholders of the sex they crave. This is why groups like NAMBLA can exist on the fringes and be treated as legitimate political and ideological opponents.

But on the individual level, this idea that no woman should be off limits, that it is “selfish” to deny sexual pleasure to others, plays out in horrific scenarios of abuse and depravity. That David Epstein was a neo-Marxist can be gleaned from his occasional blog posts at Huffington Post, and that he thought it a fine idea to have sexual relations with his own daughter is ample evidence of his acceptance of the Marxist belief that the traditional family is outdated and in need of being dissolved. But he is not an anomaly.

Methodologically, we can't show that neo-Marxist progressivism is THE causal factor in the kind of incestuous deviance in David Epstein's case, but we certainly can infer powerful weight to the obliteration of morality and social taboos that is central to the left's nihilist program of death and destruction.

Interestingly, Ann Althouse links again, this time with the legal debate over adult consensual incest: "A Columbia professor is arrested for incest — but isn't there a constitutional right to incest between consenting adults?"

Yet even with that, the powerful corpse of radical progressivism lurks over the entire culture, leaving its deathly shadow of predation across the land. And thus it's good to hold tight to Douglas Johnson's words above, to stay on guard and keep the pressure on: "I think Mr. Tyrrell will find that liberalism radical progressivism is alive and well, and that it is conservatism which has slipped way past rigor mortis and has started to rot."

Scott Eric Kaufman Hates Beautiful Women

Even when they open up for him.

He's horrified of "nude images of women," so that blows it anyway.

Via Theo Spark (full-size image here):

Guilty Verdict in Elizabeth Smart Case

At NYT, "Verdict Is Guilty in Abduction of Elizabeth Smart."

And I noticed that Ms. Smart's rapist, Brian David Mitchell, bears a strong resemblance to my dangerous stalker, James Casper. Seriously. Grow the beard and hair at Reppy's pic and it's a spitting image.

Cancer Trending? Don't Tell Scott Eric Kaufman

Because he'll issue a decree for your death. But probably not for the editors at CNN, or Susie Madrak of Crooks and Liars, for that matter (link). No, SEK saves his evil derangement for right wing enemies (even when they haven't written that "cancer is trending"). You know, because wishing death on your political enemies is just what secular leftists do:

Why the Left Hates Sarah Palin

Another nice vlog from John Hawkins, and he pretty much nails it:

Jennifer at Cubachi has more: "Richard Wolffe mocks Palin and C.S. Lewis as just “a children’s author”." (Via Memeorandum.)

And Sarah Palin's op-ed at WSJ, "Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap."

Professor David Epstein, Columbia University Political Scientist, Charged With Incest After Three-Year Relationship With Daughter

Via Five Feet of Fury:

"Liberals Leftists: your moral and intellectual superiors! — Columbia prof, Palin hater and HuffPo blogger charged with incest involving 24-year-old daughter."

Seriously!

Where's the LGM academic decency brigade! This is an emergency!

404 error at Epstein's Columbia University bio-page, but the Department's faculty information page is still available (Screencap here.)

Epstein was the co-recipient of the American Political Science Association's 2005 Decade of Behavior Research Award. (Screencap here.) Plus, APSA has a special Decade of Behavior page here, with more information on Professor Epstein.

Five Feet links to Newsbusters and New York Daily News.

Elie Mystal at Above the Law is totally grossed out, "Columbia Poly Sci Professor Accused of Diddling His Daughter."

And at Gather, "Columbia Professor David Epstein Busted Following Three-Year Relationship With Daughter":

In Ivy League incest news, Columbia University professor David Epstein was arrested today on charges of incest in the third degree after it was revealed he and his now 24-year old daughter had a "consensual" three year relationship.

According to gantdaily.com, Epstein was actually quite well-liked at Columbia, and had a fairly prestigious and well respected career. It's always the ones you least suspect, right?

Epstein had authored several books, written pieces for The Huffington Post, and had previously acted as a political analyst for CBS!

Epstein was set to teach two classes this semester at Columbia; "Scope and Methods," and "Research Topics and Game Theory" ....

Sources say that Epstein's incestual [sic] relationship with his daughter began after some serious "sexting," which is somehow almost creepier than actually committing the act.

Esptein has taken a leave of absence and faces four years in prison if convicted.

And at PuffHo, "David Epstein Incest Charges: Columbia Professor Charged With Sleeping With Daughter." And a couple of Epstein's GOP-bashing essays at PuffHo, "Two Obvious Truths About the Torture Scandal," and "Palin Proves Voters Were Right in 2008."

Epstein's Twitter page is still available as well, although he's not currently using it.

