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

 
Leftosphere Versus Rightosphere
Posted by: Jon Henke on Monday, July 17, 2006

Glenn Greenwald makes an interesting point about the allocation of media attention to the blogosphere....
[T]he liberal blogosphere has received substantial — really, endless — media attention over the past few months, coverage which has included everything from the upsetting use of bad words to petty bickering to rank Internet gossip. But the pro-Bush blogosphere is all but ignored by the media, and it is long past time for a substantive, thorough examination of the extremist rhetoric and violence-drenched imagery which composes the backbone of their dialogue.
I'm not sure that 'we're getting too much publicity and they're not getting enough!' is really a compelling complaint. While I'm sympathetic to the notion that the media spends an inordinate amount of time reporting the ridiculously inconsequential minutiae of the blogosphere, Greenwald's complaint reads more like 'the press isn't doing the kind of helpful PR I'd like them to do!'

If there's a coverage disparity between the Leftosphere and the Rightosphere — and they weren't complaining about the unfairness of disparate attention when the New York Times was fawning over them back when — I'd argue that it's due not to a lack of media balance, but to some important structural differences. If I might generalize for a moment, it seems to me that the leftosphere operates much more as devoted Democratic activists — apparatchiks, "unquestioningly loyal subordinate[s] of [an] organization" or movement — while the Rightosphere (again, I'm generalizing) consists largely of 'just these guys, you know?'

There are, relatively speaking, few movement activists in the Rightosphere. The Leftosphere has influential Party activists like Kos, Atrios, and others — people who have intentionally thrust themselves into the electoral activism scene; the Rightosphere, on the other hand, is populated more by 'some guy with a modem', rather than affiliated Party activists.

Influential activists — Democratic or Republican — are just more newsworthy than 'some guy' with a popular website. I mean, I'm quite sure that, e.g., LFG has a rhetorically virulent comment section, but is "lots of people say stupid things on the internet" really news? On the other hand, when influential Democratic Party activists are engaged in a conflict over the direction of their Party and that is spilling into interactions with the media and politicos, then that is, at least arguably, somewhat newsworthy.


Elsewhere:

Greg Tinti has somewhat similar thoughts at Outside the Beltway, writing that if the "liberal blogosphere gets more negative attention from the MSM" it's "because people in the MSM probably believe that it warrants it." Meanwhile, via Crooks and Liars, Nitpicker asks "Why is it worth covering an in-house Kos spat, but not the calls to violence by frequent guests on national news programs like Michelle Malkin and David Horowitz?"

Probably for the same reason that Ann Coulter's latest PR stunt is worth covering while Digby from Hullabaloo accusing a political opponent of pedophilia didn't merit a glance.

MORE:

At Outside the Beltway, Dave Schuler of Glittering Eye makes a cogent comment:
Be patient. Print and broadcast journalists will get around to the right blogosphere soon enough. As the right blogosphere gets more involved with the real power structures in the Republican party (presumably) they’ll be seen as worthier targets.

The biggest left blogosphere blogs are closely linked to real power already.
Exactly right.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Note: if I cite Greenwald often, it’s because his stuff sparks my interest. Just clearing that up before the latest "him again?" eruption.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Don’t be so sensitive. I was teasing before. :)

I like what you say. Him not so much.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Greenwald’s complaint reads more like ’the press isn’t doing the kind of helpful PR I’d like them to do!’ [...] I mean, I’m quite sure that, e.g., LFG has a rhetorically virulent comment section, but is "lots of people say stupid things on the internet" really news?

You seem to have missed the point that the wingnut contingent apply a double standard to "people saying stupid stuff on the internet", and (crucially) the MSM seems to be following their lead. The uproar over Frisch’s comments compared to the silence over the far worse comments found at LGF are a good demonstration of this.

The Leftosphere are also not an adjunct to the Democrats. You have several prominent members who are Democrat activists, but you have a far larger contingent who hold their nose at voting time but otherwise criticise the Democrats - Digby springs to mind.

An interesting question might be to ask why Democrat activists are prominent bloggers, but Republican activists are not...
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
Regarding Greenwald, and the recent blogswarm, Xrlq offers an admirable fisking. Interesting to note, Greenwald relies almost entirely upon Sadly No for its expose of Goldstein’s hyperbole, thus laying a basis for the equivocation defense of Dr. Deb Frisch threatening rhetoric. Interesting because Sadly No online merchandise offers tee-shirts, coffee cups, and other sundries with the derivative of the logo Glenn originally found so outrageous "Ropes, Trees, _______, some assembly required.

This time its rope, tree, conservative...

Per your post Jon, I think this is spot on: "the press isn’t doing the kind of helpful PR I’d like them to do!"
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
John,

If I might generalize for a moment, it seems to me that the leftosphere operates much more as devoted Democratic activists — apparatchiks, "unquestioningly loyal subordinate[s] of [an] organization" or movement — while the Rightosphere (again, I’m generalizing) consists largely of ’just these guys, you know?’

John, respectfully, I don’t buy this generalization at all. If the left wing blogosphere seems more unified in its partisanship at the moment, it’s because it’s relatively easy to be unified in opposition to an incredibly unpopular president who has made disastrous policy choices. Conversely, it is very hard to maintain unity when your leader is disastrously unpopular and his policies are failing. The willingness of most rightwing bloggers to be critical of Bush is a relatively recent development. Back when Bush was riding high, you found incredible homogeny of opinion in the right wing blogosphere. And even up until the 2004 election, the right was remarkably unified in message. Even though Bush was pursuing policies that were antithetical to traditional conservatism, nearly every rightwing blog swallowed his/her objections and supported Bush full-throatedly. Only after Bush was re-elected and achieved lame duck status did dissent start to emerge in any meaningful way.

And your contention that the left is more willing to sign themselves over to the "movement" strikes me as inaccurate too. Yes, Kos and Atrios are activists, but they spend half their time fighting other elements of the democratic establishment. The left is constantly engaged in in-fighting, even when the polls are going their way. Haven’t you noticed that the TNR and Kos types spend most of their time arguing with each other?

