Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
On Glenn Reynolds
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) has been the subject of two very odd attacks in recent days. In The New Republic, Christine Rosen makes two particular criticisms, neither of which make much sense. First, she writes that Reynolds' "enthusiasm for the future possibilities presented by technology is wildly optimistic". As a contrast, she presents a parallel from history...
The late-nineteenth-century techno-utopians hoped to transcend the horrors of corporate and industrial capitalism.
...but by the late-nineteenth-century, the Industrial Revolution really was changing the world and the way people lived in it. If Reynolds has argued that the technological revolution will perfect the world, I'm not aware of it, but it seems perfectly reasonable to argue that it has dramatically broadened the possibilities for the individual — that it has put more of the "means of production" in the hands of the proletariat, as it were. Where technology will take us in decades to come is impossible to tell, but it's not at all unreasonable — or "utopian" — to assume that it will continue empowering individuals.

Rosen's other criticism is positively absurd...
Reynolds's blog consists largely of links to news or opinion articles and other blogs followed by comments consisting of such profound observations as "Heh," or "Read the whole thing," or "Indeed." (These are recurring tropes whose centrality can't be exaggerated.) What Reynolds lacks in analysis, he makes up for in abundance of content. On any given day, he'll provide his readers nearly 20 entries—or, if you can stomach it, more.

Rosen's objection seems to be that Reynolds is not providing the kind of content in which she's interested. As Dave Price writes, "This is like complaining that your car lacks a mizzenmast and tends to take on water in heavy seas."

Divider



Next, Glenn Greenwald takes Reynolds to task for "the continued smearing of perfectly mainstream Democrats (such as Howard Dean, or Kos) as being "fringe" radicals". (and I agree, Dean got an undeserved rep) Then he spends the rest of the post calling Glenn Reynolds a 'radical' and 'extremist'.

Ok, fine. Can somebody point me to the 'extremist' policies in which Reynolds believes?

Note: I don't want a list of the positions he takes that are supported by less than 50% of the US public — if being in the minority made one an extremist, then we're all extremists. I also don't want a list of inferences taken from his writings — anybody can read radicalism into somebody else. And I don't simply wanted to know about the facts on which he has been wrong — incorrect does not equal extremist.

No, I want to know the policy positions taken by Reynolds which are so unreasonable that they place a person on the extremist fringe. A clear definition of 'extremist' or 'radical' would be nice, too. Now, it's entirely possible that Reynolds does hold some view which is well outside the mainstream. I suspect most of us—myself included—do.

But this is part of the problem: people have taken to throwing around words like 'extremist' and 'radical' in such an expansive way that they can be applied, essentially, to everybody. In their application to everybody from the Unabomber to Howard Dean to Glenn Reynolds, the words have been devalued.

Rather than making substantive, specific criticisms of actual extremism, many people are merely framing the debate. If they can preemptively portray their opponent as unreasonable, they can joust the caricature instead of the merits. This kind of framing shows up repeatedly in political campaigns, with both Republicans and Democrats calling their opponents "extremists", "radicals" or variations thereof. (my favorite was when John Kerry called the Bush administration "extreme libertarianism." Whoo!)

Since Reynolds is a high-profile figure, he gets this kind of treatment. Much like with Kos or Dean, his actual policy positions are of secondary importance. The target is the megaphone not the merits.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
When did Reynolds become qualified to comment on technology in the first place?

First in TCS he comes out against employers taking steps to control their employees use of the internet on company computers which is ironic because he’s likely the cause of a great deal of productivity loss, and next he’s pretending to be Ray Kurzweil.

All because he’s bought a few digital cameras?

Oh well, he certainly doesn’t seem interested in offering up analysis on the plethora of constitutional issues currently making the rounds so I guess the guy’s gotta blog about something.
 
Written By: davebo
URL: http://
When did Reynolds become qualified to comment on technology in the first place?
At the same time I became qualified to comment on economics, Paul Krugman became qualified to comment on foreign policy and you become qualified to comment on what Reynolds is allowed to comment upon.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
Well Jon,

Neither I nor you are commenting in what purports to be a professional publication though that’s quite a stretch for TCS. Reynolds is certainly allowed to pontificate on any subject he chooses.

But I doubt many corporate IT departments will pay for a subscription.
 
Written By: davebo
URL: http://
Although I will admit Reynolds is much more qualified to comment on technology than he is on Libertarianism. Neo or otherwise.
 
Written By: davebo
URL: http://
You won’t understand because you are a REACTIONARY FASCIST GOOSESTEPPER NAZI. Everyone knows that the so-called "industrial revolution" was evil, evil evil and is destroying the earth and creative poverty. As with then, all the "revolution" was was robber barrons stealing from the people and workers. Read Noam Chomsky and GET A CLUE!
 
Written By: Liberal & Centrist & PROUD!
URL: http://www.dailykos.com
Neither I nor you are commenting in what purports to be a professional publication though that’s quite a stretch for TCS.
Actually, I have written for TCS Daily. In any event, TCS Daily is an online punditry outlet primarily devoted to free markets. Plus, the IT dept will not have to pay for a subscription, because it’s free to read.

Qualifications are a red herring. The idea is correct or it is not. Appeals to credentialism are merely dodges.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.qando.net/
If Greenwald doesn’t like him, that means I probably do. And I do.

Oh, and you couldn’t pay me enough to read Noam Chumpsky. The reactionary fascists are on the left these days.
 
Written By: David R. Block
URL: http://
I agree, Howard Dean isn’t extremist, he’s just a fricking idiot loon!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
You won’t understand because you are a REACTIONARY FASCIST GOOSESTEPPER NAZI. Everyone knows that the so-called "industrial revolution" was evil, evil evil and is destroying the earth and creative poverty. As with then, all the "revolution" was was robber barrons stealing from the people and workers. Read Noam Chomsky and GET A CLUE!
LOL I love satire
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
What is more interesting about Greenwald’s savaging of Reynolds is that Greenwald is upset over a statement that Reynolds didn’t even make himself. Reynolds was quoting an email from a reader that, he admitted subsequently, did not accurately reflect the facts. Not enough for Greenwald, however. That sin of mistaken inappropriate "smearing" of his ideological classmates is completely unpardonable and he will work obsessively to destroy anyone who dares do so.

Being targeted by Glenn Greenwald should be taken as a sign that a right-of-left-of-right-of-left-of...of-center blogger has indeed "made it".
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Can somebody point me to the ’extremist’ policies in which Reynolds believes?
It is rumored that Glenn is very anti-puppy, and anti-hobo ... murderously so.

To be fair, though, while you and I may find such positions "extreme", they do have one thing in common with what passes for intelligent political discourse these days — i.e., you can tout the policy on a t-shirt.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
I don’t read Reynolds for the same reason I don’t read Atrios: The bulk of their blogs are one line links with often no clue as to what they story is about.
 
Written By: Bob Griendling
URL: http://www.CommonwealthCommonsense.com
Greenwald likes to play that game a lot. Remember the articles on authoritarian cultists?

He decries labels yet he uses them with gusto against his opponents.

Maybe someday he will be consistent, or maybe not.

As to Glenn Reynold’s writing on science, he happens to sit on several advisory bodies on advanced technologies, but mostly he writes ethics articles on nanotechnology. His expertise is also in Science and Technology, Space Law, Internet Law. Davebo, I understand that you want to defend Greenwald but you could at least look Reynolds bio at U of T to see what he actually covers. On that link you will find several peer reviewed academic articles on those topics.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Reynolds was quoting an email from a reader that, he admitted subsequently, did not accurately reflect the facts. Not enough for Greenwald, however.
Well, if you’ll do a little checking you’ll see that Reynolds admission came AFTER Greenwald objected.

But hey, it’s a self correcting blogosphere right? Wasn’t that supposed to be a good thing?
 
Written By: davebo
URL: http://
I thought the link is what defined the blog.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
heh...

I do believe I found Q&O from TCS...

double heh...
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
> But hey, it’s a self correcting blogosphere right? Wasn’t that supposed to be a good thing?