Added: Robert Stacy McCain has more: "Palin-Hating Columbia Professor, Huffington Post Blogger, Busted for Incest."

And now an Instalanche!

Totalitarian Faith

I've noticed lately that radical progressives get particularly pissed when you call them out as nihilist. I discussed this recently in a lengthy essay, "Anti-Intellectualism and the Marxist Idea." At issue there were some of the objections of BJ Keefe from September, and he reissued them just last week, and I responded again, "Navigating Past Nihilism." While BJ claimed I had "twisted" the meaning of nihilism, he never did actually offer his own definition. The issue has popped up again, as Amanda Marcotte has gotten peeved at my descriptions of leftists as nihilist, and she's spouted off her frustration on Twitter and in at least two posts at Pandagon. She has, for example, attempted to smear me as a "moron" who "pretends" to know what nihilism means. It's fair to say that nihilism is deployed with a range of meaning, although it's not fair for leftists to attack me for ignorance while simultaneously refusing to provide a counter exegesis. As noted, my traditional usage focuses on leftist abandonment of historical norms of morality, along with the concomitant campaign of destruction on Judea-Christian ethics.

In recent posts I've focuses more narrowly on Friedrich Nietzsche's thesis of the social obliteration of God. And unbeknownst to poor Amanda, I've provided a dictionary definition at "Navigating Past Nihilism," and the link there goes to Professor Sean Kelly's recent piece at New York Times. So basically, leftist lamebrains cited here and elsewhere can just STFU.

In any case, I'm reminded of David Horowitz's The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America's Future. He writes, at pages 28-29, on a June 1990 forum held by the Organization of American Historians. The prominent author Christopher Lasch announced that the West had "won the Cold War," upon which he was immediately denounced --- with "outrage and scorn" --- by the radical historians in attendance. Horowitz indicates how the episode reveals the left's epistemic closure on the failures of revolutionary socialism:

The refusal to confront the past meant that leftists could resume their attacks on the West without examining the movements and regimes they had supported, and thus without proposing any practical alternative to the societies they continued to reject. The intellectual foundations of this destructive attitude had already been created, in the preceding decades, in a development that Allen Bloom described as the "Nietzcheanization of the Left" --- the transformation of the progressive faith into a nihilistic creed.

Nihilistic humors have always been present in the radical character. The revolutionary will, by its very nature, involves a passion for destruction alongside its hope of redemption. While the hope is vaguely imagined, however, the agenda of destruction is elaborate and concrete. It was Marx who originally defended this vagueness, claiming that any "blueprint" of the socialist future would be merely "utopian" and therefore should be avoided. The attitutude of the post-Marxist left is no different. Since the fall of Communism, radical intellectuals have continued their destructive attacks on capitalism, as though the catastrophes they had recently promoted posed no insurmountable problem to such an agenda. "I continue to believe," wrote a radical academic after the Soviet collapse, "that what you call 'the socialist fantasy' can usefully inform a critque of post-modern capitalism without encouraging its fantasists and dreamers to suppose that a brave new order is imminent or even feasible."

But how could a responsible intellect ignore the destructive implications of such an attitude? The socialist critique is, after all, total. It is aimed at the roots of the existing order. To maintain agnosticism about the futures that might replace the reality you intend to destroy may be intellectually convenient, but it is also morally corrupt ....

To raise the socialist ideal as a critical standard imposes a burden of responsiblity on its advocates that critical theorists refuse to shoulder. If one sets out to destroy a lifeboat because it fails to meet the standards of a luxury yacht, the act of criticism may be perfectly "just," but the passengers will drown all the same. Similarly, if socialist principles can only be realized in a socialist gulag, even the presumed inequalities of the capitalist market are worth the price. If socialist poverty and socialist police states are the practical alternative to capitalist inequality, what justice can there be in destroying capitalist freedoms and the benefits they provide? Without a practical alternative to offer, radical idealism is radical nihilism --- a war of destuction with no objective other than war itself.

And from page 57:

Totalitarianism is the possession of reality by a political Idea --- the Idea of socialist kingdom of heaven on earth; the redemption of humanity by political force. To radical believers this Idea is so beautiful it is like God Himself. It provides the meaning of a radical life. This is the solution that makes everything possible; the noble end that justifies the regrettable means. Belief in the kingdom of socialist heaven is faith that can transform vice into virtue, lies into truth, evil into good. In this revolutionary religion, the Way, the Truth, and the Life of salvation lie not with God above, but with men below --- ruthless, brutal, venal men --- on whom faith confers the power of gods. There is no mystery in the transformation of the socialist paradise into Communist hell: liberation theology is a satanic creed.