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I think the right wing blogosphere is every bit as movement-based as the left, probably a lot more. It’s just very hard to maintain a unified message when all the walls are crumbling down around you.

And as a final note, I realize I’m generalizing. I don’t mean to lump you in with the "right wing blogosphere."
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
An interesting question might be to ask why Democrat activists are prominent bloggers, but Republican activists are not...
No, the interesting question is why are lefty bloggers now well paid Democratic consultants? More pointedly, was Kos first a well known blogger or a well known consultant?

There are plenty of conservative activists who blog, but you dont see, for example, champions of the second amendment running to Alphecca to be their online representitive.

 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Anonymous I agree with you to a certain extent about the right unifying around President Bush for 2004, but given the choice of four more years of conservative when it suits him Bush or John "I Fought in Vietnam" Kerry, the Democrat party gave conservatives just the motivation that they needed to come together and sing Kumbayah (at least on election day).

I disagree about the ongoing TNR - Kos spat. What we are seeing are the two definitive sides of modern leftism. From TNR we get what is essentially diluted old school New Deal/Great Society socialists who do generally support an aggressive, pro-democracy, anti-communist, pro-Israel foreign policy. You might even find a few TNR types who (if we were in Europe) would be comfortable being called Christian Democrats. From Kos and Friends we get the reincarnation of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Kos and Friends represent (maybe not every single one of them, but enough to be dominant) hardcore Marxist-Stalinist beliefs. This is a struggle on the left that has been going on since before the twentieth century began. It has merely reared its ugly head again because the party of the left in America is looking for a leader and a direction to go in. When the power vacuum that exists in the Democrat party has been filled, most of this will go away.

On the right, on the other hand, we have the crumbling of a more than two decades long alliance between social conservatives, libertarians, and neocons. Neocons have dominated the alliance for close on to ten years now. Social conservatives and libertarians are getting very tired of being taken for granted and now that frustration is spilling over. Unlike the fight on the left, this is not a fight to define what conservatism is, but rather a fight to restore the balance that once existed in the Republican party. To try to restore the great big tent may be a fool’s errand, but at least most people on the right agree as to who and what a conservative is. On the left, the definition of what modern leftism is in America today is being decided right now. For what it’s worth, TNR gets my vote, but this is a battle that the left is going to have to fight within its own party. Conservatives have their own problems right now (not that our help would be welcome anyway).
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
There are plenty of conservative activists who blog, but you dont see, for example, champions of the second amendment running to Alphecca to be their online representitive.
I guess that means me getting paid to call left-wing bloggers "douches" is completely out of the question. Oh well. After watching Ko$ rake in the dough after his infamous "screw them" comment I figured it was worth a shot.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Half the con blogosphere is part of the establishment GOP. Reynolds is paid to write columns by a lobbyist, Powerline’s writers are from Claremont Institute, Malkin is Heritage, Hewitt is a former Reagan admin worker. Contrast to the liberal blogosphere where many of the people - myself included - did not have any involvement in politics besides voting until after their blogs started.
 
Written By: Oliver
URL: http://www.oliverwillis.com
Bains claims
Xrlq offers an admirable fisking
xrlq titles his "admirable" fisking:
Weekend Doucheblogging
Most impressive.

Now, moving right along to:
Actually, a number of prominent right wing bloggers had heard of her before, as she’s been a career troll for years now.
I have for years been a regular at innumerable right-wing blogs —including PW — and I had never heard of her. At. All.

As for this:
Wouldn’t ya think that if his venue were truly deranged and/or disturbed, this could be proven by linking to him directly rather than to a site that is sadly, obsessed with Goldstein himself?
In a word, no. Sadly, No did a huge compilation that is accurate, so there was no need for Glenn to repeat the work. And the key word here is "accurate." Whether you think SN is "obsessed" with PW or not. The bottom line is the depraved filth that passes for blogging all too regularly there in posts, and comments, including Jeff’s own.

And this:
Virtually every one? Really!
Yes, really. That weekend memorandum was freakin consumed with the Frisch/Goldstein kerfuffle and prominent righties linking to it. I couldn’t believe it, it was so ridiculous.

Then our intrepid — or, as you put it, "admirable" — fisker pulls out the big guns and thrice calls Glenn a "douchebag", and then an " überdouche." That sort of critical analysis cuts to the quick of an issue, it does. (Oh, and admirable TO THE MAX, bains.)

And then we have an examination of Glenn’s controversial client, Matt Hale, and a dismissal of Misha as merely engaging in "overheated rhetoric."

The whole thing was one juvenile ad hominem, with non sequiturs thrown in, which does not address the fact that there was a frenzy of attacks on the leftosphere for not condemning Frisch, when Misha, and many, many others — Glenn has cited examples too numerous to link — have also trafficked in vileness that gets seldom noticed — much less condemned — as if it is normal and not poisoning the political discourse.

xrlq fisked Greenwald? pfffft.

Ya’ll who think Jeff’s vileness is just all fun "in context," and that Misha is just a sort of hyperbolic kinda guy, you are defending what should be the indefensible, whilst demanding a different standard from non-Bush supporters whose sins of incivility and hate-filled and/or violent and grosss rhetoric are crimson. That was the point of Glenn’s post. (But it was not that bloggers have an obligation to run around ritually condemning other ideologically close bloggers who cross some line — ain’t enough time in the day.)

