Jump to content
JPW

Michael Landrum in the Media

Recommended Posts

MIchael Landrum's comments on this site made it read it herein today's Post --

Looks like I beat you by about 30 seconds Monica. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never realized how much I look like Star Jones before. 

Actually, you look more like Jenny Jones. But who's counting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Michael should write a letter to the editor. Those hacks make it seem like he was gratuitously insulting the good people of Arlington, when in fact his intention was clearly to gratuitously insult the entire Metro DC area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Michael should write a letter to the editor. Those hacks make it seem like he was gratuitously insulting the good people of Arlington, when in fact his intention was clearly to gratuitously insult the entire Metro DC area.

Watch out for those split infinitives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael had posted the above a week ago at 3:38 AM, and I deleted it the moment I saw it - praying it was merely a drunken rant, and hoping to save him from himself. Unfortunately, it has now become a legitimate item in the media (click here), and so I'm restoring it in full.

I like both Michael and Marc, have no dog in this fight, and am posting without comment.

Cheers,

Rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read the entire exchange... very intresting piece.

Here is what I loved most about Michael's response:

As to your not being welcome in my restaurants, how welcome do these unwanted intruders feel as they perform the necessary, menial tasks that are beneath the true Culpepperites and real Americans but are so necessary to their overbloated comfort? How much less welcome will your piece assist in making them as they go about making our comfortable way of life possible?

In how many neighborhoods were Jews, Blacks and certainly Hispanics not welcome where your readers, and maybe even you, now live? Or in how many restaurants where you and you family are now accustomed to dine? What's one less to you? In any case, we do not require proof of identity or of nationality, or permits of passage before seating guests, so if you want to duplicate the incredible thrill of being someplace illegally or unwelcomed, of having to hide who you are and fear being caught, of being denied the basic dignities afforded to those around you, than feel free to stretch your journalistic wings and come down to either Ray's so that you can earn the right to write about an experience that really does exist today, not in Germany, Italy, Poland and France, but right here in Virginia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wish he would employ an editor (it sometimes strikes me that he is in the early stages of "James Michener's Disease," formally known as Literary Elephantiasis, I think Michael has struck a chord. The boy's got some guts and is a remarkable businessman. I wonder, though, if Fisher is the best outlet for this argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read some of the replies? There are some real gems-- like this one:

What an absolute nutjob. I've raved about Ray's the Steaks often; I WAS THERE LAST NIGHT. It's a shame we so often attribute intelligence to those we like when in reality there are so many people who do good things that do not require being smart at all.

Michael Landrum apparently doesn't realize that people who slaughter animals simply to consume their flesh are worse than Nazis, because at least the Nazis didn't EAT their victims. The Nazis at least didn't enslave their victims and force them to selectively breed over the generations to make them more satisfying to murder. Not even the Confederacy did that. Animals are very intelligent and have feelings and feel pain and therefore have the same rights as people if not more because they are better than us. Anyone would be perfectly justified in vandalizing Mr. Landrum's property and/or assaulting his henchmen, because they are perpetuating the continued Holocaust of our animal brethren in an immoral fashion that no self-respecting American can support. Serving animal flesh for human consumption is indisputably repugnant, despicable, and abhorrent and should be stopped by any means necessary, just like the campaign for Civil Rights.

Doesn't Mr. Landrum (who I still think provides great food with great service at a great price) realize that there are a lot of good people out in the world who hold views contrary to his own and that those views have varying degrees of legitimacy? He has a right to ban Posties from his business, he has a right to be a provincial effete living in an NPR-fueled bubble far removed from reality, and he has a right to hold and express arrogant, insulting opinions that a majority of Americans reject, but he has no basis to proclaim a moral superiority over the rest of us.

Posted by: athea | October 13, 2006 10:03 AM

:) WTFF?!?!? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I wish he would employ an editor (it sometimes strikes me that he is in the early stages of "James Michener's Disease," formally known as Literary Elephantiasis, I think Michael has struck a chord. The boy's got some guts and is a remarkable businessman. I wonder, though, if Fisher is the best outlet for this argument.

