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

 
Condemn This!
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Patterico and Amy Ridenour are worked up about Glenn Greenwald's post noting that right wing bloggers "have not said a word of condemnation about these death calls from a prominent blogger on the Right." (said "prominent blogger on the Right" being Misha at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller) Ridenour says she was "heretofore unaware of our responsibility as conservative bloggers to scour the Internet for posts of this nature and condemn them on an individual basis." Patterico notes that he doesn't read Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller and, besides, some of us have day jobs.

Both might be good points, and they might have also gone on to point out that Greenwald linked to Digby on Monday, despite Digby's recent, baseless accusation that a political opponent was a pedophile.

Those would be great points, except that Ridenour and Patterico appear to have entirely missed the point of Greenwald's post. [update: in the process of writing this post, I see the same error has shown up here at QandO] It was not a serious suggestion that the Right has an obligation to denounce any incidence of that kind of rhetoric; it was a response to the recent suggestion from some Right wing bloggers that the Left had been remiss in not denouncing an obscure blogger for obscene rhetoric. Goose, gander.

Look, nobody has an obligation to condemn every bit of vile political rhetoric. There's not enough time in the day, and there are far more important topics. When so inspired, by all means, criticize the Ann Coulter's, Digby's, Bill O'Reilly's and Michael Moore's of the world. But don't start the "if you don't condemn it, you must support it!" game. Not unless you're prepared to play it.

Greenwald's point was perfectly reasonable — and perfectly obvious.

UPDATE: Apparently it wasn't completely obvious. More bloggers seem to be jumping on the condemnation-without-comprehension bandwagon.

That's just embarrassing.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Jon, I agree with you but Greenwald completely disables his point in Patterico’s comments section.

I think you missed Patterico’s point. Patterico says that he doesn’t read Misha, doesn’t like him, and he thinks that Misha’s post is outrageous and stupid. So with this statement made, he says he never made that argument that he has to chase down within a ferw hours every outrageous statement made by what he refers to as the right lunatic fringe.

Then, Greenwald tears into him (in the comments section) asking him to condemn Misha’s post and castigates him for now immediately making a stronger statement.

When I originally followed the link, I thiought my understanding was the same as your Jon. Now reading his responses to Paterico, I wonder if perhaps he meant soemthing else. His prose is rather clumsy afterall.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Jon,

While I can understand Greenwald’s ire over Misha’s screed the fact remains that Misha is a pre-adolescentesque troll. Really, "nicedoggie" juxtaposed to Rottweiler (and dig the graphic on top of the page)? He has been puking up eliminationist screeds from day one and I long ago gave up wasting valuable reading time on his nonsense.

I am surprised that an intelligent man like Greenwald would take Misha seriously. Realistically, the only reason for him to point there is to ridcule and say "see how nutty the right is. That he feels the need to hammer on this offense shows me how uncomfortable he is within his own skin. This is especially apparent in his chasing Patterico to demand action. Expect Glenn to show up on these threads here soon to demand likewise.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Looks like he already has done so on McQ’s thread.
 
Written By: D
URL: http://
Jon,

Don’t you think it’s possible that what is "obvious" to you is not obvious to others? And, if so many people took it the wrong way, maybe Glenn’s post wasn’t as "obvious"ly clear as you seem to think it is?
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
John:

I think you are the one who is missing the point. The Frisch story has made it to the mainstream press. The comments that Glenn writes about haven’t. Since the Frisch story has received such wide airing, by Glenn’s own admission, it strikes some as odd that liberal bloggers wouldn’t comment about the incident. The remarks that Glenn posts about have NOT received a wide airing or made it to the conventional press. So it is not so strange that conservastive bloggers would not write about it.
 
Written By: SunBeltJerry
URL: http://
To be honest, no one can read all of what is or has been said on both sides. But I have seen little call for condemnation of Liberals who didn’t denounce Frisch. What I have seen is some taking exception to those who defended her. Big difference. And by attempting to move the goal posts, Greenwald is doing precisely that - imo.

I think your conclusion that everyone is missing the point fails to recognize that some may be looking at this from a different perspective. Also, Greenwald has adopted a practice of incessantly linking Right-side blogs with silly criticism. Ultimately, I find his attention seeking behavior the most annoying. ymmv
 
Written By: Dan
URL: http://www.riehlworldview.com
captjoe: "Then, Greenwald tears into him (in the comments section) asking him to condemn Misha’s post and castigates him for now immediately making a stronger statement.

When I originally followed the link, I thiought my understanding was the same as your Jon. Now reading his responses to Paterico, I wonder if perhaps he meant soemthing else. His prose is rather clumsy afterall."

ST: No need to wonder. GG meant his post to come across exactly as it did to me, Patterico, and others who’ve taken him to task for it: if you don’t condemn what HE wants condemned, WHEN he wants it condemned, you’re a ’hypocrite.’ For anyone unclear or misguided as to what GG was really saying in what he wrote, visiting Patterico’s post and checking out GG’s comments in the comment section there will clear things up quite nicely. Business as usual for him.
 
Written By: Sister Toldjah
URL: http://www.sistertoldjah.com
I’ll cover a few commenters with this one response:
Don’t you think it’s possible that what is "obvious" to you is not obvious to others?
No.

Look, he wasn’t coy about this. One doesn’t have to be a mind-reader to see past his subterfuge. He explicitly explained his point on multiple occassions within the 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
[hateful rhetoric from the Right] is almost never condemned, including by those who self-righteously parade themselves around as Defenders of Civility and have the audacity to demand that others condemn such rhetoric when it comes from far less significant and influential corners.
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."
I’m not sure how much more clear he could have been. And, yes, it’s embarrassing for those who read the post and still managed to miss the point.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Thank you, Jon. Your point is well made, and appreciated.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
From Greenwald’s post (emphasis added):
[hateful comments from those on the right are] almost never condemned, including by those who self-righteously parade themselves around as Defenders of Civility and have the audacity to demand that others condemn such rhetoric when it comes from far less significant and influential corners.
I’d not even noticed the subtle bit of ’do as I say, not as I do’ from on the part where the emphasis was added until now.

He apparently thinks that mere commenters like Fisch are ’insignificant’ and not worth elevating to the status of worth commenting on. But if they are Little Green Footballs commenters, that ’standard’ changes. From his "ten worst Americans" post written last December:
(10) The Commenters at Little Green Footballs - a truly unique brew of genocidal fantasies, raging fascist impulses, genuine collective mental imbalance, and towering stupidity who, on a daily basis, industriously convert even innocuous news articles into a pretext for their repetitive, ritualistic orgies where they primally beat their chests, single out the Culprits of the Day, and then gleefully advocate their violent, gruesome deaths.
 
Written By: Sister Toldjah
URL: http://www.sistertoldjah.com
Jon,

I agree with your post, however, Greenwalds comments at Patterico’s site undermine what it seems to me he was trying to say, in addition to him unfairly smearing Jeff with the Thersites controversy mentioned on Mcq’s thread.

Unfortunately you are being unfair to Patterico. He was expressly linked to by Greenwald as being one of the guilty party’s. He isn’t. He also was accused of not condemning right wing extremism when he does. He also in the comments lies about patterico’s response, or at least willfully ignores what Patterico actually said. Finally as we can see from this:
Greenwald might have a point if he had ... saved his rhetoric solely for right-wing bloggers who wrote outraged posts asking: “Where are the lefty blogs who condemn Frisch?!”
that Patterico did get the point and took offense that it didn’t apply to him. Glen made a good point, applied it to those whom it didn’t apply to, acted in ways that undermined that point and cast doubt about whether he really means what he says and simultaneously passed along untrue allegations about Jeff Goldstein. That buried in all this Greenwald made a good point doesn’t change the fact that Patterico has Greenwald pegged. Throw in a whole lot of hypocrisy from the man and I find it hard to read him.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Jon:

What you seem to miss is that Greenwald is lambasting an awful lot of bloggers for what he perceives to be the sins of one.

Other than Confederate Yankee, I have seen any other blogger calling out lefties for not condemning Frisch enough. I have read a few who took issue with Frisch defenders and apologists, but that is nowhere near the same thing.

Furthermore, Greenwald alleges some things to bolster his (rather poorly written) argument that are not backed up at all, and for which no evidence has been offered:
Many implied that this unknown commenter was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals ...
Really who were they?
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.
Again, who? Only one blogger (CY) is linked.
But while right-wing bloggers have to dig under rocks to find obscure commenters making reprehensible comments,...
Again, how is this assertion even close to being factual? And at whom is it supposed to be directed?

