WaPo and Wacko Blogress

The WaPo has a lot of feedback from a piece they did on a delirious chainsmoking drunk blogress recently [Oh, BTW, she calls herself "My Left Wing" and flies in circles commonly known as a downward spiral:

Lots of bloggy talk out there about this Washington Post profile of the woman behind the My Left Wing site. Sample paragraph:

"She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers 'malevolent,' a 'sociopath' and 'the Antichrist'? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as 'Satan,' or about Karl Rove, 'the devil'? Should it be about the 'evil' Republican Party, or the 'weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving' Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says 'I have a special place in my heart. . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned'?"

Maryscott O'Connor responds on her blog:

"I do not consider, nor have I ever promoted myself as the Spokesperson for the Angry Left. The fact that I have been designated or implied as such by two members of the corporate media is beyond my control; I deny such a claim, I repeat that I speak only for myself, and that is the best I can do. To those who would advise me that I should eschew the media altogether, I can only reply that it is an absurd suggestion. I blog because I want to be heard; when offered the opportunity to be heard by increasingly large numbers, I accept it.

"If anyone is offended by the very idea of my speaking my opinions into a larger megaphone than theirs, they are free to say so, but it is not for them to tell me what I may and may not do. To suggest, as someone actually did, that I ought to have asked permission of the left blogosphere to go on television and be profiled in a newspaper as a liberal blogger, is the height of surreal arrogance.

"I chose to allow a reporter into my home to observe and listen to me, and to report what he heard and saw in a major newspaper. I was under no illusion that I might be portrayed flatteringly or maliciously. I believed he would report the truth, and that, he did."

Marty Kaplan huffs about the piece at HuffPost:

"It's a reminder that the press loves to cover politics the way it covers religion: it's all dogma, darlings. We report; you decide. And if not as religion, then as psychodrama: since, insanely, it's taboo to assess the validity of the claims being made, the media tell us everything about the motives behind the claims, and nothing about their merits.

"The psychodiagnosis this Post piece offers of Maryscott O'Connor, it also extends to the whole lefty comment-o-sphere. (That means you.) But in making that diagnosis, the article inadvertently holds up a mirror to the sad pathology of contemporary journalism itself.

"In the article, we learn seemingly everything about Ms. O'Connor the person; it's a Dr. Phil-worthy bio that enables us to attribute her political anger to her past. Her blogging against Bush, her chain-smoking, her former drinking to excess? Ah, her father, we learn, was 'a 25-year-old Marine who died fighting in Vietnam three months before she was born, which she thinks helps explain the . . . the alcohol, the cigarettes and the very first piece of writing she ever published online, a rant against the war in Iraq that began, "Every single millisecond of my life was directly affected by the nightmare that was Vietnam."'

Um, it's a profile in which the woman gets to explain herself, not an opinion piece designed to examine whether her arguments against Bush are accurate.

The right also trashes the piece, with Chickenhawk Express seeing a hidden agenda:

"My question is why the Washington Post felt it appropriate or even necessary to profile a blogger that is, in her own words, 'insane with rage and grief.' Was it to promote blogging as a way to vent anger? Was it an attempt to discredit bloggers? I think it was nothing more than an easy way to get another negative Bush message in print using a far left over the edge blogger as the article's focus."

The original article is chock-full of nitwittery about how intemperate the right-wing blogosphere was compared to the left and Newt Gingrich et. al. But the Wall Street Journal online thanks the lord that a wacko hypersplenetic shrew like the crone covered by WaPo made it front and center in national consciousness.

The mindless opportunism of politicians of the left like Kerry and Dean allow them to inflate their boundless afflatus on lefty blogs, which an amoral, unprincipled, mentally unstable seething mass of Bolsheviks on the far left amplify endlessly with even more ridiculous nitwittery.

Of course, spineless degenerates like Kerry and Dean veer leftward playing leader by following the crowd. As the Dems go leftward, their already endless squabbling and internal divisions assert themselves. Then, to repair the damage, they nominate some centrist-moderate to lead the ticket in '08, sparking an avalanche of gibberish on the leftist blogs.

The right has to hope that the collective psychosis that characterizes the Far Left continues its descent into absurd tropes taught only in the graduate schools of departments of social science at institutions of higher education in America by clueless victims of academicide. [Sorry for the overwritten description of the overwrought Ultra-Left!] Then the trendy left will commit echolalia of these
drone-hive denizens, which will filter into the Dem mainstream as "creative alternatives" and "new thinking"----leading to Democratic overreach in mistaking its base for the noisy partisans of institutionalized mental illness.

Oh well. Voluntary institutions can still thrive as long as Free Speech prevails, but I have an inkling that the Duke and Northern Kentucky episodes might mean that politics overrides the law and due process.