Militia seizes Federal building

Pierce gets under cons' skin because he isn't the typical Pearl-clutching, thumb-sucking, blanket-chewing, Kumbayah-singing liberal whose primary concern is never ever ever hurting anybody's feelings.

The only times progressives have accomplished real social change, in the labor movement, in civil rights, in women's rights, in environmentalism, in establishing the social safety net, in stopping the Vietnam war, not only were they not worried about hurting feelings, they made damn sure they did.

 

I think it's OK to say that here now. It may get a rise elsewhere on the World Wide Web, though.

 

Very much a literary peacock, but it's talented preening.

 

Oh, I imagine your name might come up in an incredulous pm or two around here.

 

There are some vets involved. Our armed services and vets are worthy of our respect, but that does not mean that every one of them is smart, well-informed, or completely stable. There is an awful lot of nonsense out there if you are credulous enough to believe it.

There are also posers. If you didn't click through to the link above at #194 re Phonies occupy BLM, you can get a look at a couple there.

 

THEY ARE DANGEROUS TERRORISTS!!!!!!!!!

 

And there are some non-phonies involved too.

While we worry about stopping another 9/11 or San Bernardino, preventing another OKC shouldn't be ignored.

 

Oh, agreed. If anything, our former service guys are better trained than 95% of the middle east terrorists. If there is a legit strike by some of those guys it could be devastating.

 

I liked him when I was first starting out, when he was writing about Tiger Woods and Magic Johnson and stickball. I devoured his book, "Sports Guy."

But other than the occasional tidbit about Albanian-Nepalese trade routes in the 16th century and how that mirrors Republican budget maneuvering in 2016, I don't feel particularly enlightened when I read a Charles Pierce piece. He writes pretty sentences, I guess, if you're into that kind of thing. But the substance, when there is any, is so spread out that his pieces are a real slog for me. He's not a particularly skilled argument-builder.

My biggest problem with editorials in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal is that each assumes certain premises - you all know what they are - and then argues from these assumed premises. That's what Pierce does, except four times as long, with more flourishes. He's just a pundit. He's a more erudite Chris Matthews. (Best comparison to Piece is probably Rachel Maddow.)

It's not just the Good Doc crew that laps it up, either. Not anymore. I have plenty of liberal friends, even some outside of the business, who Re-Tweet and Share his pieces. It's like if you write a run-of-the-mill #HotTake, but stir in some four-syllable words and analogize to Napoleon's struggle to establish a diplomatic foothold in the Cape Colony, the lack of substance is forgiven.

I like wonkier writers, and writers who argue with more clarity.

 

It's cute when mommy's special little guy shows a little backbone. Too bad he immediately sprints to hide behind her dress.

 

So, Pierce is wrong about a group of armed militants taking over a federal facility and calling for the overthrow of the government being seditious?

 

He's not wrong. He's just not particularly insightful, nuanced, or original, despite the thesaurus and the almanacs.