Yes, you would think that now, wouldn’t you? Even Kos agrees, apparently.
Yes, I knew [Jim Webb] was antiwar, though I haven’t followed his campaign very closely — I’m mostly a fan of his books.... And other readers (including Markos) write to note that Kos endorsed him, so I guess Kos and I like the same guy, though I suspect we see different virtues in him. And if supporting gay rights makes you a left-liberal, then what am I?
Not enough for Greenwald, though. You slight his cohorts once and you are $#!+ for the rest of your days!
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Reynolds is a clown. Like other wingers, he cannot help but accuse anyone who disagrees with him as a traitor, or an opponent of democracy, or whatever. Here is a representative quote:
There was a time when the Left opposed fascism and supported democracy, when it wasn’t a seething-yet-shrinking mass of self-hatred and idiocy. That day is long past, and the moral and intellectual decay of the Left is far gone
Yes - every single person on the left is pro-Hitler. Everyone on the left hates himself. Everyone on the left is an idiot. No one on the left has any morals or intellectual capacity.

There is nothing that separates Reynolds from Coulter or any other garden variety right wing hack. If you don’t agree with them lockstep, then you love Hitler. He makes Joe McCarthy look moderate.
Ok, fine. Can somebody point me to the ’extremist’ policies in which Reynolds believes?
If you start from the position that every single person on the left loves fascism, you are an extremist. There is no other way to put it. (Of course, Reynolds may not believe what he writes, but that’s another discussion.)


 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Mkultra spews:
There is nothing that separates Reynolds from Coulter
hilarious, even Jeff Goldstein couldn’t write self deprecating satire any better than that.

And Davebo, with some checking you will find that Reynolds changed it after Kos emailed him but before Greenwald objected. And more than objecting, he gave out Reynolds email and told his readership to get em in the best Atrios fashion.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I agree that for much of Dean’s career he was a centrist. Just as for most of Murtha’s career, before he became Nancy Pelosi’s pet Veteran Bitch, he was a responsible Democrat that harkened back to an earlier era when Democrats could be trusted on national security matters.

But reading Dean’s announcements and hearing him talk since he was captured by the Far Left Donor base obviate all the past centrist stuff he did as a relatively colorless, small state Governor.

Both Dean and Murtha vie for a national stage, and are clueless how they have, in their vanity and need for attention, been transformed past who they once were as local politicians - into useful tools for ideologues and media fawners. John McCain suffers the same syndrome.
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
MK, MK... we don’t think you’re Pro-Hitler... we lament that when you were ANTI-Hitler, you were PRO-Freedom, now you’re just ANTI-Bush or Supporters of Stability and the Status Quo.
And this was a partcularly "frothy" response from you...I might add. Because in the quotes you use I don’t think anyone could REASONABLY draw the conclusions you draw about Professor Reynolds. (Editorial Note: Instapundit is my first stop in the morning for "News") I’m thinking that you just don’t like the mirror that Reynolds holds up, that the Progressive Movement in the US is now really only for the status quo, and not for change, for what is not for Freedom, and to paraphrase someone concerning Rothbard,"...became so busy in being "Anti-Bush it forgot it was supposed to be Pro-Liberty."
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
MK, MK... we don’t think you’re Pro-Hitler... we lament that when you were ANTI-Hitler, you were PRO-Freedom, now you’re just ANTI-Bush or Supporters of Stability and the Status Quo.
Being against the man who is for a constitutional amendment that would deny states the ability to give persons of the same sex the freedom to marry makes one anti-freedom. Being against the man who seeks to deny states the ability to give physically ill persons the right to use marijuana to medicate makes one anti-freedom. Being against the man who seeks to deny states the ability to give the terminally ill the freedom to commit medically assisted suicide makes one anti-freedom.

Only in your world, Joe, only in your world.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Now that’s a better MK posting...it offers something more than unresonable frothing about Glenn Reynolds and how "we" view "you" as Pro-Hitler.
And all pretty much all the points you cite, Reynolds AGREES WITH YOU, BTW. But you go on and have your "Two Minute Hate" of Instapundit if you wish.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Mr. Snitch! Made a recent comment at QandO which captures the essence of the last few posts to Mr. Greenwald’s site and the comments thereon:
"...What matters is telling a certain group (you know who they are) what they want to hear.

As long as he’s doing that, not only won’t factual omossions (sic) and distortions matter, but the RIGHT omissions and distortions...are crucial in maintaining the attention and support of his readership. Indeed, ...
[Greenwaldites] ... will twist themselves into pretzels to justify him, since he in turn justifies them."
If there was any doubt about whether or not Mr. Greenwald was afflicted with BDS, his latest bizarre, “up is down” post about Bush has confirmed the diagnosis. Greenwaldites soooo want to keep Bush from having any good moments that they will swallow a crock like Greenwald’s post denigrating the Bush administration for not killing Zarqawi sooner. Not to mention claiming that Glenn Reynolds is an extremist and the insane claim of Annonymous Liberal that his thoughts represent the majority opinions of US voters. These posts are definitely in Whackoland. As an added plus, one can read breathless pandering to Mr. Greenwald by Hypatia. I can’t wait to see what’s next.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
MK, we would never view you as pro-Hitler.

Of course, viewing you as pro-Saddam, pro-Al-Qeada, pro-Castro, etc etc etc. is another story :)
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Now that’s a better MK posting...it offers something more than unresonable frothing about Glenn Reynolds and how "we" view "you" as Pro-Hitler.
Reynolds says the left used to oppose fascism. Now, the unarguable and clear implication of that assertion is that the left no longer opposes fascism. Which is another way of saying that the left would be perfectly comfortable with fascist dictatorship running this country.

Now, no one I know on the left would be comfortable with a fascist dictatorship taking over. (The left has always been against fascists, from Franco to Mussoulin to Pinochet to Somoza. It’s the same reasons that the left ridicules Bush when he holds hands with the Saudi princes.) But that is what Reynolds says. And he says that because he is an extremist. A moderate on the right, by contrast, would not say that. Because a moderate would know it’s not true.

Spin his comments any way you want, Joe. Doesn’t change the facts.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
> Which is another way of saying that the left would be perfectly comfortable with fascist dictatorship running this country.

Yes...as long as the dictator is one of their own.

> Franco to Mussoulin to Pinochet to Somoza

BZZZT!!! Not leftists, not a one. Doesn’t count. Now Castro, Daniel Ortega, Jonas Savimbi etc...
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
"The left has always been against fascists, from Franco to Mussoulin to Pinochet to Somoza."

...except when they are buddies to the Left’s best buddies, the Communists (see Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact).

Never mind that Fascism is a varient of Leftism. As is National Socialism. Or the Pinochet was a run-of-the-mill military dictator. Or that Franco was a monarchist. Or that Leftists in 2006 essentially don’t support the current government of Iraq, which means they essentially support the Baathists and Islamist terrorists. Or that the Left routinely calls American conservatives and libertarians "fascists" even though they support a democratic, capitalist republic....

Damn that Karl Rove is powerful with those fact-powered mind-control rays!!! NEOCONS = FACT USERS = HILTER!
 
Written By: Leftists = Useful Idiots
URL: http://
Where ya been MK? On sabatacal?

If you start from the position that every single person on the left loves fascism, you are an extremist.
If you start a supposition with ’every single person’, you are an extremist.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
It seems the real issue is that Rosen is ignorant about blogging in general.

I wonder if she has even heard of Steven Den Beste... who wrote about Linkers and Thinkers a long time ago.