Michael, I read Fisher's article before seeing his blog entry late last week, and I gotta say, you missed the mark on this one. There was nothing in it that I see deviating from his goal as a journalist: just the facts, ma'am. I got a totally different reading from it. What comes clearly across in the piece is the open secret that there are bigots (What?) living in America (GASP!!) and some of them reside right here in the D.C. metro area (NOOOOO!!!!!). It was not an editorial, it was not meant to proselytize, and I think that by letting the Culpeperians speak their peace it allowed them to shoot themselves in the foot quite nicely in the face of a large and fairly well-read audience. Sure, some among the horsie set will nod their heads in agreement at what the moneyed residents have to say, but that is beyond obvious. Many of these folks live where they live precisely because they do not like their worldview challenged (to me a much more shocking example of this mindset comes across in this article from today's edition, again allowing the bigots to tie thier own nooses in a public forum). I'm fairly sure Fisher ultimately agrees with your point of view, and going off half-cocked doesn't win you any points and leads to some head-shakin' among those who are not used to your diatribes. I don't want the media telling me what to think through day-to-day reporting, and I would hope that you don't either.

Did you read some of the replies? There are some real gems-- like this one:

[/size]

:) WTFF?!?!? :)

I had to read that one twice. I think the middle paragraph was a poorly crafted attempt at satire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had to read that one twice. I think the middle paragraph was a poorly crafted attempt at satire.
You have not been paying much attention to PETA's billboard and print ad campaigns (meat = Holocaust, or meat=slave trade). Unfortunately, I do not believe that this was satire, but the writer's true beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read some of the replies? There are some real gems-- like this one:

[/size]

:) WTFF?!?!? :)

I think this was a poorly executed attempt at irony - the writer was comparing some of Michael Landrum's arguments to those of some animal rights activists...which some people might think extreme and irrational (as you just demonstrated :lol: ). Ok, (s)he did call him a nutjob, but I think the middle part of that post was more about the level of rhetoric... the writer says they were just at RTS so I don't think they're a PETA spokesperson (and I see that TSE) has just posted a similar thought.

Good for Michael - too few people speak out when they think something is wrong. His approach may offend (many?) people, but I respect both his right to speak his mind and his willingness to do so when he thinks it is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you read some of the replies? There are some real gems-- like this one:

QUOTE

What an absolute nutjob. I've raved about Ray's the Steaks often; I WAS THERE LAST NIGHT. It's a shame we so often attribute intelligence to those we like when in reality there are so many people who do good things that do not require being smart at all.

Michael Landrum apparently doesn't realize that people who slaughter animals simply to consume their flesh are worse than Nazis, because at least the Nazis didn't EAT their victims. The Nazis at least didn't enslave their victims and force them to selectively breed over the generations to make them more satisfying to murder. Not even the Confederacy did that. Animals are very intelligent and have feelings and feel pain and therefore have the same rights as people if not more because they are better than us. Anyone would be perfectly justified in vandalizing Mr. Landrum's property and/or assaulting his henchmen, because they are perpetuating the continued Holocaust of our animal brethren in an immoral fashion that no self-respecting American can support. Serving animal flesh for human consumption is indisputably repugnant, despicable, and abhorrent and should be stopped by any means necessary, just like the campaign for Civil Rights.

Doesn't Mr. Landrum (who I still think provides great food with great service at a great price) realize that there are a lot of good people out in the world who hold views contrary to his own and that those views have varying degrees of legitimacy? He has a right to ban Posties from his business, he has a right to be a provincial effete living in an NPR-fueled bubble far removed from reality, and he has a right to hold and express arrogant, insulting opinions that a majority of Americans reject, but he has no basis to proclaim a moral superiority over the rest of us.

Posted by: athea | October 13, 2006 10:03 AM :) WTFF?!?!? :)

That was my thought too! What then did this pious person person have to eat at Rays that didn't have feelings before it met it's untimely demise? Perhaps mothing more than some lettuce or a spcy cashew?