Glenn’s point stands unrebutted, which will always be the case when the weapon of attack is ad hominem; douchebag is, you see, not a substantive reply.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
xrlq claims:
I guess that means me getting paid to call left-wing bloggers "douches"
Greenwald is not left-wing. Not unless one becomes so merely by opposing the Bush/Frist GOP. In which case, most of the Reason staff and bloggers are also left-wingers.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
An interesting question might be to ask why Democrat activists are prominent bloggers, but Republican activists are not...
Maybe, but I am glad it is true so far.
The uproar over Frisch’s comments compared to the silence over the far worse comments found at LGF are a good demonstration of this.
Hey, if Charles Johnson feels someone is creepily stalking his family in his comments section I might take notice. Of course it really wasn’t an uproar. Most blogs ignored it or mentioned it only in passing. That it was a big issue for most on the "right" was mostly in the minds of some such as Glenn Greenwald.
If the left wing blogosphere seems more unified in its partisanship at the moment, it’s because it’s relatively easy to be unified in opposition to an incredibly unpopular president who has made disastrous policy choices.
I think you miss Jon’s point. Jon is not really referring to the blogosphere as a whole. He means that many of the largest, most promonent of the left wing sites expressly consider themselves as political actors whose job is to develop and nuture actual candidates. They see themselves and act as part of the party. That they squabble is irrelevant to that. That is their goal and how they see themselves, not just how Jon perceives them. Jon isn’t being critical, but when you act as powerbrokers, as consultants, as organized fund raising arms, openly talk about the need to be team players, etc., the media will treat you as such. There is nothing much like it on the right, though Hugh Hewitt seems to be trying to accomplish somewhat of the same thing.

Interestingly a disproportionate amount of the "right wing blogoshere," if we have to live with that term, is in some form or fashion libertarian, and is hardly slavishly devoted to Bush or the Republicans at all. Kos and Atrios may be no slave to many of the Democratic party’s candidates and leaders, but they see themselves explicitly as Democrats, part of the team. That is not true at all of most the largest "right wing" blogs. I prefer that, but then I am not a Republican. However it doesn’t mean I or Jon find anything wrong with that, it is just different and the news media rightly sees the blogs roles differently.

Mona,

Drop it, we have moved on. Most of us don’t agree and given the last post you are incapable of convincing us. I would prefer if we could stick on topic. If you want to debate that again I suggest the blog you are attacking’s comment section is better suited. We can follow you over there if we are interested in debating whther the adhominun attacks of xrlq are more offensive than the ad hominem attacks of Glenn and other juicy topics.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
From Kos and Friends we get the reincarnation of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Kos and Friends represent (maybe not every single one of them, but enough to be dominant) hardcore Marxist-Stalinist beliefs
You left out Engels, Trotsky, and Pol Pot.

As Greenwald has sort of noted, the rightwingosphere is not really united around an ideology or a party. If there is something that unites it, it is Bush. And not so much Bush, but anti-anti-Bushism. By far the most popular target of right wing blogs are those who criticize Bush. A favorite technique is to link Bush with America generally and accuse Bush’s critics of being less than patriotic/aiding and abetting the enemy/being full blown traitors. Another, practiced repeatedly on this site by commenters, is to accuse them of some form of mental illness. It’s a strange form of hero-worship, marked more by what it is against than what it is for.

Bush still has more than two years left in his term. While it will be interesting to see how blogs evolve if the Dems take the House or the Senate or both this year, it will be very interesting to see which direction the rightwingosphere heads when Bush leaves office. Will they find a new hero? If a Repub wins in ’08, we he automatically achievwe hero status?

OTOH, if a Dem wins, we all know what will happen. Clinton got lucky - the internet was in its infancy when he was at 1600.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
The Poet Omar claims:
From Kos and Friends we get the reincarnation of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Kos and Friends represent (maybe not every single one of them, but enough to be dominant) hardcore Marxist-Stalinist beliefs.
And I’m sure you have copious links proving all of this "reincarnated" Marxism to show it is significant, much less dominant at Kos or among his "friends."? (And I don’t mean stray prattle from the comments section; I mean Kos posts, his frontpagers, and other left-of-center bloggers friendly with and to him.)

I’d particularly be interested in such evidence vis-a-vis Greenwald, but would also like some for three or four other bloggers or frontpagers.

So, let it roll.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Rope

Trees

Conservatives

(some assembly required)
So Mona, what about that outrage your ubermensch voiced oh so recently?

And let me repeat your own words:
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.
Or to say it the way PW would:
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.

 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
From Kos and Friends we get the reincarnation of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Kos and Friends represent (maybe not every single one of them, but enough to be dominant) hardcore Marxist-Stalinist beliefs.

Oh please. Have you ever read Kos? His rhetoric is often strident, but his substantive beliefs are center-left. Name one policy position Kos holds that is even close to "Marxist-Stalinist". That’s just such rubbish.

The dustup between TNR and the Kos crowd has almost nothing to do with ideology. They agree on almost everything, even the war at this point. Their ongoing spat boils down to a clash of personalities and disagreement over democratic strategy.

Despite what the David Brookses of the world want you to believe, the left blogsphere is not particularly ideological. They are strident and opinionated, but that’s not the same thing.
 
Written By: Anonymous Liberal
URL: http://www.anonymousliberal.com
The ones with the traffic get the bylines.

Economics 101.
 
Written By: Mimi Schaeffer
URL: http://howlinglatina.blogspot.com
So Mona, what about that outrage your ubermensch voiced oh so recently?
If SN is pushing such merchandise, I find it revolting. I am curious, tho, whether that site is copycatting Misha, that is, which came first? Both are repulsive, but I am interested to know who is following whom.

But neither example is the same as the Five Ropes. Five Black Robes. Five trees. SCOTUS justices represent an entire third branch of govt, and judges have lately been under death threats and even have been shot and had their family members murdered. What Misha said of them is not funny, whether he is a hyperbolic sort or not.

Finally, even if SN lacks clean hands on the tee shirt matter, its chronicling of Jeff’s perverted viciousness stands on its own merits.

And really finally, Greenwald DOES NOT THINK any blogger actually has an obligation to denounce other bloggers on their "side," and that only bloggers who have promoted someone who is filthy, or becomes so, arguably incur any such obligation.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
I am curious, tho, whether that site is copycatting Misha, that is, which came first? Both are repulsive, but I am interested to know who is following whom.
What a great defense Mona...
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Lance gets all persnickety without warrant:
Mona,Drop it, we have moved on. Most of us don’t agree and given the last post you are incapable of convincing us. I would prefer if we could stick on topic.
I didn’t introduce the subject of xrlq’s purported fisking of Greenwald, Bains did. It would seem Bains has not "moved on," poor fellow. If the topic is good enough for that poor sod to stick to, well, I guess I will join him in his impolitesse.