The only point that Greenwald made clearly is that if you sympathized with Jeff Goldstein (or as Glenn puts it:"Based on the grieving rituals we had to endure this weekend over Jeff Goldstein’s sensibilities..."), than by his oh-so-loftier-than-thou moral standards you were required to roundly condemn Mischa as well. That point, I think it’s fair to say, is utterly ridiculous.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
Jon:

As far as I can see so far, there is only one righty poster who is saying that silence=approval, Confederate Yankee. (Most of us think he is wrong.) Most bloggers would respond to the particular offender, but not Greenie; he uses a broad brush to attempt to paint all righty bloggers as posing the Confederate Yankee argument. Green’s beef with Patterico has nothing to do with the silence=agreement argument you pose so much more eloquently than he. Greenwald is upset that Patterico did not condemn Misha.

Period.


That’s his argument; not that Patterico must agree with Misha because he did not condemn his comments. Jon, if you still don’t believe, Green himself tells us the point of his post:

"You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irrlevancies, 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."

This has nothing to do with your silence=agreement argument, by Glenn’s own admission. Greenwald is accusing us on the right of hypocracy when it comes to condemning nutjobs. He does NOT accuse Patterico of making the silence=agreement argument.

Now Greenwald has told us all what the point of his post was, and it’s not what you say it is. I’ll go with the author’s interpretation over yours.
 
Written By: SunBeltJerry
URL: http://
It was not a serious suggestion that the Right has an obligation to denounce any incidence of that kind of rhetoric; it was a response to the recent suggestion from some Right wing bloggers that the Left had been remiss in not denouncing an obscure blogger for obscene rhetoric. Goose, gander.
Nah. It was exactly what it sounded like - a whine that some right-wing bloggers had the audacity to attack Deborah Frisch for her criminal death threats without also finding the time to condemn every statement from a fellow conservative that could reasonably be construed as offensive in any way. If Glenn’s whinepost had been directed at any bloggers who had accused the left of being remiss, he should have named those bloggers instead of the ones he did name. And to imply that Patterico had been remiss in not attacking Ann Coulter was, to borrow one of your phrases, "nonsense on stilts."
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Are we talking about Emperor Darth Misha I, Master of the Rottweiler Empire?

I just want to make sure I condemn the right guy. Wouldn’t want to accidently drop my condemnation on a lawyer or a college professor or something.

He doesn’t really have a dungeon, does he?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
UPDATE: Apparently it wasn’t completely obvious. More bloggers seem to be jumping on the condemnation-without-comprehension bandwagon.

That’s just embarrassing.
What is it with Greenwald sycophants and intellectual arrogance? Nobody gets Greenwald but you, huh, Jon?

Incidentally, Jon, the evidence proving your assertion wrong is highlighted above by SunBeltJerry, and can be found here.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
As far as I can see so far, there is only one righty poster who is saying that silence=approval, Confederate Yankee. (Most of us think he is wrong.) Most bloggers would respond to the particular offender, but not Greenie; he uses a broad brush to attempt to paint all righty bloggers as posing the Confederate Yankee argument.
First, the claim that this argument was made only by Confederate Yankee is factually false:

From Right Wing Nut House, in a post entitled "Louder Please, Crickets are Chirptïng" -
All of those bloggers who have called Goldstein a “paste eater” are nowhere to be found when it comes to policing their own ranks and thus have aligned themselves with Frisch and her criminal behavior. Silence implies assent in my book. And the fact that liberals have taken absolutely no interest in this incident is deplorable. Ann Coulter comes out with one of her loony toons remarks about killing Supreme Court justices and several dozen righty bloggers, many of them prominent, jump down her throat. Deb Frisch threatens physical harm against a two year old and gets a pass from the left.
From Patterico (linked in my post) -
Liberal commenters on her blog are refusing to condemn her.
From The Anchoress -
Confederate Yankee - noting that yesterday several “progressive” bloggers were busy taking the right to task for “incivility - and he is wondering when or if any blogs from the left will give some heat to this woman or, at the very least, admonish her as you have seen right-wing bloggers do when one of their own crosses a line. So far, he doesn’t seem to have found any leftwing bloggers shaking the finger. Rick Moran is also looking for some condemnation from the left. He hears crickets.
From Powerline (in a post entitled "Liberals Harrass Jeff Goldstein") -
Jeff Goldstein’s Protein Wisdom was our Blog of the Week just two weeks ago. Now, he has come under one of the more bizarre liberal attacks yet. Michelle Malkin has the details
From Red State -
And as for the left blogosphere, which likes to try to pin every insensitive comment ever made by any rightward blogger on all of us: the fact that none of you were criticizing this freak is a symptom of your disease.
I assume you’ll acknowledge that it was not only Confederate Yankee who argued that the silence of liberal bloggers somehow signified support for these comments and who tried to impose the obligation on liberal bloggers to condemn the comments lest they be accused of assenting to them. There were plenty of others beyond what I just cited, but the cited posts alone demonstrate that it was a commonly expressed view.

Second, in addition to that argument, I also noted the inconsistency of bloggers who spent so much energy expressing so much self-righteous rage over ugly comments over the weekend, and yet blithely ignore comments just as bad, if not worse, when they come from those with whom they agree politically — including many of the examples I cited in my post, and including comments from Goldstein himself, such as this:
Incidentally, Tim? I touched your sister in her secret places. Lots.
And revealingly, none of the right-wing bloggers who replied to my post — including Rhiel or Sister Toldjah — condemned Misha’s call for the hanging of Supreme Court Justices and journalists. To the contrary, they refused to do so. Ignoring such comments by a blogger with a large audience seems to be very odd behavior for bloggers who spent the weekend so very very upset at the mean and ugly comments made by some obscure person nobody had ever heard of before. To put it mildly, it calls into question the authenticity of their concern for purported civil discourse.
 
Written By: Glenn Greenwald
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, 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
The use of a disjunction indicates that he was referring to bloggers who just posted on Frisch’s comments as well as those who complained that she wasn’t condemned enough by the left.
 
Written By: err
URL: http://
Jon,

In this instance, why do you unquestioningly accept Glenn’s premise?

From your highlight:
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

Cite please? (either you or Greenwald)

[hateful rhetoric from the Right] is almost never condemned, including by those who self-righteously parade themselves around as Defenders of Civility and have the audacity to demand that others condemn such rhetoric when it comes from far less significant and influential corners.

Again, cite please?

All of the "evidence" Glenn points to for Jeff’s "hateful rhetoric" is a loony left site called "Sadly, No" that seems to have a weird fixation with Jeff’s website. And, no, I’m linking to Sadly,No because that place is a nut farm.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
As far as I can see so far, there is only one righty poster who is saying that silence=approval, Confederate Yankee. (Most of us think he is wrong.) Most bloggers would respond to the particular offender, but not Greenie; he uses a broad brush to attempt to paint all righty bloggers as posing the Confederate Yankee argument.
First, the claim that this argument was made only by Confederate Yankee is factually false
just a bit of mis-stating there.

Right Wing Nut House - OK, that’s two.

Patterico stating that commenters not condemning her comments on her blog where the issue was being discussed is outside the realm of your now-refined point.

Anchoress is merely commenting upon what Confederate Yankee and Right Wing Nut House have said - or are you now saying that commenting on a topic without condemning what is said is really an approval? Isnt that what you ostensibly are arguing against?

Powerline makes no such statement in the post you link.

RedStates is actually making the exact argument (in 40+ words) that you now say was the central point of your post (1300 words)

Still not very convincing on the most of the right blogosphere argument.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Cite please?
I just cited - and quoted - five or six bloggers who "lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough."
All of the "evidence" Glenn points to for Jeff’s "hateful rhetoric" is a loony left site called "Sadly, No" that seems to have a weird fixation with Jeff’s website.
The Sadly, No posts I linked to contain quote after repulsive quote from Jeff Goldstein, including the quote I excerpted above. If that doesn’t constitute evidence of Goldstein’s comments, then nothing does.
 
Written By: Glenn Greenwald
URL: http://
Jon,

Lance and Xrlq nailed it.

First, it is not immediately obvious that his post is an ironic reply to Confederate Yankee.

Second: I recognized that possibility, and said in my post that, if that were his point, why was he tarnishing *me* with it? I reject the "where is the lefty outrage?" argument.

Third, he came on my blog and asserted that I have failed to condemn outrageous statements by those on the right. It’s a completely baseless and untrue statement, as I proved with numerous links. I demand a retraction and an apology, Greenwald.

Fourth, he has *continued* the assertion that I am a hypocrite by citing to my comments on FRISCH’S OWN SITE. That’s completely different, as he well knows, because it is a reference to people commenting ON HER SITE ABOUT THIS CONTROVERSY.

You learn things over time in the blogosphere. One of them is that the "where is the outrage" argument is lame. I wouldn’t be shocked if I made it at some time in the past. But I have learned that it’s contextual. People have not heard every outrage, and they have limited time. If they use their limited time to comment on something, they should say it right (and I did, in my post, condemn Misha’s statements as outrageous and ridiculous). But silence is not assent.