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/Lotsoftraffic.shtml

or

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/02/Burnout.shtml

 
Written By: greenone
URL: http://
So here’s MK writing "If you start from the position that every single person on the left loves fascism, you are an extremist" in an accusation about Reynold’s supposed broad brush smear of the left. Not to be outdone, he also writes "Like other wingers, he cannot help but accuse anyone who disagrees with him as a traitor, or an opponent of democracy, or whatever." So it’s MK the extremist.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
The terms "Right" and "Left" have way too many potential meanings to be very helpful in political conversations anymore. Lots of people on the right use the term "the Left" in much the way that many people on the left use the term "the Right" — namely, not to say "everyone on the other side of the median" but more like "everyone on the other side whose views seem really extreme/kooky/repugnant to me". So liberals tend to equate "the Right" with Coulter and Limbaugh, and conservatives tend to equate "the Left" with Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill; at the same time, people who are left of center tend to see themselves as part of "the Left" and people who are right of center tend to see themselves as part of "the Right", so they get offended by the other side’s accusations. We really need a new set of terms that can more precisely identify just who the hell we’re talking about.
 
Written By: kenB
URL: http://
Reynolds is a clown. Like other wingers, he cannot help but accuse anyone who disagrees with him as a traitor, or an opponent of democracy, or whatever. Here is a representative quote:
I think you’ve made up your mind, and there’s no debating it, but let me throw out a few points:

1) When criticizing people for making sweeping generalizations, try to avoid making sweeping generalizations of your own.

2) He didn’t actually say you guys were traitors or opponents of Democracy.

3) I did ask that commenters avoid making inferences. Granted, that quote was poorly explained, but no moreso than the usual political drivel in which opponents accuse each other of being insufficiently attached to some value or other. Speaking of which...

4) You’re one to talk:
That is what winger blogs do - act as echo chambers for the right-wing noise machine. Create message discipline. Create the meme. [...] The right wing drones get the message, and then dutifully pass it on just as Chairman Mao - er Mehlman - instructed them to do.
Sweet. I didn’t realize I was taking marching orders from the equivalent of Mao.

Does that make you equivalent to Coulter? Where does saying a journalist will be "first up against the wall when the revolution comes" put a blogger?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
We really need a new set of terms that can more precisely identify just who the hell we’re talking about.
Why not use Pournelle’s political spectrum?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
I can’t — and would never try to — speak for Greenwald. But his accusation about Reynolds re: extremism seems to be partially set forth in an earlier Greenwald post (an update, actually). He describes Reynolds as what I would classify as a "passive-aggressive extremist," and explains it thus:

I actually appreciate people like Michelle Malkin and John Hinderaker for at least having the courage of their convictions. They don’t hide what they are.

But Reynolds’ need to parade around as the moderate, reasonable libertarian - always promoting and applauding the grossest extremism while staying safe enough distance away from it to give plausible deniability - is inherently deceitful to its core.

...I will confess to finding the common tactics Reynolds uses — for instance, labelling his political opponents part of the "fringe" even though it is Reynolds’ pro-war views which are rejected by majorities of Americans, or linking to and promoting repugnant arguments only to then claim that he "only" linked to it when he is called to account — to be the opposite of argumentative integrity and honesty.
Indeed.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Mk,

You are beyond parody. You list a bunch of positions to prove you are pro-freedom in a post decrying what an extremist Reynolds is and you come up with a bunch of issues that you and Glen Reynolds agree on! LOL. Since I am pretty much on board with you on those issues, and you are definitely extreme (extremely stupid and deranged about many things at minimum) I guess Glen and I are extremists. You win on points there bub.

As for the pro Hitler nonsense, saying the left no longer opposes fascism does not mean they are pro Hitler. However, he never said everyone on the left believes the views he is criticizing, just a disheartening number. You just made that part up. Also, if you follow Reynolds at all you know he is speaking not of your garden variety liberal (which is where I put you, though your idiocy, disengenuousness and outright mendacity is by no means garden variety) but actual socialists. You claim to not know anyone on the left who supports fascism, and I know few who admit to it. However, I know many who do no matter what they say, and at minimum most no longer want to fight fascism, or even disapprove of it because it comes from some "authentic" grievance or cultural root. Some of these moral cretins are friends and family, so I suggest you get out more if you haven’t met any.

It is now so bad that true democratic socialist warriors such as Paul Berman, Todd Gitlin and Christopher Hitchens are being tarred and feathered for being apostates. Paul Berman and I can disagree about a lot of things, but I have no doubt his heart lies with the victims of fascism and on behalf of workers. I am absolutely sure Noam Chomsky’s doesn’t. They are both of the left and Paul Berman is not nearly the hero Chomsky is or as influential as ANSWER, and that is a very sad thing. The same can be said of a large number of leftists who have made the same critique of the contemporary left as Reynolds. Start with Norm Geras and the many leftists who signed the Euston Manifesto. In contrast to yourself these men are the intellectual giants of democratic socialism. If this was the left Reynold’s and those of us who loosely gather under the neo-libertarian network had to debate then we would still have heated, spirited debate, but we wouldn’t look at them with contempt. I urge you to go read the Euston manifesto mk, read Marc Cooper, Norm Geras, Paul Berman and the leading intellectual’s of the left as opposed to the mendacious cretins who have seized the headlines and our leftwing organizations on campus. You have an ideology that is far closer to them than mine is, maybe their example will shame you into actually contributing something to these debates besides shrill hate filled nonsense.

 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Oh, and one more thing mk. Jon had a request. What views does he have that make him an extremist? Saying that some other people are doesn’t cut it no matter what you think. What policies does he support that are extreme?
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Mona,

Can you please cite an example? We get Greenwalds argument, we just haven’t seen the evidence to even debate it.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Mona, that was a very passive agressive way to attack Reynolds.

C’mon, Reynolds an extremist??

I think Jon is right on the money with this post. Greenwald is looking at Reynolds through the particular filter of his own beliefs and finds him a radical. Greenwald’s very polarizing filter is the war. If you are for the war then you are a target of his ire.

Reynolds has decribed himself as being happy with the concept of married gay couples with closets of assault rifles. I would be fine with that statement also. I must be part of the radical fringe too. And I was and still am for the war (like Reynolds).

Show of hands, how many people here are for:
- marriage for gays
- weapons ownership
- the war

How many of the radical fringe infest this blog anyway? ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Or that Leftists in 2006 essentially don’t support the current government of Iraq, which means they essentially support the Baathists and Islamist terrorists.
Leftists support the government to the extent it is not inhabited by Shia militas. Bush, and the winger crowd that support him, support the Shia militias and their death squads that infect the government. If they didn’t, Sadr would be a dead man by now.

Why haven’t we killed Sadr? He is a terrorist. He has ordered his men to kill Americans. His death squads round up Sunnis in the middle of the night and kill them for being Sunni. Stated another way, he is a terrorist of the first order. Yet Bush allows him to run free. If you support the war, then you support Bush’s decision to not kill Sadr.

I wanted Zarqawi dead. So did Bush and the wingers. I want Sadr dead. Bush and the wingers don’t. We know where he is. He is a terrorist. And yet he runs free.

Indeed, look at what is happening in Basra right now. The slow implementation of Sharia law. When was the last time you heard anyone on the right complain about it, or bring attention to it? Many human rights groups on the left have. But the right has been stone silent. Not a peep at all.

That’s the distinction between us leftists and the political right in this debate.
Never mind that Fascism is a varient of Leftism
God, if this isn’t the most ridiculous assertion ever made on this blog.
Fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
Well, that would make "lefties" anti-communist. Sure you don’t want to re-think your position?
Like other wingers, he cannot help but accuse anyone who disagrees with him as a traitor, or an opponent of democracy, or whatever." So it’s MK the extremist.
Not all people on the right are wingers, but all wingers are on the right. Indeed, as I mentioned above, there are moderates on the right. (They are a dying breed - and, as Greenwald points out, many are morphing into cultists.) By contrast, Reynolds speaks as "the left" as a whole being unopposed to fascism.
2) He didn’t actually say you guys were traitors or opponents of Democracy.

3) I did ask that commenters avoid making inferences. Granted, that quote was poorly explained, but no moreso than the usual political drivel in which opponents accuse each other of being insufficiently attached to some value or other. Speaking of which...
He said "the left" was unopposed to fascism. What do you take that to mean if it doesn’t mean that the left would have no problem whatsoever if a fascist disctatorship took over? What do you take that statement to mean? I’m not talking about drawing inferences. What does it mean? You claimed he is not an extremist. So what does it mean?