Amanda Marcotte has offered no definition nor defense of nihilism. She has however attacked those of faith as insane, citing atheist phenomenon Richard Dawkins as her source of authority: The God Delusion. It's easy to understand why, for by rejecting the eternal goodness of God, she can justify the destructive radical progressivism that drives her ideological program. That program is nihilist. It is, following Nietzsche, the utter abandonment of the social commitment to morality and right. She, like her fellow radicals, rejects morality in favor of hedonism and license, and hence rejects any larger meaning within a body of faith that is God.

Students Attack Royal Couple in Violent London Protests

And just minutes before, while in route to the Royal Variety Performance at the London Palladium, Prince Charles joked, "Hopefully we’ll be able to brave our way through, get there and be all right."

Added: From Glenn Reynolds, "ANARCHY IN THE U.K." And at WSJ, "Violent Protests Follow U.K. Fee Vote."

Leftists Chant for the Death of Ann Althouse — UPDATED!!

God have mercy on us all, for there is evil in the world.

I love Ann Althouse. She is my friend and I look up to her in many ways. I am thus horrified to see calls for her death at a leftist message board discussing recent responses to the death of Elizabeth Edwards:

I can't fucking wait for Ann Althouse to die. The only thing that would make that perfect would be if her husband cheats on her beforehand.

While I've already posted on all of this at length, I'm still shocked at how brazen are some of the leftist death chants, for Althouse — and for me too, from the genuinely demonic Tintin at Sadly No!, as just one more example:

RELATED: Recall that RepRacist3 has been retweeting all kinds of vile hatred like this, which once again demonstrates that his claims to Christian compassion are all just poorly executed acts of deception. God have mercy on him.

**********

UPDATE: Racist Repsac3 tried to comment, alleging that "no conservatives are behind you" on this. Not true, obviously — and hilariously so, since no sooner than I deleted RepRacist's comment did I find Althouse at the Sitemeter, linking with "Oh, the violent ideation of the lefties!"

It's so hypocritical!

Word.

I've been receiving praise and thanks all week, and it's just killing the nihilists, who have responded to my honest and very straightforward reflections on faith with an extremist jihad. So yeah, hypocritical, but typical for these Godless freaks.

Americans No Longer Think U.S. Economy No. 1

From Ronald Brownstein, at National Journal, "Down From The Pedestal" (via Memeorandum):

In the global race for jobs and economic prosperity, the United States is No. 2. And it is likely to remain there for some time. That’s the glum conclusion of most Americans surveyed in the latest Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll. Henry Luce famously labeled the 20th century the “American Century.” This survey suggests that most Americans now doubt that this new century will bear that name.

In the poll, only one in five Americans said that the U.S. economy is the world’s strongest—nearly half picked China instead. Looking forward, Americans are somewhat more optimistic about regaining primacy, but still only about one in three expect the U.S. economy to be the world’s strongest in 20 years. Nearly three-fifths of those surveyed said that increasing competition from lower-paid workers around the world will keep living standards for average Americans from growing as fast as they did in the past. Ruben Owen, a retired Boeing engineer in Seattle who responded to the survey, spoke for many when he said, “We’re still in a reasonably good place … but it’s going to get harder because other places are growing stronger.”

Across a wide range of issues, the poll found the traditional American instinct toward optimism straining against fears that the nation’s economic struggles may extend far beyond the current slowdown. On many fronts, particularly the quality of higher education and scientific research, large majorities of Americans still believe that we lead the world. And most say that the U.S. can remain a manufacturing leader.

RTWT.

We discussed exactly this topic in the conclusion to my World Politics course on Wednesday. China still has quite a ways to catch the United States on a number of measures. China's GDP in 2009 was roughly $5 trillion. The U.S. economy was nearly three times as large, at rougly $14.2 trillion. And while breathtaking, I doubt China can maintain its growth trajectory indefinitely (see, "China Is Not Another Ascendant Superpower"), and the nation's quality of life is still mired by its Third World standard of living for much of the population (see, "Cost of Living Increasingly a Struggle for China's Poor").

Especially problematic is Chinese authortarianism. I noticed today this piece yesterday at NYT: "China Moves to Block Foreign News on Nobel Prize." And earlier at WaPo, "On eve of Nobel ceremony, China cracks down and lashes out." The research on democracy and economic productivity suggests that non-democracies perform as well as democratic states, but given the information-driven nature of coming first-mover industries, I doubt China will compete effectively against the United States as long as it remains a closed, repressive regime.

That said, there's always the potential for increased conflict in U.S.-Chinese relations. The Economist reported on that this week: "The dangers of a rising China," and "Friends, or else: A special report on China's place in the world."

