Patterico's Pontifications

7/12/2006

Glenn Greenwald: Douchebag

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 12:38 am

Glenn Greenwald is a douchebag. Hold on: I’m about to back up that charge.

Greenwald wrote this post yesterday, noting that Misha of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler had written a post suggesting that five Supreme Court Justices be hung. Then Greenwald says:

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).

He links a bunch of the right-wing bloggers who were disturbed by Frisch’s child threats. I am among them. So now it is “so very confounding” that I haven’t denounced Misha. What possible reason could exist for that?

Gee, I dunno!

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.

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.

Here’s the chronology: Misha’s post was written yesterday in the early morning hours, while I was sleeping. I woke up yesterday morning at 6 a.m., showed, dressed, ate, looked at the computer very briefly, and left for work at 7:15 a.m. I didn’t look at a computer again until about 5:30 p.m. When I got home, Glenn, your post condemning me and others for not condemning Misha was already posted. You had written it hours before, at 2:18 p.m.

I mean, you have got to be kidding me.

Greenwald might have a point if he had waited a couple of days, rather than a couple of hours, and then saved his rhetoric solely for right-wing bloggers who wrote outraged posts asking: “Where are the lefty blogs who condemn Frisch?!” But I am not one of those bloggers. That schtick got old for me when John Cole lambasted the entire right wing for not writing about Terri Schiavo’s autopsy within a couple of hours of its being made public. Once again, I was at work when that happened.

You miss a lot of stuff having a day job. I missed the whole 60 minutes Rathergate thing. I came home and it had all happened, that day, while I was at work.

So I’m sorry, Glenn Greenwald, that in the five minutes I looked at the computer yesterday morning, I didn’t happen across some right-wing site that I never read, and then write a post condemning the post on that site.

You douchebag.

P.S. This is a perfect example of why I don’t read Greenwald. I constantly see dishonest crap by him. Instapundit links to his sleazy posts all the time. In fact, his post on Misha is full of more such dishonest crap (e.g. saying that the “backbone of [the Republican] party” is “the Ann Coulters and James Dobsons and the hate-mongering pundits”), but it’s pointless to respond to all of it.

I have conclusively proven that he is a douche, so that kind of obviates the need to respond to him further.

P.P.S. Since my schedule is so important to Greenwald, let me explain that I was off Monday. Vacation day.

P.P.P.S. Greenwald says a lot of plenty dishonest stuff in the comments. But this one really jumped out at me:

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 is classic Greenwald: a confident assertion of fact, which is totally false. I have called Bill O’Reilly a “humorless and self-absorbed blowhard” and called Michael Savage a “moron.” I regularly denounce Ann Coulter here, and recently spent days boxing her about the ears for her numerous stupid and violent comments about public officials. There are so many posts I can’t link them all; a few examples here, here, here, here, and here. Regular commenters will tell you there are many more; indeed, they got very frustrated with me for being so obsessed on the topic.

So, Mr. Greenwald, how’s about a retraction and an apology for your unresearched and false accusations about me?

Oh, by the way, some commenters have suggested that he is simply mocking the Right with his “failure-to-denounce” post. But as his repeated comments make clear, he takes this silly failure-to-denounce principle quite seriously.

P.P.P.P.S. Having proven himself to be dishonest, Greenwald is going on the ignore list. I’ll still let him comment here, although if he lies about me again, he may be banned. Meanwhile, I am not getting drawn into a long war with him. I’ve seen others do it and it’s a waste of time. My response to any and all future Greenwald posts is: he’s dishonest; look at this post for evidence; I’m not wasting my time. It was worth it to do one post pointing out what a tool he is; that’s all it’s worth. He’s not worth any more of my time.

UPDATE 7-13-06: A couple of commenters (whose comments I approved after they were held in moderation) have noted that I once praised Misha on this blog — about 2 1/2 years ago, in January 2004. I was surprised to be reminded that I once did read the guy some, but it’s clearly true. Then again, I used to watch Bill O’Reilly on a regular basis, and I now consider him to be a blowhard. Exposure to an annoying schtick will do that to you. I think Glenn Reynolds puts it well about Misha:

I quit reading Misha, the ostensible root cause of this latest kerfuffle, because, although his schtick amused his audience it got old for me fast. (And ironically, I think Misha still blasts me for being too sympathetic to the ACLU.) Greenwald’s not much different, he’s just more earnest, and not funny.

That is basically exactly how I feel. The poo-flinging monkeys are jumping up and down, making monkey noises, and pointing. They think they have scored quite a point. Well, they are welcome to scour my blog for evidence that I have regularly read Misha over the past 2 1/2 years. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald just got through linking a guy named “Retardo Montalban” as providing evidence for something. Sorry guys. I win this round — big-time.

P.S. A commenter claims that I removed his comment with the ever-so-damning link to my former praise. This turns the truth on its head. I came home, found the comments in the moderation folder, and approved them. Were they previously up and then somehow automatically removed by the spam filter? I don’t know. It’s possible — I have been having major problems with comments lately. As I said the other day, before these accusations were made, my spam filter “even nuked some comments that had already been posted, even though I hadn’t done a thing to prompt that.” I thought that the problem was that particular spam filter, but apparently the other filter is doing the same thing. Not my doing, and it’s a dirty lie to say so.

Those who know me will accept this; poo-flinging monkeys won’t. That’s how these things work. You guys can go back to your hero “Retardo” now.

196 Responses to “Glenn Greenwald: Douchebag”

  1. Glenn Greenwald is a douchebag. Hold on: I’m about to back up that charge.

    For Greenwald to even decently aspire to the rarefied (for him) heights of common, garden variety douchehood would require him to undergo the intellectual, behavioral and ethical equivalent of a miracle transformation at Lourdes.

    Snow will regularly fall UP before the invertebrate likes of Glenn “YES, Master Kos! Right AWAY, Master Kos!” finds himself even minimally qualified to stamp his hoof in online explication of any topic deeper or more relevant to his own arrested concerns than (oh, say): “Crayolas: Why It’s Way, Way Easier to Confuse ‘Em with Flintstone Chewable Vitamins Than Most People Realize, Darn It.” :)

    Kent (005e8f)

  2. Also, and I realize that to the Professionally Offended Left it’s a minor point, the Rottweiler’s suggestion that hanging five of the Judges on the Supreme Court would be a fine idea was in reaction to something those specific individuals had done. Frisch’s idiocy was directed at a minor who hadn’t done anything.

    Threatening children for the behavior of their parents is barbaric and fascist. Threatening adults for their own behavior – especially if they have chosen to live in the political arena – lies somewhere between rude and criminal.

    C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21)

  3. Great condemnation, hypocrite.

    Sev (7f9b63)

  4. Funny that Greenwald’s missive starts out with this:

    If your only source for news was reading right-wing blogs, you would have thought that the most significant world event in the last few days was that some crazy woman who nobody ever heard of before (someone by the name of “Deb Frisch”)…

    In response to a right wing blog voicing outrage to an entirely different story (desecration of US Servicemen). Kind of negates his whole post. Furthermore, if Greenwald had a shred of awareness and integrity, he’d know that Patterico has just recently been condemning over-the-top rhetoric (see Ann Coulter). But Greenwald is not interested in intellectual honesty – he has to portrait the right as mindless automatons in order to further propagate the meme that the center right really doesn’t dominate this country’s electorate.

    (You know) there has to be a reason (well aside from the useful but false voter disenfranchisement) why 52% of voters chose Bush.

    bains (3f9c1c)

  5. Yes, Greenwald is a douchebag. He does this very sort of thing a lot over there, when he’s not outright distorting something someone on the center-right said, constructing strawmen and knocking them down, or missing discussion points entirely.

    I don’t know what to think about the left nowadays.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  6. […] Patterico calls Glenn Greenwald a douchebag for writing yet another dishonest blog entry about conservatives. I disagree. While the health benefits of douching are in dispute, the same cannot be said of reading Glenn Greenwald’s prattle. That stuff can’t be good for you in any way, shape or form. […]

    damnum absque injuria » Glenn Greenwald Is Not a Douchebag (38c04c)

  7. “I don’t know what to think about the left nowadays.”

    I do. Mainly, they are intellectualy bankrupt and dishonest. That’s why this situation doesn’t surprise me in the least.

    sharon (fecb65)

  8. 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”

    Glenn Greenwald (9e60a5)

  9. One would also be remiss if one failed to note that now that you have written an entire post relating to the Misha death calls, you still have not condemned him or the comments.

    [One would be remiss if one failed to note that you are full of it. I condemn both. And anyone who is honest can easily see that I have condemned both in the post. For example, I called his post both “outrageous” and “ridiculous.” That, my slippery friend, is known as “condemnation.” But it’s hardly a shock that an assclown like him makes assclownish remarks. That’s why, as I said, I don’t read him. — Patterico]

    Glenn Greenwald (9e60a5)

  10. Misha’s post was written yesterday… – Patterico

    I think that Greewald is just mimicking the chastisement from the right about why the left wasn’t crucifying Frisch hours after her (allegedly) vile provocations. Greenwald clearly states when the post was made, so he’s not hiding anything.

    You’re also ignoring a very important point Greenwald makes. What about all of this rabid righty raunchiness that goes unchallenged? (‘Don’t know why I’m so into alliteration lately.)

    Nor did they condemn another prominent right-wing blogger, Dean Esmay, when he presciently called for the hanging of NYT reporters way back in December, long before the johnny-came-lately noose advocates like Misha did so. Nor did they condemn right-wing radio host (and guest host for Sean Hannity) Michael Reagan’s call for Howard Dean to be hanged. Nor, for that matter, have any of them condemned the calls by David Horowitz for the names, home addresses and security systems of NYT editors and reporters to be published on the Internet, nor have any of them condemned publication by right-wing blogger Dan Riehl of the satellite photographs of the home of the NYT Publisher (unsurprisingly, Riehl himself, along with Misha, was among the right-wing bloggers sermonizing this weekend about the terrible comments made to Goldstein). Nor have they condemned comments from the Grand Victim himself, Jeff Goldstein, that are reprehensible and revolting by any measure.

    He’s not a douchebag Patterico. You deserve credit for calling Coulter on the carpet, but there are others (ahem, Malkin) who are just as bad who you choose to defend.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  11. With all due respect Mr. Greenwald, there is a bright line here that only an indiscriminate clod would fail to see. Death threats and sexual innuendo about a two-year old are things that anyone with greater sensibility than that of an earthworm should condemn. Moronic hyperbole and dark humor about public officials are matters that may make someone retch but do automatically give rise to an obligation to police the entire blogosphere. If I am not mistaken you are an attorney, which makes your attempt to draw equivalency between Frisch’s comments and Misha’s posts doubly disingenuous.

    nk (b57bfb)

  12. That should read:

    “Moronic hyperbole and dark humor about public officials are matters that may make someone retch but do not automatically give rise to an obligation to police the entire blogosphere.”

    Sorry. Maybe actus is right to keep it short and sweet.

    nk (b57bfb)

  13. Why aren’t the rightwingers condemning threats of murder against Supreme Court Justices? I can only surmise that Patterico supports such threats.

    [I can only surmise that you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. — Patterico]

    Bemused (193139)

  14. Let’s try and draw a necessary position.

    Patterico has taken the position that no one is under an obligation to comment on the Frisch thing, or anything else of the sort, but if you do comment on it your position ought to be unequivocal condemnation. And I imagine some others take that view as well.

    Several other conservative bloggers, such as Confederate Yankee, instead took the position that because the lefty blogs hadn’t commented on the Frisch thing, it’s reasonable to infer that they condone it or even support it. I think Greenwald has a definite point as applied to the bloggers in this category. Don’t take the position that “silence = agreement” unless you’re prepared to live by that standard yourself.

    I still think Patterico was mistaken to tee off on the Sadly, No bloggers for their “equivocal” condemnation when the only reason they weighed in on the subject at all was in response to Confederate Yankee’s absurd position. But that’s an argument we’ve hashed out, really.

    I hope it’s at least obvious that when some people are like “you have no obligation to speak up, but…” and others are like “you have to speak up, or else it means you approve of this behavior” it gets a little difficult to satisfy everyone.

    If everyone took Patterico’s position that no one is required to disavow the comments of every fringe lunatic who happens to be on their political “side,” we wouldn’t have these arguments in the first place. But that’s not how it is, so with apologies to Patterico, Greenwald is entitled to make a point about the numerous righties who seek to apply this “silence = you agree” standard.

