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

 
Taking Hyperbole to new heights
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Is it just me or is Glenn Greewald becoming practiced at making mountains out of molehills?

Apparently the right side of the blogosphere hasn't reacted in a way he expects concerning some commentary yesterday by a "prominent right-wing blog".

He sets it up like this:
If your only source for news was reading right-wing blogs, you would have thought that the most significant world event in the last few days was that some crazy woman who nobody ever heard of before (someone by the name of "Deb Frisch") left some vile comments on Jeff Goldstein's blog, a venue which itself is devoted to some of the most vile, deranged and psychosexually disturbed commentary that can be found on the Internet. Virtually every right-wing blogger spent the weekend focused on this solemn and grave matter, milking it for all it was worth. Many implied that this unknown commenter was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals, and exploited the drama to argue that the "Left" must approve of these comments because they didn't denounce the comments enough times or with enough vigor.
Of course what he's talking about is a woman who found it necessary to comment on Jeff Goldstein's two-year old son, repeatedly. And the comments were indeed vile, deranged and psychosexully disturbed.

(As an aside, Greenwald found no irony in linking to a blog which attacks Goldstein with caustic and unsupported assertions. Statements such as "His sex and violence issues I’ll deal with first; if by the end you’re not also convinced that Goldstein is certifably crazy and that, therefore, he ought to be straitjacketed and shot-up with elephant tranquilizers, then you should be drubbed to death with a giant dildo" are apparently acceptable and don't rate condemnation.)

Amazingly, we here at QandO didn't comment on the Goldstein affair because, well, there were plenty of others commenting on it and other than to say the woman was 'vile, deranged and psychosexually disturbed' along with the rest, there really wasn't much to add. We're certainly identified more often than not as a 'right-wing' blog, and I assume we enjoy some prominence in the pantheon of political blogs. But somehow we managed to avoid the weekend obsession of "virtually all" the right-wing blogs.

So does our silence on Frisch mean we endorse this mad woman's comments?

Of course not. Nor did we feel compelled to denounce the left side of the blogosphere for not being vigorous enough in their denunciation of her.

That's a fools game.

The commentary from Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler which has Greenwald so upset is this:
So keep that in mind. Should we ever make the mistake of capturing any of the perpetrators of the war crime against PFCs Menchaca and Tucker alive, we can forget about interrogating them in order to catch the rest, according to the Supreme Whores. Well, unless they’re willing to give up information if we ask “pretty please?”, since anything other than that has been deemed illegal by those blackrobed tyrants. Are we exaggerating? Try doing anything to those mutilating darlings of the Supremes in order to extract life-saving intel from them, and then wait for the Supreme Whores to decide that you were “humiliating” them in doing so.

Five ropes, five robes, five trees.

Some assembly required.
Over the top? You bet. Unexpected? Certainly not. Ever read Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller before?

Is it something we're charged with denouncing? Well, only if we want to dance with Greenwald's strawman. Given his premise, we're already on Greewald's hook for not denouncing the attack on Goldstein's two-year old son. Now we're in double jeopardy.

Heck, if we spent our day reviewing blogs and expressing our outrage at every "over the top" statement made by someone else we'd never do anything else.

That isn't to say there aren't things said which should be addressed at times, but I'd suggest that Greenwald calm down and take his own advice:
Let us stipulate that there are crazed, insane lunatics and repugnant individuals on both the Right and the Left. Any honest person would readily acknowledge that.
Agreed. Let's call that our "standard disclaimer". More importantly, why don't we just leave it there instead of engaging in an escalation of condemnation and name-calling?

Unless Greenwald is prepared to comb the internet daily and consistently and persistently condemn everyone who engages in such speech (on both sides) as well as those who fail to condemn it (including himself), it would appear the mature approach would be to acknowledge both sides do it and leave it at that.

UPDATE: Greewald responds:
I was just about to explain that McQ missed the entire point of the post — the point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. To the contrary, I was objecting to complaints made by numerous right-wing bloggers this weekend that "the Left" did not condemn Frisch’s reprehensible though irrelevant remarks with sufficient vigor and frequency and that this somehow means that they must approve of the tactics.
To which I responded:
All I can say, Glenn, is if that was your intent, you have a curious way of stating it. It wasn’t at all clear to me (and obviously, others). If I mischaracterized it, my apologies.

Interesting, however, that we both came to the same conclusion.
UPDATE II: You know, the more I think about this the less convinced I am that I mischaracterized the Greenwald effort. A comment by David S caused me to again reconsider my position.

If the intent was to chastise both sides and point out that each side has loons and we ought to all admit it, then you'd end your post like this:
Let us stipulate that there are crazed, insane lunatics and repugnant individuals on both the Right and the Left. Any honest person would readily acknowledge that.
But Greewald didn't. He ended it like this (and I've always been taught your conclusion should contain the point you were trying to make):
Based on the grieving rituals we had to endure this weekend over Jeff Goldstein's sensibilities, I presume it's fair to infer that the silence from right-wing bloggers over Misha's calls for the deaths of journalists and Supreme Court Justices means — as one of the most-cited sermons put it — that "one might be tempted to think that this absolute lack of condemnation was a tacit acceptance of these tactics." One might be particularly tempted to think that given that such rhetoric flows not merely from obscure commenters on right-wing blogs, but also from the Right's leading bloggers and pundits, with virtually no condemnation of any kind.
Of course, that doesn't convey anything remotely akin to the claimed intent. So with a title of " Prominent right-wing blogger today calls for the murder of Supreme Court Justices - the Right fails to condemn it" and the conclusion above, let me just say I remain skeptical that the stated intent was indeed the real intent and not just a fall-back position in case it got hot.

I stand by my original reading.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I like Dan Riehl’s take on this. A little bit of hypocrisy is involved in this. I think I understand a lot more about the Greenwald phenon. I like the analogy of the old Hollywood star making process.

Anyway, this will be as controversial as I will get for a while.

Regards
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
You’re referencing Greenwald, so cue the countdown clock until Mona makes an appearance...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Please read Greenwald’s post again. Note that his point is not that the Right has an obligation to denounce every bad thing; his point is that it’s ridiculous to argue that one side or the other has an obligation to denounce every bad thing. Pointing to the Right’s non-denunciation of Misha was simply a way to note the disingenuousness of the people who argued that the Left had an obligation to denounce Frisch, et al.

I was in the middle of posting a criticism of Patterico and Amy Ridenour for missing that point. I thought it was incredibly obvious.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ann Coulter accuses the 911 wives of enjoying their mothers deaths. Jerry Falwell says New York deserved 911. The right pardons them both. They both attended the republican national convention. They will both be at then next one. There are wack jobs on both sides. The difference is that the right scours the net to find truly insignificant people like Deb Frisch and Ward Churchill (who might be green party rather than democrats) and then ask for support to protecting America from them. Its a common propaganda tactic. The real crime is that it lowers the quality of the left vs right debate.

The democrats surely have their problems with lack of policy and general spineless ness, but there are wack jobs are inside the republican party. Its the wack jobs in power that deserve our attention.

BTW: As a liberal who participates in conservative blogs I have had more than one right wing commenter make some very tasteless sexual remarks. Bad taste rules whenever people cannot be held responcible for what they say and do.



 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
I agree with Jon, Greenwald’s notes that there are crazies on both sides, but his point was that its not necessary for both sides to always and everywhere condemn the crazies on their own side, and stupid for one side to find some obscure crazy on the other side and call for the otherside to disavow said crazy.
 
Written By: Ugh
URL: http://
I was just about to explain that McQ missed the entire point of the post — the point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. To the contrary, I was objecting to complaints made by numerous right-wing bloggers this weekend that "the Left" did not condemn Frisch’s reprehensible though irrelevant remarks with sufficient vigor and frequency and that this somehow means that they must approve of the tactics.

Confederate Yankee, for instance, specifically complained that I and other bloggers did not condemn the remarks (even though I knew nothing about them until I saw his post) and then equated the silence with "tacit acceptance."

The whole poine of my post was to illustrate that those who were imposing this obligation were themselves failing to meet it. Fortunately, Jon Henke explained the point exactly:
Please read Greenwald’s post again. Note that his point is not that the Right has an obligation to denounce every bad thing; his point is that it’s ridiculous to argue that one side or the other has an obligation to denounce every bad thing. Pointing to the Right’s non-denunciation of Misha was simply a way to note the disingenuousness of the people who argued that the Left had an obligation to denounce Frisch, et al.
It is also worth noting that the right-wing bloggers who spent so much time and energy this weekend acting as though the comments made by some unknown obscure person in the comments section of some blog were of Great Importance, whereas the same bloggers routinely overlook worse comments from far more important people on the Right. Why might that be?

And the purpose of linking to the Sadly, No post was to demonstrate that the Grand Victim of the Weekend himself, Jeff Goldstein, routinely makes comments quite similar to the ones which caused such melodramatic hand-wringing, and yet the Beacons of Civil Discourse never condemn him for it.

Those are the two points made by my post. The point you attribute to me and then rebut at length — that everyone has an obligation to condemn vile comments or else be charged with approving of them — is not a point I made or believe. If anything, that was a point I was refuting.
 
Written By: Glenn Greenwald
URL: http://GlennGreenwald.blogspot.com
All I can say, Glenn, is if that was your intent, you have a curious way of stating it. It wasn’t at all clear to me (and obviously, others). If I mischaracterized it, my apologies.

Interesting, however, that we both came to the same conclusion.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Glenn, you moral equivalence spouting douche bag,

Please, for the love of all that is holy, point me to repeated comments made by Jeff Goldstein discussing sexually or physically abusing a child (preferably the child of the host of the blog on which Jeff is posting). Until you do so, stop saying Jeff makes comments quite similar. He doesn’t and you know it.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
The difference is that the right scours the net to find truly insignificant people like Deb Frisch
Ms. Frisch went to great lengths to create her problem on a fairly well-read blog.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Glen,

Yeah, we really had to scour to find Frisch. Good one.

I’ll try and take your point as you characterized it if you want. However, if you are going to do so why are you linking to someone such as Patterico to illustrate your point? He isn’t guilty of anything you are complaining about.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
A Fine Scotch,

Greenwald is pointing to the widely posted (on the left) and completely false accusation that Jegg G made sexual comments to a child of aAtriot blogger’s named Thersites. I was on the blog at the time and have a very good memory of the whole incident. Jeff G offered to help him track down the commentor by working jointly with him. Thersites response was to kill his blog and go spherewide with the accusation. It was false when Thersites made it then and it is still false. Yep, Thersites, Fenministe, Sadly No, Atrios and now Greenwald pass it along knowing it is entirely false. Nice.

But for Greewald to being it up as a moral equivalence argument in defense says a lot.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I was pretty much glued to the Frisch story for 24 hours straight, and read several dozen other ‘right-wing’ blogs on the topic. I’m not saying that I read a fair sampling, but from the sampling I did read, I did not read one blogger who was guilty of what Greenwald was accusing – that the Right was attacking the Left for not denouncing Frisch strenuously enough.

In fact, Deb Frisch was getting hammered on the Left – just about everywhere you turned. Methinks that Greenwald read too little on the subject (Confederate Yankee? That’s your sampling? Sheesh). I can honestly say that I was impressed with the near-unanimous reaction of the Left in condemning Frisch.

As a side note, a commenter on Greenwald’s site says: It’s the folks on the right who consistently demand that we all be our brothers and sisters ideological watchdogs. No, it’s the folks on the left who consistently demand that our government be our ideological watchdog. Everyone else is saying that we can manage ourselves. There’s your ideological difference. And why the Deb Frisch debacle was handled precisely as it should have been: ostracized from both sides.
 
Written By: rammage
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
whereas the same bloggers routinely overlook worse comments from far more important people on the Right. Why might that be?
Worse is in the eye of the beholder isn’t it...

And the left does the exact same thing, overlooking the "worse comments" from far more important people on the Left.
Ann Coulter accuses the 911 wives of enjoying their mothers deaths. Jerry Falwell says New York deserved 911. The right pardons them both. They both attended the republican national convention.
Most people on the right that I know rolls their eyes when they here the nutty comments of these two. I don’t defend Falwell at all. Coulter makes her points in crude ways, but she does have valid points with much of her material.

And (minor point) I don’t recall seeing either of them in any place of prominence at the Republican Convention, say for instance, sitting beside an ex-President.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Prominent right-wing blogger today calls for the murder of Supreme Court Justices - the Right fails to condemn it
That is the title of the Glenn Greenwald post under discussion and it sounds like something modeled on The National Enquirer, which it may be. Which is precisely the problem. Greeenwald spends inordinate time scouring the blogosphere for lunatic right-wing commmentary (of which there is no shortage) to savage, and this serves his purposes of 1) feeding red-meat to the feverish mob of rabidly-parrtisan Democrats that now populates his blog; and 2) earns him cheap notoriety, as demonstrated by the posts about his posts here and elsewhere today. Greenwald simply can’t decide whether he wants to destroy the Ann Coulters of the world, or become one of them.

Greewald’s increasingly bombastic writing is veering into parody (see above). To be sure, Coulter’s booksales are more robust than Greenwald’s and perhaps that is part of the problem. It is unlikely — though I don’t much follow her Barnum & Bailey career — that Coulter would use her blog (if she has a blog) to either a) cite a high-schooler’s review of her book; or b) claim to be the author of a New York Times bestseller when she is not. Greenwald does both. That kind of shrill self-promotion and compromised integrity have become his halllmarks.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Prominent right-wing blogger today calls for the murder of Supreme Court Justices - the Right fails to condemn it
That is the title of the Glenn Greenwald post under discussion and it sounds like something modeled on The National Enquirer, which it may be. Which is precisely the problem.
Yes, and that hardly makes his point "obvious". In fact I’ve read the post any number of times and his intent is still not "obvious".

Had he ended with this, I might have agreed:
Let us stipulate that there are crazed, insane lunatics and repugnant individuals on both the Right and the Left. Any honest person would readily acknowledge that.
But he didn’t. He went on and on and on concluded thusly:
Based on the grieving rituals we had to endure this weekend over Jeff Goldstein’s sensibilities, I presume it’s fair to infer that the silence from right-wing bloggers over Misha’s calls for the deaths of journalists and Supreme Court Justices means — as one of the most-cited sermons put it — that "one might be tempted to think that this absolute lack of condemnation was a tacit acceptance of these tactics." One might be particularly tempted to think that given that such rhetoric flows not merely from obscure commenters on right-wing blogs, but also from the Right’s leading bloggers and pundits, with virtually no condemnation of any kind.
Now maybe my schooling just isn’t up to snuff but when I was taught to write I was taught you conclude something with the point you are trying to make.

What does this concluding paragraph tell you?

That we all ought to back off, understand that both sides have outspoken loonies and leave it at that?

Or something else completely?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Ann Coulter accuses the 911 wives of enjoying their mothers deaths.
"The Jersey Girls" choose to use their loss for political purposes, so they are fair game.

Incidently, I’ve run across quite a few on the right on the net that view Ann Coulter as an embarrasment. I think she is shrill and over the top, but she also inhabits a particular nitch in political discourse, which might have some value (or might backfire).

In any case, "The Jersey Girls" are political hacks who use their dead spouses both as soapboxes and as shields at the same time.
Jerry Falwell says New York deserved 911.
That appears to be a resonable position from a fundamentalist perspective.

I’m not religious myself, let alone fundamentalist, so I don’t agree with him. But I’ve been exposed to the Old Testament, and his perspective seems in line with that. Most on line conservatives I’ve encountered are not inclined to defend Falwell, and some are out and out hostile to him. I’ve seen few defend him.
The difference is that the right scours the net to find truly insignificant people like Deb Frisch and Ward Churchill
As previously pointed out, no one had to "scour the net" for these people. Furthermore, as professors I wouldn’t call them "truly insignificant".

Zombie has documented some of Churchill’s speeches:

http://www.zombietime.com/churchill_in_bay_area/

Churchill has been on Fox News recently, and has been embraced by a good chunk of the far left. Other left wing profs have agreed with his statements.
The real crime is that it lowers the quality of the left vs right debate.
The left hasn’t provided a quality debate since at least ’68.
The democrats surely have their problems with lack of policy and general spineless ness,
The lack of policy is simply due to the fact that they don’t want to announce their policy to the public. I’d hardly call them spineless, however.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
This "some assembly required" seem to be quite popular. I found

"Rope, tree, judge, some assembly required",
"Rope, Child Molester, Tree… Some Assembly Required",
"Rope. Tree. Mainstream Media. Some Assembly Required.", and
"British MP’s, rope, trees, some assembly required."

Glenn Greenwald "may have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric."

I don’t buy Glenn’s comments about "the point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along," any 2 year old would know that. The post on "memorandum" which directed me here didn’t say anything like that. It looks to me that Glenn repeated the stupid trend that Ms. Frisch started and is now in the process of trying to extratate himself, a task that Ms. Frisch failed to do.

 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
One thing that kills me is that the same point was brought up when Atrios said that ABCs THe Note should be the first agianst the wal. Most of us recognized where that came from and said ha ha. I think as Neo put it, this is a similiar condition where Mischa makes similiar bad taste joke. And whether you believe him or not he thinks it is a joke. I am sure Atrios though it was a joke when he suggested that someone should kill media journalists.

However, none of this compares and I refuse (absolutely refuse) to accept the moral equivalence of bringing up Frisch’s nasty comments to Jeff’s child (when he never even brought the child into the conversation) to Mischa bad taste joke.

But then what do I know with all this layering of nuance. :)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
It’s both amusing and curious to see Henke attempt to portrait Greenwald’s 1300 word post as having an concise and obvious point. Also his chiding of those who dont have his clarity (see his post on this subject.)
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
McQ - I think it’s very reasonable of you to think that you know better than I do what argument I was making, especially since scores of people had no difficulty understanding exactly what the argument was.

Jon already highlighted the numerous sections of the post which make it as clear as can be what the argument is, so I won’t address those. But I will ask you this:

The post does not begin with a discussion of Misha or the failure of right-wing bloggers to condemn him - which is what one would expect the post to begin with if that was the point. Instead, the post begins with a discussion of a completely different matter - namely, right-wing bloggers’ condemnation of Deb Frisch’s comments, along with my observation that some of those bloggers claimed that the Left’s failure to condemn Frish’s comments signified acceptance of them.

Have you wondered why the first paragraph is about the right-wing bloggers’ reaction to the Frish comments, and only AFTER that is the issue of Misha raised? Did it occur to you that perhaps those two things are connected in the post — that is, that the point is not that right-wing bloggers failed to condemn Misha’s post because they have an independent obligation to do so, but instead, that they have an obligation to do so in light of the arguments they made this weekend when condemning Frisch?

Doesn’t the first paragraph alone make it unbelievably obvious that I was not arguing that there is some pre-existing obligation in a vaccum for every right-wing blogger to condemn Misha?

And, lastly, if that were my argument, why would I possibly deny that it was my argument less than 24 hours later? Do you think your arguments in response were so powerful that I said to myself: "Oh, my God - he really decimated that argument. I better pretend I was making a different argument." Is that what you think happened?
 
Written By: Glenn Greenwald
URL: http://
McQ: I initiated and exchange of email with Greenwald this past weekend in which he made exactly the observations he is accurately describing to be his point in the post you are misreading. To my sheer astonishment, when I went to memeorandum this past weekend I found an avalanche of entries and sites discussing Deb Frisch and the ostensible evil of the left & etc. And, from memeorandum, I encountered and read Confedeate Yankee specifically stating that Greenwald had some sort of obligation to repudiate Frisch.

In my exchange with Greenwald about all this insistence that he and others had this denunciation obligation, we both concluded the whole melee was absurd given the obscurity of Deb Frisch and the fact that this was the comments section of a blog, especially in light of the outrageous statements made by many prominent right-wing pundits and bloggers, which are met with silence by many others on the right.

Greenwald’s public post, and the obvious meaning of it (except to you and I guess others who dislike Greenwald) tracks my exchanges with him.



 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
McQ - I think it’s very reasonable of you to think that you know better than I do what argument I was making, especially since scores of people had no difficulty understanding exactly what the argument was.
Like I said, Glenn, that may be your stated position, but it’s not how it starts or concludes, and if you were attempting what you claim it was at best a very clumsy attempt.

While it certainly possible to excerpt portions in an attempt to validate your claim, when taken as a whole, in context, it doesn’t satisfy that intent at all. At least not for me. I mean nothing personal by that.
And, lastly, if that were my argument, why would I possibly deny that it was my argument less than 24 hours later? Do you think your arguments in response were so powerful that I said to myself: "Oh, my God - he really decimated that argument. I better pretend I was making a different argument." Is that what you think happened?
Have you considered that perhaps your post was poorly written and others have interpreted it differently for good reasons? Have you read it in the context by which it is being criticized? It seems a perfectly legitimate reading of the post as I see it.

Have you considered that after receiving your explanation that it was for a different purpose entirely, those who’ve again reviewed it are simply having difficulty squaring the stated purpose with the context of the post?

That’s certainly what has happened in my case.

Given that, perhaps, they, like me, are simply casting around for another reason than the stated one. I’ll admit to an unfounded assumption here.

I’ll gladly withdraw my "not just a fall-back position in case it got hot" assertion given your argument. But I cannot, in good conscience and after numerous readings, agree your intent was fulfilled by your post.

I’m not calling you a liar or anything of the sort. I honestly believe you when you say that was your intent. I’m simply saying that if that was your message, it was lost in the rest of the post’s verbiage and the conclusion of your piece left me with an completely different perception of it’s purpose.

It seems strange to me that while, as you claim, scores may have "gotten it", it is obvious scores also found an entirely different meaning than you intended.

Maybe it’s a function of reading you and getting used to your style. I, admittedly, am an infrequent reader of your blog. Jon, I assume, reads it more often. Maybe that’s the key. But regardless, the post, at least in my view and perception, doesn’t support your stated intent.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, OR who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, NONE of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps
(emphasis added)

The use of OR creates two groups: (1) bloggers who spent the weekend horrified by Frish’s comments and (2) bloggers who complained that she wasn’t properly condemned by the left. The use of NONE makes the rest of the statement applicable to both groups. If Greenwald meant for his post to only reference bloggers in group 2, he was not obvious.
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
Jon,

As I say more fully on your post, I didn’t miss this as a *possible* interpretation. I noted it and said it was inappropriate as to me — and I was the *first guy* he linked, and claimed to be "confounded" by my silence. Since, he hs doubled down with an explicit falsehood directed at me (repeated above and on my blog): that I have failed to condemn outrageous righty comments. It is a laughably false statement. He owes me a retraction and apology.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com

But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, OR who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, NONE of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps

(emphasis added)

The use of OR creates two groups: (1) bloggers who spent the weekend horrified by Frish’s comments and (2) bloggers who complained that she wasn’t properly condemned by the left. The use of NONE makes the rest of the statement applicable to both groups. If Greenwald meant for his post to only reference bloggers in group 2, he was not obvious.
I think he’s applying it to both, but shouldn’t have used just condemned after the none, probably should have said none condemned or lamented. It was a long post and if that is seriously what caused all the confusion then Glenn may need to hire a full time editor.
 
Written By: crack
URL: http://
Greenwald’s public post, and the obvious meaning of it (except to you and I guess others who dislike Greenwald)...
A number of years ago David Lynch made Frank Herberts Dune into a movie. Having read the book, I could follow the movie - my friends who hadnt read the book were totally lost. Totally lost irrespective of their like or dislike of Herbert, Lynch, or even Kyle MacLachlan.

Chances are Mona, that due to your many conversations with Greenwald, you would not have had to even read his post to understand whatever point he was trying to make. Liking or disliking him has little to do with whether or not he cogently made his point. Reading Mr. Greenwald’s subsequent comments both here and at Patterico site has not been clarifying, nor have his arguments been persuasive. Save the one buried in the middle of his post that he now claims central.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Greenwald’s public post, and the obvious meaning of it (except to you and I guess others who dislike Greenwald) tracks my exchanges with him.
I have nothing against Greenwald at all and resent the inferrence I do.

I read the post this morning, completely, and reached the conclusion about it I posted. First Jon and then Glenn said I got it wrong.

Fine. I went back and read it again, not once, but several times. I concluded my original reading was a fair reading given the title and concluding paragraph.

What appears obvious to you and Jon is not at all obvious to others. As Andrew Olmsted said in the thread under Jon’s post about this:
Perhaps the fact that several bloggers did not get the point might be counted as evidence that the point was not, in fact, ’perfectly obvious.’ Which I see you note in your update, but only to decide to take the path of insults with your condescending ’how embarassing.’

To put it another way: if a salesman’s argument fails to persuade a customer to buy his product, will the saleman be more successful if he chooses to refine his argument to make it more persuasive, or if he blames the customer for not being smart enough to understand his pitch?
Like I said, maybe it being obvious to you and Jon is a function of reading Greenwald for a while, I don’t know. But I don’t agree that my take on his post is a misrepresentation of what is written in the least. If I did, I’d say so and correct it.
It may not square with his intent, but it certainly doesn’t mischaracterize the post as *I* read it.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Patterico writes:
As I say more fully on your post, I didn’t miss this as a *possible* interpretation. I noted it and said it was inappropriate as to me
As I just noted at your blog, I agree with you there. While I totally concur with Greenwald’s point and find it well-stated and supported, I think it is flawed (only) by using you as an example for the purpose he does.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
General comment: I find it hard to take anybody’s post seriously when it contains malapropisms, misspelled words, etc. Of course, given that, said authors won’t even know I’m referring to them. HAR!
 
Written By: bamage
URL: http://
To put it another way: if a salesman’s argument fails to persuade a customer to buy his product, will the saleman be more successful if he chooses to refine his argument to make it more persuasive, or if he blames the customer for not being smart enough to understand his pitch?
Blaming the customer is working great for soccer! Oh.. wait... no it isn’t...
 
Written By: Jody
URL: http://
Mona,

I suggest you go over to Jon’s thread now and read Glen’s pathetic attempt to justify his behavior. He compounds it and then eviscerates his supposed point in his own attempt to defend himself, it was classic. His evidence in defense of himself is not only shredded by other commenter’s, he actually come backs and tries to defend his evidence. There is no way for me to figure maybe he posted in haste. He didn’t.

The thing is I originally read it exactly the way Jon and you have. I just posted over there and I have given up. Glen is full of it, McQ had it right, Glen just thinks you, Jon, McQ and I are idiots, that is the kindest way to put it.

Anyway, I’ll stick to the other thread for my commentary if I want to make say more, so if you find Glen’s defense reasonable let me know over there.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Have you considered that perhaps your post was poorly written and others have interpreted it differently for good reasons? Have you read it in the context by which it is being criticized? It seems a perfectly legitimate reading of the post as I see it.
Sure I’ve considered it - and rejected it. The point of the post is argued on an "if X . . . then Y" basis. Many people don’t readily comprehend contingent reasoning of that sort - not because they’re stupid or because they’re impaired, but because some people just don’t think in those terms or are accustomed to reading things which are written in a more literal fashion.

In the very first paragraph, the post makes this point: Right-wing bloggers spent the weekend melodramatically condeming Deb Frisch comments and suggesting that left-wing bloggers who failed to do so were implicitly supporting those comments.

With that premise in place, the rest of the post proceeds to make this argument: OK - IF THAT IS THE STANDARD TO BE APPLIED - then why are they not condemning the equally repugnant but much more significant rhetoric that regularly streams forth on the Right, the post from Misha being but one example, along with the seven or eight others I listed in the post.

I am mocking the notion that bloggers have an obligation to run around condemning every stupid comment upon pain of being guilty of supporting those comments. And, independently, I am noting the hypocrisy of bloggers who condemn comments from anonymous obscure nobodies but say nothing when similar comments are spewed by the opinion leaders of their political party or political movement.

The post is applying a standard to right-wing bloggers which they themselves advocated, not that I agree with. I honestly can’t think of how I could have made that any clearer
 
Written By: Glenn Greenwald
URL: http://
Of course, that doesn’t convey anything remotely akin to the claimed intent. So with a title of " Prominent right-wing blogger today calls for the murder of Supreme Court Justices - the Right fails to condemn it" and the conclusion above, let me just say I remain skeptical that the stated intent was indeed the real intent and not just a fall-back position in case it got hot.

I stand by my original reading.


Swift, A Modest Proposal.

Read it. Then please turn in your blogging password and destroy all copies of your url to qando.net

McQ, you are an idiot.
 
Written By: jerry
URL: http://
For those of you beaming in from Glen Greenwald’s blog and only being given a view of the comment’s section of a post, the body of the post under which these comments are appended is here.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Sure I’ve considered it - and rejected it.
Good enough.

I disagree.

There we’ve both had our say, haven’t we?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, you are an idiot.
How sweet? And linked in from Glen’s blog are we?

Nice.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Greenwald’s final paragraph:
Based on the grieving rituals we had to endure this weekend over Jeff Goldstein’s sensibilities, I presume it’s fair to infer that the silence from right-wing bloggers over Misha’s calls for the deaths of journalists and Supreme Court Justices means — as one of the most-cited sermons put it — that "one might be tempted to think that this absolute lack of condemnation was a tacit acceptance of these tactics." One might be particularly tempted to think that given that such rhetoric flows not merely from obscure commenters on right-wing blogs, but also from the Right’s leading bloggers and pundits, with virtually no condemnation of any kind.
Condensed version: conservatives who think that liberals must condemn Frisch must condemn Mischa or they are hypocrites.

I don’t see whats so difficult to understand.
 
Written By: dave
URL: http://
I am mocking the notion that bloggers have an obligation to run around condemning every stupid comment upon pain of being guilty of supporting those comments. And, independently, I am noting the hypocrisy of bloggers who condemn comments from anonymous obscure nobodies but say nothing when similar comments are spewed by the opinion leaders of their political party or political movement.
(emphasis in original)

Am I the only one who sees a conflict here?
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
I don’t see whats so difficult to understand.
Apparently the alternate interpretation.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Apparently the alternate interpretation
Explain the alternative interpretation of the paragraph I cited.
 
Written By: dave
URL: http://
Am I the only one who sees a conflict here?
Uh, no. Rather indicative of the confusion over the entire post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Explain the alternative interpretation of the paragraph I cited.
Read the post under which this is all appended.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Am I the only one who sees a conflict here?
Maybe this is why there is confusion. There is no conflict there.

Its simple logic:

(1) The requirement that either liberals or conservatives must condemn every nutcase who comments on a blog is idiotic.

(2) However, if conservatives are going to insist on such an idiotic requirement, they should at least apply it to other conservatives.

(3) [examples of conservatives who insisted on the idiotic requirement re: Deb Frisch but failed to apply it to Misha]


No conflict at all.
 
Written By: dave
URL: http://
Read the post under which this is all appended
I did. What I was hoping was for you to point out what language you specifically read that lead you to believe Greenwald was advocating for blanket denunication of all lunatics.

You quote his first paragraph and his last paragraph in your post. But in reading them either together or independently, I fail to see how you reach the conclusion you reach.

I was hoping you could highlight the specific language that compelled your conclusion re: Greenwald’s meaning.
 
Written By: dave
URL: http://
Anyway, I will agree that the title is misleading, and that a sloppy reading of the post together with the title could lead someone to an erroneous conclusion. As the writer, Greenwald should have written clearly enough so that even a sloppy reader would understand the argument. However, I can’t agree with you that there are 2 possible reasonable interpretations.
 
Written By: dave
URL: http://
3) [examples of conservatives who insisted on the idiotic requirement re: Deb Frisch but failed to apply it to Misha]
Except, that’s not what Greenwald did. Instead he smeared a lot of righty bloggers who did not make the claim he says they did (i.e. that lefty bloggers should be condemning Frish)[linked blog noted in backets]:
But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless [Patterico] right-wing [Ace of Spades HQ] bloggers [Michelle Malkin] who spent [Rightwing Nuthouse the weekend [Instapundit]so very [RWNH again] horrified [Little Green Footballs] about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, or who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps...
go ahead and read the linked posts. Only one, Rightwing Nuthouse, makes the claim Greenwald says it does, and that post includes this (Update II:7/9):
What the freepers did in encouraging harm against employees of the New York Times and their families was despicable and they should be roundly and soundly condemned for their advocacy of such action. The same goes for anyone, anywhere, of any ideological stripe who advocates violence or harassment of any kind against anyone.
In short, all of the bloggers cited by Greenwald (with the exception of Confederate Yankee) were unfairly smeared and had opinions attributed to them without cause.

Finding fault with Frisch’s violent, pederast allusions does not in any way, shape or form obligate one to also speak out against Mischa. Greenwald’s post does not even come close to establishing any such standard, and instead comes across as shrill and devoid of substance. His subsequent defenses only serve to underscore the vacuity of his original arguments.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Hey dave, the problem with your interpretation is addressed in the other thread.
(1) The requirement that either liberals or conservatives must condemn every nutcase who comments on a blog is idiotic.

(2) However, if conservatives are going to insist on such an idiotic requirement, they should at least apply it to other conservatives.

(3) [examples of conservatives who insisted on the idiotic requirement re: Deb Frisch but failed to apply it to Misha]
Most plainly, on 3) then if he meant that then why did he link to the people he linked to, who are for the most part not guilty of said charge. Pardon some for assuming he means something different. Also, your interpretation is not what the text says. The word independently means, ummm, it is independent. It therefore does not follow that this part of the statement:
I am noting the hypocrisy of bloggers who condemn comments from anonymous obscure nobodies but say nothing when similar comments are spewed by the opinion leaders of their political party or political movement
is being justified or follows from your point in #1. If they are independent normal reasoning would suggest that the statement is true regardless of the truth of the first statement. If your interpretation is correct then the second point is not independent but conditional. He has also said the same type of things in other places and they don’t sound like what you are saying either. Still, that could be what he meant to say. Maybe Glen shouldn’t have said independently. You should speak to him.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Well, I think Greenwald’s intentions were good but unfortunately, he has a problem in getting to the point in a round about, wordy way. He can’t just get to the point and sign off. No, he has to restate it over and over and over again, just with different wordage. No wonder he’s so damn confusing.

However, that being said, he did actually have a point, no? You can’t talk about ethics on one hand and ignore them when it suits you. It’s spelled, "h-y-p-o-c-h-r-i-s-y." Look it up.
 
Written By: Mary
URL: http://
You quote his first paragraph and his last paragraph in your post. But in reading them either together or independently, I fail to see how you reach the conclusion you reach.
And a middle paragraph. I also talk about the context of the post as I perceived it. If you can’t figure it out from there, I can’t help you.

And it seems you’re really not interested in my interpretation anyway since you already concede it:
Anyway, I will agree that the title is misleading, and that a sloppy reading of the post together with the title could lead someone to an erroneous conclusion. As the writer, Greenwald should have written clearly enough so that even a sloppy reader would understand the argument.
It hardly requires a ’sloppy reading’ at all. Sloppy writing perhaps. As to whether the conclusion is erroneous depends on your interpetation of the content as presented by the sloppy writing.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And the purpose of linking to the Sadly, No post was to demonstrate that the Grand Victim of the Weekend himself, Jeff Goldstein, routinely makes comments quite similar to the ones which caused such melodramatic hand-wringing, and yet the Beacons of Civil Discourse never condemn him for it.
Glenn, if you actually believe that, it’s time to find a place to check yourself into for evaluation.

Really. Get help. Maybe you could take your source, Sadly No!’s Retardo Montalban with you and get a group rate.
Right-wing bloggers spent the weekend melodramatically condeming Deb Frisch comments and suggesting that left-wing bloggers who failed to do so were implicitly supporting those comments.
No, bloggers on both sides of the fence spent the weekend saying "Holy Moley! Did you see that nutball flame out over at Goldstein’s?"

Because really, just about everyone, with the exception of a handful of die hard nitwits, said something much like that. Including Goldstein.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
However, that being said, he did actually have a point, no? You can’t talk about ethics on one hand and ignore them when it suits you. It’s spelled, "h-y-p-o-c-h-r-i-s-y." Look it up.
Does this also cover supporting a notion that one claims to be mocking?
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
Blaming the customer is working great for soccer! Oh.. wait... no it isn’t..
Okay. Now I’m pissed.

Do you know what it’s like when you’re trying to watch a television program – more descriptive in this case – a soap opera, and you’re inevitably interrupted by advertisements, and one of those ad’s make no sense, and when your program returns your still thinking about that disconcerting ad so you can’t follow the plot line of the program you’re trying to watch?

Do you know what I’m talking about?

Is it just me?

Blaming the customer is working great for soccer! Oh.. wait... no it isn’t..
What the hell does that mean?

Great. Now I’m having to start all over again. Thanks Jody.

Like sands through the hourglass…
…so are the blogs of our lives.

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
I would like to make a request to people like Pattrico and Lance and others who are claiming that I charaterized ALL of the linked posts in my post (as opposed to SOME) as condeming liberal bloggers for not sufficiently condemning the Frisch comments. My request is this: please learn the meaning of the word "or" — as in this paragraph from my post:
But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, or who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps (indeed, one of the right-wing bloggers joining in the weekend sermons against this mean Deb Frisch rhetoric was that Beacon of Right-wing propriety, Misha himself).
That is the paragraph that contained the linked posts. It identified two different types of bloggers as being included in the group I was discussing: those who: (1) were "very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch"; OR (2) "who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein."

That means, by definition, that some fall into category (1), and some fall into cateogry (2), but they don’t all fall into both categories. That is what "or" means.

To claim that I attributed BOTH attributes to the linked posts, when I expressly said that these bloggers did one OR the other, is quite baffling.

While learning the definition of the word "or," you may also want to learn the definition of the word "many" (hint: it does not mean "all"). From the first paragraph I wrote:
Virtually every right-wing blogger spent the weekend focused on this solemn and grave matter, milking it for all it was worth. Many implied that this unknown commenter was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals, and exploited the drama to argue that the "Left" must approve of these comments because they didn’t denounce the comments enough times or with enough vigor.
Nobody with a grasp of the English language (i.e., nobody who understands the meaning of the word "many") can claim that I am attributing to ALL bloggers the argument that "this unknown commenter was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals, and exploited the drama to argue that the "Left" must approve of these comments because they didn’t denounce the comments enough times or with enough vigor." I said "many" argued this to make clear that not all of them did.

Additionally, the idea that only Confederate Yankee condemned liberal bloggers for insufficiently condemning Fricsh is patently false. I linked to at least five posts in the other thread which plainly do exactly that, and I defy anyone to come here and deny that the posts from Right Wing Nut House and Red State, just to pick two more, did not advance that very point.

Finally, the title of my post is satirical - it is mocking the claim by right-wing bloggers that the Left failed to condemn Frisch’s comments. The very first paragraph of the post leaves no doubt about that.
 
Written By: Glenn Greenwald
URL: http://
Nobody with a grasp of the English language (i.e., nobody who understands the meaning of the word "many") can claim that I am attributing to ALL bloggers the argument that "this unknown commenter was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals, and exploited the drama to argue that the "Left" must approve of these comments because they didn’t denounce the comments enough times or with enough vigor." I said "many" argued this to make clear that not all of them did.
Actually you didn’t "argue" it, you stated as God-given fact. And of course you failed miserably to back that up. The only thing you have a "grasp" of is straw.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
I would like to make a request to people like Pattrico and Lance and others who are claiming that I charaterized ALL of the linked posts in my post (as opposed to SOME) as condeming liberal bloggers for not sufficiently condemning the Frisch comments. My request is this: please learn the meaning of the word "or" — as in this paragraph from my post:

But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, or who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps (indeed, one of the right-wing bloggers joining in the weekend sermons against this mean Deb Frisch rhetoric was that Beacon of Right-wing propriety, Misha himself).
That is the paragraph that contained the linked posts. It identified two different types of bloggers as being included in the group I was discussing: those who: (1) were "very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch"; OR (2) "who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein."

That means, by definition, that some fall into category (1), and some fall into cateogry (2), but they don’t all fall into both categories. That is what "or" means.

To claim that I attributed BOTH attributes to the linked posts, when I expressly said that these bloggers did one OR the other, is quite baffling.
While you’ve got a dictionary handy, you may want to look up the word "none" that you used in the nested blockquote. You are whining about bloggers in group 1 not condemning Misha’s comments, the result of which is you are behaving like bloggers in group 2, which you are also comlaining about.
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
Actually, I think it’s spelled "h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y".
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Mr. Greenwald,

You should strive to write clearly. At the moment, you do not. I personally do not care if your writings are ever understood by another human being, but perhaps you do.

As a helpful aside, 102 word sentences are rarely easy to understand even when written by a good writer.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
And just to be official - the ’none’ ties both of your or groups back into ONE group.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Glenn writes:
I linked to at least five posts in the other thread which plainly do exactly that, and I defy anyone to come here and deny that the posts from Right Wing Nut House and Red State, just to pick two more, did not advance that very point.
At various times in many venues, I have taken on "scientific creationists." They will almost always insist there are no, zero, zip transitional fossils in the geological columns. So, I cite multiple of them as cataloged by scientists at various online sources, and the response is: "Yeah, you think those show a transition from A to B, but where are A1, A2 and A3, huh? Without those you prove nothing." If you supply A1, A2 and A3, then they demand A4 through infinity.

It is not possible to get through to such persons, because they are ideologically trapped in a tight cognitive vise that literally will not allow logic or evidence to make a difference in their position. They will frequently call you a godless secular humanist, Communist, liberal and otherwise attribute to you whatever evil beliefs they think must be driving your adherence to empiricism and pernicious things like physical evidence. The childish name-calling and impugning of motives are hallmarks of people whose worldview is profoundly threatened.

You are dealing with something like that phenomenon now.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
It is not possible to get through to such persons, because they are ideologically trapped in a tight cognitive vise that literally will not allow logic or evidence to make a difference in their position. They will frequently call you a godless secular humanist, Communist, liberal and otherwise attribute to you whatever evil beliefs they think must be driving your adherence to empiricism and pernicious things like physical evidence. The childish name-calling and impugning of motives are hallmarks of people whose worldview is profoundly threatened.

You are dealing with something like that phenomenon now.
It’s very big of you to admit it, Mona.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Mighty sanctimonious there Mona.

Might as well just say: "The MIGHTY Glen has spoken truth" [sarcasm added]
It is not possible to get through to such persons, because they are ideologically trapped in a tight cognitive vise that literally will not allow logic or evidence to make a difference in their position.
Happens all the time in lots of topics - I suspect that you fail to see it when either you or your idealogical breathren is so engaged however.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
To hell with an apology and retraction! If Greenwald is going to dare to be misinterpreted, there is only one response that would be appropriate. We need a rope, a tree, and a computer monitor showing the post in question. What to do with these items is left to anybody’s interpretation, since I did not have an opening or closing paragraph.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Funny, Mona, that’s exactly what I did in the comments section of Jon’s post as well as in the abridged version above. Yet, you and Greenwald are clinging to the notion that he pointed out "five bloggers" who "condemned liberal bloggers for insufficiently condemning Fricsh" when that’s been shown to be false.

The fossils are real, Mona. It’s okay. You can still believe in Greenwald.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Ah, Greenwald. You and Mona may have duped Henke, but I see through you, buddy. You’re the blogosphere equivalent of The Monkees — only without Nesmith’s talent or Davey Jones’ boyish good looks.

You write:
And the purpose of linking to the Sadly, No post was to demonstrate that the Grand Victim of the Weekend himself, Jeff Goldstein, routinely makes comments quite similar to the ones which caused such melodramatic hand-wringing, and yet the Beacons of Civil Discourse never condemn him for it.
Right. Pull the other one. You think that Sadly,No! piece was what, then? — a documentary? A scientific study of my commenting habits? Peer reviewed?

First, if you had any intellectual honesty — which Henke and Mona seem to think you do, but which more and more people are certain you don’t (how’s the new Townhouse list by the way? More secure?) — you would have noted that I don’t consider myself a victim. As I noted here. Granted, it was hard to interpret — "I don’t feel victimized" is, after all, open to some degree of nuanced reading — but still, some people were able to suss from that that I don’t feel like a "Grand Victim."

Now my wife and son, on the other hand, were victimized. But they’ll live. Unless somebody actually does Jon-Bonet them. In which case, well, you can link to that Sadly,No! post again and bemoan the perils of heated political exchange, and then blame Bush for creating a secretive America wherein people are virtually compelled to express their disatisfaction with the shredding of the Constitution through violence.

Which, wow. Shades of Matt Hale!

Second, the Sadly, No! post is clearly a hit piece on me; that you would use it as proof of anything just shows how disingenuous, cynical, and calculating you are. It doesn’t take a Constitutional scholar to recognize that the entire piece relies on removing context, rearranging chronology, etc., to make it’s "points" — which, if I remember correctly, are that I eat paste and want to slap people with my cock when I’m not dreaming about sexing up animals and being a failed academic hausfrau who is probably also a closeted homosexual.

Still, in all that extrapolated, decontextualized and rearranged material — and I’ve written over 20000 posts and who the hell knows how many comments, most of which I think your expert witness "Retardo Montalban" pored over — I never said anything remotely equivalent to what Frisch said. Worse, even Frisch herself doesn’t make the equivalency argument you make concerning me. That you would even suggest such a thing — and that Mona and Jon would think you are making some sort of valid point — is quite sad, really. In only one case, though, is it really surprising.

You should apologize.

If Kos lets you, I mean. I’m in no hurry if you want to wait for the email.

 
Written By: Jeff G
URL: http://www.proteinwisdom.com
Mona -
From Glen earlier on here -
The whole poine of my post was to illustrate that those who were imposing this obligation were themselves failing to meet it. Fortunately, Jon Henke explained the point exactly:
Then this -
I was just about to explain that McQ missed the entire point of the post - the point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. To the contrary, I was objecting to complaints made by numerous right-wing bloggers this weekend that "the Left" did not condemn Frisch’s reprehensible though irrelevant remarks with sufficient vigor and frequency and that this somehow means that they must approve of the tactics.

(my emphasis - note ’numerous’ so, agreed, not ALL)


Then Glen later here -
But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, or who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps (indeed, one of the right-wing bloggers joining in the weekend sermons against this mean Deb Frisch rhetoric was that Beacon of Right-wing propriety, Misha himself).
Agreed, the "OR" breaks the right wingers into two groups -
1) those who simply were horrified and didn’t call for condemnation by the left
2) those who called for condemnation

Then these two groups are tied back into ONE group by use of the word "none" - as a single group, they failed to condem.

So, fine he meant they weren’t under any obligation to condemn without being hypocrites if they belong to the group that didn’t specifically condemn the left for hypocrisy in the first place.

and yet he’s confounded?
Why?
because his argument is they ALL did that very thing, they ALL failed to condemn.

If they’re not obligated to condemn, why is he confounded?
If they’re not guilty of hypocrisy by condeming, and yet failing to condemn themselves, why are they linked into the argument?

At the very least, it’s confusing.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Wow. The substance of this thread might be summed up thusly. "If I apply a tortured interpretation of Greenwald’s far too wordy post, I can get insulted." Are you being deliberately obtuse just for the sake of disagreement?
 
Written By: bamage
URL: http://
It’s important to remember who the real victim is - poor Jeff. The irony (well, one of many) is that the Ph.D-less one could and should provide groundbreaking theses for a dozen psychologists.
 
Written By: dirk
URL: http://
who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps (indeed, one of the right-wing bloggers joining in the weekend sermons against this mean Deb Frisch rhetoric was that Beacon of Right-wing propriety, Misha himself).
Okay Glen, so these people are separate from the first group, I’ll buy that if you really want me to. Which of course blows up the argument some (such as Dave above) who have tried to defend you by saying they were not separate groups, but that one group was a subset of the other and that you are only talking about people who do both things. See Dave, I was right, Glen says so!. In this comment you are saying that those who complain she wasn’t being condemned enough are obligated to condemn Misha. Fair enough. So what did you mean for the first group? Well lets paste this and remove the independent clause after or:

"But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch,........ none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps"

Hmmm, okay first of all right after this you call Misha a beacon. Could you let people decide who our own guiding lights are? I haven’t seen anyone defend Misha, but I am sure someone has.

Second, once I remove that independent clause it sure looks like McQ is right and Jon and I were wrong. As I said somewhere else in these two threads, I figured you just wished you had rewritten that statement because it doesn’t fit what I took for your point. However, since you keep saying I am supposed to read it this way it looks like Jon and I were wrong and every time you post I figure McQ looks more and more right. You cannot read what I just reproduced and come up with any other interpretation. It also doesn’t explain how Glen Reynolds or Patterico fit in at all, unless my new interpretation is right. So once again it seems that you are saying that if you criticized Frisch you deserve criticism for not condemning Misha. However you are simultaneously saying Jon and I had it right the first time. Whatever duuuude!

Pogue,

I get your point, I find the whole thing unimportant and silly as well, but it is hilarious. Therefore it is entertaining to have someone repeatedly claim he means different things at different times and goading him on.

It wouldn’t have been nearly as entertaining if Glen had just shut up and said I meant what Jon said and left it at that, maybe adding he probably shouldn’t have linked to all the people he had. Instead he has to muck himself up. Truly comical. Do you get it Glen? Before I got so caught up in the contradictions I bought your argument, I just thought parts were a little unfair to some people. You blew it! Insead I get comedy, I am forever thankful.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Instead he has to muck himself up. Truly comical.
Well, that would explain why he lost all his litigation.

Lance you are going to hell. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
"But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch,........ none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps"
Lance: it was an excellent idea to remove that clause, and I stand corrected from earlier if I implied that Greenwald did not make the argument that those who criticzed Frisch MUST condemn Misha as well. I think I might have been missing the point of your complaint anyway. I thought you were complaining that Greenwald wanted all righties to condmen Misha.

I see now that you are complaining that he is calling you inconsistent for condemning Frisch (an obscure commenter) but not Mischa (a major blogger).

If that is the case then I agree with you. He is deifnitely calling you inconsistent. I just dont see what the problem wiht that is. If you are gonna decry a random troll who publicly wishes for the murder of a child, it seems pretty strange you wouldn’t even bother to decry a major blogger who publicly wishes for the lynching of five supreme court justices.*

Lets put it this way. Accoridng to my understanding of Greenwald, there are three groups of righty bloggers: (1)those who condemned Frisch (2) those who condemned Frisch and condemned lefties for failing to condemn her and (3) those who said nothing about Frisch. In general, it is peculiar that of all the bloggers in group 1, none condmened Misha, especially since, based on the reasoning of bloggers in group 2, bloggers in group 1 are obligated to condemn Misha. It is hypocritical that none of the bloggers in group 2 condmened Misha since they would be obligated to under their own rules. Bloggers in group 3 have no obligation to condemn anyone and are as pure as the driven snow.

I would also add that bloggers in group 2 are hypocritical for not condemning bloggers in group 1 for their failure to condemn Misha as is required by the "condemnation code" of group 2. (wrap your mind around that!)


* Now if you want to argue that, on its face, Frisch’s comment is worse than Misha’s feel free to make that argument. But bringing up what appears to be an inconsistency among those outraged by Little Debbie doesn’t seem like a cheap shot to me.
 
Written By: dave
URL: http://
Most people on the right that I know rolls their eyes when they here the nutty comments of these two. I don’t defend Falwell at all. Coulter makes her points in crude ways, but she does have valid points with much of her material.

Yes, and most people on "the left" do the same thing. However, eye-rolling is essentially a private, inner, criticism and, to others, it looks like no criticism whatsoever. Obviously other people aren’t going to see your eyes roll, nor will you see theirs roll, and since everyone involved insists on storing their heads up their asses, it never occurs to either side that the other side is ALSO rolling their eyes at their fanatics and ALSO saying that they are stupid in private.

So we get these goofy arguments where both sides think that their eye-rolling is proof of their own criticism but demand much more public displays from their opponents.

 
Written By: XipeTotec
URL: http://
Dave,
There’s no third group in his argument, but there is of course a third group.
You do have a valid point in noting that anyone in group 2 should have been willing to critize their fellows in group 1.

Group 1, on the other hand, by Glen’s reasoning, are not obligated to condemn anyone, though they choose to condem Frisch and perhaps not Mischa.
But his point was bloggers who aren’t out there demanding condemnation from the ’other side’ of their malfactors, are not obligated to condemn their own malfactors.

For me the tie back was when he summed up that NONE of them condemned Mischa, and that is where it falls, considering his main theme, into the rabbit hole.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Forget the "and/or" and all that. He explicitly said in a comment on my site this morning what the point of his post was. It’s what McQ said:
You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irr[e]levancies, even though you’re way too busy to notice or condemn any of the far more significant, vile rhetoric pouring forth regularly from the higher echelons on the Right — a glaring inconsistency which, incidentally, was the principal point of my post.
http://patterico.com/2006/07/12/4857/glenn-greenwald-douchebag/#comment-57348

Clear enough????
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
How sweet? And linked in from Glen’s blog are we?

Nice.


Um, no, actually I came in from Patterico’s post. Truly. So they way I called you an idiot? Consider it doubled.



Do terminate that blogging license of yours. Terminate with extreme prejudice.
 
Written By: jerry
URL: http://
Oh, the next time you decide to take someone on.... Try and spell their name right at least, it will add to your credibility.

It’s Glenn.
 
Written By: jerry
URL: http://
If you are gonna decry a random troll who publicly wishes for the murder of a child, it seems pretty strange you wouldn’t even bother to decry a major blogger who publicly wishes for the lynching of five supreme court justices.*
Does it really? One is clearly political hyperbole. The other is so sick that the utterer pre-emptively quit her job as a university professor and left town rather than deal with the fallout, which, in case you haven’t been paying attention, is bi-partisan. Or perhaps non-partisan would be more accurate.

Meanwhile, Emperor Darth Misha I presides over the Kingdom of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, (which, if I understand correctly, is comprised of an entire blog) and rants nearly unmolested. With graphic imagery.

Is there some injustice going on here that I’m missing?

Next thing you know, someone is going to put pictures of naked girls and people having sex on the internet...
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I find it fascinating that this entire thread has devolved into a semantic Socratic argument, with each side desperately trying to pin the "hypocrisy" label on the proverbial donkey.

Isn’t the truth much simpler than the linguistic debate?

Deborah Frisch wasn’t just some random troll; if she were, Greenwald would be right. If she were just a random moonbat barking at her lunar goddess, assigning her lunacy (get it?) to all leftists would be insane ... and indeed hypocritical.

I think what shocked so many on the right - and on the left - was that she chose NOT to be anonymous. That she used her own name. And that she was, in fact, a 44-year old college professor.

That is why she was treated differently. That is why so many were shocked ... and at least a bit stunned by some of her defenders on the left (yes, SadlyNo, I’m sadly talking about you). Her politics were less important than her age and position.

And despite all of the attempts to find some moral equivalence, I have yet to hear anything that even approaches the level of what Frisch wrote. Nothing has come close.
 
Written By: Professor Blather
URL: http://
Do you blogger warriors ever feel silly or guilty about getting your panties in a knot day in and day out about the latest battle involving Jeff Goldstein or Glenn Gleewald or Michelle Malkin or some other keyboard warrior when 24 year olds are being blown to smithereens in eye-rack?
 
Written By: deb frisch
URL: http://www.debfrisch.com
Debs

The least you can do is feel silly over cyberstalking Prof. Bainbridge, Cassandra, and now JeffG.

I can only guess at the issues you have that you still can’t feel remorse or seek help in redeeming yourself over this.

But then, actually getting help in approaching the world in a sense of reality and rationality might threaten your deep-seated delusions, as evidenced by your "eye-rack" dissembling.
 
Written By: Darleen
URL: http://www.darleenclick.com/weblog
Agreed, Darleen, but I do get tired of these never-ending tempests in a teapot.
 
Written By: CraigC
URL: http://
Do you blogger warriors ever feel silly or guilty about getting your panties in a knot day in and day out about the latest battle involving Jeff Goldstein or Glenn Gleewald or Michelle Malkin or some other keyboard warrior when 24 year olds are being blown to smithereens in eye-rack?
Go away, Ms. Fricsh. Sickos like you are not welcome here. Do it voluntarily or you’ll be summarily banned.

This is your only warning.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
when 24 year olds are being blown to smithereens in eye-rack?
24 year old "dupes," isn’t that what you call them, Frisch?
 
Written By: DevilDog
URL: http://
Does it really? One is clearly political hyperbole. The other is so sick that the utterer pre-emptively quit her job as a university professor and left town rather than deal with the fallout . . . .
I fail to see how "one is clearly political hyperbole." I don’t know Mischa or Frisch, nor do I read their blogs, but based on the context of their statements I don’t see how one can know (without knowing their inner intentions) whether they were being hyperbolic. Wasn’t the whole point of the Frisch debacle that even if she didn’t intend her statments to be a threat, they were so over the line that it doesn’t matter? Or are you drawing a distinction between political hyperbole (good - no matter how extreme)and regular hyperbole (bad if it is too extreme)?

As an outsider, the only real difference I can see between the two statments is that the subject of one was an individual unnamed child, and the subjects of the other were 5 specific government officials.

I am at least open to an argument that some legal distinction could be drawn between children and adults and public and private citizens when it comes to calls for their murder (1st amendment grounds maybe). However, I don’t see any moral distinction.
 
Written By: dave
URL: http://
Mary writes:

It’s spelled, "h-y-p-o-c-h-r-i-s-y." Look it up.



I did.

Dictionary.com asks ... Did you mean hypocrisy?

So here’s the problem. We need a Wtfdidyoumeanby that.com for Greenwald’s comments.
 
Written By: Tom
URL: http://
Crazy Deb Frisch:

Keep trying. You won’t distract from your lunacy. We will continue to debate the important issues, even as we note and destroy your career over the less-important ones, such as a psychotic former university professor stalking bloggers she disagrees with.

By the way, you made Special Report With Brit Hume yesterday. Now millions know you’re a psychopath.

Say, what’s that flushing sound I hear?
 
Written By: Pickle
URL: http://www.ircpolitics.org

Do you blogger warriors ever feel silly or guilty about getting your panties in a knot day in and day out about the latest battle involving Jeff Goldstein or Glenn Gleewald or Michelle Malkin or some other keyboard warrior when 24 year olds are being blown to smithereens in eye-rack?Deb, do you ever feel silly about losing a job and blowing a professional career to smithereens over making some stupid insults on a blog?
 
Written By: Charles Martin
URL: http://
Good post McQ. Your original reading is most likely correct. Greenwald’s later crawfishing not withstanding. If you want to make the point of chastising both sides evenly, it helps if, you know, you actually chastise both sides evenly.
 
Written By: David R. Block
URL: http://
I wish Deb Frisch would blow herself to bits. Like in Scanners.
 
Written By: Anon
URL: http://
Greenwald is another bloviation leftist masquerading as a conservative, much like Andrew Sullivan. So why isn’t he being ignored, as he should be, along with the other pseudo-conservatives who are more worried about their PCness and howl about Ann Coulter?

 
Written By: rightwingprof
URL: http://rightwingnation.com
Second, the Sadly, No! post is clearly a hit piece on me; that you would use it as proof of anything just shows how disingenuous, cynical, and calculating you are. It doesn’t take a Constitutional scholar to recognize that the entire piece relies on removing context, rearranging chronology, etc., to make it’s "points" — which, if I remember correctly, are that I eat paste and want to slap people with my cock when I’m not dreaming about sexing up animals and being a failed academic hausfrau who is probably also a closeted homosexual.

Look on the bright side - after your little meltdown over this affair, we’re going to be adding "whiny little b*tch" to the list as well.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
Point to the meltdown. I’d like to see it. Here’s my own response, once my site came back up.

Linked it earlier, but you’ve never been good at following links, PIATOR. That, and some overtly anti-semitic remarks are what eventually got you banned from my site, if I’m remembering correctly.

The only thing that bothered me about this whole bit was that my site was the subject of DoS attacks, and that some of the people who covered the events were less than truthful about what had transpired.

Other than that, I had myself some beer and watched baseball all weekend.
 
Written By: Jeff G
URL: http://www.proteinwisdom.com
That, and some overtly anti-semitic remarks are what eventually got you banned from my site, if I’m remembering correctly.

Either you’re not, or you’re lying. Again.

A simple search of (jew and phoenician) OR (jews and phoenician) on your site demonstrates this.

And you’re still a whiny little b*tch, Goldstein. Found a job yet?
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
Phoenician was banned back in January from proteinwisdom for repeatedly asserting Goldstein’s motives were racist in order to get a rise out of him. I notice she’s trolling him in this thread, now. Some things never change!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Deb Frisch: Professor (formerly...quit moments before being canned and indicted) of Pop Psychology.

That’s like a raging alcoholic giving AA lectures.

Oh...she’s ugly, too.
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
What no one has pointed out definitively is the fact that this Deb F. threatened and denigrated a two year old child. Not an adult. Not the father.

Every example I have seen trying to justify her comments is either directed to another ADULT or just in general. Not toward a child.

THAT is the difference. Pure and simple.

Plus remember,if you dish it out then you should be ready to take it, period.

 
Written By: White Tiger
URL: http://
Phoenician was banned back in January from proteinwisdom for repeatedly asserting Goldstein’s motives were racist

To be more exact, IIRC, for pointing out that Jeff operated a double standard over the moral worth of American cvilian lives and Arab civilians. Admittedly, it was slightly trollish to term this "white" vs "brown".

Jeff actually banned me because I had a bad habit of providing sources and cites in pointing out his stupidity, and the ad hominems of himself and his mouthbreathing fans didn’t seem to work.

Every example I have seen trying to justify her comments

Would you care to provide, say, two examples of anyone trying to justify Frisch’s comments towards Jeff’s kid?

About the only thing that can be said about Jeff’s kid is that he or she is probably going to wind up a bit screwed up with Jeff as a father and, hell, people have survived worse.

On the plus side, Jeff’s wife is out earning bread in the real world and has plenty of opportunity to compare her husband with normal, decent, sane men. The kid will probably have a better male role model fairly shortly.

And if Goldstein is a whining little b*tch over what the "Sadly No!" crowd does to him, I only hope we get to see him screeching at what happens when a divorce attorney gets hold of his blog rantings...
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
Jeff actually banned me because I had a bad habit of providing sources and cites in pointing out his stupidity
He probably didn’t want a reapeat of the thread with all the riffs on your rather silly handle, oh Wedgie in a time of Thongs.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
He probably didn’t want a reapeat of the thread with all the riffs on your rather silly handle, oh Wedgie in a time of Thongs.

Like I said, ad hominems from mouth-breathers.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
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