The whole exchange is a bit tedious at this point. I think folks should lay off both guys and let them sort things about themselves (and not in the media).

Maybe a duel with steak knives would be in order? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have not been paying much attention to PETA's billboard and print ad campaigns (meat = Holocaust, or meat=slave trade). Unfortunately, I do not believe that this was satire, but the writer's true beliefs.

I agree. The astonishing thing though, other than the complete obscenity of their comparison, is the hypocrisy of the position. The person claimed to have dined at Ray's the previous night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
drunken rant

Mr. Fisher appears to be reporting hillbilly intolerants deperately clutching the vestiges of Rockwellian (Norm) yesteryear homogeny, rather than spearheading immigration reform on Salvadorian gypsies & Mexican Jews. Mr. Landrum’s retort is enough to make Castro blush.

Generally, on the argyle pipe flavored collegiate professor symposium circuit, when one is unable to intelligently make sense of anything or recognize defeat of a low-watt argument, they resort to the all-time favorite stock rebuttals:

(insert drum roll)

1. The Nazi’s!

...

4. Profanity!...

9. Jews!...

16. Nixon!...

43. Hippies!

Somewhere, a fortune cookie reads:

The higher a monkey climbs, the better view we have of his ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have not been paying much attention to PETA's billboard and print ad campaigns (meat = Holocaust, or meat=slave trade). Unfortunately, I do not believe that this was satire, but the writer's true beliefs.

Coupled with the dining-at-Ray's comments leads me to believe that this person was trying to make a point about Michael's reaction to the article through compare and contrast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to Marc Fisher's original column

I read Marc Fisher's column, and it struck a bad chord with me too. As immigration policy has risen to the top of the political debates in this election year, much of it has come through sources that are not known for their enlighted views on race. Mr. Fisher's column is flawed because it ignores race in America and includes some quotes that remind us of the bad old days. That's something that Mr. Fisher should have noted, and followed up on.

I think Mr. Landrum's rhetoric was over the top, but he has a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Mr. Landrum's rhetoric was over the top, but he has a point.
Mr. Landrum's rhetoric is almost always over the top, which is among the reasons I love him from afar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael's rhetoric was over the top, but if Fisher wanted to do straight on the one hand/on the other hand reporting he might have included some quotes from the "illegals" in additions to the sad sad laments of the crackers old-time Culpeper residents. There was no insight in his column, merely, as Michael said, an old vileness granted new legitimacy.

Somewhere, a fortune cookie reads:

The higher a monkey climbs, the better view we have of his ass.

I'd get down from there before you hurt yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Fisher's column is flawed because it ignores race in America and includes some quotes that remind us of the bad old days.

I disagree. It's absolutely does not ignore race in America (it's the subtext for the whole damn article!), and the quotes do not remind us of the bad old days; they remind us that they are the bad current days. That was the whole point, no? That the days of socially accepted, institutionalized racism are not behind us.

That's something that Mr. Fisher should have noted, and followed up on.

I think Michael's outcry is based on the fact that Fisher did not cry "Bigots!!!" from the mountaintop. I still think the article was effective in bringing his point across, just with more subtlety. Dunno, maybe I'm reading intent into the article where actual cowardly reporting exists. Knowing that Fisher likely wanted to cry "Bigots!!!" gave me a different reading, but I'd accept that I'm wrong and he dropped the ball where a stronger opinion could be implied (I still stand on the point that I don't want my daily to force opinions down my throat; I have plenty to choke on already :) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd get down from there before you hurt yourself.
Perhaps. But I have better sense than to risk compromising my business by publicly and recklessly condemning an otherwise benign article, and recognize the difference between an objective and subjective piece. There appears to be a prejudice mob mentality in which the bearer of unsavory news is being tried as a heretic, much like lynching a reporter who documents the evil of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists without the unnecessary conventional decent “other hand” humanity which is assumed by readers of the WashPost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...