    Finally, I’d note that Greenwald’s point in #8 is virtually the exact same point Patterico was making to the Sadly, No bloggers: You’ve spoken up on the issue now (even though you only spoke up in response to what you perceived to be an unfair attack) so it was wrong for your position to be anything other than unequivocal condemnation.

    [I said it would be also be fair to rebut the CY point. — P]

    Steve (f6a7f5)

  15. “I can only surmise that Patterico supports such threats.”

    Yeah. That’s the only option available to a clear-thinking mind.

    /sarc

    steve miller (086cfc)

  16. Good grief.

    Is there nothing interesting going on in this world that bloggers on both sides of the ideological divide can do nothing but condemn each other for not denouncing their extremists?

    The more I read this stuff, the greater the urge to projectile vomit. Who gives a hairy, corn-filled crap if one side or the other doesn’t condemn the incoherent blather of their obviouisly derranged fringe elements?

    I had never heard of this Deb Frisch before Memorandum alerted me to the offal she spewed a Protein Wisdom. I thought most people on the right properly remonstrated with her (some went to the moon, but there you go) and the respectable blogs on the left did so, too (see TalkLeft, I’m sure there are others somewhere).

    Who can be surprised that Greenwald et. al. are trying to change the subject to hypocrisy? That’s all they have – they know the lunacy of Frisch and her ilk cast aspersions on left-wing bloggers in general, and the only defense they can think of is to point out what they see as similar behavior on the right by stretching an already inane argument to immeasurable dimensions.

    Leave it alone. Taking up this issue with the flatulent left only helps them distract everyone from thier own credibility problems. Don’t feed the trolls, even trolls with their own “blog”. For the record, I agree that Greenwald is a douchebag. But he already knows this, and so does everyone else who pays attention.

    Truzenzuzex (e1d258)

  17. His post has a huge strawman in it.
    It seemed to me that people on the right were outraged that people were defending Frisch’s statements, not that they weren’t condemning them. That’s a huge difference. But then, Greenwald doesn’t do “nuance” very well.

    I will defend Greenwald though, I don’t know if he’s a douchebag. I think he’s just a nitwit.

    Veeshir (5f9b87)

  18. Why aren’t the rightwingers condemning threats of murder against Supreme Court Justices?

    Why won’t leftwingers condemn actual murder and torture when it’s done by al-Qaeda against our troops?

    And no ‘yes, but’ allowed.

    Allan (b5dfd7)

  19. Who “defended” Frisch’s statements?

    Go on. Name one.

    Doug (521a0c)

  20. Glenn, you are really are dishonest. It’s quite mind-boggling.

    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.

    I. Don’t. Read. Him.

    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.

    I am not a one-man condemning machine and have not called on others to be.

    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.

    Yes. The weekend. (I was off Monday, as well, by the way, since my schedule is so important to you.)

    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.

    Yes. Because it . . . was . . . the . . . WEEKEND.

    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.

    Mr. Greenwald, that is a lie that I am going to elevate to a post itself. The people around here are furious for what I say about Ann Coulter. I regularly denounce Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, etc. You don’t know a thing about me, and you make irresponsible statements without doing research. It’s your M.O.

    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”

    Those people are reading her site, and commenting on the VERY POST WHERE SHE DISCUSSED THE COMMENTS. Those people have a duty to condemn. If you discuss it, you should condemn it.

    Like I did with Misha’s post, which I called outrageous and ridiculous.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  21. Those people are reading her site, and commenting on the VERY POST WHERE SHE DISCUSSED THE COMMENTS. Those people have a duty to condemn. If you discuss it, you should condemn it.

    You’ve discussed Misha’s posts. Twice now. And yet haven’t condemned him a single time. Do you see how you spit out moralizing statements with one side of your mouth and then violate those same standards with the other side? Surely you must.

    Make sure to include that fact in the scary new post you’re threatening to write.

    Glenn Greenwald (9e60a5)

  22. I just did some postscripts above.

    Glenn, read the whole comment thread. I sometimes post from a Treo (I was about to get into the shower, since my schedule is important to you) and comment by appending comments to other people’s comments. Above, I respond to this wholly dishonest point of yours. I will repeat it here, in this stand-alone comment.

    One would also be remiss if one failed to note that now that you have written an entire post relating to the Misha death calls, you still have not condemned him or the comments.

    [One would be remiss if one failed to note that you are full of it. I condemn both. And anyone who is honest can easily see that I have condemned both in the post. For example, I called his post both “outrageous” and “ridiculous.” That, my slippery friend, is known as “condemnation.” But it’s hardly a shock that an assclown like him makes assclownish remarks. That’s why, as I said, I don’t read him. — Patterico]

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  23. By the way, a job doesn’t have to be all-consuming for someone to fail to comment by 2:30. It just has to be a day job.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  24. Why won’t leftwingers condemn actual murder and torture when it’s done by al-Qaeda against our troops?

    Of course I condemn murder and torture committed by al-Qaeda against our troops.

    I don’t know a single person, left or right, who doesn’t believe that al-Qaeda is absolute scum. If you want to imagine that some random internet troll you stumbled across one day is representative of the entire political Left, so be it.

    Steve (43f553)

  25. Glenn Greenwald whips himself into foaming frenzy, condemning the right for supposedly not doing something he doesn’t do – when he wants them to (WED AM UPDATE)…

    I generally refrain from fisking the blogposts of those I disagree with because I don’t want to risk beginning a pointless and time-wasting blog war, but I’m making an exception this evening.  Glenn Greenwald, the poster-child of …

    Sister Toldjah (1466f5)

  26. Patterico, it’s kind of silly for you to keep bringing up your schedule. You wouldn’t have condemned Misha if Greenwald or someone else hadn’t brought him up, not that I’m implying there’s anything wrong with that. A week could have passed and it’s very unlikely you would have said anything about that particular post. Like you said, you don’t read him.

    Greenwald was simply applying the same standard used by bloggers like Confederate Yankee, who feel it’s never too soon to read something into the “silence” of the blogging left. Does that make Greenwald a douchebag? Sure it does, for the same reason it makes Confederate Yankee and his cohorts douchebag. You would, I assume, agree that it’s equally despicable behavior when it comes from the Right.

    Steve (43f553)

  27. Doug, here are 3 with a modicum of defense SadlyNo, BustardBlog and TBogg.

    You go read them, I found them with google in 5 minutes. If the issue is so important then you will, if not, then you don’t care whether there was 100 defending her, only that you want to paint the narrative your way. That isn’t truth man.

    Hey I remember (and it did exist) a post by Atrios saying he he believed the entire staff of the Note should be put up against a wall and shot.here it is.

    I must have missed the outrage over that one. Imagine putting journalists against a wall and shooting them. How perfectly stalinist of him.

    capt joe (3b8c83)

  28. Damn, these are some childish exchanges. Maybe not the poo-flinging monkey kind, but not really adult discussion, either.

    Misha engages in chest-thumping militaristic hyperbole on his site. It only takes about five minutes to realize that. That’s his style. The late Acidman favored it, too. Anyone that takes it seriously enough to condemn it really has too much time on his/her hands.

    Robert (91f2c5)

  29. Alright, Patterico. So why would you assume we on the left would read a comment section of PW, or care what some nutjob says to another nutjob? We condemn threats of all kinds, not just Frisch’s or Goldstein’s. But you still won’t condemn someone who advocates hanging people. That says everything we lefties need to know about you.

    [And you can’t read. That says all I need to know about you. — P]

    JackGoff (56b2e8)

  30. I sometimes post from a Treo (I was about to get into the shower, since my schedule is important to you) and comment by appending comments to other peoples comments. Above, I respond to this wholly dishonest point of yours. I will repeat it here, in this stand-alone comment.

    I’ve never seen that done before, though I’m new to your site. In my WordPress blog editing a comment involves going into the back door, finding the specific comment, and then using the wysiwyg to edit it. Alternatively a blog’s proprietor could just go to the comment thread and post a response to any comment. I’d always assumed the latter was simpler, though I guess there’s nothing like letting your commenters know who runs the show on this blog.

    [My Treo won’t let me post stand-alone comments. I comment this way all the time. — P]

    Matt Browner-Hamlin (fd801d)

  31. Jackgoff, ah appropriately named I see.

    I see the vieled reference to the fantaasy narrative that Jeff G threatened someone. Sorry, not true.

    There was only one nutjob there and it was Frisch.

    capt joe (3b8c83)

  32. I find this post to be particularly interesting because Greenwald and Patterico are two bloggers whom I read daily. I like these two sites because they represent differing viewpoints and because, more than most other blogs I have read, the authors appear to be interested in substantive ideas and language and they seem to avoid (for the most part) partisan cookie-cutter language and silliness.

    It is because I have respect for these two blogs (and bloggers) that this whole post, along with Greenwald’s replies and Patterico’s rejoinders, disappoints me. Greenwald made an interesting point in his original post: it is a mark of hypocricy when multiple conservative bloggers assualt liberal bloggers for not decrying Deb Frisch’s comments with enough force, and then turn around and fail to decry conservative bloggers who make reprehensible posts of their own (I do believe that Frisch’s comments were substantively “worse” than Misha’s, but both were out of bounds). I believe this is a point that Patterico would agree with.

    Patterico, however, also makes a good point: he IS willing to condemn conservative personalities (e.g., Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly), but the point of his blog is not to go out and find every out-of-bounds comment on the Internet and make a point of condemning it.

    The above seems to have turned into an intellectual “let me quote you when you said this”/”no, let me quote YOU when you said this” pissing contest that strikes me as a waste of time (let me guess — you’re both lawyers, right?). Greenwald probably shouldn’t have linked to Patterico because Patterico isn’t a good example to prove his point, but Greenwald is not a douchebag.

    You’re both too good for this silliness. My recommendation: shake hands, mumble something reasonably positive under your breath, and get back to focusing on more important stuff.

    [If you can convince him to issue a sincere apology for saying I’m a hypocrite on this issue, I’ll shake hands. But so far, he has doubled down with false assertions about me. — P]

    unceph (cf1c65)

  33. Misha engages in chest-thumping militaristic hyperbole on his site. It only takes about five minutes to realize that. That’s his style. The late Acidman favored it, too. Anyone that takes it seriously enough to condemn it really has too much time on his/her hands.

    Well, we’ve found someone to defend Misha’s post. Anyone else?

    Steve (43f553)

  34. I don’t mean to justify anyone’s call for violence, but the death penalty is appropriate for the highest forms of treason. So it may fit into an opinion piece to call for the hanging of someone you can coherently claim is treasonous. It is never, ever, appropriate to hope for a JonBenet outcome for someone’s two year old child.

    I don’t like any of the over-the-top rhetoric on either side, but adult journalists and government officials have put themselves into public view. Jeff Goldstein’s two year old son has not.

    Mike S (d3f5fd)

  35. “Who “defended” Frisch’s statements?

    Go on. Name one.

    Comment by Doug”

    Does Inside Higher Ed count ?

    How you put up with these lamebrains is amazing, Patterico.

    Mike K (416363)

  36. Patterico, it’s kind of silly for you to keep bringing up your schedule.

    No, steve, it’s kind of silly for Greenwald to make a huge fuss about how Patterico had time to post about the Frisch garbage on the weekend–you know, a time when people with day jobs don’t have to go to them–but not time to post about Misha during the week–you know, the time when people with day jobs do have to go to them.

    And it’s kind of silly of you not to notice the distinction.

    Anwyn (1d2652)

  37. Patterico– How dare you sleep and go to work without appeasing ego-maniacs like Greenwaldo-the-great.

    What gall you have providing your family a deserving lifestyle, (while puttin’ bad guys in jail), and not take the time to “stroke” these lost souls? Just where have your prioritys gone to?

    Rovin (b348f4)

  38. It doesn’t matter if you “have to go to your day job” if the fact is that you wouldn’t have written anything about Misha’s post regardless.

    Oh, here’s Dan Riehl who also says he won’t condemn Misha’s comments, like Robert above. I have a feeling this list might get too long to continue compiling.

    The list of people who HAVE condemned Misha seems to end with Patterico, unless I’m missing someone who wants to be included. Everyone else must not have come home last night from their day job.

    [At least Steve recognizes that I did condemn him. Steve, to respond to your point above, the “crickets” argument is usually a douche move. It’s especially aggravating for Greenwald to tag *me* with it because I didn’t make the argument myself. Now he’s doubling down with out-and-out falsehoods. Anyway, my last comment on this for a while. You know: day job. Thanks for showing some actual reading comprehension skills. — P]

    Steve (43f553)

  39. It *does* matter if you’re being lambasted for posting about something else that Greenwald doesn’t think was *nearly* as important because you have time that he apparently doesn’t believe you ought to have if you haven’t posted about *his* important thing because he doesn’t understand the concept of a weekend.

