Here's something you might be interested in.
Two or so weeks ago, I was perusing the CityBeat site to see when their Fiction contest would be publishing the winners, and came across a column called Political Lunacy. The author bio provided is as follows: “Carl Luna is a professor of Political Science at San Diego Mesa College and a lecturer on politics and international political economy at the University of San Diego.” The column that week, titled New York (Times) State of Mind, September 17, 2009 — Carl Luna., was an analysis of three articles from the New York Times. Toward the end, the column says:
The article, “A Year Later, Little Change on Wall Street” details just how little impact having crashed the family economy into a tree has had on the boys of finance. As a result, a trillion dollars latter, the American people have bought themselves nothing back bankers ready to do it all over again.
Referring to one of the other articles, written Joe Nocera, “Lehman Had to Die So Global Finance Could Live,” the column says:
Perhap’s Nocera’s title should have been “Lehman had to die so Wall Street didn’t have to change a thing.” Or maybe better yet, “Lehman had to die so Wall Street could keep on raking it in from the rest of us.”
Now, while the column talks, directly and indirectly, about change, it did not escape my notice that Obama is nowhere mentioned here. You know. The one who campaigned precisely on a slogan of “change” and who at the moment happens to be President. That guy.
So I added the following comment:
Fish Says:
September 17, 2009 at 3:48 pm
During the campaign, I kept asking Obama’s supporters what it was he meant when he was promising “change.”
LMFAO
I got this response:
Carl Luna Says:
September 20, 2009 at 7:18 am
… Back all rested from a summer off, restored in hope for our Republic and ready to engage with those for whom Allah has seen fit to dim the bulb of their wisdom.
Such as Fish.
Fish. You be outta water, dude. Check out today’s post, dedicated just to you.
Now, I ask the reader to note that I did not attack Professor Luna on a personal basis, or any basis, in my response. I was, and remain, a skeptic when it comes to vague political slogans and promises. Change can mean anything, or nothing. My comment was directed at the point he made, or seemed to be making, re the lack of change on Wall Street, and pointing out to him that Obama might have just some ikkle bit to do with that lack of change.
The Professor attacked me first, and personally, in that comment. And then, he goes on to attack me in his following column, Go Fish September 20, 2009 — Carl Luna., starting out by saying this:
Fish left such a thoughtful comment to my last post that I had to take the time to address in an illustrious fashion.
Dear Fish,
You smell like a three-day-left-in-the-sun-real-world-version-of-your-online-avatar. Sincerely,
Lunacy
He posts a picture of a fish wrapped in newspaper. He goes on to throw a few other playground insults based on my avatar at me (you can bore yourselves reading the column at the above link), then he supposedly rebuts my point. He goes on and on and on about “changes” Obama has made, but he never addresses the issue of change on Wall Street. Never. Not once. Which is supposedly what his column was about.
Now, I would have been inclined to point all that out to him, had he not engaged in that silly insults and name-calling business. But he did. So the one thing I decided to correct him on was that he had referred to me as Dude and Mr. I added the following comment:
Fish Says:
September 23, 2009 at 2:58 am
It’s Mz Fish.
LMFAO
Which led him to add another post with more insults. As it happens, Matthew Alice that week came out with a column, about Fish Smell, so I posted on MA‘s thread, jokingly, that I was getting attacked in both CityBeat and the Reader that week, and posted a link to both columns.
Refried then added a comment to the Lunacy column, pointing out a mistake made in a name, so then refried comes in for some name-calling by the Professor. Then refried wrote an excellent post, here is part of it:
The only real difference between the new shiny guy and the other guy? The new shiny guy has been meticulously trained to speak eloquently. Why is the U.S. in Afghanistan, Mr. Luna? And, historically speaking, if no force in the history of our world could conquer Afghanistan (Genghis Khan came as close as anyone and still couldn’t completely rule there), what makes the new shiny guy think he’s any different? If Bush’s invasion of Iraq was stupid (and it was), what does that mean for Obama?
Which was, in essence, the point I was making in the first post: What’s the difference? Where’s the change? I don’t mean to compare what I wrote to refried’s eloquent post, by the way, and I get that part of what may have happened is that I wasn’t clear. But I don’t think my lack of clarity excuses rudeness. Anyway, I’m past it. Or to be more precise, it does not signify what someone like that may write about me if that is the way he is going to write it.
So then the Professor challenges Refried to a debate. Refried has taken the challenge. Now the Professor today has set out some ground rules in his blog post Hit Me With Your Best Shot September 25, 2009 — Carl Luna.
Hi reader gangos of mine. Now that I’m back blogging more regularly for a while let me put a challenge out there for you – particularly those of contrary views to mine. How about we see if people writing comments can try and generate a few dozen (or a few hundred) words that form real content and demonstrate (as I would expect from my students) evidence of critical thought? Unlike the last couple of comments posted by others to the blog, for example.
LMFAO!!!!
Anyway, if you’d care to watch refriedgringo pin this guy‘s ears back, have a look through the links I’ve posted. The Professor don’t know who he’s messing with. Personally I’d bet the farm on gringo.