As for this assertion:
That is what winger blogs do - act as echo chambers for the right-wing noise machine. Create message discipline. Create the meme. [...] The right wing drones get the message, and then dutifully pass it on just as Chairman Mao - er Mehlman - instructed them to do.
It’s hardly debatable. Indeed, in this day and age message discipline is key to winning elections. And it’s not a value judgment, unless you are inferring something that you shouldn’t be.
You are beyond parody. You list a bunch of positions to prove you are pro-freedom in a post decrying what an extremist Reynolds is and you come up with a bunch of issues that you and Glen Reynolds agree on! LOL. Since I am pretty much on board with you on those issues, and you are definitely extreme (extremely stupid and deranged about many things at minimum) I guess Glen and I are extremists. You win on points there bub.
So Glenn supports the policies, but he also supports the man who is trying to thwart those policies? I see. "You know, I’m really against forced collectivization, but that Stalin fellow is quite a guy."
However, I know many who do no matter what they say, and at minimum most no longer want to fight fascism, or even disapprove of it because it comes from some "authentic" grievance or cultural root. Some of these moral cretins are friends and family, so I suggest you get out more if you haven’t met any.
This is a joke, right? Your proof of this is what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Now, I know what you would say: "The left doesn’t back Bush’s war, therefore they don’t oppose fascism."

Name one country where the political left in this country has said that it doesn’t have a problem with the fascist regime that runs the country because it has "cultural roots" Just one. Is there some kind of winger cereal box you read in the morning to get your "wisdom" from?




 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Also, I am struck by a consistent phrase I have been seeing. That of Reynolds being passive aggressive.

I find it interesting that an email from Kos in regards to the kos payola scandal that is brewing mentions this.

Read the link and others to catch up on this amusing scandal.

Anyway, Kos is there coordinating message control and what does he talk about, but this very topic. I can see that Greenwald got the TPM. Oh well.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Lance requests:
Can you please cite an example? We get Greenwalds argument, we just haven’t seen the evidence to even debate it.
You might try searching "Reynolds" and "Instapundit" at Greenwald’s site. I don’t have examples bookmarked, but that has come to be my view from having read Instapundit for over 3 years.

I don’t, btw, agree w/ Greenwald on everything, and have sometimes strongly disagreed with him. For example, I totally disagree that Bush supporters constitute a "cult." I would not even employ the term hyperbolically. Nor do I think there is the slightest thing wrong with Chris Matthews’ stating the OBL sounds like Michael Moore in some of the former’s videos/audios. That this is so is the simple truth, and Moore himself thinks it is funny.

Capt Joe writes:
Greenwald is looking at Reynolds through the particular filter of his own beliefs and finds him a radical. Greenwald’s very polarizing filter is the war. If you are for the war then you are a target of his ire.
Your first sentence is correct; the last two are false. Greenwald’s "polarized filter" is the rule of law and the United States Constitution. His alarm with Bush first arose not wrt Iraq, but rather with the Jose Padilla matter, as he documents in both his book and at his blog.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Yeah MK, we can definitely see you are on point with the message.

So how much are they paying YOU?

They’re NOT? Well, better ask for your piece of the action before its all gone.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Well Mona, if you disagree to the last two statements then you shouldn’t provide a quote that specifically says: (your first comment on this topic above)
even though it is Reynolds’ pro-war views which are rejected by majorities of Americans
I think the war is an important part of that filter. What kills me is that a bunch of leftie bloggers are always qquoting Reynolds out of context and then trying to attribute some insidious motive to him. Atrios always prefaced his "I like Glenn Reynolds" with "but he thinks that genocide is okay". Greenwald is just doing more of the same. And he seems to be right in sync with the current message.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Capt Joe: I’m not on whatever that email list Kos is on, and I don’t read Kos unless he is linked to; nobody showed me that Kos email and I had no knowlege of it until I followed your link. But I independently came to the identical conclusion Kos did as quoted in that TNR piece, to wit:

Note how Glenn Reynolds is fueling it with his typical passive aggressive, "I don’t think it’s a big deal, but let me provide links to everyone who thinks this is THE BIGGEST STORY EVER!"
That is exactly what Reynolds did (does), and it is nearly formulaic. "Gee, I’m just passing this along to y’all..." Then he can deny he ever — EVER! — meant to suggest the site he links to states anything with any merit in the least. Oh, no. Indeed. Heh.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
MK provided:
"Fascism is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism."
MK then said:
"Well, that would make "lefties" anti-communist."

So "lefties" are by defintion pro-communist?

Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.

Stalin and Trotsky.

Fascism and Communism are leftist brothers.

As per this wikipedia article about Paul Berman ("a prominent left-wing American intellectual") :
"Key points made by Berman in "Terror and Liberalism" include the following:
20th century totalitarian philosophies (Nazism, Fascism, Falangism, Bolshevism) come from the same ideological roots"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Berman
 
Written By: Anonynous
URL: http://
Mona, I don’t seem to see my saying you got an email unless you and Greenwald are the same person.

As to the Kosola story. So he should ignore it? Why? Because Kos said so. Not sure I understand that logic.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I don’t read Reynolds for the same reason I don’t read Atrios: The bulk of their blogs are one line links with often no clue as to what they story is about.
Well then, either of them could qualify to host NBC’s Meet The Press.

Honestly, anyone who watches that filler-before-the-pregame-show knows that Russert merely reads clips from various newspapers to politicians and allows them to respond uncontested.
Man, how does one get that gig?

++++++++++++

Since Reynolds is a high-profile figure, he gets this kind of treatment. Much like with Kos or Dean, his actual policy positions are of secondary importance. The target is the megaphone not the merits.
Where I generally agree with this point, it doesn’t help if the megaphone is defective at times.
Now before everyone jumps in with, “if it comes from Kos, then it has to be false”…

Have we heard a contest from the instapundit?
I have missed a few episodes of the blogosphere soap opera, for I’ve been spending my ever shrinking free time watching World Cup Football Soccer. (Sorry, there, English only freaks. Oh wait, “Football” is English. Oh wait, so is “Soccer”. My bad.)

;)
Cheers.
Like Megabytes through the hourglass, so are the blogs of our lives.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Yes, PogueMahone, sometimes it is, BUT Kos has AMPLIFICATION as well as distortion so maybe that offsets it a bit.

Still waiting for the Rove indictment, the news from Truthout gives me new hope. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
The best unintentially hilarious comment of the day came from MKUltra, who said:
...moderates on the right...
If they’re on the right, they aren’t moderate, correct? How far to the Left must one be to see the Center as part of the Right Wing?
 
Written By: Nathan
URL: http://brain.mu.nu/
He said "the left" was unopposed to fascism. What do you take that to mean if it doesn’t mean that the left would have no problem whatsoever if a fascist disctatorship took over? What do you take that statement to mean? I’m not talking about drawing inferences. What does it mean? You claimed he is not an extremist. So what does it mean?
What does it mean ? Wow. Originally I assumed you couldn’t be so dense, but clearly...

Islamism, or Islamic Extremism, or whatever you want to call it, is ideological fascism no less nasty than Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. That you could get this far beyond 9/11 without realizing that is quite sad indeed.

And it is patently true that the left is not interested in fighting this variety of fascism. Murtha is your spokesman on this account. When the going gets tough, the left bugs out. When the left isn’t claiming to "support the troops, so pull them out now", they are trumpeting any and every form of multiculturalism that excuses the barbaric murder and torture of our soldiers because we put PANTIES ON THEIR HEADS!!!!

Islamic terrorists aren’t "bad", they’re just different, and their culture cannot be judged by us evil Amerikkkans. We invented slavery, you know. Oh, and persecuted the native Americans, too. Hey, we can play that broadbrush game too, bub.
 