More on all of this later.

RELATED: "The Road to Ruin? American Profligacy and American Power."

Explaining Women's Taste in Men

Interesting piece, at The Economist, "Sexual Selection: Hunkier Than Thou":

WHEN it comes to partners, men often find women’s taste fickle and unfathomable. But ladies may not be entirely to blame. A growing body of research suggests that their preference for certain types of male physiognomy may be swayed by things beyond their conscious control—like prevalence of disease or crime—and in predictable ways.

Masculine features—a big jaw, say, or a prominent brow—tend to reflect physical and behavioural traits, such as strength and aggression. They are also closely linked to physiological ones, like virility and a sturdy immune system.

The obverse of these desirable characteristics looks less appealing. Aggression is fine when directed at external threats, less so when it spills over onto the hearth. Sexual prowess ensures plenty of progeny, but it often goes hand in hand with promiscuity and a tendency to shirk parental duties or leave the mother altogether.

So, whenever a woman has to choose a mate, she must decide whether to place a premium on the hunk’s choicer genes or the wimp’s love and care. Lisa DeBruine, of the University of Aberdeen, believes that today’s women still face this dilemma and that their choices are affected by unconscious factors.

In a paper published earlier this year Dr DeBruine found that women in countries with poor health statistics preferred men with masculine features more than those who lived in healthier societies. Where disease is rife, this seemed to imply, giving birth to healthy offspring trumps having a man stick around long enough to help care for it. In more salubrious climes, therefore, wimps are in with a chance.

Hmm.

There's hope in the world (and RTWT at the link).

Twitter Hatred

From James Urbaniak, and re-tweeted by stalking hatemaster RepRacist3. And this filth for expressing my opinion? So much for Christian love. Nihilist freakin' hypocrites:

We All Shine On...

Well over 100 comments at the big post this week. Sadly, they reflect little of His grace: "The banality, platitudes and cruelty of the comments reflect who and what we are."

And food for thought this evening: "John Lennon vs. Bono."

Who's the better activist role model? I'll take Bono, for ultimately we need pragmatism over inauthentic idealism.

Westboro Baptist Church to Picket Elizabeth Edwards Funeral

At least David Gibson's honest enough to make distinctions, although he still comes awful close to conflating mainstream Christians with Westboro Baptist Church, which will protest Elizabeth Edwards' funeral tomorrow.

Westboro's press release is here: "ELIZABETH EDWARDS IS IN HELL."

And to be clear: I reject Westboro's extremism.

WaPo has a report, "Westboro church to protest Elizabeth Edwards funeral." (And at Memeorandum.)

Please pray for Elizabeth Edwards.

A roundup of my previous entries is at Right Wing News.

And at Zion's Trumpet: "Donald Douglas Receives Hatred For His Compassion Towards Elizabeth Edwards," and in the mail from the author:

I agree with everything you said and I too am deeply saddened by her death and her seeming removal of God out of her life - especially at the end of life when it is most crucial. The reaction from the libtards towards you was pretty intense - though not surprising. Keep on speaking the truth. I appreciate all that you do and proud to call you my friend.

Hate Mail

From another member of the enlightened, tolerant left:

From: Kyle Lindskog [klindsko@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:51 PM
To: Donald Douglas
Subject: Elizabeth Edwards

Mr. Douglas,

People like you make me sick. You consider it a flaw that Ms. Edwards omitted "God" from her final correspondence? No. She is to be praised for this. Unlike you, she probably believed that her human experience on Earth was the best platform for happiness and fulfillment. You, on the other hand, are probably obsessed with saying the right words to the right "God" so that you can secure for yourself a spot in "heaven."

Also, for you to call someone a nihilist merely for omitting "God" in a "death letter" is disgraceful. I wish there were a hell for you to go to. But unfortunately, unlike you, I appreciate science and evidence, and do not accept such farcical, obviously man-made ideas.

With utmost contempt, I am

Kyle Lindskog
St. Petersburg, FL

Nihilism and Progressivism

Bosch Fawstin illustrated my recent essay, "Navigating Past Nihilism," which is cross-posted to NewsReal Blog.