(And whether most here agree with me could not be less relevant to what I decide to say.)
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
What a great defense Mona...
Not a defense — I said both were repulsive. But I’m genuinely curious — which came first?
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
If you really find both repulsive Counselor, why would if even matter who went first?
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Mona,

Whatever, I wasn’t trying to be persnickety, I was only asking. I just think it is a dead horse, I know, I flogged it enough and if I want to again I don’t see why here, xrlq’s space seems better suited. The thread is off on an old tangent.

Anonymous,

I agree that Kos isn’t a marxist, just strident, obnoxious and left of center. I am not implying they all go together by the way. Not a centrist by any means, as Mona wants to argue, but no Socialist Workers Daily writer either. He does give them a lot of sympathetic space however, but that is his right.

Mk,

Actually most of the mental illness talk is directed at you in particular. If it makes you feel better I don’t think you are mentally ill.

I’ll check in later and see if we can get off of Mona’s obsession of proving how close minded, hypocritical and Bush obsessed all of us Bushbots are.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
Mona:
Actually, a number of prominent right wing bloggers had heard of her before, as she’s been a career troll for years now.

I have for years been a regular at innumerable right-wing blogs —including PW — and I had never heard of her. At. All.
Well, I guess that settles it then! If Mona hadn’t heard of her, she must not have been known by anyone. Except maybe Professor Bainbridge, whom she’d stalked for a while. And me, of course. And then there’s this guy named Jon Henke, you may have heard of him. Then again, maybe you haven’t, in which case he must not really exist, either.
In a word, no. Sadly, No did a huge compilation that is accurate, so there was no need for Glenn to repeat the work. And the key word here is "accurate."
Indeed it would be, if there were any evidence that the compilation was in fact accurate. It doesn’t become "accurate" simply because you say it is. It does, however, become inaccurate when they rely not only on his own blog, but on comments purporting to be his which are left on other blogs, and are therefore easily forged.
Virtually every one? Really!

Yes, really. That weekend memorandum was freakin consumed with the Frisch/Goldstein kerfuffle and prominent righties linking to it. I couldn’t believe it, it was so ridiculous.
I pretty well proved empirically how ludicrous the "virtually every" claim was. Of course you don’t care, your real objection being that any right-wing bloggers chose to weigh in on the subject at all. Too bad, we don’t answer to you, the Chief Douche, or anyone else. Don’t like what we talk about? Get your own blog, and say whatever you want.
Then our intrepid — or, as you put it, "admirable" — fisker pulls out the big guns and thrice calls Glenn a "douchebag", and then an "überdouche."
No, not "then." Not even close. A lot of virtual ink was spent between the point where I demonstrated that "[v]irtually every right-wing blogger spent the weekend focused on..." was either a lie or an incredibly hyperbolic way of saying "a few right wing bloggers spent a little time writing an entry or two on a topic that I’d rather not see discussed at all" and the point where I called the douche (which I’d already established him to be from his smear of Patterico and his refusal to apologize when called on it) an überdouche. By that point I had proved that with the possible exception of his reliance on Sadly, No - which was careless on his part, at best - just about every statement he made was a half-truth, a quarter-truth, or an outright lie. In a word, I didn’t just say he was a douche of unusual proportions; I proved it first, and then I said it.
The whole thing was one juvenile ad hominem, with non sequiturs thrown in,
You have yet to identify a single non sequitur. You don’t like the word "douche," so sue/fisk me, but you have yet to address that I’ve shown nearly every verifiable point he made in that entry to be either half-truth or worse. As to ad hominems, well, what the hell else are you supposed to do with someone who lies as routinely as he does? A person’s honesty isn’t everything - honest people can still be wrong, of course - but such brazen dishonesty as he exhibits, is. Once a guy has exhibited the level of congenital dishonesty that Greenwald has, there’s no point reading him at all, because if you do, you’ll have to read everything ultra-defensively, i.e., assume every factual assertion that you can’t independently verify is probably false, that every link does not bear out what he says it says until you’ve personally verified that it does, etc. It’s a waste of time dealing with that; why not instead read someone who at least makes a good faith effort to tell the truth?
... which does not address the fact ...
As with your credulous reference to Sadly, No’s "accurate" libel of Goldstein, an unfounded assertion does not automatically morph into a "fact" simply because you say it is.
that there was a frenzy of attacks on the leftosphere for not condemning Frisch,
If any such "frenzy of attacks" had ever really existed, you wouldn’t have too much difficult documenting it, would you? Neither would your hero Glenn; rather than throwing a bunch of irrelevant links with dishonest text he could have linked to a few sites that really do attack the "leftosphere" not for what they said about Deb Frisch - that’s fair game - but for the mere fact that they didn’t mention her at all. Confederate Yankee came disturbingly close to that, as did Rick Moran to some extent. AFAIK, no one else did; certainly, none of the other individuals Greenwald linked to did. Two mildly lame comments by two medium-traffice bloggers does not a "frenzy of attacks" make.
when Misha, and many, many others — Glenn has cited examples too numerous to link
Translated, Glenn cited not only to Misha, but also to Misha! Then, just to prove that there really was a consensus on the right, he linked to a T-shirt for sale ... by Misha. Obviously, he knew he could count on the average reader - that would be you, Mona - not to notice that sleight of hand. He probably didn’t count on you still not noticing that after having been alerted to a grand fisking in which that very point was raised, but then again, who knows? Maybe he’s an even bigger douche that I thought he was. Anything’s possible.

Of course, Greenwald didn’t only link to Misha, in the forms of him, himself and he; he also made hay over the comments of three genuinely obscure commenters on his site, even while blasting three or four right wing bloggers - whom he dubbed "virtually every one" - for talking about a commenter on another site the previous weekend. He also linked to Dean Esmay, and lied through his teeth by claiming Esmay had advocated that NYT journalists be hanged, when in fact Esmay had merely called for criminal trials and/or executions of the traitors who leaked the information, while saying zero, zip nada about doing anything to any journalists.

So much for Glenn’s supposed examples, which you deem "too numerous to link." I suppose you’re going to claim they are "accurate" and "factual," too, right? While you’re at it, why not go ahead and call it a "non sequitur" for me to actually follow Glenn’s link to Dean Esmay to see if Esmay had actually made the outrageous point Greenwald had accused him of, when a good reader would not have even entertained the possiblity that the same smear machine that slimed Patterico might have done an even worse number on Dean.
— have also trafficked in vileness that gets seldom noticed — much less condemned — as if it is normal and not poisoning the political discourse.
I think lying about people poisons the political discourse. Your results may vary. In fact, I know they do, after watching you do cartwheels to defend his smearing of Patterico.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Mona:
And really finally, Greenwald DOES NOT THINK any blogger actually has an obligation to denounce other bloggers on their "side," and that only bloggers who have promoted someone who is filthy, or becomes so, arguably incur any such obligation.
Well, we know that Sadly, No! has become filthy, because they sell that T-Shirt. And we know that Greenwald has promoted Sadly, No! by linking them twice in the past few days. Therefore — and it’s clear that I’m simply following Mona’s logic here — Greenwald has an obligation to denounce Sadly, No!

I look forward to Mona’s public calling for Greenwald to do just that.

Heh.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Anonymous liberal -
Back when Bush was riding high, you found incredible homogeny of opinion in the right wing blogosphere. And even up until the 2004 election, the right was remarkably unified in message.
It didn’t hurt back in 2004 that Bush ran against a seditious, amoral man reviled by most of his Vietnam peers and fellow Senators, hailing from The People’s Republic of Massachusetts. Compared to him, Dukakis was a vastly superior candidate. His Army peers respected him, Dukakis meant what he said....

Anonymous liberal -
If the left wing blogosphere seems more unified in its partisanship at the moment, it’s because it’s relatively easy to be unified in opposition to an incredibly unpopular president who has made disastrous policy choices. Conversely, it is very hard to maintain unity when your leader is disastrously unpopular and his policies are failing. The willingness of most rightwing bloggers to be critical of Bush is a relatively recent development.
No, because Republicans are are Party of ideas, ample debate exists on all subjects and Reagan and Bush I and Newt were all strongly criticized on certain Republican issues. Democrats believe in the opposite - enforcing Marxist-like solidarity on the "agreed to correct thoughtline",(essentially a 40+ year old regurgitation of Lefty ideology from war to gays) casting out deviants, and endless debate on optimum partisan tactics vs. "already decided on" issues.

The Lefty position on issues is generally "this is how I feel, and better yet, the idea comes from the 60s Demonstrations Themselves", and their biggest decision in challenging conservative ideas on the issue debated is what smear best forms the counterargument of the Left. Shall it be rejected as racist? Or is it sexist? Or simply homophobic and insensitive? Or is it a morally judgemental statement about another culture when we have too much guilt and sin to judge any other culture? Ahhh, what card will the Lefty play in debating the issue?

The the Dems are so wrapped in arguments over tactics and which special interest group might be getting dissed that they have failed to be even tactically effective.

Bush bungling and K-Street greed might lead to a temporary Democratic resurgence, but the only thing that still keeps the Dems in business is the 95% Dem to 5% Republican black vote, Jewish moneymen, and MSM favoritism. And those "fixed factors" no longer look so fixed...
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
There are, relatively speaking, few movement activists in the Rightosphere. The Leftosphere has influential Party activists like Kos, Atrios, and others — people who have intentionally thrust themselves into the electoral activism scene; the Rightosphere, on the other hand, is populated more by ’some guy with a modem’, rather than affiliated Party activists.
I seem to recall some party activism on the part of some Right leaning blogs. Although from what I’ve seen, it’s not nearly on league with those on the Left.

IMHO, I believe the Right-o-sphere is less likely to be motivated for Party activism because … well, their Party is already in power. In other words, the asses are already in the seats … or the Ass’s are already in the seats. Whichever.
And the Right leaning blogs, at least the one’s that I read from time to time, seem more interested in policy discussion and contesting ideas. As well as, of course, the ever present – fun for the whole family – liberal bashing.

Cheers.
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Bush bungling and K-Street greed might lead to a temporary Democratic resurgence, but the only thing that still keeps the Dems in business is the 95% Dem to 5% Republican black vote, Jewish moneymen, and MSM favoritism. And those "fixed factors" no longer look so fixed...
Mr. Ford. I’m curious. Of what significance, if true, is the Democratic “moneymen” being Jewish?
 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Mona says:
...judges have lately been under death threats and even have been shot and had their family members murdered.
Indeed. And Glenn Greenwald dismissed such threats as "probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric" on behalf of a client who was soliciting the murder of a judge. Where is the consistency in his position, or yours? Why is Matt Hale doing 40 years in ADX Florence, despite Greenwald’s passionate defense?

And Greenwald is the same guy who, based on one comment by one blogger, accused the entire rightosphere of condemning the left for not denouncing Frish sufficiently? Feh.

You can keep him.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
The behaviour of some in this whole Greenwald/anti-Greenwald episode is reminding me of the behaviour of the Scien ologists/anti-S* who flocked here...

While they may have had some valid points on either side, it just all seemed a bit batty to me. Fanatics attacking fantatics.
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
Anyone else find it odd that the guy who complains that "half the con blogosphere is part of the establishment" is the guy who gets his paycheck from Media Matters?
 
Written By: SaveFarris
URL: http://
John, respectfully, I don’t buy this generalization at all.
I understand your objections, but you mostly seem to argue that you don’t buy it, followed by an explanation of why it’s accurate. The dynamics you describe probably are the best explanation for why the current paradigm has obtained. But if they are, then that means it has.
Half the con blogosphere is part of the establishment GOP.
Malkin=Heritage may be a good example, but the rest of your examples don’t really hold up as described. I believe it’s fair to say that Powerline and Hewitt could be described as apparatchiks, but not for the associations you listed.
Contrast to the liberal blogosphere where many of the people - myself included - did not have any involvement in politics besides voting until after their blogs started.
Uh, ok. And if I was arguing that the current leftosphere were Democratic activists in 1998, then you’d have a great point.
And I’m sure you have copious links proving all of this "reincarnated" Marxism to show it is significant, much less dominant at Kos or among his "friends."?
I think a solid case could be made that Kos, et al, are quite Folk Marxist, but that’s true of quite a lot of the population including parts of the Republican Party.
Despite what the David Brookses of the world want you to believe, the left blogsphere is not particularly ideological. They are strident and opinionated, but that’s not the same thing.
Quite right. The dominant feature of current Democratic activism is its strident partisanship. Loyalty to Party.
Well, I guess that settles it then! If Mona hadn’t heard of her, she must not have been known by anyone. Except maybe Professor Bainbridge, whom she’d stalked for a while. And me, of course. And then there’s this guy named Jon Henke, you may have heard of him. Then again, maybe you haven’t, in which case he must not really exist, either.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t remember her, either. She really was an obscure blogger until this happened. I only remembered our previous interaction after we started getting some traffic from those old posts.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Pogue,
IMHO, I believe the Right-o-sphere is less likely to be motivated for Party activism because … well, their Party is already in power.
I think that probably hits the nail on the head, and also has a lot to do with with the media coverage as well. Whatever the reason, the different characteristics do exist at a general level.
 
Written By: Lance
URL: http://
And Glenn Greenwald dismissed such threats as "probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric" on behalf of a client who was soliciting the murder of a judge.


He was representing a client. One’s job is to put the best possible spin on it when one’s client says stupid or outrageous things. Lawyers qua lawyers do that everyday. (And before everyone gets huffy about that, if you or a loved on gets in trouble with the law, and something you or they said is being used to make your case look bad, you will get on bended knee to explain to your lawyer what you really meant, and s/he will sell that as best they can. It goes with the job, and the client expects it.)

Today, he is a blogger freed from any need to speak for anyone but himself, and to mouth only his own actual views. Which he has been doing. Bloggers do not have the fiduciary dities to a client that compel their defending things and words they themselves might well find revolting.

As the old test question goes..."Some of these things are the same, some are different."
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
He was representing a client. One’s job is to put the best possible spin on it when one’s client says stupid or outrageous things.
Deb Frisch is not his client, is she? So why is he spinning for her and against Misha? And by spinning, do you mean that Greenwald knowingly misrepresented Hale’s comments?
Today, he is a blogger freed from any need to speak for anyone but himself, and to mouth only his own actual views. Which he has been doing.
So what is it that Media Matters is paying him for? Since he works for them, it’s his job to spin for them, isn’t it? And why would he be a member of the Townhouse list?
."Some of these things are the same, some are different."
Right. One one hand, we have an anonymous blogger who years ago turned up the hyperbole knob to 12 and ripped the sucker off. On the other, we have a psych professor who has made tremendously inappropriate comments about a two year old in an attempt to rattle the kid’s father on his blog.

But to you, and to Greenwald, these are just the same and not different. Where is the consistency?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
I missed Mona’s call for Greenwald to denounce the T-shirt.
 
Written By: Patterico
URL: http://patterico.com
Patterico,

Mona can’t even wrap her ideological blinders around the fact that, whatever Greenwald argued in the post that started all this foolishness, he made it quite clear in comments on your site that he did, in fact, expect you to denounce Misha.
 
Written By: Andrew Olmsted
URL: http://andrewolmsted.com
Andrew, I agree that Greenwald has made a number of comments more consistent with advancing the lame "Why the Silence?" meme than with debunking it. However, I think too many ones and zeros have been wasted debating that point, when the real issue with the guy is that the guy refuses to hold an honest debate. Show me someone who sincerely argues that there’s a duty to condemn is wrong, and I’ll show you a person who is wrong. Show me a person who smarmily argues that position first, then pretends to have been arguing the other side all along, and I’ll show you a douche. But proving this particular instance of douchery is really not necessary, when there are so many others to choose from, all in one single post.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
Bush bungling and K-Street greed might lead to a temporary Democratic resurgence, but the only thing that still keeps the Dems in business is the 95% Dem to 5% Republican black vote, Jewish moneymen, and MSM favoritism. And those "fixed factors" no longer look so fixed...
Mr. Ford. I’m curious. Of what significance, if true, is the Democratic “moneymen” being Jewish?
Since when is George Soros Jewish?

Unions are a faiding aspect of D-power, and to some degree that’s true of the MSM (conservative blogs may not think for the R’s like lefty blogs do for the D’s, but they did unravel the CBS/Rather hit piece on Bush, a level of success left blogs have never had).

If blacks start to defect from the D’s, and illegal immigration doesn’t make up the deficit, it will take a lot of dead people voting to produce D victories.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Since when is George Soros Jewish?
Well, he was born that way.
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
He was representing a client. One’s job is to put the best possible spin on it when one’s client says stupid or outrageous things. Lawyers qua lawyers do that everyday. (And before everyone gets huffy about that, if you or a loved on gets in trouble with the law, and something you or they said is being used to make your case look bad, you will get on bended knee to explain to your lawyer what you really meant, and s/he will sell that as best they can. It goes with the job, and the client expects it.)
Of course (I’m assuming here), no one FORCED him to represent that client. And given that he had represented that client, he gave up any moral high ground to persue the particular argument he made with respect to Misha (or whoever it was) who made the "assembly required" comment.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Mr. Ford. I’m curious. Of what significance, if true, is the Democratic “moneymen” being Jewish?
Written By: PogueMahone
The significance is in AIPAC’s accurate brag that Jewish donors from a very small business, trial lawyer, and Hollywood network account for over 50% of the donations to the DNC. Jews only account for under 3%, now going closer to 2% of the US population, so the considerable effort both Parties expend on wooing Jews is about clout, not votes. And the small numbers of the Big Donors make them easier to pursue than 35 million blacks or the 30 million in government employee unions, the diffused and privately owned media, publishing, and academia Democrat bastions. As early as Nixon’s time, it was recognized that "flipping" the Jewish moneymen away from the Democrats would inflict enormous financial harm on Democrat prospects. After Reagan wooed away "values voters" the Reagan Democrats....Republicans saw the likelihood of Democrats becoming a permanent minority if they could get the Jewish moneymen turned, or significantly reverse the black voting percentages.

So far, they have failed on both counts. Just being slavishly Pro-Israel has not turned many Jews because the money is not in the religious Jewish community, but the secular Left who consider Israel peripheral or believe both Parties will serve Israel’s interests if pressured hard enough. And who have "progressive" political views that have not been weakened by Republican attempts to meet them halfway...

Recent trends are interesting, though. Internet fundraising now means that Democratic Party Apparachniks have other options for fast emergency funds - than the Hollywood and Financier moguls on their Rolodex and the quid pro quos they extract. Many Jewish heavy hitters have recognized this, and gone the 301C-3 and 527 route to keep their clout heavy...seeking management control or influence over large traditional Foundation like Ford’s, real estate Barons keeping the NAACP financially viable, Peter Lewis the largest single donor to the ACLU, the various George Soros foundations for "progressive" political change.

Prospects may be actually better with blacks. Younger African-Americans are not kneejerk loyal Democrats, and blacks are becoming more accepting of the black conservatives they once reflexively called "Toms".
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Of course (I’m assuming here), no one FORCED him to represent that client. And given that he had represented that client, he gave up any moral high ground to persue the particular argument he made with respect to Misha (or whoever it was) who made the "assembly required" comment.
I don’t think that merely representing a client causes one to give up the moral right to advance any particular position. When Greenwald represented Hale, he owed it to Hale to present the most client-friendly version of the facts he could in good faith. He didn’t owe that to anyone else, so if he had encountered another individual who was not his client, and whose statements and actions were morally indistinguishable from Hale’s, he could have unloaded on that guy like anyone else. Double standard? Sure, that’s his job.

In that sense, I’d caution against arguing that just because Greenwald advanced the "it was just rhetoric" defense on his client, he is therefore automatically obligated to reach the same conclusion in Misha’s case. I would say, though, that since he advanced that argument on behalf of his client, he had to know that it was at least a possibility in Misha’s case, as well, and therefore should have discussed it as a possiblity, rather than playing dumb and acting as though it was not.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
I don’t think that merely representing a client causes one to give up the moral right to advance any particular position.
It isn’t that he represented a client, but the argument he used in representing the client.
When Greenwald represented Hale, he owed it to Hale to present the most client-friendly version of the facts he could in good faith.
And in doing so, he gave up the moral high ground on that argument. If he didn’t realy believe that argument, how could he fully represent his client to the best of his ability—or can he push any argument with a strait face? If he did believe it, WTF is he talking about with respect to Misha?
In that sense, I’d caution against arguing that just because Greenwald advanced the "it was just rhetoric" defense on his client, he is therefore automatically obligated to reach the same conclusion in Misha’s case.
I’m not arguing he should have automatically reached the same conclusion. Given his public history on this, he should have kept his mouth shut on this particular topic.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Andrew Olmsted writes:
Mona can’t even wrap her ideological blinders around the fact that, whatever Greenwald argued in the post that started all this foolishness, he made it quite clear in comments on your site that he did, in fact, expect you to denounce Misha.
If Patterico were going to be consistent. That’s all. Otherwise no burden. That was Greewald’s clear point.

Don writes:
It isn’t that he represented a client, but the argument he used in representing the client.
Lawyers, with that hat on, everyday advance arguments they themselves disagree with, and possibly don’t even believe. And I’d wager there are plenty of folks reading, if not commenting here, who have sold a pile of self-mitigating crap to their attorney which the attoroney then dutifully espouses. Lawyers do that because clients expect it. (And I mean spin as to motives and such, not suborning perjury, which no lawyer may do.)

Patterico: I don’t know what Glenn’s standards are for when a blogger assumes a duty to denounce another blogger. I stated mine, but whether he shares those standards I do not know. I’m not even sure the SN merchandising arm trigger my standard, and Greenwald wasn’t pointing to Misha for what he said about ropes and liberals. It was his post evincing the longing to hang supreme court justices by the neck until dead — like the summary execution, robe-flapping filth you highlighted from him at your place — which he spotlighted. And, he wondered why all those having fits about l’affaire Fricsh think that is just benign "hyperbole," a call to kill justices for specific rulings Misha doesn’t like.

But if you think Greenwald is duty bound to denounce SN for the tee-shirts and mugs, by all means, tell him so. He has an email address.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
If Patterico were going to be consistent. That’s all. Otherwise no burden. That was Greewald’s clear point.
That was one of Greenwald’s six clear points, the selection of which depended on what you’d said immediately prior to him explaining a particular version of his point.

Remember when he’d only meant to be ironic, and told us all so?
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
If Patterico were going to be consistent. That’s all. Otherwise no burden. That was Greewald’s clear point.
That was one of Greenwald’s six clear points, the selection of which depended on what you’d said immediately prior to him explaining a particular version of his point.

Remember when he’d only meant to be ironic, and told us all so?
Precisely. Greenwald wants to have it both ways: the post is ironic, but you should denounce Misha, too, and if you don’t, I’ll call you out.

You illustrate the point vividly, Mona.
 
Written By: Andrew Olmsted
URL: http://andrewolmsted.com
I have been an almost daily reader of Mr. Greenwald. Without putting too fine a point on it, I am currently in the market for a "Lefty Boy" [or girl] blog that is worthy of a daily perusal in the interests of furthering my education on matters political. Not one that is highly intellectual, rather one that mixes it up on current issues and posts apologies and corrections now and then. A lefty Instapundit.com would be perfect, but I would prefer one that allows comments. An email with a suggestion would be appreciated.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Precisely. Greenwald wants to have it both ways: the post is ironic, but you should denounce Misha, too, and if you don’t, I’ll call you out.

You illustrate the point vividly, Mona.
There is nothing inconsistent or mutually exlusive about having it both of those ways; indeed, they fortify each other.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Alrighty. For those who think Kos is just a good ole boy who is really a "libertarian Democrat" at heart, as he describes himself, here comes a very short list of the folks he has directly supported and/or been paid by (no not his paycheck, his funding for DailyKos and its related activities):

1. People for the American Way (founded by well known lover of all things Christian (snicker) Norman Lear) : directly created United for Peace and Justice [which they thought sounded better than International Answer]. Who did they appoint to head it? Leslie Cagan, longtime open member of the Communist Party USA and Castroite. Indirectly founded MoveOn as PAW created the "Let’s Move On" campaign to defeat the movement to impeach Bill Clinton. Supports full civil rights and amnesty for illegals. Gets its funding from, among others, the Jew hating Stalinists at the Ford Foundation.

2. The National Women’s Political Caucus : which supposedly only supports the female of the species. Oddly, this founding idea didn’t stop them from supporting Howard Dean, who last time I checked was still male. Oh, and NWPC is made up of Marxist abortion-on-demand types who support the right of minor girls to have abortions without parental notification.

3. Air America : Should I even bother with this one? I can’t even begin to count the number of Marxists behind the curtain on this one.

This list is actually quite long and if anyone cares, I can post several more Marxist, neo-Stalinist, Castroite, etc. organizations and persons who love Kos and, more importantly, who Kos loves.

Speaking of the man himself, Kos’s own tactics and rants against Martin Peretz and TNR stink to all with a nose of Stalinism. Any who disagree with Kos’ personal idea of leftism must be right-wingers in disguise and thus must be purged!

Should I bring up Kos’little Mini-me : Jerome "The Astrologer" Armstrong.

Read the text of Kos’ speech at his YearlyKos convention. If that doesn’t sound like "arise ye Russian people" I don’t know what does. They might as well have had the Internationale playing in the background.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
Mona says:
There is nothing inconsistent or mutually exlusive about having it both of those ways; indeed, they fortify each other.
Mona means:
Rule #1: Glenn Greenwald is always right.
Rule #2: When Glenn Greenwald is wrong, see Rule #1.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
FWIW: On the same day [today] that I read on Mr. Greenwald’s blog that "Hizbollah is not an enemy of [the USA]" and then see him castigate a blogger for treating them as such, Reuters has
two

Links
that clearly establish their status as threatening enemies. Guess he was just being ironic.
What this demonstrates is that, even after being eviscerated for his readiness to misrepresent facts he has no compunctions about making wild assertions [no corrections] about matters of which he has no knowledge. That is not the kind of pundit that anyone should read for any purpose other than... well, why would anyone read him?
And, given the facts exposing him, why would anyone [Mona] who is not a paid operative or an idiot still support him?
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Mk, you’d never find Trotskyites amongst the Kos crowd. They all belong to the Republican party now.

As for Engels, etc. I believe that I was naming the thinkers behind specific strains of the ideological position generally referred to as Communism. There is no such thing as an Engelite (that would be Marxists). There is also no such thing as a Pol Potite. Although there are certainly Pol Potheads.

Mona : Here are some examples of Kos links and writers who are either openly Marxist/Stalinist or demonstrably so.

1. Juan Cole (not a merry old soul) : Jew hating king of the Middle East Studies Association. Believes the a cabal of Jews runs the world. Does not believe that Islamofascism exists, yet considers Zionism to be racist. Hmmmm...

2. Joe Conason : former Clintonista (is there such a thing as former?), good old Joe has a distinguished history of attack dog tactics against any who oppose the left. Coming from a long line of hard leftists (google it), Joe has tried a similar tactic to some of those here ; excusing Marxists as simply spirited leftists and then brushing off any association with them. http://www.salon.com/news/col/cona/1999/11/16/fulani/ As an example of this.

3. Arianna Huffington : former right-wing nut, now left-wing nut. She’s another red-diaper baby like Conason. Arianna, although not declared on income tax, is pretty much entirely owned by George Soros at this point. She has yet to explain the financing behind her blog or the bizarre inconsistency of living in a multi-million dollar mansion while paying less than $1,000 in federal income tax. Despite the fact that she is clearly a limousine liberal, she doesn’t like being called liberal.

4. Swing State Project : reads like a bad text on class warfare. Seriously, I understand that blogging is essentially editorializing the news events of the day, and everyone has a right to their own opinions, but even for Kos’ folks, this is bad.

5. Steve Gilliard : reads like a vulgar, college underground newspaper. Smacks of Stalinism. Love the post calling Senator Lieberman a heretic!

6. Armando : Mona, you should be very familiar with this guy. I don’t think that I need to give details about the "Armory of Wisdom."

Would you like more?

To AnonymousLiberal : One of the most disturbing trends in post World War 2 leftism is the tendency of otherwise rational mainstream socialists to dismiss the existence of hard-left Marxists, Communists, etc. You have committed this error here as evidenced by my response to Mona and my previous post. While socialists and communists may debate till the end of time the differences between their positions (for the life of me, I still can’t make heads nor tails of the whole 2nd SI vs. 3rd SI etc. arguments), the fact remains that both most assuredly exist in the modern American left. Trying to sweep them under the rug will not help Democrats get elected. Confronting the hard-leftists and defeating them is the only viable strategy (this has been pointed out by Peter Beinart). Until you acknowledge that the enemy exists, you have no chance of defeating him.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
URL: http://
There is nothing inconsistent or mutually exlusive about having it both of those ways; indeed, they fortify each other.
Like a two state solution and driving the Jews into the sea.

Viva Arafat!
 
Written By: Pablo
URL: http://
There is nothing inconsistent or mutually exlusive about having it both of those ways; indeed, they fortify each other.
OK, I give up. I can’t top someone who thinks that Orwellian doublespeak is a legitimate debating technique.
 
Written By: Andrew Olmsted
URL: http://andrewolmsted.com
Darn it! I hate winning because the other side didn’t show up. I was really looking forward to the counter arguments from Mk, Mona, and Anonymous. Shucks. Maybe we’ll get to cross swords again in another post.
 
Written By: The Poet Omar
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