Written By: Sherard
URL: http://
Mona,

So, you won’t actually come up with one example of an extreme view as opposed to a distaste for his blogging style. By the way, he often links to people whose views he disagrees with, including those on the left. Is that being passive aggressive as well? Or in many posts he links to several different views on an issue. Is he endorsing them all? Reynolds is pretty clear about where he stands on most issues,and where he thinks the ambiguities are. There is no need for you or Greenwald to act as if he is using some sort of code.

Pogue,

So what, Glenn was wrong. Glenn hardly feels he is right on everything. He often gives an interpretation and then posts dissenting views. In fact he often modifies his position or elaborates to make himself more clear if his point might be different than how it was taken. As for Reynold’s trying to mislead people as Kos claims the question is why? Reynold’s didn’t feel he deserved to be savaged for being mistaken, and understandably so, I doubt he cares about Kos’s attack or who posted what first at all. How would Glenn look better if people thought the attack was before the update or not? Glenn didn’t feel the savagery was deserved, not the pointing out he was mistaken. I am sure he has decided to just move on, because who cares?

Mk,
Leftists support the government to the extent it is not inhabited by Shia militas. Bush, and the winger crowd that support him, support the Shia militias and their death squads that infect the government. If they didn’t, Sadr would be a dead man by now.
Well mk, you don’t get to speak for the left. There are many that despise Sadr and there are many who see him as a third world hero standing up to Bush. As for the Bush administration supporting him I am just speechless, especially given all the wailing some sectors put up claiming Bush was an undiplomatic warmongerer for having our troops go after him. Many of those who wanted Bush to tone it down vis a vis Sadr were from the "reality based community." That the right has some kind of affinity for him is just silly.
Indeed, look at what is happening in Basra right now. The slow implementation of Sharia law. When was the last time you heard anyone on the right complain about it, or bring attention to it? Many human rights groups on the left have. But the right has been stone silent. Not a peep at all.
Silent? That is just plain BS. I hear it complained about all the time from all kinds of quarters, we just don’t pretend that it was better under Saddam like you. As I said, read Berman on this issue for a legitimate leftist critique.
He said "the left" was unopposed to fascism. What do you take that to mean if it doesn’t mean that the left would have no problem whatsoever if a fascist disctatorship took over?
Actually you should ask the guys running ANSWER that question. In their case your stretching and twisting of Glen’s point would be apropo. Most leftists Glen is speaking of however are less consistent. They feel we are wrong to criticize or attack fascists like Arafat, Nasser, Saddam or in many cases even Milosovic, but I agree, they don’t want them to rule here. They justify that in many ways, including that we don’t get to impose our values on others, or there are root causes that make their feelings and ways of governing themselves understandable and sometimes even righteous.
Name one country where the political left in this country has said that it doesn’t have a problem with the fascist regime that runs the country because it has "cultural roots" Just one. Is there some kind of winger cereal box you read in the morning to get your "wisdom" from?
Okay, I’ll give you Chomsky and his supporters justifying the regimes of Southeast Asia. I’ll give you all the support Arafat recieved from the left and the many times this was justified by the situation there and the way the culture of the Middle East has been deformed by western imperialism. Did you see the left’s favorite moveie a while back from Michael Moore? I could go on, but I think the real problem is you don’t know anything about the left, either its triumphs or its failures and crimes. You are not a leftist, you are Democratic Party shill. I suggest you read terror and liberalism by Berman. He’ll go into a critique of the left and right which might open your eyes.
So Glenn supports the policies, but he also supports the man who is trying to thwart those policies? I see. "You know, I’m really against forced collectivization, but that Stalin fellow is quite a guy."
You obviously don’t have a clue about Glen Reynolds. He has attacked Bush on these issues often and is no great admirer of Bush. Of course that is hardly surprising since you still can’t get it through your thick head that two of the three here at QandO didn’t vote for Bush and the third did so reluctantly. In your world if you don’t suffer from BDS then you are a Bush shill. Glen preferred Bush to Kerry, that hardly means he supports any particular position. From what I can see he is at this point cheering on a Republican collapse, he just isn’t sure the Democrats would be any better or are able to take advantage of the opportunity.
Well, that would make "lefties" anti-communist. Sure you don’t want to re-think your position?
Wow, you really don’t know much about the left do you? There is a long and proud anti-communist tradition on the left. Are you saying that leftists have to be pro-communist? Go read Sidney Hook’s "Out of Step" along with your Berman, it’ll help.
Now, I know what you would say: "The left doesn’t back Bush’s war, therefore they don’t oppose fascism."
You would think that wouldn’t you, since that is essentially the reasoning you use to smear people on Sadr and in many other instances. No, I say many on the left don’t oppose fascism beause they say they don’t believe we or anyone else has a right to criticise or attack these regimes. We hear about how we cannot impose our values or even judge these regimes harshly. We also hear apologetics for these regimes behavior as no worse than ours. Once again you don’t need to listen to us "wingers", listen to Paul Berman, Todd Gitlin, Norm Geras, Marc Cooper or visit Harry’s Place.

To help you out I will include a section from the Euston Manifesto. This manifesto was put together by the left precisely because they see the problem you pretend doesn’t exist. Don’t feel bad, the right has its sores too. That doesn’t change the fact that you are peddling a disengenuous line. So take your aim off those of us here. The most cogent attack has come from the left. You can either grow up and join them in condemning the problem or take them on. Or are these leftists not talking about anybody real or reading this stuff off a cereal box as well?
We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11, 2001 were America’s deserved comeuppance, or "understandable" in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted — rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one’s energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.

Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews themselves are on the increase in Europe. "Anti-Zionism" has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other "polite" and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics — remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all variants of such bigotry.

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.
Oh, and it is true that all the various forms of totalitarianism come from the same ideological roots. Mussolini was a leftist who decided to break with his fellow socialists over the nationalist idea. He dubbed this fascism. They are variants, which doesn’t make them the same, but it does mean that modern fascism cannot be easily separated from mid thirties socialism and communism. The Baathist movement was inspired by Mussolini and sustained and nurtured by communist Russia. There is no bright line between the left and right for you to play with here Mk. It is all just another form of totalitarianism which is all based on socialism. In practice the socialist ideal divorced from democracy has been fascist, whatever denials it has wished to bleat out. Socialism needs democracy in a way that market economies do not. Anyway, if socialism has a future it will only be by steeling itself against totalitariansim and its apologists. The Euston manfesto is a start, but you have to acknowledge the problem to face it.

 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
bravo Lance, keep writing and about time you got a blog. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Now, the unarguable and clear implication of that assertion is that the left no longer opposes fascism.

You say that like you think it’s questionable.
 
Written By: Charles Martin
URL: http://
Lance writes:
So, you won’t actually come up with one example of an extreme view as opposed to a distaste for his blogging style.
That is an inaccurate characterization of what I wrote. I don’t mind his "shepard" blogging style; it has its place in the blogosphere, and he writes more in-depth pieces at Slate, TCS and elsewhere (which, on technology and other stuff, I find mildly interesting). What I object to is exactly captured in the quote from Kos in the TNR article someone else posted above. I didn’t start to notice this — here it comes — passive-aggressive method of dissing those with whom Reynolds disagrees about Bush’s foreign policy/national security policies until I came to significant disagreement myself.
By the way, he often links to people whose views he disagrees with, including those on the left. Is that being passive aggressive as well? Or in many posts he links to several different views on an issue. Is he endorsing them all? Reynolds is pretty clear about where he stands on most issues,and where he thinks the ambiguities are. There is no need for you or Greenwald to act as if he is using some sort of code.
Yes, which allows people like you to make that point, but how many examples can you cite where he approvingly links to someone making a strong case against George Bush on any matter pertaining to national security/foreign policy? So he is for gay marriage and abortion. Big deal. Obviously he is never going to let those, or any other issues, be reason enough to reject George Bush and the GOP-led Congress.

The final straw for me wrt to his credibility was when he declared that the MSM better hope and pray we don’t lose in Iraq, cuz boy, a lot of people are gonna blame them, doncha know. There are sane voices — Buckley, Will, Greg Djerejian and yes, some who are "liberal" — questioning whether the war was winnable from the outset, or whether it has been prosecuted in a winnable manner. It isn’t the dang MSM that is the issue.