(Note: the links lead to the articles, to see the comments attached, you can scroll down to the bottom and click where it says comments)
Two or so weeks ago, I was perusing the CityBeat site to see when their Fiction contest would be publishing the winners, and came across a column called Political Lunacy. The author bio provided is as follows: “Carl Luna is a professor of Political Science at San Diego Mesa College and a lecturer on politics and international political economy at the University of San Diego.” The column that week, titled New York (Times) State of Mind, September 17, 2009 — Carl Luna., was an analysis of three articles from the New York Times. Toward the end, the column says:
The article, “A Year Later, Little Change on Wall Street” details just how little impact having crashed the family economy into a tree has had on the boys of finance. As a result, a trillion dollars latter, the American people have bought themselves nothing back bankers ready to do it all over again.
Referring to one of the other articles, written Joe Nocera, “Lehman Had to Die So Global Finance Could Live,” the column says:
Perhap’s Nocera’s title should have been “Lehman had to die so Wall Street didn’t have to change a thing.” Or maybe better yet, “Lehman had to die so Wall Street could keep on raking it in from the rest of us.”
Now, while the column talks, directly and indirectly, about change, it did not escape my notice that Obama is nowhere mentioned here. You know. The one who campaigned precisely on a slogan of “change” and who at the moment happens to be President. That guy.
So I added the following comment:
Fish Says:
September 17, 2009 at 3:48 pm
During the campaign, I kept asking Obama’s supporters what it was he meant when he was promising “change.”
LMFAO
I got this response:
Carl Luna Says:
September 20, 2009 at 7:18 am
… Back all rested from a summer off, restored in hope for our Republic and ready to engage with those for whom Allah has seen fit to dim the bulb of their wisdom.
Such as Fish.
Fish. You be outta water, dude. Check out today’s post, dedicated just to you.
Now, I ask the reader to note that I did not attack Professor Luna on a personal basis, or any basis, in my response. I was, and remain, a skeptic when it comes to vague political slogans and promises. Change can mean anything, or nothing. My comment was directed at the point he made, or seemed to be making, re the lack of change on Wall Street, and pointing out to him that Obama might have just some ikkle bit to do with that lack of change.
The Professor attacked me first, and personally, in that comment. And then, he goes on to attack me in his following column, Go Fish September 20, 2009 — Carl Luna., starting out by saying this:
Fish left such a thoughtful comment to my last post that I had to take the time to address in an illustrious fashion.
Dear Fish,
You smell like a three-day-left-in-the-sun-real-world-version-of-your-online-avatar. Sincerely,
Lunacy
He posts a picture of a fish wrapped in newspaper. He goes on to throw a few other playground insults based on my avatar at me (you can bore yourselves reading the column at the above link), then he supposedly rebuts my point. He goes on and on and on about “changes” Obama has made, but he never addresses the issue of change on Wall Street. Never. Not once. Which is supposedly what his column was about.
Now, I would have been inclined to point all that out to him, had he not engaged in that silly insults and name-calling business. But he did. So the one thing I decided to correct him on was that he had referred to me as Dude and Mr. I added the following comment:
Fish Says:
September 23, 2009 at 2:58 am
It’s Mz Fish.
LMFAO
Which led him to add another post with more insults. As it happens, Matthew Alice that week came out with a column, about Fish Smell, so I posted on MA‘s thread, jokingly, that I was getting attacked in both CityBeat and the Reader that week, and posted a link to both columns.
Refried then added a comment to the Lunacy column, pointing out a mistake made in a name, so then refried comes in for some name-calling by the Professor. Then refried wrote an excellent post, here is part of it:
The only real difference between the new shiny guy and the other guy? The new shiny guy has been meticulously trained to speak eloquently. Why is the U.S. in Afghanistan, Mr. Luna? And, historically speaking, if no force in the history of our world could conquer Afghanistan (Genghis Khan came as close as anyone and still couldn’t completely rule there), what makes the new shiny guy think he’s any different? If Bush’s invasion of Iraq was stupid (and it was), what does that mean for Obama?
Which was, in essence, the point I was making in the first post: What’s the difference? Where’s the change? I don’t mean to compare what I wrote to refried’s eloquent post, by the way, and I get that part of what may have happened is that I wasn’t clear. But I don’t think my lack of clarity excuses rudeness. Anyway, I’m past it. Or to be more precise, it does not signify what someone like that may write about me if that is the way he is going to write it.
So then the Professor challenges Refried to a debate. Refried has taken the challenge. Now the Professor today has set out some ground rules in his blog post Hit Me With Your Best Shot September 25, 2009 — Carl Luna.
Hi reader gangos of mine. Now that I’m back blogging more regularly for a while let me put a challenge out there for you – particularly those of contrary views to mine. How about we see if people writing comments can try and generate a few dozen (or a few hundred) words that form real content and demonstrate (as I would expect from my students) evidence of critical thought? Unlike the last couple of comments posted by others to the blog, for example.
LMFAO!!!!
Anyway, if you’d care to watch refriedgringo pin this guy‘s ears back, have a look through the links I’ve posted. The Professor don’t know who he’s messing with. Personally I’d bet the farm on gringo.
(Note: the links lead to the articles, to see the comments attached, you can scroll down to the bottom and click where it says comments)