And now I'm re-reading Sean Kelly's original essay at New York Times, but this time in light of the left's response to my thoughts on Elizabeth Edwards' rejection of God. Citing Nietzsche, Kelly suggests that those who have abandoned God are living in "self-deceit." The deceit is to hold out the possibility of the good life. The solution, suggested by Kelly, is to adopt an alternative set of commitments, as Melville would say, in a smaller, more local set of values. I don't doubt many could find a pleasing and satisfying life. But it would be materialistic and autonomously derived, i.e., without a greater nobility found in the eternal. This is, then, an inferior substitute to God. People would find meaning not in self-denial, abstinence, and penitence, but in engorgement on worldly pleasures. Spiffing this up in fancy sounding language won't do (these "many new possible and incommensurate meanings," for example). It's a jumble of nothingness in the end. Nothing higher to seek, and hence little to be attained. It's metaphor for progressivism. Excellence and attainment are for the selfish and greedy. And the response to that alleged greed is redistribution of wealth and the organization of society into hierarchies of recrimination. Appropriate ways of thinking are enforced. Truth is deemed hate speech, and expressions of faith are excoriated as theological fascism. Hence the response to my commentary on Elizabeth Edwards. It took a day or two, but just to speak out boldly for a vision of God in full awesomeness, God at our moment of complete and utter vulnerability, was just too much for the progressive nihilists. It's a rare thing, but shock-proof demons of the leftist netherworld were indeed shocked. The attacks followed. I was "Donald Dick" for refusing to embrace Elizabeth Edwards' non-belief. Another gleefully exclaimed that someone needed "to take a shot at Donald Douglas." And of course SEK blew his wad before he'd even consummated the information I'd posted. And upon receiving my response (linked to LGM), SEK proceeded to swiftly threaten death. It's always that way with progressives:

The Donalde, I am absolutely serious here: try to drive traffic to your shit site one more time on this thread and I will end you. Remember, before I taught composition, I taught journalism, and some of my former students are very, very intrepid.

So I’m only going to say this once: diminish the experience of cancer to a cancer survivor again and you’ll learn exactly how great of a teacher I am. That’s the deal: you be a fucking human being and allow that scoring points by writing “trending” instead of “dying” is a cheap tactic that makes you a terrible person, and no one I’ve taught will prove you’re a terrible person. This is your first and only warning.

I allow nothing short of indicating SEK's Stalinism.

I'll have more later, in any case.

Why Elizabeth Edwards Left Out God

According to David Gibson, at Politics Daily, "Why Elizabeth Edwards Left God out of Her Last Goodbye." (My initial post is cited.)

Read it all at the link.

Gibson basically apologizes for Mrs. Edwards' rejection of God. But he allows himself a key admission:

Whatever Elizabeth Edwards believed at the hour of her death is known only to God ...

And here's this from the comments:

Wow David, you have gone to great lengths to try to convince us that non-belief is belief. Perhaps we can all agree that now Elizabeth knows the truth ...

Word.

Religion Writers Ponder Elizabeth Edwards' Faith

Some of my musings are finding their way around and about, in a winding fashion at least: "Elizabeth Edwards’ Faith in ... What?"

The link there goes to GetReligion, "‘Power of Resilience and Hope’."

If you’re looking for reflections on God and religion in mainstream news coverage of Elizabeth Edwards’ death, the hunt may take a while.

Mentions here and there of faith, grace and religion punctuate major obituaries reviewed by your GetReligionistas. But in general, the reports stop short of meaty details on what Edwards believed and even if she had a particular religious affiliation.

Religion ghosts, anyone?

Following the links at the post takes us to a number of other writers, as well as the Christianity Today post cited here earlier. Folks are making a lot out of the Adele Stan piece I dug up from the American Prospect, and as noted Ms. Stan wasn't too thrilled that I cited her work. But the issue of Edwards' faith is obviously an important one. People with mature sensiblities on religion aren't shirking from the topic, although perhaps some MFM types aren't that mature. And the constroversies continue around the 'sphere this afternoon, with a bunch of hate tweets on Twitter and a death threat in the comments at LGM.

I'll have more on all of this later.

Elizabeth Edwards Died Before Leftists Could Figure Out WTF Was Going On

Folks at Lawyers, Gays and Money are all about "close reading skills," so no doubt the fellow hatemasters at LGM will nudge SEK toward a correction:

I repeat: the first words Donald Douglas writes about the death of a mother of three is, and I quote, “[t]he story’s trending.”

I repeat: “[t]he story’s trending.”

That’s what death is to him: an opportunity to capitalize, via traffic, from the death of a political opponent. That Donald Douglas doesn’t even go through the motions–can’t even fathom that her acceptance of her fate was hers own, and accomplished with dignity, says something more terrible about Donald Douglas than anything I could write.

She wasn't dead, Scott. Better get back to that "great" teaching you're boasting about. You obviously don't have time to blog.

And while I got a kick out of Adele Stan at AlterNet, you, Scott, have made my day: "Dancing On Elizabeth Edwards' Grave?"