The "left" is not wrong about everything; libertarians share some views with the traditional left. I’m a libertarian and I am now prepared to believe the "left" of Howard Dean and even Murtha (if not in some of his weird particulars) were/are not wrong about Iraq. However, I don’t believe anything in the world — that there is any evidence of any type that could be presented — which would ever induce Instapundit and a great many others to admit that. Instead, we continue to get screeds about the Evil MSM, the defeatist left, the anti-American left & etc.

The left is not constituted of a legion of freakin’ Ward Churchills. There are some intelligent and insightful people left-of-center — who love their country — who proffer rational and worthwhile criticisms of Bush, his foreign policy, and his extreme views regarding Executive power. Reynolds will not credit as worth considering or promote THAT KIND of criticism of Bush. Instead, he often links to those — of whom he clearly approves — who engage in calling such voices moonbats, communists, defeatists or whatever the Coulteresque pejorative of the day might be.

But he’s down with gay marriage, so he gets a pass on his unwavering devotion to Bush where it most counts? Not from me.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
I was wondering why Greenwald did not comment here in response to Jon’s criticisms — he often does and manifestly respects Jon Henke — and I now see that it is because he has been very busy regarding some startling, and quite welcome, recent developments about which he just posted.:
An amendment to cut off all funding for the warrantless eavesdropping program — something unmentionable a few months ago — almost passed the House last night, and had more than a handful of Republicans supporting it. And the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee spontaneously directed the Justice Department and the President to turn over all documents relating to efforts to "induce" telephone companies to provide calling data on Americans.
Do read the whole thing, and note that the assumptions implicit in some comments here don’t hold up, i.e., Murtha behaved like a "wingnut" and scores of Republicans like "moonbats." The neat, binary world some Bush supporters (like Glenn Reynolds) live in — in which all Democrats, save Leiberman and Zell Miller, are defeatists, traitors, soft-on-terrorism — is a false one. Looks like many GOP Congresspeople (and some judges) are quite awake to that fact, and finally meeting their duty to defend both the rule of law, and the integrity of their own co-equal branch of the federal government.

 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Leftists like Ramsey defended Milosevic, Saddam, etc., but I would suggest other leftists simply oppose the use of force to depose regimes...though keep in mind Orwell’s attack of pacifists are being implicitly pro-fascist by their stance.

BTW, Mona, the operative word is ALMOST passed. Tough luck.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Instead, he often links to those — of whom he clearly approves — who engage in calling such voices moonbats, communists, defeatists or whatever the Coulteresque pejorative of the day might be.
This statement reflects the culture of many blog communities. Thoes bloggers, just as Reynolds, believe they can create the true media. Their links, prove what they are posting is the truth. I think too many of their references are reflections, rather than citations. I don’t see their purpose as some higher calling. If you diagree, you get trashed. It’s their perogative.
 
Written By: VRB
URL: http://
I was wondering why Greenwald did not comment here
Well, isn’t it obvious. We aren’t worthy (doing my wayne’s world imitation)
Murtha behaved like a "wingnut" and scores of Republicans like "moonbats."
Where in the above comments did you find that phrase. Aren’t you doing exactly what you charge Reynolds of?

and
he often links to those — of whom he clearly approves — who engage in calling such voices moonbats
That is a distortion. He links to all sort of people, even those who do not like him. He often points out his own errors. I have yet, ever, to see any of your saints on the left do that.

But this is getting tiresome. Adieu et bon chance.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Show of hands, how many people here are for:
- marriage for gays
- weapons ownership
- the war
{hand waving over here} - I’m down wid dat - I mean, wid dem...
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Harum writes:
BTW, Mona, the operative word is ALMOST passed. Tough luck.
I don’t consider it as tough luck at all! This issue, in the weeks and months after the NYT story broke, was widely proclaimed by Bush supporters in the blogosphere and elsewhere to be a non-starter that would go nowhere. Again, read the whole post I linked to (where you will see that Murtha voted favorably for the Administration). That the amendment was even offered and that it had so much support is simply astonishing, at this point in the scandal. But there are other fronts, and there was also other congressional activity related to the issue, all of it inevitably conspiring to bring the Executive back under the rule of law — as the Founders intended.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Oh captain, my captain - it’s not
We aren’t worthy
But rather, "we’re NOT worthy" :)

Wayne’s World, Waynes World, waynes world......
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Mona,
Yes, which allows people like you to make that point, but how many examples can you cite where he approvingly links to someone making a strong case against George Bush on any matter pertaining to national security/foreign policy? So he is for gay marriage and abortion. Big deal. Obviously he is never going to let those, or any other issues, be reason enough to reject George Bush and the GOP-led Congress.
If you really believe that then you don’t really read him except to look for confirmation of your view of him. If Glenn Reynolds is an extremist then just about everybody is. Glenn often criticises and links to those who criticise Bush on foreign policy grounds, obviously those criticisms are not the ones you like. However, as I said before, you don’t like the style. You misinterpret what I meant by that by the way, the complaint you make is about his style of linking to people who you dislike and assume he approves of but doesn’t want to take responsibility for, but once again that is disengenuous since Glenn’s positions on issues are pretty clear. He doesn’t need to be passive aggressive. However, as I complained of before you still haven’t come up with a position of his which is extreme, not that you disagree with, but extreme. Being passive aggressive is a style problem, not an example of being extreme.

This next quote however takes the cake. It proves you have no idea what Glenn believes in and should just go onto some other subject:
Obviously he is never going to let those, or any other issues, be reason enough to reject George Bush and the GOP-led Congress.
I am not sure why I am bothering because it is obvious you have your mind made up, but Glenn doesn’t want a Republican congress. He is one of the leading voices on the web for people running the congress out on a rail, Republicans included. Bush is a non-issue, he can’t run again. He has spoken well of some Democrats as well, including Hillary, but I guess he is a Bush shill who only says all this stuff, including being the most prominent popularizer of the pork busters project which is targeting many a Republican, to let people like me claim he isn’t a Bushbot. In fact when I look at the substance of your complaint it is obvious your issue is he fundamentally supports the war, whatever his criticisms of it, and therefore everything else is just a smokescreen to push the Bush message. I often disagree with you Mona, but this shows an attitude of unreasonableness I didn’t think you had.
There are sane voices — Buckley, Will, Greg Djerejian and yes, some who are "liberal" — questioning whether the war was winnable from the outset, or whether it has been prosecuted in a winnable manner.
That is funny. If I were to make a list I would have written that same sentence and included Glenn, Jon, Dale and McQ. Obviously you don’t feel they are critical enough or for the right reasons so they aren’t really critical.
The left is not constituted of a legion of freakin’ Ward Churchills. There are some intelligent and insightful people left-of-center — who love their country — who proffer rational and worthwhile criticisms of Bush, his foreign policy, and his extreme views regarding Executive power. Reynolds will not credit as worth considering or promote THAT KIND of criticism of Bush.
Well I have no idea how someone could think I need to be reminded of the many good people on the left. Did you read what I last wrote. I know it was a bit long and all, but I think it shows I am quite wiliing to see the good on the left. In fact I can honestly say many of my heroes are on the left, or were. My bookshelves are filled with their writings and biographies. So who exactly are you trying to convince? It can’t be Glenn, because Glenn has linked me to many prominent leftists and liberals over the years who have made criticisms of Bush’s foreign policy. Geras, Cooper, Totten, Berman as well as everyone you listed above to name just a few. I guess your problem is that those leftists may despise Bush, they may be critical, but they support the project in Iraq, or at least its continuance now that we are there, as do those who signed the Euston Manifesto. It may seem odd to many libertarians, but I care about the left. That is why I search out those who are striving to keep a humane and democratic left alive. That is why the Euston Manifesto is important to me, because it shows the democratic left still has a chance, and interestingly Reynolds has made the same point. That you can sit there and defend Kos and savage Reynolds is terrible. When a staunch leftist like Berman, a man who is less interested in being a star and more interested in his true convictions can’t be treated civily by Kos but would undoubtedly get along fine, but with disagreements, with Reynolds, the mainstream left has lost its way. The same goes for Geras and Cooper. If you really have more trouble reading and defending Reynolds than Kos then you have truly lost your way as well.
Instead, he often links to those — of whom he clearly approves — who engage in calling such voices moonbats, communists, defeatists or whatever the Coulteresque pejorative of the day might be.
Once again, have you actually read instapundit? Yes, he often accuses people of such things, and usually they deserve it. He doesn’t say such things about everyone who opposes or opposed the war, that is just a smear. Comparing him to Coulter shows you have lost any sense of perspective. He has not called anyone a communist that I am aware of who wasn’t a communist. He calls Murtha a defeatist, true, but whether you agree with Murtha or not he certainly is a defeatist. Maybe we should be, I am not, but I could be wrong, but defeatist the man certainly is. As for moonbat, hey come on, have you been to one of the war protests? Do you actually read the diaries at Kos while you hang out there? These people actually believe Michael Moore. What is Glenn supposed to say? He isn’t calling Russ Feingold a moonbat or even Harry Reid. I can’t believe you really believe he is saying or linking with any regularity to people who are using such language unfairly. I admit he is pretty hard on Pelosi, but come on, she is a human dartboard. Can any libertarian not be? You remind me at this point of those conservatives who act as if he is a communist because he attacks Bush’s social policies and thinks Leon Kass is a nut. His actual views are irrelevant, he doesn’t agree with what I am most passionate about so I get to slam him on everything else and twist his views as I see fit.