    Anwyn (1d2652)

  40. So, threatening to use your penis to hit someone is no longer sexual harassment, eh? I’ll be sure to remember that. “Oh, but he was just being facetious!” Riiight. And that makes A-OK.

    JackGoff (56b2e8)

  41. P: It’s your own darn fault. Quit the day job and let the missus support you so you can sit in your pajamas and blog all day. Then you’d have plenty of time to do all of the things the likes of Greenwald feel it’s your responsibility to do.

    How can you justify going off to do whatever it is you do during the day while there are so many wackos on the right who need to be searched out and condemned for their over the top postings?

    And, while I am taking Misha’s post as it is written (I have to go with the words as they appear on my screen, as not knowing Misha, I am unable to infer what is going on in his/her mind), there actually isn’t anything that calls for stringing up the five justices, is there? Their robes, yes… the judges themselves, that’s not so clear. Perhaps still not a nice thing to do, but if burning the American flag is protected speech, I don’t see how stringing up five judicial robes isn’t protected as well.

    steve sturm (b5aa23)

  42. That was too long a sentence to understand, friend.

    Patterico didn’t post about Misha because he doesn’t read him. There’s nothing more that he needed to say. He could be an unemployed bum who sits on the Internet all day and he still wouldn’t have posted about Misha, so his schedule has nothing to do with it.

    I don’t seriously expect people who don’t read Misha and don’t approve of him to condemn him or even comment on him. Do you think it’s fair, though, to assume that those who blogroll him and link to him are ok with this sort of comment, since it does seem to be his overall schtick?

    Are you, for that matter, fine with “Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required.”? Acceptable rhetoric, not to be taken seriously, that sort of thing?

    Steve (43f553)

  43. Patterico: “I regularly denounce Ann Coulter here, and recently spent days boxing her about the ears for her numerous stupid and violent comments about public officials”

    Ah, but not for her stupid and violemnt comments about innocent Americans. I know of no sane individual who can, in all seriousness, find political violence tempting.

    Patterico: “I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.” 6/22/06

    And when commenter CraigC wrote in response: “Here’s the little missive I sent:

    You disgusting, despicable, self-absorbed little pricks. I wouldn’t piss on any of you if you were on fire. I hope that when the 7th-century animals pull off the next attack that’s successful because of the effective, legal programs you assholes have exposed and rendered useless, the NYT building is the first place hit. Ann Coulter was right, McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of the Times building.

    PIGS. FUCKING TREASONOUS PIGS.”

    Patterico replied with: “I understand the emotion, believe me. I didn’t quite go the “Ann Coulter was right” route, but (as I said in the post) I understand the temptation. I, like you, am totally enraged.”

    m.croche (85f703)

  44. Yesterday, at 3:23 PM prominent Democratic Underground poster “notmypresident” made a dircet call for the kidnapping and murder of Marine Lt. Ilario Pantano.

    As of this moment, Glenn Greenwald has STILL not condemned “notmypresident” or the call for murder.

    So, Greenwald wants Pantano dead. What else could we possibly assume using his logic?

    Yep. Glenn Greenwald wants Ilario Pantano murdered. It couldn’t be any clearer.

    That is how this is supposed to work, right Glenn? Moonbats? If there’s a flaw in this line of logic, please point it out.

    Pablo (efa871)

  45. And Patterico, you don’t have to condemn anybody. It’s just bullshit for anyone to have assumed that we have to condemn an obvious case of line-crossing. You are right in that I don’t read your blog. I now know you weren’t one of the ones who made a big fuss about this.

    JackGoff (56b2e8)

  46. [At least Steve recognizes that I did condemn him. Steve, to respond to your point above, the “crickets” argument is usually a douche move. It’s especially aggravating for Greenwald to tag *me* with it because I didn’t make the argument myself. Now he’s doubling down with out-and-out falsehoods. Anyway, my last comment on this for a while. You know: day job. Thanks for showing some actual reading comprehension skills. — P]

    I would have liked it better if Greenwald had said, “Since you don’t read the guy, since you don’t blogroll him, I apologize for lumping you in since you’re under no obligation to comment on his remarks.”

    Greenwald’s point, as I understand it, is that people who blogroll Misha or link to him are under an obligation to condemn. It’s similar to your argument that Frisch’s commentors should have told her off. Hypothetically, if Frisch were widely blogrolled on the Left, I think it would be fair to ask, “Why the heck is this nutjob widely blogrolled on the Left?”

    Patterico, to his credit, generally makes a distinction between individual bad actors and the unitary Left or Right that we’re always seeing condemned with extremely broad brushstrokes. That’s the better practice. I assume he realizes that it makes him a rather lonely pilgrim in Blogistan.

    Steve (43f553)

  47. That was too long a sentence to understand, friend.

    I’ll see if I can break it down.

    1) I’m glad Pat’s “I don’t read him” argument is good enough for you. It doesn’t seem to be good enough for Greenwald. And Greenwald’s points, not yours, were the reason Pat kept referring to his schedule.

    2) Glenn skips right over “I don’t read him” and goes straight to “I didn’t have time to read *this*” and claims that’s ridiculous because he had time to post on Frisch.

    3) Frisch having happened over the weekend, a distinction that seems lost on Greenwald.

    4) To recap, I’m glad Pat’s reason is good enough for you. Make it good enough for Glenn and maybe Pat wouldn’t need to defend himself with his schedule.

    I never heard of Misha before today. I still have not read the post in question. I find the line you quoted to be stupid and indefensible. I do not, however, find it dangerous, as I found Frisch’s comments about Goldstein’s son.

    Anwyn (1d2652)

  48. You liars!!! You rightwing nuts all like like BushilterMcTheif! Glen Greenwald did NOT threaten to kill or molest any 2-year old boys! That is a bald faced lie. You also liked about how he likes to hide outside Jeff Goldstein’s house (behind the garbage cans) and molest Patterico’s cat in a sexual manner! Disgusting!

    You are all part of the Rovian message machine. I wish for the good old days of Ruby Ridge and Waco, where winguts were dealt with for their evilness!!

    Debbb (022fa6)

  49. Why insult douchebags?

    Tom (904af1)

  50. I’m glad Pat’s “I don’t read him” argument is good enough for you. It doesn’t seem to be good enough for Greenwald. And Greenwald’s points, not yours, were the reason Pat kept referring to his schedule.

    Greenwald’s response was that not reading this particular post, or not reading Misha, isn’t a good excuse for never having the time to condemn any of the Coulteresque rhetoric coming from elsewhere on the Right – a point that Patterico answered, and quite well, on the merits.

    Steve (43f553)

  51. Actually, Patsy’s “I don’t read him” argument was exactly that which Sadly, No! made regarding Deb Frisch–an unknown that Confederate Yankee tried to set up as the face of the Left.

    Thus, we clearly see Patsy’s hypocrisy.

    Or douchebaghood, if you prefer.

    DocAmazing (50d13e)

  52. I read that “threat” was confused.

    Which 5 Justices were being threaten ?

    I was confused because the day the “Kelo” case was decided, when the word can over the wires, in one city newspaper news room the cry over the decision was loud and clear …

    Will these Republicans stop at nothing ?

    .. this newsperson obviously brought their personal bias to bear, without reading the whole story. The 5 deciding votes had come not from the “friends of the Republicans” end of the bench, but from the other end.
    This guy would obviously see this joke as being targeted to one end of the bench, while most other persons would look to the other end.

    Let the word go out to all those over at the “Unclaimed Territory” .. Lighten up, Francis!

    Neo (cba5df)

  53. I thought the whole criticism of the left over the Frisch affair was that those who did comment on it couldn’t unequivocally condemn her, but had to mention how Goldstein probably, or could have, altered one or more of her posts or somehow provoked her because he’s a paste eater. The evidence does not seem to bear that out in this case. I didn’t follow the aftermath too closely though, so I could be wrong. In other words, I think people on the right were upset about the “Frisch is sick, BUT . . . ” kinda thing.

    thelinyguy (e32b76)

  54. A suggestion for Greenwald, perhaps to soothe this rabid concern.

    Greenwald should start a second blog called “What You Should Be Blogging About- By Glenn Greenwald”

    Should any blogger, left or right (at least those who aren’t already being fed suggestions by the townhouse list), wake up one morning and completely forget what interests them and what they’d like to blog on, they can go to that site and figure out who they should be…condeming.

    Sounds about right for self-proclaimed libertarian Greenwald, no?

    Some Guy in Chicago (b617b6)

  55. Greenwald certainly seems to raise obtuseness, dishonesty, and insufferable assholehood to an art form.

    Brett (af3acb)

  56. I thought the whole criticism of the left over the Frisch affair was that those who did comment on it couldn’t unequivocally condemn her…

    That’s what struck me. With a few notable exception aside, all of the lefties who chimed in on the topic had to hedge their criticsm with references to Malkin especially, but also the Limbaugh, Couldter, Hannity, etc… or worse yet to suggestions that Jeff was asking for it because…well, we’ve gone through all that.

    No one is obliged to distance themselves from someone else’s remarks. Everybody who chimed in also had the opportunity to say nothing at all. That Deb decided to enverberate herself on Jeff’s site did not require comment, and yet there was a ton of it on the left, nearly all of which had some disclaimer or another.

    Whatever happened to just saying “Holy Crap! Did you see that train wreck?”

    There there are the tools that feel the need to be part of the story whenever a favorite target of their fever-drenched ire is in the news. Feh.

    Pablo (efa871)

  57. The easy blog-based way to solve this is through fonts.

    Over the top / Irony / Deep Sarcasm statements go in a sans serif font like Univers or one of the blogger’s choosing

    Thoughtful, serious replies go in a serif font like Times New Roman

    For Greenwald’s posts: wingdings.

    If the Blog Steering Committee can get the word out and a standard created all this confusion could be solved.

    Then lively, if unhinged, intellects like Glenn’s can have very, very obvious things pointed out to them. “See, Glenn, no serifs”

    .

    BumperStickerist (002671)

  58. Pablo, I will unequivocally say that I condemn Frisch’s threats on Goldstein’s child and I do not condone her invective posts. She showed herself as sick and depraved and willing to say anything to make a point, a point which could have been made without showing her ass, as Jeff put it.

    Now, care to say the same about JG’s repeated use of the word “cockslap?” What about “Five ropes, five trees, five judges?” Anyway, I don’t really care and I don’t hold you responsible for Jeff nor do you have to condemn him. Just don’t expect us to condemn our nutjobs all the time as well.

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  59. Patrick,
    Whre do you find these guy?Ignore him.

    Corwin (dfaf29)

  60. “My friends, each of you is a single cell in the great body of the State. And today, that great body has purged itself of parasites. We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of facts. The thugs and wreckers have been cast out. And the poisonous weeds of disinformation have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let each and every cell rejoice! For [t]oday, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directive! We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology, where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thought is a more powerful weapon than any fleet or army on Earth. We are one people. With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death. And we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!””

    From Glen Greenwald's Spiral Notebook (022fa6)

  61. Whre do you find these guy?Ignore him.

    Actually, I know how to navigate the web, so I found him. And I’m just one guy, so no need for the plural qualifiers.

    And I have apologized for lumping Patterico in with the other bloggers who fed this nonsense. I will do it again. I am sorry, Pat, for snarking at you before reading your posts.

    I was directing a question at Pablo, who said that lefties hedge their criticism of their own with references to other bloggers who also use the invective. I challenged him to not hedge his criticisms of the right while he condemns someone on the left for using threats. The use of the invective in arguments gets us nowhere.

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  62. Would someone please tell me that the Glenn G post above is satire…PLEASE! I can’t stop laughing.

    “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” – from Shakespeare’s King Henry VI

    I call on all dramatists to immediately repudiate the works of this disgusting hatemonger!

    Pat Rand (d0f45c)

  63. Oh, please, Misha’s motto is “Tree, Rope, {Journalist/Judge/Congresscritter/Reactionary Lefty/Pick Your Own Idiot]. Some Assembly Required”

    Misha is ALWAYS apoplectic, just short of blowing an artery.

    It’s a stinkin’ joke.

    Get over yourself.

    N. O'Brain (5deb6d)

  64. It’s a stinkin’ joke.

    What if Deb made the same argument?

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  65. For Greenwald’s posts: wingdings.

    hahahaha!