So, Mr. Greenwald: your retraction and apology, for your flat falsehoods?
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Glenn,

In the quote provided, Powerline says nothing about condemning anybody for any reason. The Anchoress quotes Confederate Yankee. Patterico is talking about something else. 0-3 there.

You managed to find 3 three blogs that support your assertion and three that don’t. I’d hardly call that countless rightwing bloggers. Thanks for playing, though.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
You guys (bloggers) take yourselves way to seriously.

The Frisch thing is weird. From what I’ve read, she made some weird comments, probably in a "fit of stupidity." Then got trapped by them. Figure she should resign as the "right" thing to avoid embarrassment, then realized afterward that every employer for the rest of time will see this as a "Don’t Hire This Goof" flag in her resume and has been backpedalling ever since. I suggest that she go back and ask for her resignation back and submit to some sort of period of probation and get her professional life back on track.

This Frisch thing seems to have ignited some intellectual undergrowth that (I guess) needs to be burnt off in order to avoid a bigger forest fire. Misha seems to have been the next to get caught in the flames.

1. The political and media establishment doesn’t care about the right-wing blogosphere.
2. The right-wing is able to get anything it wants into the national news media Chris Bowers - MyDD

Yes, #1 and #2 seem to contradict each other, but there is a nuance to it.

Chris is right about #1, but hasn’t quite realized that they don’t really care about the "netroots" folks either. They only care that they might be able to mobilize some cheap-to-free labor for their campaigns. Meanwhile to this end, they are hoping that they can buy the services of (for instance) the followers of Kos, by buying Kos. This sort of is the "Jesse Jackson" approach to politics, only Jesee (and few close advisors) get the money. I don’t expect this to work past the 2008 election when a large portion of the "netroots" folks will go away disillusioned with politics (McGovernites all over again), even if they win.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
That’s just embarrassing.
The more I think about it, the more I’ve become convinced it is you who have it wrong. I’ve covered my reasons in an update to my post.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
First, the claim that this argument was made only by Confederate Yankee is factually false:
The claim was that you only cited Confederate Yankee but lambasted all righty bloggers. The claim you highlighted above was that the particular poster hadn’t seen any such comments except at CY.

As for your "evidence":
From Right Wing Nut House, in a post entitled "Louder Please, Crickets are Chirptïng" -
All of those bloggers who have called Goldstein a “paste eater” are nowhere to be found when it comes to policing their own ranks and thus have aligned themselves with Frisch and her criminal behavior. Silence implies assent in my book. And the fact that liberals have taken absolutely no interest in this incident is deplorable. Ann Coulter comes out with one of her loony toons remarks about killing Supreme Court justices and several dozen righty bloggers, many of them prominent, jump down her throat. Deb Frisch threatens physical harm against a two year old and gets a pass from the left.
This is actually the only other post that even begins to support your theory. So much so that you linked twice in the same sentence (nevermind that not one other post you cited says what you claim).

More importantly, Rick Moran actually does condemn violent posts (Update II: 7/9) as you suggest he should:
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.
Next:
From Patterico (linked in my post) -
Liberal commenters on her blog are refusing to condemn her.
How does this support your theory exactly? If a commenter on her blog, discussing the topic at hand refuse to condemn her actions, is that not fair to point out, Mischa notwithstanding? In fact, this example doesn’t support your theory at all.

Next:
From The Anchoress -
Confederate Yankee - noting that yesterday several “progressive” bloggers were busy taking the right to task for “incivility - and he is wondering when or if any blogs from the left will give some heat to this woman or, at the very least, admonish her as you have seen right-wing bloggers do when one of their own crosses a line. So far, he doesn’t seem to have found any leftwing bloggers shaking the finger. Rick Moran is also looking for some condemnation from the left. He hears crickets.
She’s citing others, not making the point herself, first of all. And how did you miss this part of her post?
But this sort of thing should always be condemned, as should the childish name-calling (”moonbat,”) that both sides over-engage in. I cringe whenever I see writers on either side call Presidents by disgusting nicknames or call other writers “moonbats” and such. I wish everyone would knock it off and grow up a little. If humans cannot treat their fellow-humans with a common degree of humanity - and yes, decency - then this country will stagnate and die.
Next:
From Powerline (in a post entitled "Liberals Harrass Jeff Goldstein") -

Jeff Goldstein’s Protein Wisdom was our Blog of the Week just two weeks ago. Now, he has come under one of the more bizarre liberal attacks yet. Michelle Malkin has the detailsHow does this support your point? Yet again, this has nothing to do with calling out lefties to condemn Frisch.
Next:
From Red State -
And as for the left blogosphere, which likes to try to pin every insensitive comment ever made by any rightward blogger on all of us: the fact that none of you were criticizing this freak is a symptom of your disease.
This was a throwaway line at the very end of a post (although to be fair "She Still Doesn’t Get It— And The Left Says Nothing" was the title). Other than that line, the entire post is about deriding Frisch for her behavior. Cheap shot? Sure, okay. But you didn’t link to it in your post, and was a pretty insignificant part of the post.

Finally, to the rest of your post above:
I assume you’ll acknowledge that it was not only Confederate Yankee who argued that the silence of liberal bloggers somehow signified support for these comments and who tried to impose the obligation on liberal bloggers to condemn the comments lest they be accused of assenting to them. There were plenty of others beyond what I just cited, but the cited posts alone demonstrate that it was a commonly expressed view.
You demonstrated nothing of the sort, and in fact, just the opposite is shown by the links you provided ... it was not at all common to express such a view.
Second, in addition to that argument, I also noted the inconsistency of bloggers who spent so much energy expressing so much self-righteous rage over ugly comments over the weekend, and yet blithely ignore comments just as bad, if not worse, when they come from those with whom they agree politically — including many of the examples I cited in my post, and including comments from Goldstein himself, such as this:
Incidentally, Tim? I touched your sister in her secret places. Lots.
The many "examples" were links to SadlyNo!, a blogger who has a rather unhealthy obsession with Jeff Goldstein. The "examples" she cites were nothing of the sort, but more echo-chamber (and self-referential) allegations of nastiness. The "example" you cite above is from Moxie’s site, which I’m gathering you’ve never been to. Suffice it to say that crudity is par for the course there and expected (Moxie’s tagline used to be: "Where corpus delecti still does not mean ’smokin’ hot bod’"). Besides, what again does this have to do with your point? Those who diagreed with Frisch’s pederast references should police the comment sections of every blog Goldstein visits before saying anything? Please.
And revealingly, none of the right-wing bloggers who replied to my post — including Rhiel or Sister Toldjah — condemned Misha’s call for the hanging of Supreme Court Justices and journalists. To the contrary, they refused to do so.
The mendacity continues. You know this isn’t true, but you persist in pushing it anyway. Why?
Ignoring such comments by a blogger with a large audience seems to be very odd behavior for bloggers who spent the weekend so very very upset at the mean and ugly comments made by some obscure person nobody had ever heard of before. To put it mildly, it calls into question the authenticity of their concern for purported civil discourse.
Frankly, it calls your own in to question more than anyone else. You lied repeatedly about those you cited. You implicitly claim to hold a higher moral authority than those you cite, and yet when was the last time you took a lefty to task for over-the-top rhetoric?
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
I think that Greenwald has been pretty well eviscerated here, and there’s not much need to reply to him as he appears somewhat Frisched (AKA unhinged). But I think it would be appropriate for Jon to come on back and admit that Glenn did not make a clear point, and the points that he did try to make were easily refuted. To claim that Patterico and Instapundit do not denounce crazies on the right is absolutely untrue. Greenwald most certainly tried to tarnish a whole slew of bloggers by association, something that I hope Jon would condemn in no uncertain terms. Please Jon, come back, and tell us that Greenwald is wrong. Please come back and apologize for insulting everyone who didn’t come to the same conclusions as you (It’s obvious!) about Greenwald’s incoherent ramble.

Greenwald has been shown just above to be nothing less than what some would call dishonest, hoping that people won’t follow his links that purport to support his point, when half of them do nothing of the sort.
 
Written By: SunBeltJerry
URL: http://
Jon,

I’m not sure if this is intentional or not, but your tendency to presuppose yourself as the arbiter of fact in every dispute seems brilliantly calculated to evoke precisely the opposite reactions you claim to be seeking. Every post I’ve seen you write on global warming seems comes down to ’I understand the science and if you disagree you must not be smart enough to understand it.’ Now you suggest that Greenwald’s meaning was ’perfectly obvious.’ To borrow from Inigo Montoya, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If it were, as you say, perfectly obvious, then the logical implication of that is that the bloggers who are unhappy with Greenwald are willfully misinterpreting his comment in order to attack him. I don’t think that’s your argument, but that’s what you’re saying by claiming his angle was perfectly obvious. 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?
 
Written By: Andrew Olmsted
URL: http://andrewolmsted.com
When so inspired, by all means, criticize the Ann Coulter’s, Digby’s, Bill O’Reilly’s and Michael Moore’s of the world.
Do you honestly think O’Reilly belongs with these folks? Arrogant and intentionaly provacative, yes, but if you pay attention to what he actually advocates, he is far more in line with Mainstream America’s politics than the wildcards you’re lumping him with.

I mean c’mon dude, Coulter and Moore are the worst of their respective sides; do you really think the same can be said about egomaniacal Bill?
 
Written By: J_Zaner
URL: http://
I was wrong about that it "ignited some intellectual undergrowth," this is an all out food fight.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Jon,

Personally I can see why you found Glen’s point obvious, I do think however that Greenwald did give the impression at points he was calling for exactly what McQ says he was, so maybe a little understanding is necessary. More importantly I think at this point it is clear that he actually was making the point you made and then, or at least now is, hypocritically saying what McQ says he meant. I didn’t read it that way originally, I was on board with your interpretation, but his commentary here and elsewhere shows that he was making both of those contradictory points:
Second, in addition to that argument, I also noted the inconsistency of bloggers who spent so much energy expressing so much self-righteous rage over ugly comments over the weekend, and yet blithely ignore comments just as bad, if not worse, when they come from those with whom they agree politically — including many of the examples I cited in my post, and including comments from Goldstein himself, such as this:

Incidentally, Tim? I touched your sister in her secret places. Lots.
Hmmm....seems he is asking for exactly what you claim he wasn’t. Or, he is not demanding they condemn him, but they are still hypocritical for not doing so. That would seem to be a rather fine point to claim it is really a difference. I think the man wants to agree with your defense to show what idiots everyone else is (see, the reasonable wingers got it) but still wants to be able to call other wingers hypocrites at the same time. He needs to do a better job of it, this one falls flat. He says variations of the same thing elsewhere. I think you and I read it the way we did because we assumed he was being ironic...or something, whatever, it was poorly written, but anyway, we were trying to see the ending and other comments Glen made in light of his main point, or what we thought was his main point.

I think Jon, that we misread it because we want to see things as logical. The idea that someone can hold such obviously contradictory opinions in a single post just goes against our grain. I give up. I was wrong and you were wrong. In addition to lying about Patterico and all the other nonsense from the post, then coming on here and posting things on this thread to support his arguments that a third grader can see don’t follow I can only conclude that either:

a) He is logically impaired and actually feels his statements are reconcilable and the evidence he uses actually does follow. He is therefore worthy of pity, and given all the bile he spreads about his opponents, contempt.

Or,

b) He is just trying to slip obvious BS by us because he thinks we will buy it, and therefore holds you, me and everyone here in contempt. I decided he held his regular readers in contempt long ago.

So given the lies, deceptions and mendacious behavior I demand! Yes, I demand you condemn him here, right now!..... Or maybe not. How about just acknowledging what a weak piece of crap he left in your comment thread, just for me? Please?

 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
I adore Goldstein’s blog. He’s really funny and it’s fun watching him peel folks like Thersites like an onion only to reveal— surprise!— there’s nothing inside. Goldstein is very funny, and most of his commenters are sharp and funny as well.

I watched the whole Frisch thing unfold, and yes, she’s a loser, but apparently effective troll. Truthfully, I’m a little bummed that Jeff saw fit to let her take over his blog for a week, and it would be a double bummer to see some derrivative Frisch shyte to take over QandO for even a day.

Glenn Greenwald is a partisan propogandist who seems to me at least to be mostly insusceptible to reason, and I’m not sure Jon why you even deem to take him seriously enough to blog stuff about him or any of the partisan he-said she-said cr*p he posts. But again, that’s just me. God, I’m even boring myself by typing this...

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
For the record this is the comment left by Greenwald at Patterico’s
But there is an even more compelling reason why I failed to condemn Misha. I have a day job. In the few waking hours that Greenwald gave me and others to condemn the guy, I was either getting ready for work, or at work. . . .

Greenwald might have a point if he had waited a couple of days, rather than a couple of hours
That’s nice of you to acknowledge:

A full week ago, on July 3, Misha issued the exact same death call, this time applied to journalists, just as I made clear in my post. And he did the same thing on June 22, 3 weeks ago. And probably many times before that.

And, on June 29, the day the Hamdan decision was issued, Misha said this: “The Supreme Whores are in dire need of Intervention by Lynch Mob™.”

So your excuse that you didn’t have sufficient time to read Misha’s death calls is rather inane, given that he makes such comments on an almost weekly basis, at least, and is met with nothing from you - and from the swarms of right-wing bloggers sermonizing over the critically important Deb Frisch this weekend — other than silence.

And independent of Misha, I listed multiple comments from prominent right-wing pundits and bloggers far worse than anything Deb Frish said - including those who published the names and home addresses of journalists whom they accuse of treason, those who published satellite photographs of their homes, those who called for the hanging of prominent Democrats, etc. I know you’re a super busy guy with a really consuming career, but nobody could be so busy that they miss the endless stream of hate-mongering rhetoric coming from the Right.

Independently, even with your intense, all-consuming career, you certainly did manage to spend the weekend so heavily engrossed by the Epic Controversy over the comments left by some obscure lunatic in the comments section of Jeff Goldstein’s blog. Your “day job” didn’t seem to prevent you from spewing all sorts of moralizing and self-righteous condemnations over the Evil of The Deb Frisch Comments.

For some reason, there were no time constraints preventing you from actively participating in this drama, sermonizing endlessly over the terrible affront to human decency which those comments posed.

You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irrlevancies, 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.

And the absence of any such condemnation is particuarly revealing coming from someone who was railing against “liberal commenters” for failing to condemn Frisch clearly or aggressively enough. That is why this comment of yours:

Greenwald might have a point if . . . and then saved his rhetoric solely for right-wing bloggers who wrote outraged posts asking: “Where are the lefty blogs who condemn Frisch?!”
. . . is so hilarious, given that it comes from the author of this “Amazing. Liberal commenters on her blog are refusing to condemn her”
So unless Greenwald is being increadibly thoroughly sarcastic, he is condemning Patterico and other bloggers for the sin of not blogging about what Greenwalds wants them to blog about. He sometimes has good points but they are often encased with stuff like this and together with Greenwalds amazing inablity to comprehend what he reads (like the difference between "Liberal commenters on her blog are refusing to condemn her" and asking all liberal bloggers to condem her) are why I don’t read his site.
 
Written By: ChrisB
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.
Over on the other thread Glen makes the point again. He is saying that if you condemn lefty bloggers (or nobodies) you are hypocritical if you don’t say the same about right wingers. That is independent (as he says above) of the fact that he is arguing that you are under no obligation to condemn said comments. I guess that is true as long as you don’t mind being called a hypocrite like Patterico and others he smeared. uhhh, yeah, whatever. I guess we can try and square that circle.

I’ll try. Despite linking to many people who neither charge could be plausibly be attached to, maybe Glen is saying that we are not obligated to condemn every stupid comment. Good so far. He is also saying in the second part that you are a hypocrite if you do condemn a nobody, but do not ever condemn someone more prominent from your own party. That would be a statement ripe for misinterpretation, but okay. Don’t see why it matters that someone is a nobody (not to mention a nobody ceases to be a nobody when they make a splash on a major forum, but I digress) but that would be okay, if a hair splitting set of distinctions. Of course that is not what he says!

Not only is that not what he says, but given the evidence he has presented via links we know he cannot be saying that and simultaneously be talking about these people. He could apologize for smearing these people and make it clear he is only talking about those few bloggers who condemn nobody’s and never those on their side of the aisle, but that would be such a vanishingly small group as to make a mockery of the original post. He obviously was making a much larger point than that. Personally I suggest he punt and say he was just pissed about all the people in comment sections attacking the left broadly because of Frisch (a perfectly reasonable complaint, but talk about tilting at windmills) and Confederate Yankee and went off half cocked. We all do sometimes. Since his supposed points do not apply to many he linked to originally and here he should be a little forgiving about people assuming he was saying something broader.

My guess is Glen won’t, so I’ll assume what I said in my previous comment lies closer to the truth.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Pardon me if someone’s already mentioned this, but Patterico spent a fair amount of time on a couple of Sadly, No! comment threads griping because Sadly, No!’s condemnation of Frisch was not of a quality that Patterico deemed suitable.

So, no, Confederate Yankee wasn’t the only RW’er whining about "the left’s" response to the stupid Frisch affair.
 
Written By: kc
URL: http://rogueplanet.blogspot.com/
kc,

Yes, but Sadly,No! was commenting on the matter. Patterico was not guilty of saying anyone was required to comment, which is what Greenwald is claiming. Let me give you an example: If I am on my blog talking about Coulter and you come and complain about my characterization of her, it in no way implies you thought I was required to comment on her. It just means you disagreed with my commentary. I wouldn’t then be able to post a claim that you thought the whole right wing blogosphere was required to comment on Coulter. That would obviously be an untruth, by complaining about me you in no way are making demands on others.

You are now guilty of misstating a truth. My assumption is that you are just being sloppy and defensive, we all can be at times, but nevertheless Patterico did no such thing based on what you are claiming.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Pardon me if someone’s already mentioned this, but Patterico spent a fair amount of time on a couple of Sadly, No! comment threads griping because Sadly, No!’s condemnation of Frisch was not of a quality that Patterico deemed suitable.
What does that have to do with anything?

It’s one thing to not talk about something at all because you don’t know about it or don’t really think that it’s very important. It’s a different thing to talk about something in a mildly disapproving manner since that means that you do know about it and you think that it is important enough to comment about.

It’s perfectly obvious™.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Lance,

Patterico was not guilty of saying anyone was required to comment,

No, and I didn’t say that he was. What I said was: "Patterico spent a fair amount of time on a couple of Sadly, No! comment threads griping because Sadly, No!’s condemnation of Frisch was not of a quality that Patterico deemed suitable."

This is true. Go look for yourself.

You are now guilty of misstating a truth.

Sadly, no! Heh.

My assumption is that you are just being sloppy and defensive

Sloppy, maybe, ’cause I haven’t provided a link to the Sadly, No thread. I’ll go find it in a sec.

But defensive? Nah, I don’t have any reason to be defensive.
 
Written By: kc
URL: http://rogueplanet.blogspot.com/
GG: "And revealingly, none of the right-wing bloggers who replied to my post — including Rhiel or Sister Toldjah — condemned Misha’s call for the hanging of Supreme Court Justices and journalists. To the contrary, they refused to do so."

ST:

Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 7/12/2006 - 9:39 am
Sure, I think it was an outrageous thing to post and shouldn’t have been said. But I’ll also point out that the A-IR blog has taken to task one prominent right wing blogger in the past, so that gives him a leg up in the ‘condeming your own side’ department over Greenwald.
GG: "To put it mildly, it calls into question the authenticity of their concern for purported civil discourse. "

ST: To put it mildly, your lie about my position (as well as Patterico’s) calls into question the authenticy of your concern for purported honest discourse.
 
Written By: Sister Toldjah
URL: http://www.sistertoldjah.com
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://catallarchy.net/blog/
So unless Greenwald is being increadibly thoroughly sarcastic, he is condemning Patterico and other bloggers for the sin of not blogging about what Greenwalds wants them to blog about.
Oh Christ on a crutch. Look, I think Glenn should not have used Patterico as an example because Patterico may have joined in the Frisch/Goldstein outrage fest, but he also has been quite condemnatory of right-wing excesses. Unlike others, including Jeff Goldstein whose spewintgs as documented at Sadly, No, are repugnant independent of, and no matter what one thinks of the Sadly, No site, or the political orientation of its authors. How anyone can defend such things as the comment to Tim about his sister — or any of the rest of that vicious filth, like the peanut butter and dog-d*ck putrescence leveled at Tristero — is truly and literally beyond me.

But the more important point is Glenn cogently demonstrated that there were all these demands for "liberal" bloggers to denounce Frisch, by bloggers who do not denounce vile and disgusting commentary from high profile bloggers and pundits who are ideological brethren. Was his post a tad wordy? Yes. (And just who among political bloggers writes as if they have an editorial staff behind them?) Was it also entirely clear that he is mocking and ridiculing the hypocritical demand for denunciations rather than calling for them? Yes.

All I can conclude is — and with that study Jon and others have written about documenting how partisans receive information as either true or false, good or bad, depending on their ideological orientation — filtering is going on. Those who are not reflexively hostile to an argument by an ostensible liberal that criticizes conservatives, such persons easily understood Glenn’s post. By contrast, those whose mental hackles were fully raised even before they read it, well, I have no doubt that some of these honestly think the point was not obvious. Others, however, are willfully blind.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Here, Lance.

I said, that Patterico spent time in thread "griping because Sadly, No!’s condemnation of Frisch was not of a quality that Patterico deemed suitable." In fairness to Patterico, that griping was only in a couple of posts, I think.

 
Written By: kc
URL: http://rogueplanet.blogspot.com/
Was his post a tad wordy? Yes. (And just who among political bloggers writes as if they have an editorial staff behind them?) Was it also entirely clear that he is mocking and ridiculing the hypocritical demand for denunciations rather than calling for them? Yes.
You misspelled "excessively" as "a tad".

I don’t really care what liberal bloggers write or don’t write about on their own blogs. Mr. Greenwald appeared to be more concerned with being clever than making his point clear.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
All I can conclude is — and with that study Jon and others have written about documenting how partisans receive information as either true or false, good or bad, depending on their ideological orientation — filtering is going on.
How anyone can defend such things as the comment to Tim about his sister — or any of the rest of that vicious filth, like the peanut butter and dog-d*ck putrescence leveled at Tristero — is truly and literally beyond me.
By contrast, those whose mental hackles were fully raised even before they read it, well, I have no doubt that some of these honestly think the point was not obvious. Others, however, are willfully blind.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
But the more important point is Glenn cogently demonstrated that there were all these demands for "liberal" bloggers to denounce Frisch, by bloggers who do not denounce vile and disgusting commentary from high profile bloggers and pundits who are ideological brethren.

Glenn’s "cogent demonstration" identified precisely two relatively high-profile righty bloggers (Confederate Yankee and Right Wing Nut House) who were playing the j’accuse game over the Frisch affair this past weekend; every other cite he’s managed to come up with is either someone who’s simply rounding up reactions, or who’s criticizing lefties for their equivocations about or defenses of Frisch.

So to the extent that those two humans, once they become aware of Misha’s over-the-top nonsense, failed to say, "That’s over the top," Glenn has a point. Beyond that, he’s every bit as full of crap as you are, Mona.
 
Written By: Brett
URL: http://
Do you honestly think O’Reilly belongs with these folks? Arrogant and intentionaly provacative, yes, but if you pay attention to what he actually advocates, he is far more in line with Mainstream America’s politics than the wildcards you’re lumping him with.
Angels and Ministers of Grace Defend Us.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Matt McIntosh — Yes, mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa.


That was very funny.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
How anyone can defend such things as the comment to Tim about his sister — or any of the rest of that vicious filth, like the peanut butter and dog-d*ck putrescence leveled at Tristero — is truly and literally beyond me.
So Jeff deserved to have his two-year old son treated that way? It seems there is a lot that’s beyond you, Mona.
But the more important point is Glenn cogently demonstrated that there were all these demands for "liberal" bloggers to denounce Frisch, by bloggers who do not denounce vile and disgusting commentary from high profile bloggers and pundits who are ideological brethren.
Greenwald does not "cogently" demonstrate anything. He certainly did not make a case that there were "demands for "liberal" bloggers to denounce Frisch, by bloggers who do not denounce vile and disgusting commentary from high profile bloggers and pundits who are ideological brethren." In fact, he could only point to two bloggers who made such a demand AND who did not denounce such vile commentary: Confederate Yankee and RedState (both of whom, in the past, may or may not have condemned such actions on the right, I really don’t know).

In the process he lambasted several bloggers who found Frisch’s comments well beyond the pale, which coupled with the fact that Jeff’s site was under multiple DDOS attacks made the story "newsworthy", for not commenting in Mischa’s post. Of course, no matter that most, if not all, of these bloggers have in fact excoriated vile commentary on the right. Never once to does Greenwald come up with any persuasive argument as to why one who comments on the vileness of Frisch must also comment on the vileness of Mischa.
Was it also entirely clear that he is mocking and ridiculing the hypocritical demand for denunciations rather than calling for them?
It’s entirely clear that he’s accusing some bloggers of being hypocritical. It’s also entirely clear that his point is more than a bit overblown.
All I can conclude is — and with that study Jon and others have written about documenting how partisans receive information as either true or false, good or bad, depending on their ideological orientation — filtering is going on. Those who are not reflexively hostile to an argument by an ostensible liberal that criticizes conservatives, such persons easily understood Glenn’s post. By contrast, those whose mental hackles were fully raised even before they read it, well, I have no doubt that some of these honestly think the point was not obvious. Others, however, are willfully blind.
If you could "conclude" that same bit of condescending codswollop while looking in the mirror your opinion might have bit more heft. As it stands, your accusations are groundless and your blind obedience is pathetic.

Maybe if Greenwald was a better writer, his post might have gone over better. But I guess you go to keyboard with the ability you have, not ability you wish you had.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://
So Jeff deserved to have his two-year old son treated that way? It seems there is a lot that’s beyond you, Mona.
Jeff’s son doesn’t read yet, unless he is a prodigy, and so wasn’t "treated" to anything. A woman made some vile comments about Jeff’s son which Jeff and other nominal adults in his commentariat read, and much of the right blogosphere then went batsh*t insane with contrived outrage as if she represented anyone other than her own sick self.

In any event, the copious examples of Jeff’s sexually explicit, vicious commentary are an independent issue that is fairly addressed.

And btw, if Greenwald is such a poor writer and has such impaired reasoning skills, and is consummately lacking in the least amount of persuasive ability, then it is surpassingly odd that so much of the right blogistan cannot restrain itself from endlessly discussing him. Jeff himself mentions Glenn something like every three days. Why such an ineffectual blogger generates so much bandwidth consumption must simply be one of those ineffable mysteries we encounter in this vale of tears.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
It’s not so much the failure to renounce Frisch as a representative of the left that bugs me. It would have been nice to hear "Ooo, yuk, she’s a nasty nutcase and nothing she said should reflect the opinion of any decent person at any point of the political spectrum, least of all me", but I don’t expect the left to keep tabs on all vile and nasty trolls purporting to speak for the left.

What is very disturbing and bothersome is that they DID pick up the story, so to speak...and actively defended Frisch by minimizing her conduct and actively misrepresented facts to either make Goldstein look bad or to avoid giving any tiny appearance of condoning Jeff Goldstein’s worldview.

Noticing and remarking on the situation required if not unequivocal condemnation of what she did, and just plain renouncement of Frisch, then at least truthfulness and disgust with the content of her posts.
 
Written By: SarahW
URL: http://
Jeff’s son doesn’t read yet, unless he is a prodigy, and so wasn’t "treated" to anything
Brilliant defense there Mona.

How about this one: the USSC doesnt read A-IR, so no foul.

 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Greenwald’s fawn, Mona/Hypatia, appears to have inadvertently stumbled upon a cogent point while clicking through the internet in search of classical allusions and pithy sayings by obscure statesmen with which to pepper her otherwise barren posts: Glenn Greenwald is a self-promoter of Madonna-esque proportions, and it is probably better if — to paraphrase the Talkhouse Gang — he is deprived of his oxygen, which is to say, paid no mind. Indeed, I strongly suspect that Greenwald peddles the attention he garners elsewhere, here for example, as proof of his significance to Those Who Matter.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Greenwald, on my site this morning, defining the point of his post:

"You certainly were vigilant in railing against those irrlevancies, 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."

Just more irony?

By the way, this quote is a total lie. I called on him to retract and apologize in two posts on this site, and he’s ignoring me — because he has NO DEFENSE.

Does he think I’m just going to let him get away with that??
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
kc,

Thanks for the link
I don’t expect every leftist site out there to condemn this. I do expect that, if they are going to discuss it, they should condemn it.
Hmmm.. I may have misinterpreted your comment, but obviously Patterico in the link you provided is not someone who should be included in Glen’s complaint, which is what I was driving at. He did not complain about the left not condemning her in general which is what Glen is saying people are doing, at least maybe. He also says that the mere act of complaining excessively about her requires you to condemn as well, or at least maybe. He thinks we are confused and we are, but nowhere near as confused as he himself is.

Mona,
By contrast, those whose mental hackles were fully raised even before they read it, well, I have no doubt that some of these honestly think the point was not obvious. Others, however, are willfully blind.

Well, my hackles weren’t raised. Read my first comment here and I agreed with Jon, but I thought he was unfair to Patterico. So did you. We seem pretty close until Glen himself comes in here guns blazing and shoots himself in the foot. Not only does he misrepresent several comments, including from Patterico here, but he actually says McQ and his critics are right, unintentionally possibly, but he does. He stresses this paragraph:
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).
Okay, so if we pull out the independent clause after or we get:
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 (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).
Sure seems he is saying that bloggers who ignored Misha but criticized Frisch are guilty of something. Glen says this paragraph is important. I thought originally it was a throw away because it didn’t fit with what I thought was his point. I suggest you and Glen send a few more e-mails to each other and explain that to me without insulting my reading comprehension. Let us try the second part:
But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers ...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 might support Jon and I’s original interpretation, but not necessarily. Of course maybe Glen didn’t want these groups seen as independent of each other, though he explicitly says he does, whereupon his whole defense that the people he linked to were not necessarily in both groups in order to justify those he linked to falls apart. Sadly, most of those he linked to were still not guilty of either one of the charges, much less the stricter threshold of both.

I do find this amusing given the over the top bile Glen dishes out on a daily basis. I know Matt and others want it to stop, but it is just too funny.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Patterico,

I already pointed out that he said that earlier, which you are right, completely eviscerates the interpretation that Jon, I and Mona originally arrived at. To his defenders it makes no difference. I figured the quote undermined him, but he was just being pissy. I stand corrected, eventually his last defender here, Mona, will admit he has shown his ass and just chalk it up to a one time example of poor judgment. Okay, I am being ridiculous, I have learned that will not happen.

After reading his bizarre defense here, in addition to that quote what is one to do but laugh? Everybody who visits your site regularly knows he is full of it, let him live with the misrepresentation. Show how logically challenged he is all you want, that is fun no matter how minor the point. Extracting an apology or retraction from him is just hopeless.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Lance writes:
I already pointed out that he said that earlier, which you are right, completely eviscerates the interpretation that Jon, I and Mona originally arrived at.
That’s just wrong. In my opinion, Glenn used Patterico as an example without sufficiently researching whether it is true that Patterico is among those who fail to denounce right-wing grotesqueries. One mistaken example does not "eviscerate" (my but that word is applied to me and Greenwald rather a lot) his larger point, which is spot on, and as Jon states it to be.

QandO is dominated by commenters who are generally supportive of Bush, at least of his terrorsim and foreign policy positions. So of course you think all the disapproval constitutes "evisceration." Go to Greenwald’s site or just about any left-of center one where these issues are being discussed, and Greenwald is king and regularly slays the right (or what passes for that these days).

Those metrics are unreliable, at best. My view is that Greenwald’s post is correct, but contains one example that is not. And that is my view whether folks here announce him decimated, or folks there crown him Pope.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
His intent may have been right, his wording was (is) at issue.
Since his words are all that one can go by here on the net, what is one left with, other than faith in what he meant to say (depending on how one views him, and I have no dog in the fight).

The idea was sound enough though. Something about people in glass houses and stones, wasn’t it?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Look, nobody has an obligation to condemn every bit of vile political rhetoric. There’s not enough time in the day, and there are far more important topics.

This is the only blog I read regularly. I usually only read other blogs when people link to them in the course of making an argument. I hope that a literal threat to sexually abuse and kill a toddler is rare in the blogosphere. To me, a threat against a toddler is in a different category than "vile political rhetoric", and it warrants taking the extra time and extra effort to condemn. I would hope that the whole political blogosphere would put aside political differences to coalesce against something like that.

Are there really people defending this? That is incomprehensible to me.


I think that you (Jon) have implicitly bought into Greenwald’s clever and backhanded attempt to excuse this by contexualizing it in the familiar vernacular of outrageous political rhetoric.


 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Mona,

Read the part I bolded above, please.

He explicitly says what the point of his post was. And it’s what McQ said. Not what Henke said.

Response to that, please.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
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
Go to Greenwald’s site or just about any left-of center one...and Greenwald is king and regularly slays the right...
They’ve got life sized mock-ups, animated caricatures, and even canned applause so that our hero can show how he smites his ideological enemies.

Funny how he can’t do it outside his echo chamber...
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Patterico, I really bought what you said about not reading Misha, and I figured you had diddly familiarity with him, as your post today strongly implied. You wrote about Misha:
Well, for starters: I don’t read the guy. His over-the-top rhetoric has never appealed to me. To understand why, you need look no further than the outrageous, ridiculous post cited by Greenwald.
And, you have made some denunciations of some right-wingers, so I was feeling Glenn was being unfair where you are concerned. You certainly were not justly associated with a failure to condemn that Misha creature under the circumstances as I understood them to be, I thought, especially after reading your post which implied that you might have condemned Misha as well wrt to his vile post about ropes and SCOTUS justices, but for time contraints

But a commenter at Greenwald’s just posted some items from your blog that cause me to question whether I was a tad quick in assuming you’d been wronged. You are familiar with Misha; you welcomed him to your own place, and described his blog as great.

You did that while referencing — with no criticism and a hearty welcome — Misha’s eliminationist rhetoric about judges stated in your own comments section.

In light of the foregoing, I’m not so sure you are in a good position to be leveling charges of "dishonesty" at Greenwald.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Mona,

You have erected a strawman once again. Then Patterico redirects you and you go after that strawman again. Maybe you have reason to believe Patterico is an ass and he is being hypocritical. Whatever, you have not addressed the issue and it is beside the point. Patterico’s asshattery is not the issue it is the interpretation of Glen’s views. Patterico can defend himself. Glen obviously can’t, he just makes it worse, so we are asking you to step into the fray. So stay on topic and address Glen’s actual words.

The words in question are from the quote above that which Patterico posted and it endorses McQ’s not Jon’s and I’s original interpretation. I have also pointed out where Glen has referred us in his original post, which also supports Mcq’s and not I or Jon’s original interpretation. I actually think my original was what he wanted to say, but he couldn’t resist getting in a few jabs that didn’t fit and now in a fit of pique has gone off the deep end and dug himself into a hole. Just guessing, but Glen hasn’t given us much to work work with here. Given his vicious characterization of others I find that really amusing.

Still, I find it really puzzling that you can’t just face the actual arguments we are making and insist on erecting straw men and ignoring what we are arguing. If you want to keep it up you need to actually quote what he is saying that we have an issue with, not something else, and patiently explain how we are misinterpreting it. Otherwise one must assume it is you who is suffering from confirmation bias. No metrics needed. Just explain how the two places we are pointing to square with Jon and I’s original interpretation. Insulting us doesn’t work, or if you must insult us show explicitly and carefully why we shouldn’t take what Glen has said at Patterico’s and this thread, with plenty of time to be careful about what he is saying at face value. If we are so dimwitted such a careful examination should make it clear for all to see.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
"My view is that Greenwald’s post is correct, but contains one example that is not."
"Fake, but accurate." One more liberal leitmotif from the ostensible libertarain.
"Go to Greenwald’s site or just about any left-of center one where these issues are being discussed, and Greenwald is king and regularly slays the right (or what passes for that these days)."
Yes, and Primo Carnera was a deadly giant until he tried a bout in the big time. Same for Bobby Riggs. Mr. Greenwald’s bombastic invective goes over well when addressing the liberal claque. Great for the choir, but when he presents it to the congregation...not so much. Maybe he should stick with the claque, based on his performance here.

 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Mona,

That was from January 2004. I used to watch O’Reilly too. I have grown tired of both and haven’t read Misha in forever.

I don’t read him.

I noticed you studiously avoided my point. I really thought you at least pretended to have integrity. Let’s try again.

You claim Greenwald’s post was irony. But he said on my site that it wasn’t. he said his post was about this:

"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."

Mona, if you don’t address this, you have zero credibility.

None.

I know you don’t *want* to because it defeats your point.

But that’s the whole point.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Again — it’s the BOLD LANGUAGE we’re looking at Mona.

Not the part where he spuriously accused me of failing to condemn.

The part where he SAID WHAT HIS POST WAS ABOUT. It was about what McQ said it was about.

The bold language, Mona.

Concentrate.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
"a glaring inconsistency which, incidentally, was the principal point of my post."

That.

He said what the point of his post was.

McQ was right.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Lance, I’m sorry, but one of two things is true: (a) you can’t comprehend Greenwald’s post for some reason of deficiency on your part, or (b) you have persuaded yourself that he was saying other than what he was because of the partisan filtering issue I have mentioned before.
Maybe you have reason to believe Patterico is an ass and he is being hypocritical.
Yes, I certainly do. So should everyone.

And the worst thing is, he committed the grave sin of proving me wrong on a matter to Glenn Greenwald, and I really hate that.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Mona!
How anyone can defend such things as the comment to Tim about his sister — or any of the rest of that vicious filth, like the peanut butter and dog-d*ck putrescence leveled at Tristero — is truly and literally beyond me.
It’s a joke. When it’s pulled out of context, only then can Jeff be criticized thusly. For instance, click on the link Glenn provides above and you’ll see that he made the statement about the sister of another commenter—who just insulted him—right after he typed
protein wisdom: PROUD MEMBER OF THE ANTITHESIS OF A MERITOCRACY!

MAY HIS MEDIOCRITY FOREVER REIGN!
Jeff often defuses criticism of himself and his website by wearing his detractors’ criticisms like a clown suit, and often says outrageous things in the process. And sometimes he channels cultural references, such as Tom Cruise’s character in the film Magnolia. It’s funny.

I’m certainly not saying he’s everybody’s cup of tea, but I mean, what would you write if you were basically a conservative libertarian highly trained in postmodern literary theory? Wouldn’t you have a drug and alcohol-addled dancing armadillo slacking on your site every Friday? I don’t mean to be forward, Mona, but I think you would.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Am I totally missing the boat here?

It seems to me that everyone here has basically accepted Greenwald’s premise that the Deb Frisch comments and the Misha comments are comparable examples of over-the-top political rhetoric, and therefore, a person who is logically consistent must either ignore them both or condemn them with equal force.

I totally disagree.

Threatening to string someone up to a tree is a crude, but familiar, metaphorical expression of pique. Misha’s "some assembly required" comment was savage, barbaric, black humor, expressing rage at political figures in the context of a political rant.

To me, it came off as sophomoric, and the image of hanging "blackrobes" from trees seemed to be a conscious or unconscious allusion to the lynching of blacks in the South, but it was clearly a failed attempt to be witty rather than a literal threat.

Threatening to sexually abuse and kill the toddler of a person with whom you are having a political argument is not a metaphor, not a figure of speech, not just an ugly rhetorical device. Even if the person making the threat is understood not to have the capability to actually carry it out (a hard assumption to make), the blogosphere HAS TO unite in saying that it is out of bounds to make this kind of threat.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Lance, I’m sorry, but one of two things is true: (a) you can’t comprehend Greenwald’s post for some reason of deficiency on your part, or (b) you have persuaded yourself that he was saying other than what he was because of the partisan filtering issue I have mentioned before.
Actually the options are greater as those possibilities are applicable to you as well (not to mention me and almost everyone involved here).

 
Written By: err
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.
Your words Mona...

Said another way:
Not that any of this will matter to you. You have your story, told to you the way you wish to hear it, and you’ll stick to it.
Honest people know that their own biases color their perceptions, dishonest people pretend that this only happens to others.




 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Mona,

You’re ignoring my point.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Mona,

So I guess what you mean is you won’t even attempt to show how Patterico and I misinterpreted two, small, specific statements. You will once again merely assert even though Glenn says in the quote Patterico posted, that not condemning other bloggers for their statements when one critcised Frisch was the
principal point of my post
I used to think you were wrong about some things, seemed right on others, but open to debate. I am beginning to think you are not. The majority of the time you post you assert, ignore the other argument and refuse to address what is being actually said and just chalk it all up to ideological bias. You don’t get to credibly make such arguments if you will not address the substance of what others are saying. I may be wrong here, so if I am so slow help me and everybody out. Take a few minutes and for the first time explain where we are wrong. I am open to it, obviously, since Glenn already convinced me I was wrong originally. I am sure he didn’t mean to, but he succeeded. If you can take the time and explain using the actual text we have selected it might get through my little pea brain.

Heck, when I screwed up Pogue’s whole political philosophy I wrote him an entire e-mail explaining I blew it. That was much more embarassing since in this instance I would have gotten it originally and then just got lost in Glenn’s clumsy defense (or that would be a good story, I can pull it off don’t worry) I can admit being wrong again, I promise.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
"a glaring inconsistency which, incidentally, was the principal point of my post."

It’s not going away, Mona.

It’s what he said.

Compare the quotes:

http://patterico.com/2006/07/12/4861/more-greenwald-dishonesty/

He’s talking out of both sides of his hind quarters.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Patterico writes:
It was about what McQ said it was about.
Except that, it wasn’t. It was about "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."

That inconsistency was the principal point of his post. Right-wing bloggers ranting about failure to condemn some obscure woman in a comments section, when many don’t condemn the extremists in their own ranks. But he does not think he had an obligation to condemn Deb Frisch, or that you have to spend your time in ritual condemnations either, EXCEPT FOR that little problem of this glaring inconsistency. Or as John put it, he was making a "goose, gander" point.

And Patterico, really, I don’t think that after your cozy welcome to a guy who posts eliminationist rhetoric about judges on your own web site, that you get a pass for your misleading "douchebag" post just becasue you are now "tired" of reading the cretin. There just is no basis for your avowals that you find his recent statements so awful in light of what you said before you grew so, uh, weary, you know, when he was still a "great blogger" who announced at your blog — and you linked to it so no one could miss it — that he advocated that judges be summarily executed and describing his longing to see their robes flapping in the wind. "Come on down, Misha!" That was your response.

A person who endorses as a "great blogger" anyone who writes such things (and consistently, yet), well, what that person assesses my integrity to be is not a matter of huge concern to me.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
For Patterco’s outrage to stick, he’s got to condemn every rightwing excess. He hasn’t done so. So, yeah, he stepped in it up to his neck(protesting that you didn’t kill Laurel doesn’t give you a pass from killing Hardy.)

Now - and this is easily read from Glenn’s post - he doesn’t expect such vigilant policing from anybody. Frankly, I don’t think it’s even physically possible for one person to keep track of that much content. Is this so hard to understand?

I don’t think so, more of a case that Patterco wants to play, but he refuses to pay. Or at any rate is playing the "You can’t make me say I’m wrong so I win" game.

More hypocrisy.



 
Written By: Scent of Violets
URL: http://salon.com
Mona

It is only a glaring inconsistency if you accept Greenwald’s premise that Deb Frisch’s comments are garden-variety vile political rhetoric.

I believe that her comments are categorically different, and that bloggers SHOULD condemn them, even if they don’t usually make a habit of commenting on political rhetoric. Of course, bloggers only write what they are moved to write; no one has an obligation to write anything in a blog. But surely no one should be DEFENDING the threats, right?

In a previous comment you noted dismissively that the toddler was too young to read the threats. If I became so angered by a man’s politics that I threatened to set his house on fire would you dismiss the threat on the basis that the house could not understand my threat because it is inanimate? Obviously, my threat was intended to terrorize the man, not his house.

Would Greenwald say that anyone who criticized my threat to burn down the man’s house was glaringly inconsistent if they didn’t also criticize a Republican for saying that Teddy Kennedy should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail? Isn’t there a difference between making a literal threat against a person with whom you are arguing and hurling a metaphorical threat at a public figure in a rant?

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Is the Glenn Greenwald who wrote the rambling diatribe under discussion the same "Glenn Greenwald" who is quoted in this NYT story?:
A white supremacist was arrested this afternoon on charges that he had solicited someone to kill a federal judge presiding over a copyright case regarding the name of his organization, the World Church of the Creator.
...
Law enforcement officials with Chicago’s Joint Terrorism Task Force said Mr. Hale had crossed the line when he asked another person to ’’forcibly assault and murder’’ Judge Lefkow.
...
Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer for Mr. Hale, said the charges filed today might stem from a misinterpretation of a statement by his client on the Internet that ’’we are in a state of war with Judge Lefkow.’’

’’They are probably trying to take things he said along the lines of political advocacy and turn it into a crime,’’ Mr. Greenwald said. ’’The F.B.I. may have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric.’’
If it’s the same person, then all I have to say is... the guy has balls the size of watermelons and a brain the size of a pea for calling out anyone for failure to denounce a blog post that’s about as violent as a Pace Picante Sauce commercial ("This stuff is made in... New York City?!" "Get a rope."). Hilarious!
 
Written By: Shad
URL: http://
Mona,

The real problem is you didn’t understand Jon’s post.

Jon and I’s goose-gander interpretation was that Glenn was saying people who said lefty bloggers had a responsibility to condemn their own when they don’t do the same are hypocrite’s. That would be a valid point, Jon is right they don’t and those right wing bloggers who attack others for not condemning frisch while not criticizing every abuse on the right are wrong. We believed Glen was not saying that those who criticized Frisch were responsible for attacking Misha and others in reality, he meant it mockingly. I’ll call that:

Version 1- Glenn is saying people are not inconsistent if they condemn Frisch but not Misha or others. He is only mocking those who hypocritically demanded that left wing bloggers had to condemn Frisch.
Jon thought that Patterico and McQ were claiming Glenn was saying that right wing bloggers did have a responsibility to attack their own such as Misha if they had attacked Frisch. Jon and I thought they had misinterpreted Glenn and that he was mocking that very same notion. Actually he does mock that notion.

The problem is that even as he mocks that notion he has also said, as you point out, that those who rail against Frisch and don’t rail against the right are being inconsistent. That is your goose-gander interpretaion and that is what McQ and Patterico are saying he is saying.
Version 2- Glenn is saying that people who condemned Frisch are worthy of criticism for not condemning Misha and others.
That is the view of Glenn’s statement that you just gave us and is the opposite of what Jon said.

So where does it stand? You agree with McQ and Patterico, but think you agree with Jon. Glenn agrees with them both, but doesn’t see the contradiction. Or, are you also saying people who criticized Frisch have no responsibility to attack Misha and others which is what Jon and I thought he really meant? If so that would mean, like Glenn, that you agree with both seemingly inconsistent interpretations.

Well this has been fun, if you really believe both of those views you are right, we cannot communicate. It doesn’t have anything to do with ideology, because this discussion for me has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with trying to understand (and poke fun at Glenn.) I’ll give you an example of another instance which reminds me of this that involved a libertarian, no ideology.

Jon,

I know you remember Mr. Billy Beck claiming you comapared he and other libertarians like him to mass murderers. They slimed you and every time you asked them to discuss what you actually said they just went off on tangents to show what a vile creature you were but wouldn’t face what you actually said. I found the whole thing fascinating, watching people avoid the plain language. Plain language can often mislead, hence the need to confront it. The same thing here.

In both these little tempests it has proved impossible to get someone to pin down exactly how they are using the language. In this one I thought it was obvious if poorly written, but I now know it was just made up of inconsistent propositions, both seem to be held firmly. I do suggest that since Glenn holds both views simultaneously the embarassing comment about those who you thought misinterpreted Glenn should be amended, though originally I thought it was as well. I was unfair and I apologize.

 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Shad,

Yep, same guy, that is what makes this thing so funny to me at least.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
So this is the same guy:
A white supremacist was arrested this afternoon on charges that he had solicited someone to kill a federal judge presiding over a copyright case regarding the name of his organization, the World Church of the Creator.
...
Law enforcement officials with Chicago’s Joint Terrorism Task Force said Mr. Hale had crossed the line when he asked another person to ’’forcibly assault and murder’’ Judge Lefkow.
...
Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer for Mr. Hale, said the charges filed today might stem from a misinterpretation of a statement by his client on the Internet that ’’we are in a state of war with Judge Lefkow.’’

’’They are probably trying to take things he said along the lines of political advocacy and turn it into a crime,’’ Mr. Greenwald said. ’’The F.B.I. may have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric.’’
Really? Dang.

Glaring inconsistency indeed . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Greenwald reasonable?? A logical impossibility.

Jon, what "nome de diarist" are you using at Kos?

McQ is right. Jon? Sadly, no.
 
Written By: David R. Block
URL: http://
I think it has been established that ...

5 ropes, 5 trees and 5 robes

.. is in poor taste and that some "may have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric".

Allow me to digress while I condemn all those who seem to be in a hurry to condemn others for their use of protected speech, but I will retract my condemnation insofar as those condemnations are also protected speech.


So has there been a proper protocol established on exactly who does and who doesn’t get condemned ? Or isn’t that the point ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I’m amazed that otherwise intelligent people with otherwise useful things to to would waste this much time on Greenwald.

I mean, the guy is a schmuck; small, limp, and useless.

He makes Cynthia McKinney seem lucid and cogent by contrast...
 
Written By: Casey Tompkins
URL: http://www.thegantry.net/blog
Like Peter, up-thread, I followed along with quite a lot of the Frisch mess at Protein Wisdom, and in my opinion the woman’s commentary went from irritating to surreal to frightening. There was a progression, in other words... a progression from "gadfly," which is what she originally said she’d intended to be, to "internet stalker," which is what she became, or was mighty close to becoming. I’ve never read this Misha person, as far as I know; but from what’s reported here and what I’ve gleaned elsewhere, s/he (he? I gather) doesn’t or didn’t seem to be obsessing on killing half the SCOTUS.

As Frisch spectacularly lost it, the commenters at PW went from mocking her for her attention-seeking invective to urging Jeff to contact the authorities about her (and some of them took it on themselves to do so; Jeff apparently didn’t until her latest round, in the last couple of days) with simultaneous lay opinions that she could use some professional help. There was never, that I saw, any comment on PW that claimed or implied that she represented "the Left," just that she was, first, a remarkably silly, and then, a deeply disturbed member of it.
 
Written By: Jamie
URL: http://thelipstickrepublican.blogspot.com
Just want to shout out in support of Mona. You go girl! Greenwald’s prose is clear and sharp. The rest of y’all seem to be nitpicking in order to avoid the actual subject, and your linguistical care in this matter does no service to any kind of good debate. What gives?
 
Written By: betty88
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