Anyway, you obviously are angry because he supports the project in Iraq and cannot be bothered to understand his actual views and have instead done to Glenn what Mk does to the guys at QandO. You create a Glenn that exists only in your imagination as does much of the left.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Capt. Joe,

I don’t think I’ll get my own blog, I just don’t have the time or energy. However, Peter over at Liberal Capitalist has said I can put some stuff up and I suggest you wander on over there to visit anyway. Uh, Peter, I can still do that huh? Robyn will be in Europe on an NEH grant for a month in July and it might be a good time for me to start up.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
It’s pretty clear how small minded the likes of Greenwald and Mona are. Unless you are against the war, you are pro-Bush and, well, EVIL. The balance of your positions are irrelevant. In Mona’s words:
So he is for gay marriage and abortion. Big deal.
It’s all about Iraq. If you are pro-war, you are an EVIL BUSHBOT (oh, and an extremist). Thanks for clearing that up for us.
 
Written By: Sherard
URL: http://
Yes, which allows people like you to make that point, but how many examples can you cite where he approvingly links to someone making a strong case against George Bush on any matter pertaining to national security/foreign policy?
I can cite at least one.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Jon,

My guess is you now need to cite a left-liberal, and despite the feelings of some who comment here I don’t think you qualify.

Though, now that I read it closely, did you notice his passive aggressive use of you? Never mind what Glenn’s actual position on this issue is, he really only cited you to take a shot at people who comment on torture and he had to endorse someone (not that he was really endorsing you) in order to to launch the attack. By the way, that is a substantive critique of Reynolds position as opposed to the style of expressing his opinion. Right? Mona? Did I get it right? I mean he really despises Jon, right, but he had to look reasonable so he could take a slap at Andrew Sullivan, who he hates! That’s right, which goes to that whole gay rights theme, which we know is a just a smoke screen so he can seem reasonable when he attacks, ta da! Andrew Sullivan, but actually he hates gays, especially gays with beagles, which is why he hates Andrew Sullivan who wouldn’t hand over his puppy for a little blender action. Of course, I now understand the entire Glenn Reynolds ouvre. Jon, Glenn is really a gay bashing, evolution loving, puppy murdering, torture approving, Bushbot who was just using you to swipe at Andrew and Greg Djerejian (who lives in New york and writes approvingly of Andrew Sullivan, he must be gay too!) Da Vinci has nothing on this guy. I am off to the Instapundit archives to break the code. His off beat geek humor, tolerance for other views and sly use of links are not a stylistic choice, they are a dense conspiracy backed by Ralph Reed to lead libertarians and their sympathisers to support war in the middle east and bring us closer to the plains of Megiddo....

Is anybody still here? Where am I? On no its the blog father! He knows I have found the secret code of what he really is up to!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...............
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Though, now that I read it closely, did you notice his passive aggressive use of you? Never mind what Glenn’s actual position on this issue is, he really only cited you to take a shot at people who comment on torture and he had to endorse someone (not that he was really endorsing you) in order to to launch the attack.
Actually, there’s a bit more to it. Reynolds specifically asked me to write a post putting the evidence for torture/abuse together to make the case that Sullivan, et al, often allege, but rarely prove. Reynolds wanted a "here’s the evidence" post, rather than a "isn’t it awful" post.

So, I did that, let him know and he linked it. His shot at Sullivan was due to an ongoing dispute the two of them had about whether Reynolds was sufficiently concerned about it and whether Sullivan was demonstrating or just remonstrating.

As for Reynolds style, I have to disagree to some extent with Mona and Co. It’s best to think of Instapundit not as a passive-aggressive pundit, but as an editor. He links a lot of stuff that he finds interesting, worth reading, etc. A lot of it, he agrees with....other stuff, not so much. But that’s the nature of being an editor — people are prone to making inferences about your intentions. Sometimes, those inferences are correct, but not always.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Lance = Hitler

:)
 
Written By: MKMovement
URL: http://www.dailykos.com
"His actual views are irrelevant, he doesn’t agree with what I am most passionate about so I get to slam him on everything else and twist his views as I see fit.

Anyway, you obviously are angry because he supports the project in Iraq and cannot be bothered to understand his actual views and have instead done to Glenn what Mk does to the guys at QandO. You create a Glenn that exists only in your imagination as does much of the left."


That pretty much says it all.
 
Written By: Notherbob2
URL: http://
Jon,

I knew about the Sullivan contretemps, but as Mickey says, Andrew is a little bit exciteable. I didn’t know he had solicited you, which I think reinforces your point and mine as well. He obviously wanted a piece on the issue he could respect and I believe he has linked to Belgravia Dispatch at times on the issue as well. That implies to me that he doesn’t often link to people who write on the subject not out of approval of the Bush policy and wanting to cover it up, but to avoid a certain way of approaching the issue which he finds tiresome. He obviously feels he can’t find enough non-hysterical commentary and needed to give you a push to do so. This may be a problem on the right that so little is available which is not suffering from BDS, but that is hardly Glenn’s fault.

Oh, and I think you and the guys here have done yeoman’s work on the issue. Keep it up.

Mk movement,

Heh!
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Notherbob2,
That pretty much says it all.
Yeah, I guess it does. I am sure most everybody wishes I had started with that and just shut up because everything else was just a waste of time.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Sherad errs:
It’s pretty clear how small minded the likes of Greenwald and Mona are. Unless you are against the war, you are pro-Bush and, well, EVIL. The balance of your positions are irrelevant.
I’ve repeatedly written now, that this is not the core of my objection to George Bush, tho it has become among my reasons for disapproving of him. But my original reasons were things like: Schiavo, Padilla, warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA, and torture; most paramount, the United States Constitution which places the Executive under the rule of law, a quaint notion Bush rejects on any issue that can remotely be said to touch on national security. So, yes, merely approving of gay marriage in light of these other multiple issues leaves me totally unimpressed, and I cannot imagine how any libertarian could see it otherwise, or at least not be troubled by the issues that alarm me.

But in any event, I do also hold objections to Bush’s Iraq policy.