    Tom (904af1)

  66. “What if Deb made the same argument?”

    Deb threatened an innocent 2-year old CHILD. Do you not see the distiction?

    J (022fa6)

  67. No, I don’t see the distinction between a threat of one kind and a threat of another. Their age does not matter. It is a threat and should be abhorred in reasonable discourse.

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  68. No one is obliged to distance themselves from someone else’s remarks. Everybody who chimed in also had the opportunity to say nothing at all.

    God, please. Let’s review the chronology.

    1. A huge number of right-wing blogs spend several days talking about the Frisch-Goldstein incident and what a whacked-out moonbat Frisch is.

    2. The lefty blogs, at least every one I have seen, have nothing to say about it. This fact is seized upon by Confederate Yankee, among others, who has this to say:

    When a liberal blogger threaten child sex abuse and murder, what response do we get from prominent liberal blogs?

    *crickets*

    Not one post.

    Nothing from Kos, or Atrios, silence from Raw Story, AMERICAblog, and MyDD.

    Such sudden silence…

    One might be tempted to think this absolute lack of condemnation was a tacit acceptance of these tactics.

    Welcome to the new face of the most deranged members of our political opposition, “the toddler-threatening community.”

    3. In response to this, a number of lefty blogs tell Confederate Yankee & friends that they are full of shit.

    4. People like Pablo jump on this to proclaim that gee, even though Confederate Yankee claimed that silence = agreement with the threatening of toddlers, *we* don’t think you had any obligation to say anything, therefore the fact that you *did* choose to say something speaks volumes!

    If anyone can find a lefty blog that wrote about this issue before Confederate Yankee’s July 8 post, and expressed less than unequivocal condemnation of what Frisch did, then you have a point. Otherwise, you might consider that people may feel obligated to a post which claims “silence = agreement,” even if YOU don’t personally claim that silence = agreement.

    Patterico agrees that “the “crickets” argument is usually a douche move.” Everyone here agrees Confederate Yankee was being a douche by making that argument, right?

    Steve (43f553)

  69. Has Greenwald linked to his own post condemning Frisch’s actions?

    Jane (5a66ce)

  70. What if Deb made the same argument?

    It would ring a bit more hollow. Maybe that’s my bias, or maybe it’s just intuition.

    Or does Deb propose molesting the 2 year old children of her opponents regularly? Also the fact that she was an assistant professor at UA, and not some obscure hyperbolic blogger, kind of added to the shock factor.

    I get what you’re saying JackGoff. But my point, and I think Pablo’s as well, was not that lefty’s in general were obligated to condemn Frisch, but that those who chose to bring it up were rather wishy washy over something that was pretty clear cut (as an earlier thread here showed, with Sadly No and the Anti-Wisdom nut). I don’t think that was asking for much there.

    Also, another difference is that Protein Wisdom is a huge target and these comments were more unexpected and irrelevent to any actual blog content, which threatened to make it a national story. It even got a link from Drudge. Expecting some comment from it wasn’t out of bounds, but I wouldn’t expect people on the left to take any kind of responsibility for her, as though they created her or something.

    If it helps, I do not read Mischa, and after reading his comments I never will. It’s not funny and it’s very inappropriate. If more people on the right read Mischa you’d probably see more condemnation on blogs. Honestly, I’d never even heard of the guy. But if I ran a blog and knew of his comments and decided to mention it, I wouldn’t try to qualify his statements or offer any kind of mitigating comparisons.

    thelinyguy (e32b76)

  71. No, I don’t see the distinction between a threat of one kind and a threat of another.

    Folks, I do believe that’s what we call a nutshell.

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  72. Yes, it rings absolutely hollow in my ears to hear anyone who makes threats say it was a joke. It shows that they think violence is funny. And that is what I call a nutjob.

    And I think, Jim Treacher, you should reread my post, since I condemn all threats, not just one against two-year olds. Is a threat against a newborn worse than one against a two-year old? Is there an evil continuum for you, where things get worse the closer you get to “pure evil”?

    No, I’m sorry, ALL THREATS are evil. I’m just as shocked at every threat I encounter.

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  73. And I think, Jim Treacher, you should reread my post

    Thanks but no thanks.

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  74. Rock on, dude. Beating straw men works well, doesn’t it?

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  75. Rock on, dude. Beating straw men works well, doesn’t it?

    So do leading questions.

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  76. After witnessing the type of reasoning utilized by Greenwald, I can better understand why he lost his law license.

    Bill Schumm (33ab73)

  77. Patterico agrees that “the “crickets” argument is usually a douche move.” Everyone here agrees Confederate Yankee was being a douche by making that argument, right?

    Well, I don’t read Confederate Yankee, so I guess I must approve of whatever they write given that I hadn’t condemned it. That’s too bad, since I just made the reverse argument myself in the post you’re arguing with. Can I get a “better late than never”, and use my having disagreed with it by making the opposite argument without ever having read it? Man, this is a tough game to score.

    But when I read the post you link to, I see that observation being made, and then I also see updates as people on the left begin to chime in, as we all know they did. Or some of them did. I suppose you stopped reading when you found what you were looking for. And likewise, I don’t read all of the blogs looking for what they didn’t say, so I guess I bear some blame here for not having a hard count handy.

    So, why is Greenwald bitching about Patterico based on something someone else (Who was it again? Oh yeah, C.Y.) complained about? I think it’s because he’s a dolt.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  78. It shows that they think violence is funny. And that is what I call a nutjob.

    If the stop running The Three Stooges, buddy, I coming looking for you.

    (That was a joke, btw. But, I know, I know. No need to say it.)

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  79. Nuance

    To JackGoff (022fa6)

  80. Patterico: “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.”

    Patterico is a liar.

    Emperor Misha I: What’s wrong with summarily executing them? It’s quick and it saves a lot of money in the long run.

    Not to mention how aesthetically pleasing those long black robes flapping in the wind would be.

    Comment by Emperor Misha I — 1/26/2004 @ 2:32 pm

    “Them” in this case would be judges. If you want to read Patterico’s outraged condemnation of this comment on his site, check it out here:

    Patterico: “Also gratifying was receiving comments from folks who run great blogs, like the comment from Spoons, and another comment from the always controversial Emperor Misha I. And it’s always great to hear from luminaries like Smash, Xrlq, and others. You know who you are.”

    http://patterico.com/2004/01/27/1180/welcome-to-new-readers-and-commenters/

    m.croche (85f703)

  81. What if Deb made the same argument?

    She hasn’t. She explained her intent quite clearly. She intended to go over the top, completely unmasked and intentionally unencumbered by any boundries of decency.

    She said so. Before she said differently. But she’s never said she was joking.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  82. I think that bloggers and commenters alike need to start toning down the emotions when discussing situations that upset them. All arguments are lost the moment it starts falling into the realm of emotional rhetoric.

    I’ve said in the past “I’m going to KILL you!” to friends in jest over silly things. Nothing comes of it because it they know me and know I’m not actually planning to do the act of killing. However, when on the internet, people don’t know if someone saying this is unhinged or not, or if they have a readership of unhinged who might consider the violent comment to be one to act upon. If everyone could just stick to making their point without the violent suggestions, all of this could be avoided.

    Of course, with freedom of speech, some will always try to take their liberties a step too far. We can’t control the masses. Only appeal to their sense of decency.

    I don’t believe that some things I read on the internet could ever be argued that way in a court. So how can it be considered a debate?

    Shaun (c17ca7)

  83. Oh, I can tell nuance. It just doesn’t matter to me. None of us should make comments in reasonable discourse designed to intimidate someone into silence. And regardless, that is the point of Jeff’s “cockslap” comments. And the Three Stooges weren’t there for reasonable discourse, so I’m not sure of your point. (I don’t think they’re funny anyway).

    I know Deb didn’t make the argument that it was a joke and she started out by stating she planned to be a nutcase. And she proved it. End of story, right?

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  84. Actually, she didn’t start out that way. I have been reading some of the comments and I saw them out of order. But still, she proved herself as a nutcase and should have been banned as soon as she did.

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  85. Oh blah.

    Deb Frisch creeped EVERYBODY out, left right and center. And given the super-heated political rhetoric that passes as dialogue in this day and age, that’s a good thing.

    The rest of this? Just the usual pumpkin-hurling from the left and right trebuchets. “Oooh, good hit!” “Whoops, that was a miss.” “Boy, that guy’s got pumpkin pulp all over his face, heh.” “Man, those jerks are launching rotten pumpkins.” Its a sport.

    Can the outrage. Save it for pie. Enjoy the show.

    Lesley (71415b)

  86. But when I read the post you link to, I see that observation being made, and then I also see updates as people on the left begin to chime in, as we all know they did. Or some of them did. I suppose you stopped reading when you found what you were looking for.

    Right. The people on the left “chimed in” in response to Confederate Yankee’s post, exactly as I said. The problem is people like you pretending like they “chimed in,” unprompted by anything, and offered less-than-unequivocal condemnations of Frisch.

    The reason their responses focused more on Confederate Yankee’s douchebaggery in making the “crickets” argument than on condemning Frisch, is exactly the same as the reason Patterico’s post focuses more on Greenwald’s douchebaggery than on condemning Misha.

    Steve (43f553)

  87. Robert:

    Misha engages in chest-thumping militaristic hyperbole on his site. It only takes about five minutes to realize that. That’s his style. The late Acidman favored it, too. Anyone that takes it seriously enough to condemn it really has too much time on his/her hands.

    Steve:

    Well, we’ve found someone to defend Misha’s post. Anyone else?

    If by “defend” you mean “distinguish it from Frisch’s psycho remarks,” then by all means count me in. If you really mean “defend,” count me out. I like to think that I can maintain that first degree murder is one thing, and petty shoplifting another, without being accused of “defending” petty shoplifting.

    Xrlq (75a63c)

  88. “I think that bloggers and commenters alike need to start toning down the emotions when discussing situations that upset them. All arguments are lost the moment it starts falling into the realm of emotional rhetoric.”

    Ditto. The internet combines four big conversational dangers. First, it allows relative anonymity (i.e., even if you know who the other person is, it is much easier to type something nasty on a keyboard than it is to say something to someone’s face). Second, it brings together a large and varied group of people. Third, it allows for accelerated groupthink, in which people of similar political persuasion amplify each other’s sentiments to the point that someone says something in the heat of a discussion that they would never say outside of the thread’s context. And fourth, everything everyone says is recorded for posterity, so that one stupid comment you made one night at 2 AM can be used against you in perpetuity.

    I am with Shaun, in that I prefer reasoned discussion to emotional rhetoric. I think that part of my frustration with many blogs and bloggers is that they do not share my preference. Their intent is not (as is mine) to weigh and consider various ideas and principles, but rather something else entirely that actually suffers from reasoned dialogue. I believe Deb Frisch falls in this latter category, but she is surely not alone.

    unceph (eb120d)

  89. Good grief what an idiotic thread.

    Patterico, please set up some sort of world wide scan for any statement by anyone that Mr. Greenwald would label ‘right-wing’ that Mr. Greenwald might find offensive. Have all reported entries e-mailed to you on the hour.

    Make a blog post soundly condemning each and every post. Note that you must use the appropriate language, IE it isn’t sufficient to say you are “appalled” by such and such statement if Mr. Greenwald and his ilk want you to “condemn” it. Perhaps you could call him about each post and see what his prefered language would be.

    Oh, you’ll need to set it up so that you get a feed from every asinine radio program and screamer news show too in case some idiot like Coulter makes a statement designed to get herself in the papers and sell books. Again, use suitable (Greenwald approved) language in denouncing them.

    I’m not sure how you’re going to do it but get on it right away.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  90. I mean, you have got to be kidding me.

    I thought it was funny. Ie. he was kidding us.

    actus (6234ee)

  91. Given the inevitability of the Left mentioning Jeff’s cock-slap, perhaps Jeff’s ‘cock slap heard round the world’ needs its own wikipedia entry.

    Here are most of the relevant posts and reactions by the principals at the time.

    Kevin’s response to Jeff’s initial mention of his, Kevin’s being ‘cock slapped’ should Kevin and Jeff meet in person and Kevin question Jeff’s manliness.

    Nov 18, 05 | 9:40 pm ET
    — excerpt from post: Is that some kinda weird faux-tough guy line from Colorado or has Jeff been hitting the Captain Morgan and jeffgordon.com too hard today?—-

    Jeff G: It means what it means, you wannabe-tough baby pussy. Specifically, that if you want to call me a chickenhawk to my face, I’ve added you to my AIM (you haven’t reciprocated) so that I can get your personal info, or give you mine, and we can arrange a meet up.

    At which point, after I beat you like a bitch, I will hold you down and smack you across the face repeatedly with my cock.

    Pretty simple.

    Let’s get started on this.

    Jeff’s summation of the incident on PW is this:

    Now, I’d never heard of this guy {Kevin, the offended ‘cock slapped’ guy} or ever uttered a word about him.

    But he put up a public post suggesting that I stick my nipple in my son’s mouth, and that my kid sucks milk out of said nipple.

    He further implied that I was hiding under the kid’s crib drunk and afraid when I should have been out fighting a war.

    Not being in the position to fight a war just now, I offered to do the next best thing. Have old Kevin meet me in person and tell me to my face I was a coward who breastfeeds his son.

    And had he taken me up on the offer, I would have beat him like a little bitch, then—just to drive home the point that I wasn’t a woman—I would leave him with a little slap across his puffy face with my COCK.

    Then, perhaps he’d be more circumspect next time about suggesting people he doesn’t know are somehow “womanly” for taking care of their kids. Because a slap across the face with a dick leaves an impression, I’m told.

    All of which is true if you want to google Jeff’s site for things like ‘Capt Morgan’ and ‘Kevin’ and such. It was a Lefty-Troll move by guy who’s, by his subsequent actions, a gutless wonder.

    So, you know, it’s not like this cock-slap thing came in out of the blue. And Jeff’s threat of physical reaction and slapping of cokc was contingent on Kevin making his comments about Jeff’s lack of manliness to Jeff in person. (We could call this the ‘Jim Rome / Jim “Chrissy” Everett’ Scenario)

    Kevin’s somewhat pussyish response is here:

    Nov 19, 05 | 12:43 am ET
    proteindeficiency,

    Talk about the ol’ dish it out/take it saying, you have so very much to learn, sweet, sweet, dick-wielding Jeffrey.

    Things were so much easier when you could just call Oliver Willis fat.

    And as far as your AIM duel goes, sweet jeebus, that would fall about seventeen ticks below watching the movie Young Guns again on my ever-fluctuating Scale of Interesting Things To Do.

    Save the chest-thumping for someone who might be, ya know, moved by it. Or if this was just one of your Andy Kauffman routines (read: Worst. Episode. of. Taxi. Ever.), you’d be better served emulating Andrew Clay Silverstein.

    And, with that, I leave you with pancakes.

    So Kevin at Catch.Com is a bit of a pussy. No, make that a lot of a pussy.

    Which takes you back to Jeff’s central point in his response:

    Seriously, though, here’s the thing:

    If Kevin doesn’t want people threatening to beat him like a little bitch and then pepper his face with healthy, manly dick slaps, he shouldn’t show up and call them cowards, particularly when he doesn’t know them.

    Simple as that.

    Posted by Jeff Goldstein | permalink
    on 12/20 at 10:04 PM

    Which is pretty good advice.

    coming from an alleged paste-eater.

    :)

    BumperStickerist (002671)

  92. The people on the left “chimed in” in response to Confederate Yankee’s post, exactly as I said.

    Really? So you think they’re all reading CY?

    Wherever did you get that bit of data?

    The reason their responses focused more on Confederate Yankee’s douchebaggery in making the “crickets” argument than on condemning Frisch

    So how did Patterico make it into Greenwald’s rant about CY? And did you or did you not notice CY backing away from the argument in the very same post?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  93. Wow.

    Is that what happens when you’re in Maryscott O’Connor’s bookmarks?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  94. If by “defend” you mean “distinguish it from Frisch’s psycho remarks,” then by all means count me in.

    Well, I think we went through this same thing regarding Frisch’s remarks, where any attempt to distinguish her comments from anything else anyone ever said was deemed too “equivocal.” The Frisch Rule, as Patterico and others seemed to propose it, is that if you’re going to talk about her comments at all, you must say “they’re awful, they’re disgusting, I condemn them,” and then not a word more, or you’re equivocating.

    As we’ve seen, not everyone plays by the same rules, which is why one guy can say “if you don’t condemn it you must agree” and the next guy can say “you have no obligation to condemn it whatsoever.” But in my book, saying “Misha’s remarks were just hyperbole, and I refuse to condemn them” is a defense of those remarks, yes.

    Steve (43f553)

  95. well, this string proves there’s no shortage of people who don’t let their day jobs keep them from really important things…

    steve sturm (b5aa23)

  96. Misha engages in chest-thumping militaristic hyperbole on his site. It only takes about five minutes to realize that. That’s his style. The late Acidman favored it, too. Anyone that takes it seriously enough to condemn it really has too much time on his/her hands.

    Its ok because he does it a lot.

    And anyone who is honest can easily see that I have condemned both in the post.

    I feel your pain.

    actus (6234ee)

  97. 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.

    Neo (cba5df)

  98. Hey I remember (and it did exist) a post by Atrios saying he he believed the entire staff of the Note should be put up against a wall and shot.

    Oh. My. God.

    capt joe, that’s a quote from Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

    Atrios says so himself.

    Sev (7f9b63)

  99. Really? So you think they’re all reading CY? Wherever did you get that bit of data?

    Because they linked to CY, and said, essentially, “this guy claims I agree with this psycho Frisch who I never heard of, just cause I haven’t posted about her.”

    And did you or did you not notice CY backing away from the argument in the very same post?

    By “argument,” you must mean something other than “silence = agreement with what Frisch wrote.” Because I sure don’t see where CY backed away from that argument one iota.

    Steve (43f553)

  100. Steve,

    You wrote: “3. In response to this, a number of lefty blogs tell Confederate Yankee & friends that they are full of shit.”

    You conveniently left out the part where they (the lefty blogs – some of them, granted, not all) made equivical condemnations (and aren’t we all sick of *that* word by now) by pointing out rhetoric much like Misha’s – the whole tree, rope bit extant on righty blog, and asking rhetorical questions such as “Isn’t that just as bad as Frisch?”.

    Thus – wait for it – they validated CY’s cri de coeur about lefty sites not taking toddler rape/murder fantasists to task. The Lefty blogs in question could have, once they became aware of Professor Rape Fantasist’s post, simply made a one-line post along the lines of “This person Frisch is a disgusting, vile piece of refuse who we utterly repuditate.” and then given a link, etc: thus proving CY utterly wrong.

    But they couldn’t do it.

    Instead, they and their posters went out of their way to try to draw parallels between Frisch and Malkin and Coulter and Limbaugh and even the aggreived father himself, Mr. Goldstein. (I don’t know that he was actually “aggrieved”, by the way – you’d have to ask him.) So much so that the discourse from the left became quite unhinged when thier rhetorical games were pointed out.

    Now, other lefties are demanding condemnations from just about everyone on the web for blogs and posts those folks a) don’t read, and/or b) don’t know about, and/or c) couldn’t care less about.

    Mr. Greenwald comes onto Patterico’s blog and practically rubs P.’s nose in a mess that is none of his making, then demands that P. condemn the language inherent to that mess, because, gee, P noted that Professor Rape Fantasist is a pretty awful person.

    W.T.F?

    I believe this is exactly the spirit of what CY was talking about.

    Abraxas (6742f0)

  101. JackGoff said: “None of us should make comments in reasonable discourse designed to intimidate someone into silence. And regardless, that is the point of Jeff’s “c**kslap” comments.”

    I think it’s that a significant number of left-wing bloggers and their fans have been trying for some time now to intimidate Jeff Goldstein into silence.

    Mark Wilson (e77069)

  102. Hey, Misha once commented right here on this very blog. Here’s what he had to say:

    For this to work, we’d have to fire all of our existing judges first.

    What’s wrong with summarily executing them? It’s quick and it saves a lot of money in the long run.

    Not to mention how aesthetically pleasing those long black robes flapping in the wind would be.

    Did you say anything to him back then?

    Sev (7f9b63)

  103. JackGoff said: “But still, she proved herself as a nutcase and should have been banned as soon as she did.”

    I think that would silence her, and no one should do that.

    Mark Wilson (e77069)

  104. Thus – wait for it – they validated CY’s cri de coeur about lefty sites not taking toddler rape/murder fantasists to task. The Lefty blogs in question could have, once they became aware of Professor Rape Fantasist’s post, simply made a one-line post along the lines of “This person Frisch is a disgusting, vile piece of refuse who we utterly repuditate.” and then given a link, etc: thus proving CY utterly wrong. But they couldn’t do it.

    Give me a fucking break.

    CY argues “the lefty blogs didn’t condemn this, therefore they agree with threatening toddlers,” and you seriously belief the next step for the lefty blogs is supposed to be like “Oh, shit! This guy has called us on the carpet, we better make sure to condemn Frisch in an unequivocal one-sentence post so everyone knows where we stand!”

    Of course not. Their reaction was to say “CY’s crickets argument is stupid, and to illustrate how stupid it is, here are all these other right-wing rantings that, by CY’s own argument, he must agree with since he’s never condemned them.”

    Last I checked, there was a lot of partisan rancor hurled back and forth between blogs on the left and right. And when a blog on the “other side” says to you, “Hey, you need to condemn this statement you never heard about before, or else I’m going to assume you agree with it,” you are very unlikely to simply do as you’re told. Your response is more likely to be along the lines of “Hey, fuck you.”

    This whole thing was a cheap attempt by CY to score a partisan point over something that 99.9% of the world agrees on, and it’s high time we simply put an end to it.

    Steve (43f553)

  105. Can’t you people do something about Greenwald’s blog?

    I’m getting dizzy watching him run intellectual circles around you fools.

    BTW, tahnks for the “heads-up” about not taking anything Misha writes seriously.

    Robert (f05910)

  106. Glenn Greenwald is a brilliant, thoughtful commentator. His How Would a Patriot Act? is a terrific book. I would recommend it to anyone, especially those of you who qualify as “23 percenters” — and it looks like a number of you do.

    Lindy (59bfb8)

  107. I’m getting dizzy watching him run intellectual circles around you fools.

    I’m not sure circular reasoning is really something to applaud, but try some Dramamine or a bit of a lie-down.

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  108. Steve,

    I understand your motivation to MoveOn, because well, that’s what leftists do when they’re wrong.

    The lefty blogs in question had the opportunity to prove CY wrong and they didn’t. Why is that? I can’t know for sure, but the only explanation that fits the known facts is that any visceral horror they may have felt when confronted with Frisch’s remarks were trumped by their sense of outrage that any “winger” would dare say anything disparaging about them. Their immediate reaction was to attack, not to prove CY wrong.

    And proving someone irremediably wrong is the best “FU” I can think of.

    By the way, that boat (proving CY wrong) has long since sailed; those who purely and unequivocally denounce Frisch have been noted and those who want to play partisan games with such sentiments as “Oh, yeah – well look what somedamnblogger said on August 14, 2003, why don’t you condemn THAT?” have also been noted. It’s not the 99.9% of the blogworld that concerns me; what concerns me is the .1% that thinks this sort of fantasizing is acceptable in any context.

    It’s not business as usual to drag anyone’s family into your fights with an ideological opponent, and it’s reprehensible that Frisch used a man’s 2 year old child in such a way.

    Abraxas (6742f0)

  109. But in my book, saying “Misha’s remarks were just hyperbole, and I refuse to condemn them” is a defense of those remarks, yes.

    I agree, but I wouldn’t go that far. How about this, instead?

    Misha’s remarks were just hyperbole, and were in no way comparable to Deb’s vile comments about Jeff Goldstein’s toddler, but they were irresponsible nevertheless, and Misha should not have said them. And oh, by the way, Glenn Greenwald is an idiot.

    Defense? Or merely perspective?

    Xrlq (75a63c)

  110. The lefty blogs in question had the opportunity to prove CY wrong and they didn’t. Why is that?

    Because if you’re going to have a Pavlovian response and comply every time someone demands that you offer up a one-sentence condemnation of some freak you’ve never heard of, then the fun never ends, at least for the people who get off on making such demands.

    When a guy says “Ah, by your silence regarding this incident you never heard of, you indicate that you agree with it!” and you respond by saying “Fine, I utterly condemn that incident,” then you’re just asking to play that game again, and again, and again.

    Why didn’t Patterico make this very post a one-sentence condemnation of what Misha wrote? Why was his “immediate reaction,” as you say, to attack rather than to prove Greenwald wrong? Consider how your own logic applies to this exact post you’re reading.

    I don’t think Patterico did a damn thing wrong by writing this post for the same reason I don’t think the lefty blogs did anything wrong by telling CY he was a douchebag, even if you think calling someone a douchebag distracts from the “pure, unequivocal condemnation” you think everyone on the Left, but no one on the Right, is required to tender on demand. And your attempt to score a point by implying that these lefty blogs do, in fact, agree on some level with threatening 2 year olds is just disgusting.

    Steve (43f553)

  111. Defense? Or merely perspective?

    That depends on the standard you choose to apply. If you’re going to apply the standard that people like Abraxas want to apply in the Frisch case, that if you make any kind of comparison or extraneous remark then you’re suggesting that you agree on some level with the original statement, then yeah, you’d be defending Misha’s remark. I happen to think that’s stupid, mind you, but all I’m looking for is a level playing field here. Either you’re allowed to say “Wow, that’s bad, but not as bad as _______” or you’re not.

    Steve (43f553)

  112. I believe Misha’s “rope” comment is as mean and threatening as the Pace Picante Sauce ad campaign — which featured the lines “This stuff is made in… New York City?!” “Get a rope.” — and I condemn both equally.

    I feel obliged to point out that although the Pace Picante Sauce ads have been in wide distribution for several years, it appears that Mr. Greenwald still has not found the time to denounce them.

    Shad (a5a371)

  113. Well, they would only be silencing her on their blog, which was the point, Mark. If they are engaging in reasonable debate with you, they should not be intimidated into silence. Once they leave that sphere, they should not expect to be welcomed back into it.

    And I’d like some evidence that people other than Deb have threatened Jeff. I’ve been to PW a couple of times and I never once threatened him.

    JackGoff (6a3562)

  114. The problem comes in the blank.

    “Wow, Frisch is bad, but not as bad as Michelle Malkin” (and that is a paraphrase of one of the first comments up here when Patterico posted on the Goldstein story) is not condemnation, except of Malkin, which is patently ridiculous and fallacious. “Wow, Frisch is bad, but not as bad as the person who actually did kill JonBenet Ramsey” is a logical construction, though somewhat nonsensical as a remark in general. You don’t seem to be able to appreciate the difference.

    Anwyn (40e48c)

  115. Lefties, righties, uppies, downies, flippies, dippies, whippies…

    The First Amendment does not have an equal treatment clause. Freedom…ain’t it cool?

    Pat Rand (d0f45c)

  116. Patterico: I generally agree with 85% of what Greenwald posts, some of it quite strongly. I believe, however, that in this instance he has erred in not giving you credit for the repudiations you really have made of right-wing excesses.

    I don’t usually agree with your substance, but you are an honest blogger. Indeed, Greenwald cited you approvingly as I recall when you blogged about whether Cindy Sheehan’s First Am rights were not in play when she was removed from the SOTU adddress.

    Greenwald is not dishonest in his blogging, I read him to be stubborn. He’s so often right about truly important matters, I wouldn’t see the harm in his conceding that you were not the best choice for an example of the right-wing hypocrites he properly slams. He wrote a long, detailed post with many links, and in my opinion it is quite salient and spot on in every other aspect. It is minorly flawed by linking to you for the purpose he does, tho I understand why it might not seem minor to you. (It is small in the context of his overarchingly true point.)

    Mona (12841b)

  117. He wrote a long, detailed post with many links, and in my opinion it is quite salient and spot on in every other aspect

    clearly he’s a paste-eater

    .

    BumperStickerist (002671)

  118. I see the point you’re trying to make, Steve.

    I just don’t agree with it.

    “Because if you’re going to have a Pavlovian response and comply every time someone demands that you offer up a one-sentence condemnation of some freak you’ve never heard of, then the fun never ends, at least for the people who get off on making such demands.”

    1)At the point of time in question, they had heard of her, through CY’s post, if nothing else.

    2)There is, believe it or not, a difference both in kind and degree of making rhetorical flambe of your opponents and dragging your opponents kids into the mix. Upon being confronted with a demand for a reaction to the first, you can do any number of things; tell the demander to go take a hike, or ignore them, or engage in a defense or condemnation; your readers will recognize what’s going on. Upon being confronted with the second, there is really only one response. If you’re confused as to what that response might be, please stop reading here; nothing I or anyone else says to you is going to make a difference.

    “…then you’re just asking to play that game again, and again, and again.”

    Not if you’re smart. Not if you can understand the difference between what is and is not in bounds for political and social discussion – even on the blogosphere.

    “Why didn’t Patterico make this very post a one-sentence condemnation of what Misha wrote? Why was his “immediate reaction,” as you say, to attack rather than to prove Greenwald wrong?”

    Perhaps because he thinks that deadly serious child rape threats (go read the source material if you don’t take my word for it) are not equivalent to inelegant expressions of dismay at one’s political opponents. And yes, “Rope, Robe, Tree” is inelegant (not genuinely threatening) when, from the context the author was expressing genuine disgust, not fantasizing about murder. And, because as he said, Greenwald lied about him. Repeatedly so, and after being corrected.

    But this is all conjecture on my part, I don’t speak for Patterico, just me. And speaking of speaking for me…

    “…even if you think calling someone a douchebag distracts from the “pure, unequivocal condemnation” you think everyone on the Left, but no one on the Right, is required to tender on demand.”(I’ll presume you meant “you” instead of “one”.)

    If I wanted to make that argument – I would have made that argument. You are either willfully misrepresenting me, or you misunderstood what I wrote. In the latter case, please pay more attention if you’re going to continue to discuss things with me; if it’s the former, stop lying.

    “And your attempt to score a point by implying that these lefty blogs do, in fact, agree on some level with threatening 2 year olds is just disgusting. ”

    No, Steve; it’s accurate.

    You just don’t want to see it.

    I think we’re done.

    Abraxas (6742f0)

  119. What amazes me is that there’s anybody who takes Greenwald seriously.

    Joel Rosenberg (b6087d)

  120. I (heart) Jim Treacher.

    Sorry dude. Not in that sort of way.

    Just that you consistently bring the funny.

    Birkel (4eca4f)

  121. With all due respect Mr. Patterico, I read both arguments. Yours is the losing argument.

    I wish you would put both arguments on the desk of your boss. The folks in LA need someone that can reason. Ain’t you.

    jerry (049afa)

  122. Hey, Misha once commented on this very blog. He had this to say:

    For this to work, we’d have to fire all of our existing judges first.

    What’s wrong with summarily executing them? It’s quick and it saves a lot of money in the long run.

    Not to mention how aesthetically pleasing those long black robes flapping in the wind would be.

    You didn’t have much to say to him back then, did you Pat?

    Sev (7f9b63)

  123. There is, believe it or not, a difference both in kind and degree of making rhetorical flambe of your opponents and dragging your opponents kids into the mix.

    Of course there is. Although you’re going way into pearl-clutching territory when you’re talking about “deadly serious child rape threats.” We’re supposed to believe that these were deadly serious threats against Goldstein’s child, yet he’s such a terrible father that he didn’t feel threatened? No, he quite correctly concluded that this woman was simply a total whackjob. (“Debbie Frisch is as nutty as the ring inside a squirrel’s crapper, but I don’t think she’s a threat.”)

    I think what Frisch said was far worse than the typical insults that get thrown around every day on the Internet, and no one should ever say anything like she said. But you’re proposing a rule that is something like “we might disagree on other issues, but isn’t the one thing we can all agree on that threatening someone’s child is wrong?” It’s not that you’re mistaken in that regard. It’s that we’re constantly being told that the last thing someone said is the “one thing” that everyone should condemn.

    If you make a casual gibe about Goldstein being “off his meds” because he made a post about his anti-anxiety medication, suddenly you’re “scum” who committed the “gutless, base, loathsome act” of “mocking the mentally ill,” akin to “tripping the Downs Syndrome kid at recess.” I mean, we may disagree on some things, but can’t we all agree that mocking the mentally ill is wrong? And so on…

    If righties wouldn’t constantly be crying wolf trying to argue that every uncivil utterance by a lefty is the worst thing any human being ever said, I’m sure we’d have a much easier time avoiding these little side issues when someone like Frisch actually does say a really terrible thing.

    Of course, I can see from your comments that you’re not looking to reach agreement on what everybody already knows, that Frisch is a crazy person who said despicable things. There’s no points awarded for that, because at the end of the day Frisch is still just some nobody. No, it’s necessary to play games with the situation in order to manufacture some additional reason to hate liberals and believe that they don’t have the same, normal human reaction to despicable behavior as anyone else.

    No, Steve; it’s accurate. You just don’t want to see it.

    Exactly as I said.

    Steve (43f553)

  124. Because they linked to CY, and said, essentially, “this guy claims I agree with this psycho Frisch who I never heard of, just cause I haven’t posted about her.”

    Who did, Steve? More people I’ve never heard of? And how many freaking blogs am I suppoesed to read so that I can stay tight on this stuff?

    By “argument,” you must mean something other than “silence = agreement with what Frisch wrote.” Because I sure don’t see where CY backed away from that argument one iota.

    I’ll make you a deal, Steve. I’ll break that down for you, if you’ll go ahead and answer this question that I’m about to ask you for the third post in a row:

    How did Patterico make it into Greenwald’s rant about something CY said?

    Is the third time the charm, Steve?

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  125. The "A Bush Kultist fends of his singular moment of existential crisis" poem…

    for Glenn Greenwald** "One time, drunk on Scotch and heavy with crab bisque, I found myself wondering, Why do the terrorists hate      us so? "But then I sat up straight, shook it off, and had my butler fetch me a rip…

    protein wisdom (4dbdc8)

  126. I (heart) Jim Treacher.

    Sorry dude. Not in that sort of way.

    Always a bridesmaid…

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  127. Greenwald says, “. . . is so hilarious, given that it comes from the author of this ‘Amazing. Liberal commenters on her blog are refusing to condemn her.’ ”

    On her blog. ON HER BLOG. Patterico was saying that people commenting about Frisch’s behavior RIGHT ON HER BLOG weren’t condemning her. Greenwald is suggesting that Patterico should somehow, somewhere be condemning the statements of a blogger he doesn’t even read.

    ak (06d91d)

  128. How come you didn’t condemn the Misha’s call to execute the Supreme Court Justices? You obviously approve of that, then.

    Bemused (193139)

  129. Why are you always “at work” when these important things happen? You never seem to be “at work” when a liberal does or says something you don’t like.

    The thing is: you are lying.

    Pope Ratzo (c89081)

  130. I question the timing of Patterico going to work. It’s just too easy.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  131. I now realize, having slogged through this thread, that if polit-blogs *are* the wave of the future we are in BIG trouble.

    Ultra-partisanship is the death-knell of democracy, let alone civility.

    Floyd R. Turbo (aa930e)

  132. Patterico seems like the major douchebag here…

    lurking (98006e)

  133. If Greenwald is so dishonest, perhaps you can finally answer the question I asked previously: Why did you enter the “snake pit” at Sadly, No?

    You link to the times you condemn other right-wing pundits, but where is your condemnation of Rottweiler’s call for hanging? Your silence, by your twisted inethical logic in the Frisch episode, must mean you approve.

    If you couldn’t tell, his piece was an invalidation of the insanely hypocritical accusations leveled by blogs such as yours over this past weekend. If this is not the case, please, tell me: why were you at Sadly, No?

    He claimed you had not condemned Rottweiler. You had not condemned Rottweiler. Since you say you had other things to do, he must be lying or dishonest. Where is your condemnation now? Conclusively proven, indeed. This may be the most laughably substance-free knee-jerk reaction to a lefty post I’ve seen since I read the inept wastelands of LGF and Ace of Spades.

    The very standards of civil discourse are at stake. Think of the children.

    dgbellak (8f1e68)

  134. Looks like we’re a blockquote tag short. Let’s see if this message fixes the problem…

    Additional Blond Agent (9315f5)

  135. BLOOD FOR ODIN!!!

    JD (044292)

  136. Mona:

    He wrote a long, detailed post with many links, and in my opinion it is quite salient and spot on in every other aspect. It is minorly flawed by linking to you for the purpose he does, tho I understand why it might not seem minor to you. (It is small in the context of his overarchingly true point.)

    Hardly. Attacking Patterico for not criticizing Ann Coulter was nonsense on stilts. The rest of Greenwald’s post was garden-variety nonsense.

    Xrlq (c568a0)

  137. Linking to Sadly No! was a masterstroke. Apparently, Glenn couldn’t find what he needed at Fark.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  138. How deliciously ironic that a noted online lapdog taking his marching orders from Markos Moulitsas Zúniga daily (Greenwald) feels so perfectly at ease, imperiously demanding that others blog only as he would so will it, in turn. Hypocrisy so leaden, it can actually be used to block x-rays!

    You just can’t buy entertainment like that, really and truly.

    Don’t ever, ever change, Greenwald. Keep those thumbs unopposable! :)

    Kent (005e8f)

  139. dbellak and friends–

    The reason that Patterico went to Sadly, No was so that he could read and respond to accusations that what Goldstein said was as provoking and imbecilic as what Frisch said. He reproduced the entire passage in the exchange, which was a response to Frisch’s suggestion that Jeff and his commenters commit suicide. Sadly, No didn’t bother with that part. Sadly, No didn’t even bother to reproduce the entirety of the sentence in which that was imbedded. Sadly, No continues to use the redacted version today, while trying to call Jeff on issues of online integrity.

    Here’s a nice cut and paste example of this technique of equivocation, otherwise known amongst circles that care about this kind of thing as “lying.”

    Jeff: And then the guy said to her, “I’m going to rip her f***ing head off.”

    Sadly, No: Goldstein said, “I’m going to rip her f***ing head off.”

    Why are YOU here? When we look at this thread in future, should we have reason to do so, I doubt very much that you’re going to come across as even a small percent as reasonable as Patterico. What do you think? I mean, really?

    Dan Collins (7afef3)

  140. No one on the left knows who Deb Frisch is. She left a comment. That’s it.

    Ellen (2203cd)

  141. I think it’s that a significant number of left-wing bloggers and their fans have been trying for some time now to intimidate Jeff Goldstein into silence.

    I find it more significant still — to say nothing of flat-out, sides-clutched, falling-down-hysterical — the even greater number of left-wing bloggers who (judging from the shrill hysteria in their repeated bleatings on the topic) spend the entirety of their days huddled together, shivering and sweating in mortal dread of that fearsome, all-powerful cudgel: Jeff Goldstein’s c**k.

    Jeff… if you’re out there, reading this: your gnarled, fleshy thunder-club TEFFIFIES them, dude. :)

    Kent (005e8f)

  142. No one on the left knows who Deb Frisch is. She left a comment. That’s it.

    Um, I think everyone with an internet connection knows who Deb is. And if you ask her, she’ll tell you: “I’m a moonbat”. Then you could both share your feelings about Bush.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  143. OUCH!!! Riehl World tears Greenwald a brand-new one today so savagely and effortlessly: you don’t know whether to laugh or flinch — ! :)

    Kent (005e8f)

  144. this really isn’t this difficult

    1) there have been several instances where the rightward media/blogosphere placed fringe non-entities into the spotlight, ostensibly as “important liberal thinkers/bogeymen” — see ward churchill

    2) the right then demands that all denounce this disgusting maggot or be shamed with their filth

    3) this is what occured with non-entity “deb frisch,” whose views are as noteworthy as a man who sleeps on a sidewalk, aka, not at all

    4) greenwald came across a reprehensible post from what is allegedly a “promiment conservative blogger”

    5) greenwald applies what he perceives to be the right’s tactics to the right to make a point, including over the top accusations like “you had enough of time, you had all day to denounce, wtf”

    6) perhaps with mssr. pattercio, he made an error, perhaps not

    there, was that so tough? greenwald is purposefully coming off like a jackass here, much like stephen colbert, to show how utterly stupid the whole “denouncing” ritual is

    it is odd that there could be all this verbiage here and so few “get it”

    Nathan (4d00e6)

  145. greenwald is purposefully coming off like a jackass here

    Edited for intellectual honesty.

    Kent (005e8f)

  146. Why, you hypocritical little shit, haven’t you UNEQUIVOCABLY condemned Misha yet? Huh? Why can’t you attack Missha in a post which doesn’t mention liberal malfeascence as well, huh, douchebag? Why could you not have devoted a post to condemning Misha, then you could have spend the next post (all 500 words of it) attacking Glenn Greenwald?

    Hahahahaha! Way to completely and utterly invalidate every single thing you criticised Sadly No for, you wanker!

    random_guy (775b7b)

  147. Cheer up, random_guy, I’m sure if anybody here knew what “unequivocably” meant, and if it turned out that the word was applicable to the situation at hand, you’d hear some people “unequivocably” condemning. Sadly … you “no” the rest.

    Anwyn (c5b81b)

  148. haven’t you UNEQUIVOCABLY

    Interesting word choice.

    Literate individuals over the age of four, however, have (traditionally) opted for this one, instead.

    (… and in A-L-L C-A-P-I-T-A-L L-E-T-T-E-R-S, no less. Anything less than a complete and utter mouthbreathing internet tool? Sadly, No — !) :)

    Kent (005e8f)

  149. Why do I find it not surprise that conservatives go into a feeding frenzy over Deb Frisch, then attack me when I call them and some of their moronic ramblings what they are, and then find out that people like you are using the Ad hominem? The study that showed those who were whiners as children grew up to be conservatives was absolutely correct and people like you are proving it. FYI, I did not then, and do not now support anyone threatening anyone in person, on a blog, in a movie theater, etc. For all you thick skulled individuals, that means I did not and do not support any of Frisch’s comments, though, unlike any of you, she acknowledged her mistake and apologized. Let’s see how many Ad hominems I get.

    A. Patriot (5f1d5d)

  150. For all you thick skulled individuals, that means I did not and do not support any of Frisch’s comments, though, unlike any of you, she acknowledged her mistake and apologized.

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  151. …and attacked him some more, and called him a liar, and thanked the people supporting her, and…

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  152. […] Here’s Greenwald, this morning, on my blog, speaking to me: 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. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Is Glenn Greenwald a Liar? Or Is He Just Someone Who Makes Confident Assertions of Fact without Having the Slightest Clue Whether They Are True? (421107)

  153. …and attacked him some more, and called him a liar, and thanked the people supporting her, and…

    ..and posted an insulting photoshop of him from the journalists at Sadly, No! while simultaneously asking Jeff to remove a link to a news article/photo of her from his comments section. Which he did.

    I would have told her to bark at the moon. And she would have done it, if I’d promised her an audience.

    As for Goldstein, I think he’s been spending too much time with Ace, if you know what I mean. Just a little tiny bit of beaten psycho bull dyke moonbat whimpering, and they’re off running errands!

    Heh.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  154. Meant to link this for the record.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  155. Hey, Patterico, words like “outrageous” and “ridiculous” are not condemnation, they are a dismissal. Condemnation would be saying something like: “It’s vile. It’s uncivilized. It’s thuggish and stupid and I condemn Misha for it.”

    You make it sound like he’s just some wacky guy who made an over-the-top comment, rather than a murderous zealot bent on the elimination of political undesirables. Conspiracy theorists are “outrageous” and “ridiculous;” people like Misha are vile, thuggish terrorists.

    Svlad Jelly (d3a5b4)

  156. That’s how I see him. As a wacky guy.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  157. And that one time I called that troll a word that’s banned from this site. I apologize for that.

    Dan Collins (7afef3)

  158. Also, I once wrote that I thought that Barbara Boxer was an idiot, I apologize for any hurt feelings and inaccuracy.

    Dan Collins (7afef3)

  159. Also, once or twice I’ve laughed at something on one of Misha’s posts. In retrospect, it demonstrated the depravity of my soul.

    Dan Collins (7afef3)

  160. While I’m at it, I also apologize for any times that I’ve pointed out a factual error when it was supportive of someone’s conclusion. If I ever discomfitted anyone, my bad.

    Dan Collins (7afef3)

  161. Given Mr. Greenwald’s post, may we assume that all the leftie blogs will condemn anyone who, at an anti-war protest, carries a sign that demands the execution of George W. Bush?

    And do so while at their day jobs?

    Steve White (3ef474)

  162. I still wonder why Patterico did not both ban me and report me to the SPCA for including his cat in a recipe for onion stew on his very own site.

    nk (f58916)

  163. […] So Greenwald says he didn’t mean to require right-wingers to condemn every vile comment that comes along. Ooookay . . . except that he said the exact opposite in a comment to my post this morning: 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. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » More Greenwald Dishonesty (421107)

  164. Patterico is a total wanker. As is his master, Jeff Goldstein.

    lurking (12575d)

  165. I’m addressing Greenwald’s comment of #8 without reading the all the rest…so apologies if someone else has made this point.

    It is irrelevant when Misha posted any particular post. Patterico doesn’t read it, I don’t read it.

    However, I was in those threads WITH Frisch, witnessing her indecency first hand.

    I don’t hold any blogger that doesn’t read either her place or JeffG’s to having to make any comment at all on the subject.

    But when they DO take notice and decide to comment, then if they deliberately make Dr Deb the demented the “victim” who couldn’t help herself as S*dlyNo! did, or if they wave their hand at it as being “No.Big.Deal” tee hee … as BitchPhD did in a comment thread ..then YES they are individually responsible for their support of Deb’s reprehensible actions.

    There were several left-of-center who also were aware of the statements and condemned them outright…either in a post on their own blog or in Jeff’s comment thread (MaryScott).

    As Viktor Frankl said “There are only two races in the world, the decent and the indecent” and if one positively commits themselves to Deb’s side then they fall in the latter category.

    It’s interesting to see how for some the hatred of Jeff Goldstein is stronger than a call to common decency.

    Darleen (81f712)

  166. […] Now, we don’t know how many bloggers on the right are up at 3 am, furiously scouring the Blogosphere in its entirety to make sure that they don’t miss a single post worthy of condemnation (according to Glenn), but we think that it’s fair to say that it ain’t all that many. And we know that they’re under absolutely no obligation to do so. We also know that quite a few Right Wing bloggers are afflicted with something called a “day job”, and that it is therefore somewhat unlikely that they’ll have opportunity to do what Glenn believes that they MUST do before 2:18 pm, as Patterico points out. (Greenwald, ever the gracious one and likely smarting something fierce from the ClueBatting he just got, then goes on to issue a blatant lie, accusing Patterico of never taking issue with ANY Right Wing Death Beasts, but that’s a different story). […]

    Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » What an Asstastically, Tedious Little Clusterfuck Glenn Greenwald is (502642)

  167. […] P.P.S. I condemn everything. It’s safer that way. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Meanwhile, in the Real World (421107)

  168. […] “Well, for starters: I don’t read [Misha of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler]. 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.” […]

    Sadly, No! » Kid’s Korner! (Solve the Perplexing Puzzles!) (d83a19)

  169. Condemnation would be saying something like: “It’s vile. It’s uncivilized. It’s thuggish and stupid and I condemn Misha for it.”

    Running around pointing at stuff and saying “I condemn thee!!” would be annoying as hell. But do it anyway, Pat. For Greenwald. For the Justices. For the record.

    You make it sound like he’s just some wacky guy who made an over-the-top comment, rather than a murderous zealot bent on the elimination of political undesirables.

    That’s exactly right. You know how many people Misha has killed already? I heard something about piles of skulls in the dungeon. Very, very scary stuff.

    I get chills.

    Pablo (08e1e8)

  170. [The following Glenn Greenwald comment, which Greenwald has been spamming all over the place, contains yet another lie. He says Patterico deleted a comment that pointed out his former praise for Misha back in January 2004. (Patterico used to watch Bill O’Reilly, too. Tastes change.) Greenwald’s accusation is flatly untrue. Patterico did not delete the comment. He approved the comment from moderation. Patterico explains more fully in an update to this post. Greenwald has no apology for his misstatement about Patterico, choosing to rely on this distraction to evade responsibility for his misstatement, which Patterico now believes was a knowing lie and not just irresponsible. — Xrlq, with permission from Patterico]

    As I learned from my comments section yesterday, it turns out that — while denying the central point of my post: that you condemned the Deb Frisch comments with such melodrama and flamboyance, you ignore equally bad rhetoric coming from people like Misha — you knew of evidence which proved that point completely, but you concealed it. Namely, Misha came to your little blog here and, right here, in front of your anti-bad-discourse nose, he advocated the summary execution of judges. And, of course, you attacked him for it the way you attacked Deb Frisch, because – as you’ve been screaming for the last two days everywhere you can go – you are not guilty of the inconsistency and double standards of which I’ve accused you, which makes me a “liar.”

    Oh, wait – no, you didn’t condemn him. In fact, you did the opposite. When you saw Misha advocating the murder of judges on your blog, you wrote a whole separate post in order to expressly welcome him to your blog.

    And now that this behavior of yours has been revealed (by a commenter whose comment you shamefully, though understandably, deleted), you suddenly decide that you want to end your obsession with writing posts about me, calling me a liar and douchebag, and other assorted high-level and oh-so-piercing attacks.

    I think it’s clear who the liar was all along — that would be person who claimed it was a “lie” to apply the point of my post to him, even though there probably is no blogger to whom that point applies more thoroughly, and then suddenly decided he didn’t want to talk about it anymore once conclusive evidence of his dishonesty emerged.

    If I had the power to invent a fact to rebut your hysterical obsession over the last couple days, I don’t think I could have invented anything better than the fact that Misha spewed his violence-inciting rhetoric right here, in front of your face, and you then WELCOMED him to your blog. Isn’t it time to hear again about how much you hate Deb Frisch and her horrible comments, about how much you lament attacks of that sort? You’re in a perfect position to dole out those lectures. Your history definitely entitles you to lead the charge against hateful rhetoric — obsequiously welcoming those who urge the execution of judges is a great qualification to lead the charge against Bad Rhetoric.

    Yeah, great – you write posts about how you don’t like Ann Coulter. Congratulations. Even Michelle Malkin does that. My point never was, as was painfully clear, that every single blogger to whom I linked never once, in their lifetime, condemned someone on the Right for excessive rhetoric. Most people on the Right love to do exactly that with, for instance, Fred Phelps or Ann Coulter to show how very fair-minded they are.

    The point was that those who engaged in the condemnation rituals aimed at Deb Frisch overlook and even condone far worse behavior from the opinion leaders in their party. The primary, but not only, example I cited was Misha. And despite your petulant and shrieking denials that this applies to you, it turns out that you are the Poster Child for the very hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty which I was highlighting.

    Apology and retraction, indeed. I wouldn’t hold my breath for those if I were you. But I will give you credit for one thing – you picked an excellent time to declare your obsessive battle to be at an end. And a rather ignominous end it is.

    Glenn Greenwald (7a0fe5)

  171. “Douchebag”

    That’s all you can come up with?

    Geoff (5462fd)

  172. Glenn, the most hilarious thing about this latest wave of completely phony “outrage” is that every one of these wingnut mouthbreathers stood by Jeff “Paste Eatin’ Man” Goldstein when one of his commenters made the same sort of comments about the child of Thersites, a commenter from Atrios’ site who was involved in an “academic” dispute with Paste Boy. Paste Boy also refused to disavow the comments about Thersites’ child, and then posted identifying information about Thersites and his family.

    And that, Glenn, is why they’re called “moronic brownshirt fucks.”

    dave (8637ea)

  173. For anyone to take the idea of execution seriously, one would also have to take Spoons’ comment about firing all judges seriously.

    Which implicitly means that Spoons is denigrating the third element of US government, i.e., the judicial branch. Firing all the judges, of course, would also bring all jurisprudence in this country to a grinding halt. No warrants could be issued, no divorces granted by judges, traffic courts brought to a grinding halt, etc.

    Obviously, then, Patterico must, in the Greenwaldian view, stand for firing all judges, since he didn’t condemn nor denigrate nor denounce Spoons!

    The wonder isn’t that common sense isn’t common, the wonder is that, in this face of such nonsensical “reasoning,” there’s any sense left at all.

    As a longtime observer of Deb Frisch’s “commentary,” having encountered her at Stephen Bainbridge’s (where she threatened to denounce him as a homosexual), and Steve Verdon’s (where, in between rantings about economics there was just a general effort to derail and demean any and all whom she disagreed with), I could not help but wonder whether she had real limits or not.

    As a past reader of Misha’s, I thought his hyperbole irritating (notice the tense about reading his blog), but also noticed that he didn’t go around pushing his hyperbole on unfriendly sites. That is, whereas Deb would go to your electronic living room (i.e., blog) and threaten to out you, Misha tended to show up on his blog and cry “Molon labe!” or whathaveyou.

    Coupled with the difference between expressing political hyperbole (which is defended by many a lawyer as a First Amendment right) and making inappropriate, not to say threatening, comments about a child (think of it as For the Children! ™), and I would suggest a qualitative difference between the two.

    But YMMV.

    Lurking Observer (ea88e8)

  174. Glenn lies, I died (of boredom).

    Why is anyone bothering with this Kossite shill? All his stuff is just cut and pasted out of Kos’ “Townhouse” directives.

    Ooooh, go ahead and call me a “Nazi Brownshirt.” Don’t you ever get sick of using the same pathetic sladers? PS: Brownshirt = National Socialists = Socialists = Leftists.

    Logical (022fa6)

  175. stood by Jeff “Paste Eatin’ Man” Goldstein when one of his commenters made

    Could you explain that in English? Do you mean like “I stood by Greenwald when Gilliard said…”

    one of his commenters made the same sort of comments about the child of Thersites,

    Heggerty has never identified who made that comment on HIS site. He claims to this day to not know who made the comment. But you do? How? Please tell us, because I for one have been waiting for the evidence Professor Haggerty promised us. Inquiring minds…

    Paste Boy also refused to disavow the comments about Thersites’ child,

    False. He did so without equivocation, and offerred to assist in identifying who did make the comment. You are a liar. And a fool. “Paste boy”? Come back when you turn 12, OK?

    And that, Glenn, is why they’re called “moronic brownshirt fucks.”

    By people called “Retardo”. It’s like backhanded praise. I’ll take it.

    Pablo (efa871)

  176. Most people on the Right love to do exactly that with, for instance, Fred Phelps or Ann Coulter to show how very fair-minded they are

    Phelps is a Democrat, Glenn. Have you condemned him?

    And how about Matt Hale for his comments about violence against the judicary? You defended him, didn’t you?

    Yep.

    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.”

    Hypocrites are funny, huh Glenn?

    Pablo (efa871)

  177. Dave

    Why do you continue to pound the false scenario that somehow PW readers or JeffG had anything to do with the despicable comment about Thirsty’s child? Why do you purposely ignore that JeffG immediately offered to Thirsty to track down the commenter if Thirsty would provide the IP address… which to this day Thirsty has refused to do? Why does Thirsty continue to lie about this? Why are you lying?

    Does your mother know you eat with that mouth?

    Darleen (81f712)

  178. […] He’s a liberal, which ought to more than adequately answer that question. And of course, we also have the priceless (and accurate) “Glenn Greenwald: Douchebag,” which pretty well covers it, really. Later, Patterico says: If some people are actually paying attention to the utter dishonesty — like if it is coming from a large media organ like the Los Angeles Times that people actually pay attention to — maybe getting pissed off now and then is worth it. […]

    Cold Fury » Blog Archive » What it’s really all about (6f4592)

  179. Can we apply a Self-Limiting Rule here, where a blogger is only required to denounce vile crap coming from people on his blogroll?

    Since mine has only about twenty sites (including, of course, Patterico and XRLQ) on it, that would mean I’m only responsible for reading and denouncing twenty people — which would make my job a whole lot easier.

    And since two of them, the Liberal Avenger and Oliver Willis, are lib sites, am I excused from denouncing them if I get lazy?

    Dana (3e4784)

  180. Pablo –

    On your #128.

    Great catch!

    Hope Patterico takes the time to follow your link.

    jim (a9ab88)

  181. Dear Sir:

    I feel that throughout this post you’ve unfairly maligned an innocent and utilitarian device for feminine hygiene that even multitasks as a hot water bottle. Think how civilization (Friday nights, in particular) would suffer without the douchebag!

    Surely this noble cleansing tool deserves better treatment at the hands of the blogging community!

    Sincerely,
    Bernhard Nozzle, President
    Douchebag Anti-Defamation Society (BADS)
    934 Enema Street,
    Flushing, NY

    heldmyw (a999cd)

  182. Pablo –

    Hmmm, your comment with the link is now #129. Either the comments section is still having some hiccups or I just go the # wrong.

    jim (6482d8)

  183. That’s a lot of time to spend on someone you don’t read.

    Just sayin’.

    Alexander Wolfe (a4855e)

  184. I’d like to apooogis for my comment in retrospect. The gist was valid, but the language used far too strong.

    random_guy (775b7b)

  185. MBF Dave strikes again!

    Jim Treacher (c3be1b)

  186. […] This series of facts is brought to you today, by me, for all the people who would be quick to accuse one of my clients, Patterico, of being a dastardly comment-deleter. […]

    One Fine Jay » Strange software behavior does not a liar make. (c2f5e5)

  187. […] This series of facts is brought to you today, by me, for all the people who would be quick to accuse one of my clients, Patterico, of being a dastardly comment-deleter. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » A Note on Comments and Internet Nastiness (421107)

  188. Patterico: “That’s how I see him. As a wacky guy.”

    That wacky Misha and his wacky death threats and his wacky intimidation.

    Which just proves my point that you aren’t, in fact, condemning him for calling for the deaths of journalists and supreme court justices, you are simply dismissing his thuggish behavior as though it weren’t a serious matter. It is. And your failure to admit that and to condemn it for what it is, dangerous eliminationism, reveals a great deal about you and others on the right.

    Svlad Jelly (cdbb70)

  189. I CONDEMN YOU!!!

    I CONDEMN PATTERICO TOO!!!

    AND THAT WACKY MISHA!!!

    AND DANGEROUS ELIMINATIONISM!!!

    AND CONDEMNATION!!!

    See Dubya (921613)

  190. Greenwald:

    [T]he point was not to impose an obligation for bloggers to condemn every vile comment that comes along.

    Greenwald approved the interpretation of QandO’s Henke:

    And all of that leaves to the side the fact that they were unable to comprehend the actual arguments that were made in the post — most of them responded to the opposite of the argument that was actually made — an embarrassing fact which QandO’s Jon Henke had to explain to them here and here.

    Henke’s approved interpretation:

    It was not a serious suggestion that the Right has an obligation to denounce any incidence of that kind of rhetoric . . .

    Looks like I’m in the clear.

    Patterico (50c3cd)

  191. […] Right. It’s not clear whether Greenwald genuinely believes his rhetoric, but he can certainly mau-mau with the best of them — and it is, after all, the nature of the game. (Plus, it’s hard not to root for him when he’s going after the “koranimal swine” guy.)  Besides, if all else fails, the grudges fomented over the last few days will make things all the more fun the next time a partisan does something stupid. […]

    L’Affaire Frisch: Part II at Blog P.I. (beta) (c73bc9)

  192. I’m curious, do your employers know about this blog? Do they read it? And are you really proud of this post and the sophomoric rhetoric you use?

    blue (14c807)

  193. […] I should warn you upfront that this post is going to be an extremely tedious read. If, after reading Patterico’s rebuttal you are already convinced that Glenn is a douche, then it may not be worth your while reading this post to examine just how many different angles of douchitude he has exhibited in the post. If, on the other hand, you’re like Greenwald’s fawn, Q&O commenter Mona, who insists that apart from one itty bitty boo-boo about Patterico, Greenwald’s crap is ice cream: 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. […]

    damnum absque injuria » Weekend Doucheblogging (38c04c)

  194. Misha definitely got old fast. And I don’t particularly wish to either defend or attack him but I would think that there would be a clear difference , discernable by adults, between the explicitly over-the-top, humorous-intent ( regardless of whether you find him funny ) style of Misha and the just as explicitly bile-filled, non-humor of Frisch.

    You don’t have to like Misha, you don’t have to even approve of his schtick, to figure out that there is no equivalence.

    Its not rocket scientist time. Any actual adult can tell the difference.

    Robin Roberts (56a273)

  195. […] Greenwald then spammed the same comment to four other threads involving him, to make sure everyone coming to my blog to read about him would see it. The comments were left at 6:39 a.m., 6:40 a.m., 6:41 a.m., and again at 6:41 a.m.. Later, at 7:19 a.m., he left another comment on the first thread, again calling me a liar. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Annotated WuzzaDem: The Facts Behind the Greenwald Sock-Puppetry (421107)

  196. […] It is an old Internet trick to decry the “suspicious silence” of your ideological opponents regarding news that appeared a couple of hours ago. This trick was used by John Cole when the Terri Schiavo autopsy came out. But the pinnacle of the format was achieved by our friend Thomas Ellers, known by some as Glenn Greenwald, who excoriated a few of us for not denouncing a blogger calling himself “Emperor Misha” — for comments made while most of us were asleep, getting ready for work, and/or working. When Greenwald pulled this trick, I called him a “douchebag.” That was neither restrained nor civil of me, but many have called it accurate. […]

    Patterico’s Pontifications » Anonymous Law Enforcement Source: Cops Lied in No-Knock Atlanta Case (421107)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5849 secs.