And, like me, Greg Djerejian started out a supporter of the Iraq war, and he considered himself a "blog pal" of Glenn Reynolds. More recently he is highly critical of Bush and Rumsfeld on the subject of Iraq, and writes about Reynolds thus:
Glenn tends to tune a lot out these days, I’d think. Recently he linked to some ’good news’ from Iraq that featured some B.S. about beauty pageants in Baghdad, whilst remaining mute about dozens of American soldiers dead in Anbar this month, tens of thousands of Iraqis internally displaced due to sectarian discord, and the failure of U.S. forces to even provide for basic order in Baghdad, which must be accomplished, or else Iraq will disintegrate. He thinks the biggest problem in Iraq is corruption, not a country careening towards civil war, or a still resilient insurgency. Corruption is lousy Glenn, and none of us like it, but anyone who thinks that’s the biggest problem in Iraq now is just totally divorced from reality.

Look, if I thought it would make a difference, I’d buy Glenn Cobra II, and FedEx it to his faculty office down in Tennessee, all on my dime. But it wouldn’t make one iota of difference, I fear. Glenn can claim all he wants people like me haven’t explained what a new Defense Secretary would bring to the table. That’s just not true, but Glenn simply doesn’t want to hear it, and like the torture issue, decides to "tune out". He’s made up his mind: Rummy good, and Rummy-dissent is but Kos commenter-style proxy-bashing of POTUS. It’s not serious.
And that’s mild — Greg has recently gone even more excitedly about Reynolds inane defense of Bush re: the war. But I thought that was enough to make my point.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
But my original reasons were things like: Schiavo, Padilla, warrantless surveillance in violation of FISA, and torture; most paramount, the United States Constitution which places the Executive under the rule of law, a quaint notion Bush rejects on any issue that can remotely be said to touch on national security. So, yes, merely approving of gay marriage in light of these other multiple issues leaves me totally unimpressed, and I cannot imagine how any libertarian could see it otherwise, or at least not be troubled by the issues that alarm me.
Yeah, but Mona, your reasons for dislike of Bush don’t apply to Reynolds, so exactly why you need to elaborate that I don’t know. In fact Glenn by the standard you have just elaborated comes out pretty positive. Sherard’s comment was that you feel Reynolds is an extremist because he supports the war and in general terms the way it has been fought. Oh and Glenn thinks Markos "screw ’em" Zuniga and his fans are heavily influenced by moonbats. Wow, that is a stretch. Would you like me to point out some of the extremism there? I promise you it wouldn’t take me two days to come up with a single example unlike in your case.

That Greg feels Glenn should be harder on Bush and Rummy is fine, but my guess is that Greg would hardly define Glenn as an extremist and it doesn’t mean Glenn is an extremist or allow you to act as if all his other positions are insincerely held. As I and others have pointed out, you keep defending Greenwalds characterization of Glenn as an extremist by basically saying he is too supportive of Bush on the war. You have brought nothing else up except to say that in reality he is extreme but hides behind his passive aggressive linking. That is BS and explaining that you don’t approve of Bush or the war doesn’t change that. Glenn doesn’t approve of Bush either, so all we are left with is the war. If it is something else beside the passive-aggressive bit then please let us know. What is it that makes him extreme? You have had this entire thread to let us know, but you will not elaborate one position he holds that is extreme. You don’t have to link to it. Most of us here know what he believes, we want you to tell us which of those beliefs are extreme? Or, are we right, it is just the war and supporting the war means one is extreme in your eyes?
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Well, I for one think it is interesting (with a heh!) that Greenwald is on the Townhouse list.

I had noted that his response seemed formulaic and by formulaic I meant surprisingly similiar to Kos attack on instapundit. It seems now that the whole liberal blogosphere is taking it marching orders from this list. Nice! Can you imagine ANY conservative bloggers or much less libertarian bloggers agreeing on a post or taking orders from another. Indeed and double Heh!

Anyway, back to lurk mode and I am cooking up some popcorn to watch the fireworks.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Lance writes:
Oh and Glenn thinks Markos "screw ’em" Zuniga and his fans are heavily influenced by moonbats. Wow, that is a stretch. Would you like me to point out some of the extremism there? I promise you it wouldn’t take me two days to come up with a single example unlike in your case.
Extremists can be found in the comments of sections of nearly all political blogs, especially if they are either not moderated, or are not heavily so. And Kos doesn’t endorse every diary there. He made one comment that is indeed repulsive, and he explained it in terms of his having been military and not thinking highly of contractors; an explanation I find far less than sufficient, as did legions of his own readers. But it is one ill-considered statement in years of blogging. Fact is, his views seem centrist. (But I really do think he should set forth an unqualified, abject, groveling retraction of that comment.)

As to Reynolds, I already explained how it is I believe he coyly promotes extremism in the way he links to others to spread the more extremist things, altho he has said some pretty absurd stuff himself, see, e.g., my observation about the MSM being culpable if we lose in Iraq. He has a habit of posting in this forumla: "Gee, here is X about Some Liberal, and isn’t it something if, you know, there is anything to it. Maybe there isn’t, but I am going to send tens of thousands of people to read the snark/calumny/distortion/lies. Oh, but I’m not saying it has ANY merit. No, not me. It is just a link." He knows his audience is overwhelmingly constituted of right-of-center Bush supporters, and he feeds them links to the Malkins and even on occasion Coulter, and who cares if he also sometimes tosses in a link to a liberal — that isn’t the meat for his known audience.

I don’t respect that, it is a way to promote the extremist views of others with plausible deniability. And that’s what he does, as the Kos example from the TNR article well shows.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
"Being against the man who is for a constitutional amendment that would deny states the ability to give persons of the same sex the freedom to marry makes one anti-freedom".

Uh, MKULTRA? Clinton proposed, lobbied for and signed the "Defense of Marriage Act". In case you’ve forgotten those heady days of Camelot liberal freedom-loving utopia, its denies states the ability to give persons of the same sex the ability to marry. Just FYI.
 
Written By: Barb
URL: http://
Definitions, children!

Fascism: A system of thought that controls all by declaring that each person is a part of the whole.

Socialism: A system of thought that controls all by declaring that each bit of property must be controlled by the government, though all this authority must be exercised peacefully.

Communisim: A system of thought that controls all by declarig each bit of property must be controlled by the government, and admits that to exercise this authority, violence may be required.

Naziism.
Abbreviation of "National Socialist German Workers Party". A system of thought that combined Mercantilism, Communism, and Eugenics.

Mercantilism: A system of economic thought that seeks to strengthen a nation by government intervention: by supporting favored businesses with subsidies, and penalizing unfavored businesses with taxes or fees.

Capitalism:
A system of economic thought that seeks to make property owned privately, and devolves control from the government.

Eugenics: A system of thought that sought to extend Mercantilism to various human physical traits. Famous Supporters: Margaret Sanger, who founded planned parenthood, so "unsatisfactory people" would have abortions, and Theodore Roosevelt who wanted the most satisfactory people to have advantages in the competition for breeding. Adolph Hitler, who built on the longstanding Weimar republic practice of theraputic murder of crippled veterans, polio victims, sterilization of mentally retarded women (so they could be allowed to practice prostitution) and extended it to Jews, Gypsies, the Confessing Church, and homosexuals.

Minor irony. FDR was elected president. In Germany, he would have been put down. He supported mercantile programs such as farm support being paid to the (White) land owners, but had no similar program to provide support to black sharecroppers whose work was no longer needed by the white land owners.

In my brief review of history, the Left supported Facism until the Communists were attacked by the Nazis. They supported Eugenics until FDR was elected president. They still support Abortion, which is why left wing demographics continue to decrease.

 
Written By: Don Meaker
URL: http://
The current version of the Marriage Amendment does not forbid the states from extending marriage customs to homosexuals. Rather, it forbids the Courts (like in Massachusetts) to "interpret" said extention.

That makes the Marriage Amendment, and its supporters "democractic" and its opponents "oligarchic".

As for freedom, as a man who has been married and divorced twice, Marriage is not about freedom, but rather, about penalties and restrictions.

So, if you assert that the current proposed Marriage Amendment is about restricting freedom, you are telling a whopper. Go wash your mouth out with soap.
 
Written By: Don Meaker
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider