On TBogg’s Self-“Outing”
TBogg is claiming I “outed” him. Actually, he outed himself — and clearly wanted to do it. Good on him and more power to him.
Here’s how this came to pass.
In June, an anonymous individual calling himself “Retardo” wrote a post, favorably linked by Glenn Greenwald, calling Jeff Goldstein a “douchebag.” (I’m not linking the post.) He also called Goldstein a “talentless hack,” “cretin,” “jerk,” “weenie,” and “stupid,” and claimed that Jeff has an “adenoidal, wimpy” speaking voice. His post included a photoshop of Goldstein naked, with a towel covering his privates. Another depicted Goldstein as “Count Cockula,” a term that a deranged woman has adopted as she has stalked Goldstein across the Internet.
And this anonymous person called Goldstein a “chickenhawk coward” — from behind his pseudonym.
It’s gotten me a little upset. Jeff Goldstein is out there issuing opinions under his true name every day. For people to be that nasty while hiding behind the veil strikes me as disgusting.
In that frame of mind, I toddled over to the site of one “TBogg” last night. Where I saw, from the poisonous pen of Mr. TBogg, this lovely little screed about Michelle Malkin:
Jesus. Fucking. Christ. In the history of big steaming loads disgorged from the gaping maw of Michelle Malkin what could be more absurd than hearing this professional rage artist complain about racism, the very basis of her crapulent bottom-feeder career? This is the kind of shit that Malkin lives for: manufactured outrage. Because as she has metastasized from failed journalist to disgraced fake historian to her current incarnation as braying white supremacist in brown face.
…she will take anything and try and make a mountain of a molehill because that’s all she’s got. It’s not that she a second rate thinker, it’s just that she can’t think at all so she throws shit against the wall and her readers (and what a braintrust that group is) run with it.
Oh, and there were unflattering frozen images from TV appearances, and then more:
This is what she is.
This is what she does.
This is why you never see her anywhere except on Fox with her fake outrage peers O’Reilly and Hannity. Because she can’t handle being called on her shit without pouting and over-dramatizing like a 14 year-old who just found out the last pink Razr was sold. She’s a professional smear merchant who runs away from conflict to the safety of her commentless blog. And she can say anything and lie about anything because nobody expects anything better out of her which makes her perfect for joining up with all of the other Lieberman supporters.
All from behind his veil of a pseudonym.
And with the background of the Goldstein affair, I got upset.
I learned that Mr. TBogg has chosen to associate the e-mail address on his site with his true name. You simply plug his e-mail address into Google, and up pops a name that is obviously his — his moniker is a combination of his first initial and the first four letters of his last name. If he were actually trying to hide it, he could — but evidently he wasn’t.
I had no plan to actually “out” the guy, but — angry over his trashing of Malkin — I wanted to rattle his chain. So I left some obscure comments on the Malkin post, needling him. It was the kind of hints he would understand but his commenters wouldn’t:
Stop them before they mock people with real names again!
Someone should sign a petition.
Because his name is associated with his e-mail in an online petition. Then I said:
And they should include their e-mail address.
In the petition.
Searchable, as e-mail addresses often are, by Google.
That’s about the sum total of my “outing” of the guy. You can read the whole thread here.
His commenters weren’t getting it, because the hints were very oblique. If TBogg hadn’t come along, that would have been it. But up popped TBogg in the comments, saying:
One of these day Patterico is going to actually string one thought together without going, “Fuck! I should have said…”
I asked him if he really wanted me to string that particular thought together. He responded by posting a quote from me about pseudonyms, in which I reveal my true name. He further antagonized me and finally said:
What Patterico is saying is that he found out my real name and he wants to out me but he wants to have plausible deniability and claim, “Well, it was just out there on the internet.”
Which it is. But he has a shred of conscience that he is currently wrestling with wondering how other bloggers will feel about him afterwards, particularly when he has left a virtual trail of thought regarding anonymity.
TBogg didn’t feel “outed” yet. And I took no further steps to out him. I told him I thought he could be less of an asshole, and asked him if he was proud of his post about Malkin. He said:
As a matter of fact…I am.
You’re really finding it hard to take that big step aren’t you?
He still didn’t feel outed, and I still took no further steps. He was clearly goading me to out him, but I had no intent of doing it and said so:
I’m not outing you, tbogg.
and again:
You seem to think there’s a big step to take.
I’m not taking it.
But I think you’re a gutless coward for hiding behind your little pseudonym.
and again:
Not at all.
In fact, I’m not outing you at all. I said quite clearly that I’m not.
But it sounds like you have done it yourself — or you want to. Maybe you’ll be a more responsible commenter as a result.
I doubt it. But it would be nice.
and again:
Review the chronology:
“You’re really finding it hard to take that big step aren’t you?”
I.e. you are not outed.
“I’m not outing you, tbogg.”
I.e. I’m not going to.
I think you’ve decided you want to do it, and you’re going to make a big martyr out of yourself.
Go ahead. Have fun.
and again:
I can’t make it any clearer, TBogg. You want to out yourself, fine. Go ahead.
I’m not doing it.
By that time, I figured he was already typing up his big “martyr” post complaining about how I “outed” him — by running a search on his e-mail address and looking at a name that popped up with a first name beginning with “T” and a last name beginning with “Bogg.” And then teasing him about it in a way that was confusing his commenters until he drew attention to it and made it clear for them.
I could tell he was writing that post. And he was. And here it is.
I read through the first 45 comments or so, and most of his commenters said: Duh. You didn’t really try to hide it. Your moniker is basically your name.
So the martyr thing isn’t really working out too well for him.
But if you see a big influx of angry lefty trolls, now you’ll know why.
Repeated rhetorical question alert.
Are there no adults left on the American Left?
Darleen (03346c) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:29 amWow, how desperate do you have to be to tell a lie in the very first sentence of your post?
Go back and find the part where TBogg is “claiming you outed him.” Go on. I want you to find the exact quote where TBogg accuses you of having done this.
[Try the headline of his post. — P]
Doug (521a0c) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:31 amI really think there is only one thing to say about this…
I’d like to thank tbogg for this comment.
Some Guy in Chicago (6a8e1d) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:32 amKeep telling yourself that. I’m sure it makes you feel better. That and the Xanax.
crack (2def89) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:33 amsee, and I was trying to strike the ‘s’ in “she”…I picked a bad time to stop huffing glue.
Some Guy in Chicago (6a8e1d) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:33 amoh grow up
cleek (9cc354) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:40 amYou sir, are a dick.
All your retorts will not change that fact.
Guy (ba6ec2) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:43 amDeal with it.
Not for nothing, but TBogg was also ‘outed’ by accident a couple of months back on Flickr in the comments of a Popular Lefty Female Blogger’s pictures from YKos. You can go check, if you’d like.
While Tom’s downplaying the state secret aspect of his pseudonymity, the fact is that he makes fun of people quite a lot based on substantial things like their appearance.
Which is made funnier since that snark comes from an old(er) guy who looks like metrosexual version of McCloud.
preferably anonymous (002671) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:46 amIt’s in the headline, Doug. Read much?
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:47 amWell, I’m not sure this counts as “serious,” as we were discussing on S,N, so I’ll come back later.
[No, it is rather silly. Please do come back. — P]
John Protevi (a5b2c0) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:47 amThe lefties are really big heros hiding behind their fake e-mail addresses and pseudonyms. Over at Kevin Drum’s blog some dope offered to pay my way to France if the Democrats won Congress. Since I was just on my way over the following week and have considered moving there at various times for years, I offered to take him up on his offer. Silence. I checked his e-mail address (required to comment) and it was, of course, fake. What a bunch of broad chested heros!
Mike K (416363) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:47 amPatterico –
I appreciate your help in identifying TBogg. I’ve been looking for photos of the legendary Mrs. TBogg with no success, and this should help a lot.
Thanks for outing him –
FS
FS (023968) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:49 amCongrats, P, you’re Eschaton’s “Wanker of the Day” for August 3rd! And you know what? You really deserve it.
Of course you didn’t really out TBogg. What makes you a wanker was thinking that it mattered. That and your coy little flirtations with the Truth – you know, wink wink nudge nudge.
KV
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:59 am“I wanted to rattle his chain.”
I engage in this type of behavior on comment boards as well, trying to get a reaction from people.
I realize it is childish behavior.
Clearly, you do not.
Tyrion (637abd) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:00 amThe truth never matters to leftards. For instance, what does it matter when a gaggle of wankers doing their daisy chain bit calls you “Wanker of the Day”? It smacks of envy, and of the crushing weight of perpetual loserhood. And of sticky furniture.
OPEN THREAD!
[I take it as a badge of honor. — P]
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:04 amMoronic brownshirt fucks… jesus, you pricks are pathetic.
dave (2eda4d) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:13 amCongratulations, P2! You’ve managed you contribute nothing to the conversation. Honey, we’re so proud of you! USA! USA! USA!
You’re right. It doesn’t matter that P didn’t actually out TBogg. That’s not what makes him a wanker.
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:14 amNo adults on the American Left, huh darleen?
A sober, responsible rhetorical question to be sure.
This whole outing/non-outing pas de deux is disgusting, and both the left and right blogospheres should really ask themselves what they’re preoccupying themselves with. How many circle-jerks of “leftard vs. wingnut,” “coward vs. hero” insults can one participate in before it becomes clear that the real debates have been abandoned in favor of a relatively narrow repertoire of snarks, insults and epithets (including the exasperation over “childishness”). There are people across the political spectrum who are aching for something more substantial. I just hope we find each other in time.
Silone (040d80) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:14 amPatterico adds “gutless hypocrite” to “moron” and “quibbler” titles…
It’s certainly been quite a week for Stuperico, getting his ass handed to him for not knowing a gun from a rocket, and now TBogg exposes Patrick Frey for the hypocritical and gutless little asshole he is, whereupon our favorite rightwing dolt i…
Martini Republic (63f7a7) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:15 amYuck.
Despicable, Patterico.
m.croche (85f703) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:15 amThe lefties are really big heros hiding behind their fake e-mail addresses and pseudonyms
says the guy with a single-letter for a last name, and no email or URL.
cleek (9cc354) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:17 amNo offense, Silone, but I think you’re in the wrong neck of the woods if you think you’re going to get substantial debate around here, or on TBogg’s site for that matter.
KV
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:17 amWow. Just, wow.
How’d you get that law degree from junior high school?
For the record, TBogg wasn’t being a martyr so much as exposing you as a puerile bully, and pre-empting your little reindeer game of “I’ve got oppo research on you, buddy!”
Please Google my email, which you require for commenting, so you can do the same to me in my comments. It’d be a hoot!
dday (47b11f) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:22 amYou wanted to out the guy, but didn’t have the balls to do it.
Be a man, brother. Maybe you need to watch some wrestling, or go bike riding with Floyd Landis to get that testosterone up. If you’re going to do something, come right out and do it.
In Vino Veritas (91ae05) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:25 amAh, Patterico, you sly jackass, you. Up to your old tricks again, I see.
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:26 amKV gets it exactly right. Patterico thought he could be an online tough guy by threatening to out someone who didn’t really care. He got called on it and now looks stupid for his petty internet bullying. It’s not that Patterico outed him that’s lame, it’s that he tried to threaten TBogg with outing because his panties were in a bunch.
lakema (8be4a2) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:26 amShit – TBogg does look an awful lot like McCloud.
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:29 amAhh, and the trolls show the sum of their I.Q.s to be 3.
sharon (03e82c) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:30 amHey, Sharon, that’s not nice. Pablo’s a very smart guy!
KV
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:31 amYes, you’re the ‘tard, Ken.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:35 amHOW DARE YOU MAKE TBAGG OUT HIMSELF WHICH HE WANTED TO DO ANYWAY YOU BROWNSHIRT CHICKENHAWK!!!
Does that sum it all up for you, leftards?
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:36 amDefending Self Hating Brown Person Mme. Malkin and the Paste Eating Turtlefucker by threatening to spread around TBogg’s real name?
Priceless.
HeavyJ (6354dd) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:39 amWell that was a total waste of energy!
Curious too why one would “hide” behind a “transparant psuedonym” too.
“It just means if I thought someone was a shitbag, and I knew who they were and they deserved to have the world know who they are, I might clue the world in.”
But you never got around to explaining why you thought he was a “shitbag”. Other than the fact that you obviously didn’t like his post on Malkin.
Pointing out innacurracies in the post would have been productive. But apparantly required too much effort (or was impossible).
But I’m curious, is it only the non defense defense of Malkin that causes you to have such a potty mouth? Because seriously I thought at any minute you’d use your new Googled information to hop on a bus and go slap your penis against TBogg’s face!
Davebo (098cab) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:40 amOoh, “tard”. Nice one honey, nice one. But if Sharon’s gonna leave a sentence open like that, I’m gonna finish it. I’d think you’d approve, but then, what do I know about the workings of your mighty mind?
As for summing it up, how’s this for clarity:
P: “I know who you are!”
T: “Yeah, duh. I’m not really trying to hide it.”
P: “Yeah, but I know who you are!
T: “Yeah, and I don’t care.”
P: “But I know who you are!”
T: “And you’re too big a pussy to actually post it.”
P: “I’m not a pussy!”
T: “Whatever, pussy.”
So explain, P2, how P doesn’t come off looking like a pussy?
KV
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:44 am(and I mean that with all due respect, Tom… Dennis Weaver was a handsome man in his day, if a bit red-necky…)
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:44 amOne additional bonus aspect of this controversy that you wingnuts seem to be missing is why would anyone want to defend Michelle Malkin in the first place? Doesn’t the fact that Patterico admits to being “upset” at TBogg calling Malkin a racist put his general critical thinking skills into question?
Seriously.
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:47 amLiberal Avenger, P2 wasn’t defending Malkin at all. Aparantly he couldn’t. And that really pissed him off.
And when you’re pissed, but there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it, well, that’s what Google is for right?
Davebo (098cab) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:49 amSo now that TBogg “revealed” his “ultra secret” identity, does that mean pattynico will address actual facts and issues, or will he find some other straw-man to distract from what’s important and relevant?
I find this whole situation quite hilarious. As poster Ken V. pointed out above in his excellent cliff’s notes version of events, it is pattynico who comes out looking like the junior-high malcontent in this whole non-affair.
Ahh well, on to the next straw-man, right patty?
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:52 amWhat, exactly, did TBogg say that was untrue about Malkin?
John Dillinger (4bd0e6) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:52 amBoy did that bring out the lefty trolls ! Good work. Nice to see them parading around.
Mike K (416363) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:57 amWhat, exactly, did TBogg say that was untrue about Malkin?
Letsee. That she’s racist, a white supremacist, a failed journalist, and can’t think. Oh yeah, and that she “manufactures” rage over the stupid worse-than-junior high garbage the left puts out, most lately in the form of a photoshopped blackface political candidate.
Because *you’re* too stupid to know the photo was offensive, anybody who thinks it offensive must be “manufacturing” their offense. Riiiiiight.
Anwyn (03d912) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:01 amThe key thing is, you only post someone’s name if you want bad things to happen to them professionally when they get linked pseudonym to real name. If you discover the name of another blogger, it’s common courtesy not to post it, unless it turns out that he’s actually, oh, Mary Rosh. Or the other way around. You only post someone’s name, or threaten to post it, because you want to hurt them.
That’s why it’s a dick move, man. Threatening it, not very obliquely either, is a pretty dickish thing. I don’t think you really need to apologize, but Jesus, you should at least admit it to yourself there’s no way that’s cool.
Stu (55d2a5) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:02 amI, for one, enjoy the Oak Ridge Boys.
Jeff G (881746) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:03 amJohn D., I just realized something – P was engaged in some of the same activities Mz. Malkin was perpetrating on that Hardball segment!
Of course, Mz. Malkin wasn’t saying that John Kerry shot himself to get the Purple Heart, she was just reporting that other people were asking about it (wink wink). And P wasn’t posting TBogg’s name, he was just saying that he “think(s) you’re a gutless coward for hiding behind your little pseudonym.”
So, Mr. P. Malkin, do you still think TBogg’s a gutless coward?
KV
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:03 amMalkin is convinced that Qana was faked.
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:06 amSo, Tbogg wanted to hurt himself? I suppose I can understand that.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:06 amYou come off badly in this, Patterico. It’s toolish to play the “I know who you are” game, and justifying it by appeal to how mad you are about someone else saying mean things about Jeff Goldstein or Michelle Malkin is just silly.
(Malkin and Goldstein both deliberately antagonize people– this can be a fun schtick, sure, but you can’t get too upset when people are antagonized by it. It’s the nature of the game they play.)
FL (5fefda) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:07 amI remember TBogg making disgusting racist comments about Malkin a couple of years ago on Kevin Drumm’s blog.
sam (314f81) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:09 amNow that people know who TBogg is, maybe one of them can go over and Jeff Goldstein him in the face.
John Dillinger (4bd0e6) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:13 amBS. Pure, unadulterated BS.
Robert Crawford (9eef80) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:15 amWell, you have to admit, if Google starts picking up things like “Tom B_________ is a racist”, or “Tom B_________ hates brown people and fat women and is a misogynist fuck who pens nothing but attack posts on people he’s never met — often about their appearance,” he probably won’t like it much.
And it might suck that his family has to see it.
And it might suck that his professional contacts have to see it.
Which is precisely what this guy does to other people all the time.
Me, I’m not interested in posting his name just now, though I’ve known it for some time. But will I be upset if all the garbage he appends to the names of others comes back home to attach itself to his name? Well, to be honest, probably so — but only because he kids will see it.
Which is too bad.
— Though maybe when they ask him about it later on, he can change the subject and tell them about the racist slanty-eyed failed journalist Michelle Malkin — and how Daddy was only protecting America from a “White Supremacist in brown face” who was threatening the Republic by, uh, acting like a 14-year old, is it?
I get confused by the nuance sometimes.
Jeff G (881746) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:20 amHas anyone else noticed that the left is now completely incapable of any argument whatsoever without inserting “But, what about Malkin?!?”
She must be tremendously effective to instill so much fear in you Kooky Klownish Kids.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:21 amAs a Tbogg reader for about four months, I know:
1. What his wife looks like
2. What his dog looks like
3. What his daughter looks like
4. Where he lives, generally
5. Various jobs he’s held
6. His degree of educational attainment
7. Occasionally, when he will be commuting to other parts of the state
Thanks to Patterico, I know not only know his name, I know I could have found out before Tbogg mentioned it… if I’d cared. Don’t really care about the above stuff, either, but he shared it with me.
Now, I can tag his writings in my brain not with “Tbogg” but with Tom… um… Bogglio… Boggio….
Wait, hold on. Lemme look again. I’m *so bad* with names.
Look, as a lefty troll, I’ll say it: the photo (can we get back to that? please?) was offensive. I read FDL and it pissed me off that they’d use it. Go read the HuffPo comments if you don’t think that’s the consensus opinion. This other crap is just noise.
whetstone (64da72) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:27 amI told him I thought he could be less of an asshole.
Your first mistake; a bad premise.
Gordon (3c9056) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:28 amHeck, P2, I was just pointing out an interesting little correspondence. There’s nothing wrong with P being as coy and flirtatious as Mz. Malkin was. I don’t condemn him for employing the “I know a secret!” tactic, and, frankly, I think it’s wrong for you to condemn him. Anyway, the dude’s your friend!
By the way Mr. P. Malkin, I’m still waiting to hear if you still think TBogg’s a gutless coward.
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:32 amGoldstein comments at 9:20.
Pablo comments at 9:21.
Jesus, Pablo, your need for validation from Jeff is really getting out of hand.
Stephen Den Worste (92fc2d) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:32 amOf course, Mz. Malkin wasn’t saying that John Kerry shot himself to get the Purple Heart, she was just reporting that other people were asking about it…
Is there anybody over there literate enough to understand a self-inflicted wound doesn’t necessarily mean he shot himself?
B Moe (cf48a4) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:42 amPatterico,
Here’s a standard reply to Duncan Black and his merry band of followers:
http://blog.rjwest.com/?p=2763
RW (89e21a) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:42 amHoly Mother of Moonbats, Retardo and the boys are comparing themselves to Publius now! LMFAO! I don’t think I can handle it.
B Moe (cf48a4) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:54 amOh, my apologies BM. You’re right – Mz. Malkin wasn’t necessarily implying John Kerry shot himself on purpose, she could have simply been implying he shot himself on accident. But she didn’t come right out and say it, because she’s a coy little minx.
Of course, I say “necessarily”, because neither of us actually know what she intended to imply. She was merely flirting with the Truth, much like that cocktease P.
Um, Mr. P. Malkin, do you think TBogg is a gutless coward?
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:54 amI guess I’m pretty stupid, but I confess to not understanding the significance of, and to not being able to force myself to care about, Patterico’s feuds with TBogg and Greenwald. My eyes are reading “blah, blah, blah,” and my brain comprehends “nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.”
It’s your blog, Patterico, and you can, of course, blog about whatever interests you. But I’m tellin’ ya, of late, I find myself awaiting your next posts less eagerly than before.
P.S. Finally sold my house in Fort Worth! But don’t get me started on how the hearing before the Tarrant Appraisal Review Board went.
Diffus (ead439) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:56 amIs there anybody over there literate enough to understand a self-inflicted wound doesn’t necessarily mean he shot himself?
Obviously not – nor will they admit the only one that even mouthed the words “Kerry shot himself” was Matthews himself.
bains (3f9c1c) — 8/3/2006 @ 9:59 amOH MY GOD! THAT WAS JEFF GOLDSTEIN?!?
And lemme guess, SDW is Gleen Greenwald, right?
I’ll never wash this keyboard again.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:01 amPatterico, it was probably not the best use of your time. Seixon’s plight is much more important. However, the exchange was entertaining, especially TBogg’s lame attempt at self-victimization.
Bradley J. Fikes (4ac0e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:05 amYou are playing silly games if you refuse to admit that Malkin was most definitely pushing the “Kerry shot himself” meme.
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:06 amWhat’s funniest of all is to think that you would get upset about anyone criticizing Malkin. She’s everything TBogg says and more.
Elle (6a9d50) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:06 amYou’d be foolish not to question “news” out of Lebanon.
Hezbollah follows the tradition of other tyrants who set up / kill civilians to exploit them as “victims” before a world of willing dupes – blaming, of course, their stronger, more decent neighbors for the killing they staged. Saddam did it. Hamas does it. Mugabe does it. Castro did it. Arafat did it. Stalin, Mao, Che did it. The cruel will always exploit the weak in an attempt to tear down the strong and usurp what better men and women build.
Lying to infidels to further jihad is a duty of Islamofascists, just as truth is a bedrock Judeo-Christian value.
CAIR doesn’t care what infidels think about what they want for America.
g.a. (8789fc) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:15 amI wonder how many posting in this thread, specifically the ones whose vocabulary needs to make prominent use of profanity to make their points, have children older than 10.
I was (and am) more than a bit annoyed that the typical language of 14 and 15 year olds today is worse than what I routinely heard in college, especially when my two oldest began using the same language.
I do not know if any eminent social scientist has studied to see if there is an inverse correlation between foul language and the ability to critically think, but I think there probably is. The rise of foul language at least temporally coincides with the inability to reason logically. Many attempts at a logical argument that I see or hear today would have a hard time getting out of the “C” range in my sophomore (high school) speech class. The real shame is I don’t know how many people realize that.
“What do they teach in schools these days?”
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:19 amFunny, no one yet has addressed Tbogg’s original post about Malkin, wherein Tbogg ventured that:
1) Malkin is a failed journalist, backing that up with a link to Niewert who was in Seattle when Malkin started her trade. Malkin was known then to be loose with the facts, with one article prompting “…a letter from the state Attorney General’s office pointing out that Malkin failed to even contact that office before attacking it (which those of us in the business knew constituted a Journalism 101 violation of basic ethics). It also pointed out several major errors of fact.
The latter column brought a lively response from her intended victim at the news-talk show, also pointing out the Malkin’s version of “facts” are not always aligned with reality.”
Malkin left Seattle for D.C. after, ending her career as a journalist and embarking on one as a professional pundit.
2)Malkin is a disgraced fake historian, linking to Muller’s devastating 29 part series challenging almost every historical fact Malkin pulled out of her ass in a book defending the internment of Japanese Americans and advocating the same for Arab Americans today. Muller’s systematic refutation of the very premise for Malkin’s book is seen today as a highwater mark for the blogosphere and caused Ed Cone to famously remark, “[Malkin’s] contempt for people who disagree with her turned into hubris: she knows she’s right, and they’re wrong, so the facts will obey her commands. But facts are stubborn things.”
3)Malkin is a white supremacist in brown face, linking to BOP News article deconstructing Malkin’s career and backing and training from such right wing institutions as Regnery Books and the Heritage Foundation. The basis for Malkin’s alleged white supremacist inkling comes in part from the fact the Regnery is linked with the John Birch society, and that Malkin pens a regular cloumn for white supremacist site vdare.com.
Instead of defending Malkin by addressing each of these (well sourced) claims by Tbogg, Patterico instead chooses to attack Tbogg’s anonymity by passively-aggressively outing Tbogg. One can only assume that this tact by Patterico means Patterico had no real rebuttal to the claims made against Malkin, and had to resort to schoolyard bullying tactics.
In Vino Veritas (91ae05) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:20 amg.a.: quick question
If Qana was a hoax,
1)Why has Israel apologized for it?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/world/middleeast/31scene.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
2) Why dis the IDF change its initial story on the strike?
“The Israel Defense Forces had said after the deadly air-strike that many rockets had been launched from Qana. However, it changed its version on Monday.
The site was included in an IAF plan to strike at several buildings in proximity to a previous launching site. Similar strikes were carried out in the past. However, there were no rocket launches from Qana on the day of the strike.”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/745185.html
In Vino Veritas (91ae05) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:27 amIt’s interesting to note that Patterico’s first thought when angered by TBogg’s comments about a third party was to track down his real identity. Why did that even occur to him? Curiosity? The only reasonable answer is that Patterico was looking for a way to harm TBogg in retaliation for his comments bout Ms. Malkin. TBogg’s real identity doesn’t help Patterico make a counter-argument or dispute the (admittedly crude) gist of TBogg’s comments. All it does is provide Patterico with the means to intimidate TBogg into silence. In the context of the decision by Patterico’s compadre Jeff Goldstein to step away from blogging following the unhinged behavior of a commenter, it is hard to see his actions any other way. Patterico got mad and decided the best way to respond was by attempting intimidate the object of his anger into silence.
I never want to here about online civility from this quarter again.
Singularity (5663f7) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:29 amVV:
Israel also initially apologized for the death of Muhammad al Dura, before a number of studies by independent suggested that the IDF was not responsible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_al-Durra
aunursa (1b5bad) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:39 amI always thought Michelle Malkin’s penchant for antagonism and hate speech was why the Right like her; she and others like her (Coulter, Savage) are willing to say things most wingnuts don’t want to be caught dead saying on record.
And Tbogg’s real name is actually “Mangrove Throatwarbler”. Boy did he fool you guys…
Samurai Sam (f0a546) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:42 am[Try the headline of his post. — P]
What, five clearly sarcastic little words that on their own didn’t even constitute a complete sentence? You’re really stretching if you think that qualifies as an accusation on TBOGG’s part. Yet not exactly surprising given the gymnastics you’ve already undertaken to try and defend Goldstein as mentally balanced.
But please, don’t let me deter you from your ongoing identity-revealing crusade. I’m sure somebody somewhere thinks it’s important.
Doug (6aa580) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:43 amHe called it an outing. You said Patterico lied by saying that Tbogg claimed to have been outed. Tbagg called it an outing. What part of that confuses you?
I’ll thank you to provide a link to where I’ve ever said that Goldstein is mentally balanced. I know you won’t find one.
My identity revealing crusade? WTF are you talking about? I’m no tbagg, thank heavens.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:53 amVino Veritas-
If people wished to present information as you do in post #69 instead of spending time practicing profanity, then maybe we could get somewhere. The information you present can be investigated, and even if all true, does not explain the need to use the kind of rhetoric that “TBoggs” used, which was the original issue, I believe.
I actually thought “TBoggs” referred to a baseball fan who liked Wade Boggs, and was himself a T-ball coach. I don’t want anyone using that language to be a T-ball coach for my kids (younger, that is). In fact, until Dan Rather announces who “TBoggs” is, I’m sticking to my version.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:53 amDarleen: I consider myself to be on the American Left, and I believe I have demonstrated myself to be an adult. You are, of course, free to disagree. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:55 amKen: I’ve found myself engaged in substantial debate here numerous times. Of course, I also tend to be very moderate in the tone of my comments, and think about what is being said on the other side before responding; many of the frequent leftish commentators here decline to do either.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:57 amDoug is talking about Patterico, not you, Pablo. The subtle tip-off was that he quoted Patterico, not you.
Josh (8fcb37) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:58 amSingularity says:
Is that what it did? How can you tell? When does the silence begin?
If by “stepping away from blogging” you mean “updating his blog daily” that’s exactly right. What are we supposed to see in that again?
Or into outing himself, or something. When does the silence part start, again?
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:58 amFWIW,
Not all who are more conservative than Joe Lieberman appreciate Mr. Savage or Ms. Coulter. Just as I know there are some more liberal than Mr. Lieberman who don’t really think Fahrenheit 911 was 100% verifiable.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/3/2006 @ 10:58 amIf by “he quoted Patterico” you mean “He quoted you, Pablo” that’s exactly right.
You kids are such fun. I might have to hit Pat’s tip jar for this level of entertainment.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:01 amMalkin deserves every bit of aspersion she gets. She has made a career out of being hated, and she therefore must suffer the ill-effects of her hate-mongering. Even the darkest of hearts must ache at night as she reflects on all the hate she brings to the world.
Jason (948aac) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:02 amDude, you are one sad, sad POS. Really, slink back to the rock that crawled out from under and leave the adults alone.
The Real Sharon (27d384) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:03 amWhoa. I knew Pablo had an unhealthy obsession with Patty/Goldstein, but until now I figured it had just been one of those desperate-for-attention, “Look at me! I love you! Pleeeeease give me your approval!” low-self-esteem-having-child-type things. I didn’t know it had blossomed into full-blown Single White Female conflating-your-identities-with-others psychosis.
But anyway, Pablo, this is a long-winded way of saying that yes, I was, as Josh pointed out, quoting Patterico, not you. Read much?
Doug (6aa580) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:04 am“I do not know if any eminent social scientist has studied to see if there is an inverse correlation between foul language and the ability to critically think, but I think there probably is. The rise of foul language at least temporally coincides with the inability to reason logically. Many attempts at a logical argument that I see or hear today would have a hard time getting out of the “C” range in my sophomore (high school) speech class. The real shame is I don’t know how many people realize that.”
Outstanding job of logically stringing together completely unfounded speculations and hearsay. I wonder how your sophomore (high school) speech teacher would grade that?
whetstone (64da72) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:11 amJeez, P2, this blog is going to need some fumigating. Try Troll-Away(TM). But seriously, TBogg’s racist attacks on Malkin shows he’s not up to learned debate and civil discourse. It’ll eventually bring him down, pseudo- or not. His “martyrdom” supposedly at your hands is just one more absurdity to get some attention without posing any substance. Siccum, trolls.
Monsoon (001e7b) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:13 amQuick question: Did the paper publish a retraction?
Hmmmm, so Malkin wrote an editorial column and her version of ‘facts’ didn’t align with “reality”. I’ll alert Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Molly Ivins, and Trudy Rubin.
so she changed jobs or took an offer or had some life circumstance that made working in D.C. Probably for more money. This is bad….. how?
This warrants an ‘okay, so what?” response.
For her part Malkin responded to most, maybe all, of Muller’s 29 part series. Which I read at the time and didn’t consider Muller’s critique so much as ‘devestating’ as ‘jealously protecting academic turf’. Which was an opinion shared by other 3rd party actual-real historians.
Also, out of curiousity, didja like ‘Fahrenheit 911″? What academic credentials does Michael Moore bring to the table when looking at historical events?
Or, maybe, you’re simply against freedom of speech?
Your choice.
Well, that’s an interesting choice as a ‘highwater mark’ for the blogosphere.
Okay, so rightwing institutions like Regnery and Heritage are white supremacist organization? Is that the allegation or is it stated somewhere in their literature? Could you or DWeav provide some proof that either named organization supports a white supremacist policy?
Or not?
Because that isn’t proof.
LibAv, I read through your 2004 take on this and, still, I find the allegation silly.
Malkin writes a syndicated column for which VDARE pays Creators Syndicate money to publish it on their site. Her work is also syndicated to Jewish World Review – is there some white supremacist/JEW group out there we should know about?
Saying that Malkin ‘pens a regular column for VDARE’ implies that she creates original content specifically for that site. She doesn’t.
Her agreement with VDARE people on issues (the Sailer piece) is less than what you made it out to be.
The statement that Malkin’s a white supremacist in brown face is, frankly, stupid whether you or the guy who never learned to shave as a cowboy thinks she is.
But, please, tell us how the Maglagang and ping pong ball stuff used by her detractors isn’t race baiting. That’d be nice.
preferably anonymous (002671) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:14 amAh, I missed Patterico’s edit, Doug. Mea culpa. But my point stands. Tbagg called it an outing, yet you called Patterico a liar for pointing that out.
You, sir, are a goon.
Good DAY!
Pablo (efa871) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:20 amSo basically, the “moonbat left” is here making perfectly reasoned arguments and bringing up perfectly relevant points.
As is par for the course, all that the slime-merchants of the right can come up with is “stop being so mean and using those bad words” or “lookit all the lfty lunatics”.
These are the types of people that are running the country now, sadly. These are the types of people that have sent our troops off to die for a pile of lies, profits and strange imperialistic dreams.
One day our 12-year national nightmare of heavy GOP influence over this (once) great nation will end — and on that day, there will be much rejoicing, if it isn’t already too late to save the country, and the world.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:22 amShe would first read it and understand it. She would realize that I already acknowledged that two things being temporally related does not necessarily mean any true relationship, and she would agree that all of my points were correct:
1. Language is more foul than it used to be.
2. People can not follow a make a logical argument as well as days past, or Dan Rather would never have put that fake document forward.
3. They have occurred in the same time frame, FWIW.
To the degree there is a connection, I recall the point being made that foul language was resorted to when someone didn’t have better language skills to express themselves. Poor language skills and inability to think logically probably have some degree of interrelationship.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:26 amThose arguments and points would be your posts featuring the word ‘patty’, John?
preferably anonymous (002671) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:27 amI am about to get his ass reamed repeatedly by the “blogofascists” of the left. I hope I remembered to douche.
Patthettico (51f1c3) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:35 amWell well well, look at that. I go away for a few hours to do some work and when I get back what do I find? Discussion of the relative merits of Mz. Malkin’s style of “debate”. Oh you kids! You’ll be the death of me. That’ll teach me to do work.
Not that anyone needs to be reminded, but Mz. Malkin is immaterial to the matter at hand; to whit:
1) P takes offense at something TBogg said about Mz. Malkin.
2) P’s first response is to go a-huntin’ up TBogg’s real name.
3) Since TBogg never really tried to hide his name, P finds it rather easily.
4) P attempts to threaten (quite lamely, one might add) TBogg with an outing if he doesn’t stop saying mean things about Mz. Malkin.
5) TBogg says, in effect, “Bring it on, chump.”
6) P demurs, thinking it gives him some moral cover (it doesn’t.)
There you go; there’s everything in a nutshell. P comes off looking like a sadsack for doing the research to out TBogg but not having the, shall we say, “generative fortitude,” to pull the trigger. He comes back here, licks his wounds, but can’t stop picking at that scab; “How’d it go wrong? Why wasn’t he intimidated?” “Did I screw it up?”
Yes, P, you screwed it up. You come off looking like the worst kind of character assassin – one who can’t follow through.
By the way, you still haven’t answered my question – do you still think TBogg is a gutless coward?
KV
Ken Verybigliar (375975) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:37 amJeez Patterico. Did you kick over a rock here or what.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:46 amActually, to get back to MD:
I teach junior and senior high school. I do not allow any vulgar language, incluing the commonly heard words, “sucks” and “crap.” If a students slips and says one or the other, I say, “Please don’t use that word; it’s so vulgar.” They always honor my request.
And that’s the point: many kids use words becuase they hear them in music & movies, and even in public, but NO ONE calls people out on it. In order to teach civility, adults have to model civility, and I make sure that I do.
goddessoftheclassroom (386c87) — 8/3/2006 @ 11:49 amHey, Rico, (can I call you Rico?), that’s really powerful work, dude. At least for a member of the intellectually challenged and morally bereft right-wing gasbags.
Thanks, Rico. I’ll be back when I need a good laugh.
Just so you know…I’m
T. McTighe
Thomas (3447b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:04 pmP. O. Box 725 (we don’t have mailboxes)
Sullivan’s Island, SC 29482
“preferably anonymous” no likey allegations from the left that Malkin has ties to VDare.com, and by extension, white separatism.
Malkin links to VDare in her blogroll. VDARE’s mission statement is here and is indisputably oriented towards white supremacy/separatism.
I myself have written about Michelle’s enthusiastic defense of Steve Sailer of VDARE – the racial IQ proponent.
Juan Mann writes for VDARE – and he writes for Michelle’s immigration blog. (He also operates a cheerful site called “DeportAliens.com”).
Malkin’s name appears on the VDARE front page six times at the moment. There is a permanent link to her “archive” on the front page.
Is VDARE not a racist entity? Is Malkin not tied clearly to VDARE?
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:20 pmthe fact is people on the left hide behind fake names because some person/s from the right will send viruses, spam and thier acolytes to try to harm the person from the left. i am not saying only people on the right do this but more from the right then the left do it.
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:23 pmmore to the point tbogg is right on about michelle malkin.
Jim,
You got some stats to back up that assertion that people from the right “send viruses, spam and thier (sic) acolytes to try to harm the person from the left”? I mean, sorta like the lefty idiots on this thread, the ones with the collective I.Q. of 3 I referenced earlier?
Sure, it’s all those people from the right who make racist remarks, right? I mean, it’s all those right wingers who call Michelle Malkin all sorts of racist names, not those oh-so-tolerant leftwing batshit crazies. Or those 3d grade taunts about Patterico not outing an idiot lefty blogger who hides behind a pseudonym while castigating Michelle Malkin (real name) and Jeff Goldstein (real name).
sharon (03e82c) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:35 pmNot just once, but again, even after I was so kind as to point out your error in a generous effort to spare you further embarassment. And not even a word of thanks for my trouble!
Josh (8fcb37) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:47 pmHelp me Rhonda,
So, again, we see the Left on display. Bad manners, dirty mouths, racist bigots, cowardly appeasers, and crazy as outhouse rats. Steeped in illusions, marinated in mendacity, filled with hate, and blind as Moonbats, these unemployable nincompoops out themselves like Pavlov’s dogs and then whine someone else made them do it. Sheesh!
Black Jack (d8da01) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:47 pmLibAv –
That part where I said – “I read your 2004 post about this {Sailer}”, what I meant to say was “I read your 2004 post about this {Sailer}”, but thanks anyway for sending me the link to the post you wrote in 2004 about this.
I also read the post Malkin wrote which you linked. That post had nothing to do with your topic, it had to do with hispanics and their impact on voting. So, you bait and switched at the link, imo.
If you’re going to say “Nothing Steve Sailer can ever be used or thought of seriously by non-racists” then go ahead and say that.
You seem (to me) a bit hysterical with regard to VDARE. They may be the Klan with nice ties
I also read the SPLC article, here:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=285
And, I think there’s a central problem with the issue with border control and immigration being equated specifically with racism.
One – having control of your borders and a plan for immigration seems to be a pretty good idea for all countries, including the US.
Two – the population growth among non-whites is higher than whites, which sort of diminishes the ‘White Power’ side of the equation. I didn’t catch the part where VDARE advocates sterilizing the brown people for the good of the white people.
I’m no fan of VDARE, I thought the ‘Heather Locklear’ stuff he wrote was sort of odd. If Adrian Zmed had some Lubbe blood in him, that would be kind of cool.
I understand that you’re fully invested in this “Malkin, because VDARE mentions her and publishes her stuff, is some self-loathing white supremacist” .. have at it.
Just don’t mind my rolling my eyes every once in a while.
preferably anonymous (002671) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:49 pmTell you what, Josh. I’ll thank you for jumping in to the conversation as soon as you address the point at hand. Was Doug right to call Patterico a liar, or is he indeed a doodyhead?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:50 pmsharon,(how do we know it’s your real name?)
#1 Michelle malkin published the names and adresses of a group of peaceful protesters who showed up at a army recruiting center.
#2 republicans who suggested Max Cleland blew off his own limbs during the vietnam war
#3 republicans who suggested John Mccain abused his adopted daughter.
#4 the fact karl rove is a right winger.
#5 the viruses i recieved for a month the day after i sent the folks at powerline a note telling them how much i appreciated what they offer to political discourse in america.
#6 some person sharon who assaults people on the lefts iq, calls them idiots and then says i said things i didn’t.
why don’t you ask goldtein, malkin et al if they are recieving monies to spout thier rhetoric, you might be surprised.
although i must agree on one thing with you, as much as i believe the following it should be doubted unless proof is offered
“In 1984 I watched George W. Bush enthusiastically and expertly perform a homosexual act on another man, one Victor Ashe.”
How’s that for an attention-grabbing opener? These words come to us by way of Nevada gubernatorial candidate Leola McConnell, who would have my vote if I lived in the state of sin.
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:52 pmComment by sharon — 8/3/2006 @ 12:35 pm
Ya know what? Michelle Malkin is an advocate of torture, internment camps and genocide.
You think she deserves tolerance, ya schlep?
Fuck her, and fuck everything she stands for. And Sharon, you and the other reich-wing troglodytes are a bunch of sick, twisted wanna-be fascists for even CONSIDERING not only being tolerant of a torture-apologist like Malkin, but actually defending that waste of a person.
I just love how the reich-wingers, when all else fails, complain about how “the left is supposed to be tolerant, so why aren’t they tolerant of my fascist pig heroes?” Pathetic.
The so-called “tolerance” of the left is something that has to do with not taking away people’s rights, or not being discrimatory against people based solely on their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, race, etc.
The left’s “tolerance” never was, and never will be extended to “being tolerant of war criminLs and their enablers and apologists”. So in other words, we’ll never be like you, and thank God for that.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:53 pmThis is how you respond to my acts of Christian charity? One who makes boneheaded errors is in no position to demand answers of the one who corrects said errors. Even the crassest urchin understands that you first thank your benefactor for what he has provided you already before extending your grubby paw for more.
Josh (8fcb37) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:55 pm“Help me Rhonda,
So, again, we see the Left on display…. blah blah blah I cant address the issues so I’ll just throw out a bunch of baseless attacks”
Is that all you got, wannabe fascist?
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:55 pmIf VDARE is paying her syndicate to run her columns, and that means Michelle is tied to VDARE, that means that when I go to the grocery store and buy some Ben and Jerry’s which I then offer to my guests, Ben and Jerry are tied to me.
They’re swell guys, I’m sure, and the ice cream rocks. But I don’t think any of us would be willing to consider ourselves tied together because of it.
Can’t we just agree that they don’t enjoy a Jane Hamsher/Ned Lamont sort of relationship?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:55 pmHey Josh? Blow me, loser.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 12:56 pmThe anger and obscenity on the left is amazing. I don’t think it is necessarily evidence of inability to think. That is sufficiently explained by their politics. I think the use of obscenity is to make them sound more manly. That applies to the “girls” too. The moonbat eruption here is awesome. I expect a cold summer next year just due to the amount of crap in the air. I expect we will see record levels by the November election.
As for Regnery, I also am a small publisher and envy the commercial success that Regnery has had taking stuff that the main stream publishers, with left wing editors making value judgements, have passed up. Maybe that’s why there is such a high failure rate in publishing these days. The LA Times and NY Times have shown the way and the lemmings followed.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:00 pmAh., those were organizers of a protest against the US ARMED FORCES and it was at UC Santa Cruz that they chased American servicemen off the campus. The information Malkin posted was that contained in their PRESS RELEASE, which she found posted at their website.
Here’s Michelle’s post.
When your first fact is so blatantly wrong, one has to wonder if you’re simply misinformed or maliciously lying.
Which is it?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:02 pm#4 the fact karl rove is a right winger.
All the proof I need!
Cordially…
Rick (048868) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:05 pm“The anger and obscenity on the left is amazing”
Yep, and the actual, physical destruction of life, environment and the middle-class by the right is something that actually matters and is relevant in the world we live in.
Want a tissue, Mikey?
You destroy our country and we’re supposed to be polite about it? Fuck off.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:05 pmPablo,
The facts of the Malkin post don’t matter; only of fact of “karl rove’s” right winger-hood. Sure, listed as #4, but #1 in the left’s pounding hearts.
Cordially…
Rick (048868) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:07 pm“The so-called “tolerance” of the left is something that has to do with not taking away people’s rights, or not being discrimatory against people based solely on their religious beliefs, sexual orientation, race, etc.”
Really? I thought it was about intellectual discourse. But judging from your venom, that would be impossible. Not interested in taking away people’s rights? I guess you’re against campus speech codes and all the other BS the left, the supposedly TOLERANT left, talks about ad nauseam. You’ve done a terrific job of advertising here for your causes. Congratulations!
sharon (03e82c) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:08 pmMax Cleland blew off his own limbs during vietnam. It was an accident, but it did happen that way via a wayward grenade. That is part of the historical record – and from his own words – and I’m quite surprised that anyone knowing who Cleland is would not know that fact.
BTW, #5 makes you appear quite the crank. Unless Powerline replied to your ‘note’ with an attachment that you unwittingly opened which contained a virus, the Powerline guys would have no way of infecting your computer. I’ve seen some doozies, but blaming Powerline for your computer viruses?
RW (89e21a) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:09 pmSuch a witty rejoinder! Feeling a bit thin-skinned after learning that Patterico thinks you are an anonymous coward?
Josh (8fcb37) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:09 pmVDARE – the organization named after Virginia Dare – the first European born on the American continent – who was stolen and raped by savage redskins and was magically turned into a white deer – is a website that has nothing to do with white supremacy and the fact that Malkins’ columns run there means she has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.
OK.
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:12 pmSharon,
allow me to jump in with respect to #116.
I am, and always have been, torn on the subject of campus speech codes and “political correctness” more generally. I don’t like the idea of *rules enforced by the campus authority* which require that you speak in particular ways; on the other hand, I find that much of what is covered by campus speech codes is in some way or another *rude*, and is speech that I would expect civilized adults to not engage in.
Which is to say: I don’t support the rules, but I think the people violating the rules are by and large jerks with a chip on their shoulder about how they’re being oppressed because people won’t let them be jerks.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:13 pmLiberal Avenger,
David Ehrenstein called J.C. Watts a “house nigger” and is still actively linked by atrios (who knows all about it, and replied “David has earned the right to say whatever he wants”) and blogs for the huffingtonpost. Neither of those two would I consider racist, even though they’re rather icky, they just are affiliated in some way with someone who uses racist language.
Just a lesson in “guilt by association can sometimes be tricky, which is why it’s often not a legitimate debating point”.
RW (89e21a) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:17 pm“Really? I thought it was about intellectual discourse”
Well excuse you for being a dumb ass. Look up the word tolerant, and tell me where it mentions intellectual discourse. And then tell me where I can find an intellectual on the right.
“I guess you’re against campus speech codes and all the other BS the left, the supposedly TOLERANT left, talks about ad nauseam.”
Hmm. Ad nauseum? I guess that would mean the left always talks about it. Which is odd, since I don’t see the left always talking about it. Whats that? Oh its just another one of your irrelevant straw man attacks?
That’s a fucking fringe issue, and you know it twit. In fact, outside of campus not tolerating rascist and religious slurs or bigotted speech, I don’t know WTF youre even talking about. Which is strange, since you baselessly claim that this is something the left “always talks about”…
What matters is you and your ilk propping up a government that starts wars based on false pretenses. Get with the program. OR, so maybe you’ll think I’m more “MANLY”, I’ll rephrase that and say get with the fucking program, ya dumb ass.
I’m not here in an attempt to engage in “intellectual discourse’ with the wannabe fascist crowd. You all know the facts, and you still insist on living in your reality-addled bubble of disinformation. I’m here to just observe what type of American it takes to watch as their country is flushed down the shitter while they cheer it on, and I pretty much have seen what I expected to see.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:18 pmhey pablo,
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:18 pmit was a recruiting post set up at uc santa cruz.
is your army not part of your armed forces?
the names and adresses were on a press release and were not to be part of the public domain,it is for journalists if they need to follow up. that is why you don’t see the name and address of every spokesman for every group who is quoted in the papers
given your little rant and obvious inaccuracies one has to wonder if you are simply misinformed or are maliciously lying.
please provide a url or screen capture of the press release from thier website.
You should have seen me when the Earth expolded the other day. Man, was I ever peckish!
Doug tells me he’s next, Josh, so don’t bother getting up.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:19 pmLibAv –
I checked. That wasn’t VDARE’s mission statement, or even part of the FAQ.
If you’re going to substitute your Greater Understanding of a group like VDARE’s purpose for theirs, go ahead. Just declare your perspicacity when doing so.
It’s polite.
Cheers.
preferably anonymous (002671) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:19 pmJim, it was a job fair, you dumbass. Read the post.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:19 pmGA:
Your link about Muslims lying to infidels is the most racist piece of shit that has been bandied about here today. You should be ashamed to have brought it up – and Patterico should be ashamed to have you as a guest here on his site.
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:21 pmYour sister is named Doug? That’s odd.
Josh (8fcb37) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:22 pmI haven’t seen anything racist on Malkin’s blog. I did see something racist and disgusting from Jane Hamsher yesterday. I’m not one to loosely throw around the racist label, but yup, that was racist. Were we not supposed to notice?
Oh, it was a genuinely outrageous picture for Jane Hamsher to post. I know you don’t like that Malkin is ripping her a new one over it but maybe down the line you’ll realize Hamsher is getting what she deserves. Couldn’t happen to a nicer woman…..
As far as why Malkin is only on the most-viewed cable news channel instead of the news channels with no ratings…isn’t she under contract with FOX?
I’m too tired to go through all that happened between Patterico and TBogg (maybe when I’m buzzed I’ll go through it…). I’m not familiar with TBogg, and if defending the injection of racist imagery into a political campaign is what he’s about then I don’t think I’ll be familiarizing myself further.
LoafingOaf (a90377) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:23 pmJohn — William F. Buckley is clearly an intellectual, and is clearly on the right. You lose this point.
Also, Dictionary.com’s *first* definition for ‘tolerance’ is “The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.” While this doesn’t say anything about intellectual discourse per se, intellectual discourse is the exchange of ideas and beleifs, and having the capacity to recognize and respect the beliefs of others is a prerequisite to a fruitful intellectual discourse.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:23 pmJosh, don’t you call my sister a liar.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:25 pmPablo — i’m somewhat shocked that the students at UC Santa Cruz have been turning violent over this; when *I* was there, protests were peaceful. We did sometimes have debates about whether or not to be peaceful, but the peaceful protest crowd always won.
That said, the army deciding to send recruiters to a job fair at UC Santa Cruz doesn’t appear to be one of their brighter decisions: the left-wing, anti-war tenor of the campus population has been well known for two decades now. Yes, the military has the *right*, enshrined in law, to send recruiters to said job fair; and yes, violently ejecting them from campus is both immoral and illegal; and deciding to go there in the first place wasn’t the most prudent of decisions.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:25 pmIf Malkin and VDARE aren’t racist, what are they then?
Do they say nice things about people of other races? Do they embrace multiculturalism? Are they proponents of tolerance? Do they teach brotherly love?
The Liberal Avenger (5f0af6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:25 pmbwahahahahahaha!
So when african-american David Ehrenstein calls african-american J.C. Watts a “house n****r”,
that somehow makes african-american David Ehrenstein a racist in your humble opinion?
Put down the crack pipe RJ West. You\’re insaneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
bwahahahahahaha (af03e6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:26 pmJohn in Chicago,
You’ll have to trust me here that I’m not being snarky or otherwise malicious when I tell you this. Any rational observer looking in on this blog from the outside could not read your last few posts without concluding you’ve completely lost your mind.
Read what you’re writing here! You have built up this demonized boogyman of reich-wingers that you’re convinced are actively trying to persecute you, take away your rights, or put you in a gulag.
You respond to this completely imaginary threat by behaving precisely like the monster you’ve created in your mind. I have no doubt, based on your outrageous paranoia and anger, that if you were in a position to really do anything in the public sphere you would do all those evil things you believe Rethuglicans are doing or are trying to do.
Bill B (1600b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:27 pmLoafingOaf says:
You’ll find that in the posts where she shares the email she gets from the inclusive, tolerant left. In spades!
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:27 pmY’know, piling on Greenwald for the sock puppet thing made sense. It spoke to larger issues. And the way the lefties circled the wagon was just dumb, considering what they were defending.
But this? What are you, twelve?
You’re a sniveling little bitch, Frey.
Clarke (1ba5f6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:27 pmOh, and Liberal Avenger – they simply disagree with you on policies. I realize in your world that means they’re racist.
Bill B (1600b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:28 pmSo you feel the need to be a rabid bitch’s knight in shining plastic. Fine, make a fool of yourself. But your penile conniptions about this shrew are wasted because thousands think equally to TBogg about her. Me included, obviously.
Lesley (6a6c55) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:28 pmWords mean things.
“Racist language” means racist language, such as calling someone a “house nigger”, as Ehrenstein did.
“Racist” means someone who believes that one race is inherently superior to another race.
Your ridiculous (yet oft repeated notion) that someone of a particular race cannot therefore be racist is duly noted, however. And, btw, quite comical considering the subject at hand.
RW (89e21a) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:30 pm“John — William F. Buckley is clearly an intellectual, and is clearly on the right. You lose this point.”
Cuz starting a magazine that, in its infancy, railed on the “negro problem” is certainly something that qualifies you as an intellectual, right?
But I know the man is very educated, so I guess that would fit a narrow definition of the word. But I wasn’t trying to “win” anything anyways, it was more or less a joke, at the rights expense — because you have to be pretty fucking dumb to buy into today’s right wing vision of the world.
“and having the capacity to recognize and respect the beliefs of others is a prerequisite to a fruitful intellectual discourse.”
I recognize that Malkin is a rascist pig.
I do not respect it. therefore, I am not tolerant of her.
Like I said, the so-called “tolerance” of the left doesn’t mean that since we don’t discriminate against people merely because of what they do in their own provate lives, or the race, or their religion, it certainly doesn’t mean we have to be tolerant of those who enable and support war criminals.
I’ve never understood why the right can’t get that through their head, but I think it’s because they don’t care if it makes any sense or not, they just cannot address the actual relevant facts so they resort to critiquing the left’s choice of verbiage.
Which is, to say, a fucking morally bankrupt way of engaging in any kind of discourse, let alone intellectual discourse.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:31 pmhey pablo you fucking retarded monkey
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:31 pmwhat do you think a job fair is?
i know you don’t know because you probably never held a job in your life, you’re too busy holding your tiny dick between your hands and someone else’s between your lips.
next time you want to resort to name calling give your little pea brain a shake.
apharel, as far as I’m concerned you can stop right there. I have no use for a “but” following that.
If the pukes can’t control themselves, they should be locked up. That’s why we have laws. And for them, and the rest of the left, to then claim victimhood when other people express themselves is garbage.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:31 pmand i know you have a use for a butt
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:32 pm“Read what you’re writing here! You have built up this demonized boogyman of reich-wingers that you’re convinced are actively trying to persecute you, take away your rights, or put you in a gulag.”
Bill, for one I don’t give a shit what your perception of how others might perceive my comments here to be indicitive of. I really, honestly don’t. Get it?
For two, I didn’t conjure up any boogymen. They conjured up themselves. I haven’t alluded to any kind of conspiracy theories or anything of the sort.
I refer only to the factual, documented actions of the criminal Bush Administration. Starting wars based on false pretenses, propping up fascist regimes in the middle east (like Saudi Arabia), enriching the rich at the expense of the middle class and working poor, whipping the entire population into a fear frenzy whenever they need to be distracted from the matter(s) at hand, etc. etc. No boogyman there. Unless of course you consider the concept of REALITY to be a “boogyman” (it does have a well know liberal bias, so I can understand if you do).
Never mentioned the anyone taking away my rights, putting me in a gulag, or any of that other straw man bullshit you came up with in your feeble attempt to attempt to appear as the “voice of reason” or whatever the fuck you fancy yourself to be.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:37 pmas for what john in chicago said,
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:42 pmIf the right had any intellectual honesty they would come right out and state what they stand for.
war for resources
white is right
greed is good
everybody else knows it is what they stand for
John in Chicago,
I’m not trying to be the voice of anything. I’m making an observation of you behavior. My honest opinion is that you suffer from profound paranoia. You can take that or leave it.
It would be helpful, perhaps, if you’d step back and take a look at what you say and realize you’ve let yourself become just like your enemy, regardless of your protestations of the contrary.
Bill B (1600b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:42 pmSo as a prosecutor I take it that if someone is charged with walking up to someone and hitting him and his claim is the after I got in the other guys face, the other guy dared me to hit him and called me a pussy, so I hit him, I take it that as a prosecutor you would not press charges.
You are a thug in your private life. I suspect you are a thug in your professional life as prosecutor. You are absolutely not what our legal system needs.
Go fuck yourself.
jerry (049afa) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:44 pmJohn — as a leftist, I take issue with your description of the tolerance of the left.
*My* tolerance is to recognize that people walk down different paths and have different experiences, and that there is beauty in their paths and experiences just as their is beauty in mine. It is to understand that there is value in us each exchanging the wisdom we have gained through our experiences. It is to acknowledge that, likely as not, if I’d walked down the same path as another person, I would see the world much as they do; and to try to find a way to couch my view of the world in terms which I think would be understood by the person I am talking to.
The description of ‘tolerance’ you are espousing strikes me as being incredibly narrow and, to be honest, every bit as destructive as the intolerance you decry.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:44 pmPablo: I believe there is wisdom in understanding when and where you are likely to be recieved well, and when and where you are likely to be recieved poorly; and I believe there is wisdom in acting on that.
The army, in choosing to send recruiters to this particular job fair, either failed to understand the ground in which they were recruiting, or decided to make a statement by deliberately going there.
The former, if true, is unfortunate but understandable. The latter, if true, is insane: why pick a fight when you know you don’t have to, unless your goal is to stir up public outrage?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:45 pmjim said: If the right had any intellectual honesty they would come right out and state what they stand for.
Has it ever occured to you, just once, that the reason the right doesn’t come right out and state those beliefs is because they don’t have them and those nefarious motives you ascribe to them exist only in your imagination?
Bill B (1600b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:46 pmJerry: in what possible way is ‘go fuck yourself’ conducive to a productive conversation? I mean, I guess it’s a great way to express moral outrage, but it’s a terrible way to engage someone in a discussion, don’t you think?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:46 pmBill B – to be fair, I have seen many people say they believe that greed is good; greed, in their book, is what fuels economic growth.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:47 pmComment by Bill B — 8/3/2006 @ 1:42 pm
Bill,
What part of “I don’t give a shit what you think the perception of my posts may be” do you not understand?
I don’t agree with you, and I don’t care to explain why because I’ve dealt with people like you who, when all else fails, emply this tired-ass tactic of “of youre so angry” in order to avoid the actual issues at hand.
I do read what I write. In fact, I read it several times over because I like it so much. You can get all hung up on my verbiage, but at the end of the day it doesn’t make me “like my enemy” no matter how much you huff and puff about it.
When I start defending and propping up people who drop bombs on civilians in the name of power and profit, then maybe you can spout your bullshit about me becoming like my enemies.
Until then, I have absolutely no interest in your baseless accusations.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:49 pmaphrael,
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:52 pmyour position while admirable, will only get sand kicked in the face of the left and more stolen elections.
the left needs more eugene debs.
Now you say that David Ehrenstein is racist because, you assert, he thinks african-americans are superior to african-americans? You\’re killing me here! ROTFLMAO at RJ West.
Really man, PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE!
bwahahahahahahaha!
bwahahahahahahaha! (197103) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:52 pmIf the right had any intellectual honesty they would come right out and state what they stand for.
war for resources
white is right
greed is good
Oh–hello there, Glenn!
How’s it hangin’? That’s some of your usual substance there, by golly for sure.
Cordially…
Rick (048868) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:52 pmComment by aphrael — 8/3/2006 @ 1:44 pm
Well youre a better person than me, I suppose.
Although I do agree with the basic jist of what youre saying.
On the other hand, I fail to see any redeeming qualities, or “beauty” in someone who is fully aware of the facts regarding our government, yet still decides to prop it up and decry all dissidents as traitors.
Ya know, I used to be more like you, but 10+ years of wannabe fascist rule has a way of changing one’s opinion of where my “tolerance” extends.
There’s no reasoning with these people, so I have officially abandoned the “high road” when it comes to dealing with those who enable war, poverty, racism and greed.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:53 pmaphrael, well, I’m sure all those sentiments listed by jim have been espoused by some people. But he’s got his mind set on believing everybody on the right believes those things, but won’t come out and say so…it’s all a secret, nefarious plot, ya know.
Bill B (1600b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:53 pmbill b
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:55 pmhahahahahahahaha
actions speak louder than words
John in Chicago,
On top of everything else you’re also self-rightous in the extreme. Anybody who doesn’t see the world as you do in your delusion is evil and must be destroyed. All I can say is thank goodness you don’t have any real power.
Bill B (1600b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:56 pmer..self-righteous. Don’t want to spelling ninnies to descend on me. 🙂
Bill B (1600b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:57 pmaphreal, their goal was to do their jobs. They didn’t pick a fight. They were doing what WE PAY THEM to do. Recruit people. Which is what you do at a job fair.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 1:58 pmWell, for what it’s worth, I’d like to punch you in the face, Jerry.
Wilson (4d1921) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:00 pmI’ll kick him in the ass!
Ellison (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:01 pmAnd I’ll give Jerry such a pinch!
Ryan (048868) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:04 pmThis too shall pass
Gbear (95d12a) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:06 pm“n top of everything else you’re also self-rightous in the extreme. Anybody who doesn’t see the world as you do in your delusion is evil and must be destroyed. All I can say is thank goodness you don’t have any real power.”
Talk to me when your ready to discuss the criminal actions of those you support and enable.
For the third time, I do not care about your critiques of my posts.
But I will clarify one tidbit of misinformation you through out there:
“Anybody who doesn’t see the world as you do in your delusion is evil ”
Another baseless attack. I do not think that anybody who doesn’t see things the way I do is evil, as you are claiming. But I think anybody who actually knows all the facts about our government’s actions and the Republicans in general and still decides to support and enable them is a POS. Big difference, Elroy.
I’m pretty certain you still don’t get it (mostly because you don’t want to get it, like I said, I’ve dealt with the repug ‘voice of reason’ types before, and you all use the same tired, irrelevant, change-the-subject playbook), but whatever. I’m going home now.
John in Chicago (cdbef5) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:06 pmI just passed. It hurt. A lot.
Wilson (4d1921) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:07 pmAphrael, regarding your comment #150: The First Amendment confers a right on the speaker to speak and just as much of a right on his audience to hear him. The students who the recruiters wanted to talk to were entitled to make their own decisions whether to listen to the recruiters, to tell them “Thanks, but no thanks”, or simply ignore them. If Bill Gates wanted to offer you a job as his chief computer engineer, would you approve of me standing outside your house trying to keep him from talking to you?
nk (b57bfb) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:09 pmThis sounds strangely familiar. Hmmm.
Wilson (4d1921) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:09 pmAs to TBogg, I, like nearly every one of his regular readers, know his name. Part of the amusing aspect of the whole ‘nice blog you have here’ tone of ‘Six Fingers’ Patterico is that he knows so little about Tbogg and his blog that he thinks this is a site run under an alias.
THAT’s ever sadder than Patterico’s pathetic bravado.
Note to Patterico: attempt to use my IP for anything that ever impacts my daily life and I’ll be speaking to the DA’s office and the CA state bar.
Max Renn | 08.03.06 – 5:15 pm | #
Max Renn (efabb4) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:12 pmJohn in Chicago,
And of course it never occurs to you that your facts might not be true. You’re completely incapable of recognizing that others might not see these crimes that you speak of. You believe it, and anybody who doesn’t is an enabler
I’m sorry, but anyway you parse it, you’re still left with wacko conspiracy theory. I won’t engage you anymore or try to change your mind because I know it would be like trying to talk someone out of believing in alien abductions or some such.
Bill B (1600b6) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:14 pmPatterico sez:
Sheesh, Patterico, if you are going to lie, it’s not too wise to link to the proof that you are a liar. Most of the first 45 comments say no such thing. Some are a variation of “hi tBogg,” some are along the lines of “Patterico is an ass for doing this,” and most of the rest combine those two.
But,
Duh. You didn’t really try to hide it.
No, most of the first 45 comments say no such thing. And when you get past the sample size you describe, it turns heavily in favor of “Patterico is an ass for doing this.”
Patterico sez:
Don’t know what his motivations are–I doubt he’s looking for martyrdom since he comes out alive and healthy and, frankly, on top of you, ethically. Regardless of his aim, what I can see he is achieving is demonstrating how small of a person you are. And anyone traipsing over to those comments will see that. And when they look specifically at those fatal first 45, they will also see that you are a liar.
Cheers.
Nash (d66115) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:15 pmthe first amendment says nothing about having the right to say thanks but no thanks in fact you can yell at the top of your lungs, “get out of here and go find the sons and daughters of your politicians to die.” and the first amendment also supports your right to say it as loud and as many times as you can, even until the murderer and torture recruiters leave.
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:16 pmPablo — pardon me, but that seems absurd to me. “Recruiting” people on the UC Santa Cruz campus is going to be an extremely low-yield activity. For that matter, recruiting people *in Santa Cruz* is going to be an extremely low-yield activity.
As a comparison: if I wanted to hire software engineers, I wouldn’t try to do so in an Amish community; it would be pointless. The same is true here: the overwhelming majority of UC Santa Cruz students are not going to be receptive.
Now, either the person who decided to send the recruiter knew that or he didn’t. If he didn’t, fair enough; it’s arguably part of his job to know where success is and isn’t likely, but it’s a forgivable error.
If he *did*, on the other hand … then what was the point? Why would you *try* to recruit soldiers in a venue which is actively hostile, and in which the potential yield is low?
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:16 pmNK, re 170: yes, actually, I would have no problem with protestors in that situation. I also have no problem with nonviolent anti-abortion protestors who block access to abortion clinics.
The right to protest, the right to try to persuade, is essential to political freedom, and it should be protected — as long as it doesn’t cross the line into violence.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:17 pmAs an addendum to 177: the one thing I do *not* support is picketing funerals. Picketing funerals is an obnoxious and offensive practice which has no place in civilized society.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:20 pmaphreal, how do you know this? And what difference does it make?
If it’s sure to be pointless, what’s the point of the criminal behavior to stop them?
They have the right, they have the law on their side, and this is America, where you don’t get to squelch opinions you don’t like being expressed in the public arena.
Ellison (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:23 pmIt just seems to me to be a lot of huffing and puffing over a relatively minor matter. How someone establishes a blog (or an online magazine, for that matter,) is less important than the context itself.
Outting, threatening to out, or posting coy little comments about how easy it would be to out someone seems like a zero-sum game to me.
I honestly think there are much serious matters facing us these days. I’m not saying you don’t have the right to play games like this because you most certainly do, short of creating a public nuisance of yourself, or creating a perceptible threat to someone else, or their family.
But then, what do I know? I’m just an ole broke-down veteran.
Lurch (2ce8f4) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:24 pmWhoops! That was me. And Ryan. And Thomas Ellers. And Rick Ellesburg.
But not Wilson. He’s a rebel.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:24 pmEllison: I know this because I lived in Santa Cruz from 1991-2003, and because I still have close ties in the community, both on campus and off.
As for why it matters: you’re right that they have the law on their side. There’s no question of that.
But the fact that you have the *right* to do something does not mean that you *should* do something. I have the right to call my mother vulgar names, but it’s a bad idea, and were I to do so, I would be responsible for the consequences. Similarly, the army has the right to recruit on the UC Santa Cruz campus — but it’s a bad idea, and it is responsible for the consequences.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:26 pmaphrael, the Left sees “tolerance” as a one-way street. They expect tolerance for their vulgar outbursts, racist attacks, and wrongheaded policies, but can’t seem to bring themselves to tolerate dissenting opinions. The Left imposes speech codes and employs the nostrum of “political correctness” to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Your last sentence in #130 above, although not intended, accurately makes the point that speech codes are anathema to intellectual discourse, not to mention a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.
Also, you arrogantly keep trying to blame the Army for recruiting at UCSC. They have every right to be there. It was the protesters who broke the law. Clearly, it’s wrongheaded to accuse the Army of insanity for doing something they’ve been doing for hundreds of years and which is necessary to our national security. They aren’t “making a statement” they’re doing their job, and they don’t need your permission or approval to do it. The Army has every right to recruit at UCSC whether it makes sense to you or not.
BTW, thanks for your usually polite and thoughtful comments. It’s such a welcome contrast to the vulgarity and venom typical of so-called “Liberals” and “Progressives” which is unfortunately everywhere so much in evidence today.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:27 pmJim, re 175: but that right does NOT extend to things like slashing tires and offering threats of physical violence.
If the claims that such things happened are true, the protestors responsible are in the wrong, and should be prosecuted if caught.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:29 pmIs that your job?
Are you really going to equate a recruiting effort with calling your mother dirty names?
Do you get paid to call your mother dirty names? Do you call her nasty names as a matter of national security? Do you fund UC Santa Cruz?
Should the Armed Forces suspend all Bay area recruiting activities because they might be “low yield”?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:30 pmWhat about the UCSC students who might be inclined to consider a career in the military? Do they have the right to receive recruitment information on their campus? Do they have the right to speak with a military recruiters?
Or do protesters have the right to prevent these students from gaining such information? Whose rights take precedence?
aunursa (1b5bad) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:31 pmJohn is so sure that his country has been taken over by crazed evil men, yet the most he is willing to do about it is whine about the mean right-wingers.
What a liar/pussy/coward John is.
Either a liar, because he knows that his delusions of some 1984 type tyranny is false, or pussy/coward because he will not do anything about it.
nathan (070c5a) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:32 pmPablo — as a taxpayer, i’d prefer the army not be recruiting in places which are going to be low yield; that’s not a particularly efficient use of taxpayer money.
Note that this does not include the entire bay area, by far; go up the road ten miles from Santa Cruz and you’d no longer be in a low yield area. 🙂
I don’t see why the fact that “it’s their job” matters: somebody made the decision to allocate the recruiting resource to recruit at UCSC. He presumably doesn’t send someone to every job fair in the bay area; he chose this one.
Why did he choose this one?
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:33 pmAnanursa — the recruiters have the right to be there; i’m not questioning that.
I’m questioning the *wisdom* of being there.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:34 pmWhat a child you are, Patterico.
mantis (1fbd4c) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:36 pmaphrael,
Because of a potential confrontation? Or because of a low yield?
aunursa (1b5bad) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:37 pmBlack Jack: for much the same reason that I was irritated at John in Chicago above, I find your characterization of ‘the left’ as irritating: it describes *part* of the left without encompassing the left in its entirety.
There is a place on the left for a wider tolerance. It had greater currency once, and with luck, it will again.
As for the army: I’ve never denied the army has the *right* to be there; I have questioned its wisdom in exercising its right. Granted that it does not require my approval; but, as a citizen, I am entitled to disapprove if I find it warranted. In this case I do.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:38 pmAnunursa: because of the low yield.
My thesis is basically this: the expected yield at UC Santa Cruz is extremely low, therefore either (a) the army did not know that the expected yield was low, or (b) it went there not to recruit but to make a show of themselves exercising their right to recruit in hostile territory.
I’ve yet to see any good reason to choose either option (a) or (b) over the other. The benefit of the doubt suggests (a); cynicism about the use and abuse of power suggests (b).
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:40 pmbtw how many of the protesters were charged with criminal offenses.
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:41 pmto all of the republican enablers who don’t like the methods of the left, well what do you expect!
bush and cheney are ruining this country and everything it used to stand for.
we are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore
Jim: the article linked from Michelle Malkin’s site says one protestor was arrested.
The likelihood that the Santa Cruz county DA would prosecute protestors at UC Santa Cruz for anything short of rape or murder is slim.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:43 pmAs an Asst. DA can you fix my parking ticket?
I heart meter maids (0ce116) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:45 pm“I’m not here in an attempt to engage in “intellectual discourse’”
That’s pretty obvious from your inability to participate in one.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:47 pmaphrael,
It would be interesting to see a report that shows how much the military spends per recruit at UCSC vs spending per recruit at nearby colleges in the Bay Area.
How many interested students are required — or how much money spent per recruit — in order to make it worthwhile to provide the students with face-to-face contact? That is a question on which reasonable minds will disagree.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:48 pmananursa, re #198, agreed on both counts.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:51 pmSorry aphrael, the tenor of the campus is not relevant… I’m certain there are people on campus who are interested in a military career, even though they may be heavily outnumbered. Doesn’t that segment of the campus deserve access to all the jobs they may have an interest in? Maybe more than just the jobs that the left-wing, anti-war segment thinks is ok?
Stashiu3 (e1a65b) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:54 pmWe need you in Philadelphia, but can you do something about some of the participants in this thread first, please???
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/3/2006 @ 2:57 pmI am not familiar with the situation/incident referred to about UC Santa Clara, but I highly recommend a film/documentary called “The War at Home” that was made in the 70’s (early 80’s at latest) about the anti-war movement at Univ. of Wisconsin. Included are protests of Army recruiters, full scale riots, and the eventual blowing up of a building. For those of us who did not live through it, pretty wild. The campus kept open only because of the National Guard’s presence.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:04 pmAre you a recruiter? Do you know what the yield is? Do you know what the effort per recruit is? We’ve got/had a war going on. How do you know what the best spent recruiting efforts are?
I’ve not a new data point for you. Recruiters get bonused for recruiting success. They are geared toward maximum success. It’s up to them to spend their time wisely, and we don’t buy it by the hour. We own them, and we train them and we pay them to do what they do. How do you know better than the professional recruiters how and where they ought best spend their time? And how do you justify criminal behavior based on your ill-informed opinion of where they ought to be?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:06 pmpablo you sir are a supreme dickhead. i bet even your family doesn’t like you
jim (42a385) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:08 pmThere, Pablo–you’ve been thoroughly chastised! How can you face life now?
Cordially…
Rick (048868) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:10 pmPablo: please point out to me where I have justified criminal behavior. I’m not aware that I have done so; I believe I have consistently said *both* that the military was legally in the right, and that I think it was a bad idea. The second does not imply the negation of the first.
aphrael (e7c761) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:11 pm”
“The anger and obscenity on the left is amazing”
Yep, and the actual, physical destruction of life, environment and the middle-class by the right is something that actually matters and is relevant in the world we live in.
Want a tissue, Mikey?
You destroy our country and we’re supposed to be polite about it? Fuck off.”
Boy are the moonbats out today ! This individual (I won’t say it’s a guy since the opinions could have been generated by a machine programmed to put out left wing drivel) needs a job. I come by every couple of hours and there is nothing here but its blathering bile.
Comment by John in Chicago — 8/3/2006 @ 1:05 pm
Get a job, John. Chicago has a good economy. Lots of work in the food service industry, for example. I understand housekeeping is hiring. And then, there is always Walmart.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:14 pmPseudonym ethics…
Patterico’s explanation of the situation is that TBogg’s posts made him angry. This is a hint that Patterico understands, deep down, that his actions were unjustified….
House of David (870a55) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:16 pmaphreal, you’ve suggested that the recruiters are at fault for instigating an incident, declaring their presence imprudent. This is akin to “Well, she was wearing that short skirt, and she was in the wrong part of town so she was probably looking for trouble…”
Please address the rest of my post.
Rick, I simply ignore people who can’t manage the shift key. Cheers!
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:24 pmCome to think of it, Ned Lamont has Walmart stock. Maybe he can help you with a job application. Worth a try.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:31 pmPablo: I don’t see responsibility as a one-way street; I think that multiple people can share responsibility for an event and its outcome.
That said, I believe i’ve been fairly scrupulous about not assigning blame or fault. See, eg, #193 above.
As for the rest of your comment #203: I ignored it for a reason, largely because I don’t know how to respond to it in a constructive fashion. It appears to boil down to “they must have a good reason for doing it because it’s their job”.
I don’t generally like argument from authority, although I admit to having engaged in it myself, and in this case it’s particularly bizarre. I have worked with many people who have no idea what they are doing, despite the fact that it is their job; I have seen firsthand how large bureaucracies produce economic inefficiencies, and how ‘success’ can be defined in strange and unintuitive ways — and that’s in the *corporate* world, which my conservative friends assure me is less bizzare and inefficient than the government world.
I know Santa Cruz. I know UCSC. I spent twelve years of my life living there. I have a very strong grasp of local politics and a decent sense of what would and would not be productive there. My knowledge of the area tells me that recruiting at UC Santa Cruz would not be productive, and *the events which actually transpired bear that out*.
What you are asking me to do is say, well, no, my knowledge of the area, developed over more than a decade, must simply be wrong, and the military recruiter must be right. That doesn’t seem reasonable to me at all; surely my responsibility as a citizen and as a thinking man is to analyze the data I have and reach conclusions on my own, not to simply bow before the conclusions other people have made.
My conclusion may be wrong; but I’ve seen no evidence of that, and “this other guy whose job it is to recruit thinks your conclusion is wrong” doesn’t constitute such evidence.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:42 pmIf you haven’t seen the recuiting numbers, you simply do not know. The evnta that you say bear this out are criminal. That’s like saying a bank robbery is representative of the American financial system.
Is being a rapist productive at UC Santa Cruz?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:47 pmPablo: above, you called me on an unreasonable comparison between recruiting and calling my mother vulgar names. I find the comparison between rape and the treatment our soldiers recieved at UCSC to be equally unreasonable.
Not all legal acts are good choices. I maintain that the person who sent the soldiers in question made a bad, but legal, choice. I also maintain that the people at the protest who turned violent made a bad, and illegal, choice.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:47 pmPablo — you are correct that, if I haven’t seen the numbers, I don’t know. Absolutely.
It also follows that, if you haven’t seen the numbers, then you don’t know. I doubt that you’ve seen the numbers, as I would expect you to have cited them if so, but I can’t be sure, so i’ll ask: have you seen the numbers?
I haven’t. I can only draw conclusions based on the evidence available to me. The evidence I have is that UC Santa Cruz, and Santa Cruz in general, is stridently opposed to war, and to the military in general, and is unlikely to be a fertile ground for recruiting. Given that evidence, it seems insane to me to attempt to recruit there.
My evidence may be wrong. Do you have any evidence, other than the fact that a military recruiter went there, to demonstrate that it is?
If not … why should I assume that my experience of living in the community leads me to be wrong about whether recruiting would be fruitful there?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 3:51 pmI had no plan to actually “out” the guy, but — angry over his trashing of Malkin — I wanted to rattle his chain. So I left some obscure comments on the Malkin post, needling him. It was the kind of hints he would understand…
I have to ask: If your intent wasn’t to intimidate him, what was it?
You disagree with someone’s post? Argue the content. Then you can grab the KY and the Glory, tell all your friends how you pasted some blogger, and no one gets hurt – and we don’t have to read any more posts like this piece of shite.
Ripley (a83d98) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:02 pmWhew, OK, looks like most of the angry visiting lefties have retired from the playing field and we are back to the usual crew with our old buddy aphrael holding down the liberal side of the debate.
Does anyone else notice how most of our, uh, “guests” are incapable of writing a comment without using the word “fuck” or “shit” or some version thereof? I have a feeling that a lot of them are probably high school or college kids, who still think that throwing in profanity makes your argument seem so much more powerful.
JVW (d667c9) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:04 pmDoes it seem to anyone else that something in the software broke round about comment 209?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:06 pmThe recruiters have seen the numbers, and they felt it worthwhile to go to a job fair at UCSC in the course of performing the duty we pay them to do.
You seem to think that they shouldn’t have done been there, because there are screeching children there who can’t control themselves and recruiters present an attractive nuisance to those rabid little criminals which is insufficiently counterbalanced by their likelihood of sucess in your uninformed opinion.
Is that about right?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:08 pmaphrael, my good man, debating about whether or not recruiting from among the UC Santa Cruz talent pool is a ‘wise decision’ is like counting angels on a pin—it simply is not the point.
Let’s hypothesize about a rape case, for a moment.
I cannot imagine a nice fellow such as yourself focusing your energy on whether it was ‘wise’ of the woman to be wearing a mini-skirt to a sports bar, as opposed to focusing on the illegality of the aroused man raping her in the parking lot.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:09 pmYou know very well that you would be focusing on the brutality of the rape, rather than the mini-skirt.
Coming back to this now that a lot of the sand throwers have left the box, and without bothering to read 100+ comments of “you’re a doodyhead.” Picking up on the SC recruiters thing.
Aphrael, it is precisely the point that people who make “illegal choices” should not be allowed to intimidate legal recruiters to the point where legal recruiting on the soil of the U.S. of A. is “insane.” Would it be “insane” to recruit somewhere where the odds were not good of getting recruits if there were no fears for the recruiters’ safety? No, it would not be “insane,” merely probably unproductive. Thus the campaign of intimidation and violence to keep them away. Illegal. Despicable.
Anwyn (03d912) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:12 pmBoth are victims of crime. You’re saying the recruiters were asking for it. I call BS, and stand by my characterization of the argument.
No one deserves to be victimized while going about their business in a legal fashion. You suggest that their inherent provocativeness mitigates responsibility for the incident. By your logic, that short skirt and them fine legs mitigate that the actions of that old boy who just couldn’t help himself from taking a taste pf that pretty girl.
The punks had an option to mind their own damned business and they declined. They own 100% of the blame.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:14 pmPablo: I think it was a bad idea to go to recruit at the UC Santa Cruz campus because, in an opinion which is informed by having lived there for more than a decade, the likelihood of success would be low.
Your position seems to be that you think it’s impossible that a military recruiter could make a msitake — or, rather, you think it’s more likely that I am wrong than that a military recruiter could make a mistake. That’s a fair position, I suppose; you don’t know me from Adam, as the saying goes, and don’t have sufficient information to assess my credibility.
I think I’m more likely to know what the community would be receptive to than a bureaucrat in San Jose; and nobody has put forward any evidence to contradict that other than sheer conjecture of the “they must be right because it’s their job to be right” variety.
I ask: do you have any evidence other than the unsubstantiated theory that the presence of the recruiters proves that the ground is fallow for recruiting?
If not, I think we’re at an impasse.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:15 pmaphrael:
I also want to thank you for your reasoned discussion. Far too rare these days when sides are so polarized.
That being said, just because you don’t see the sense in it, doesn’t mean that it is senseless. The recruiters may consider getting a single lead, even one that doesn’t lead to an enlistment, as a successful mission for that time and place.
Yes, you are a taxpayer… that doesn’t mean that if you think an F-16 pilot is flying too fast, you get to take the yoke and control the plane. Let the recruiters do their job and see how the numbers come out. I would contend that the military has been meeting their recruiting goals for a reason.
Stashiu3 (e1a65b) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:22 pmTags must be played with carefully here…
Additional Blond Agent (9315f5) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:28 pmIt wasn’t me!! ;^)
Stashiu3 (e1a65b) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:29 pmI guess the Air Force ROTC program for UC – Santa Cruz has no members in it, given the rabid anti-military attitude of every single person aged 18-34 in the area.
Oops.
————————–
The UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ has a crosstown agreement with UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY. Typically, this means you’ll be enrolled as a full time student at UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ and take your ROTC classes each week at UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY.
Crosstown School:
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ
Address: 1156 High Street
SANTA CRUZ, CA 45064
Approved Technical Majors: Computer Science
Foreign Language, Chinese, Mandarin
Foreign Language, Japanese
Computer Engineering
Chemistry
Physics
Approved Non-Technical majors: Our Non-Technical (Tier 4) scholarship offers are good for any major at any Air Force ROTC school or cross-town school.
Institution Code: 001321
Annual In-state Tuition: $7,602
Annual Out-of-state Tuition: $25,422
*Note: Annual tuition cost. Costs are subject to change without notice. Contact the AFROTC unit at the school you are interested in for the latest tuition.
Please contact the Host University for a list of approved majors for this school.
——————————————
So, you know, it’s not like *everybody* on campus is anti-military. Not to mention, it’s possible that a person going to UC-SC might decide in their second year of school that having the military pick up their student tab in exchange for a service commmitment might not be such a bad deal.
Also, let’s not forget two basic things:
1 – the effort for a recruiter to set up a booth at a university is nil. The goal is to get interest and arrange follow-up visits. Nobody’s getting drafted at the booth.
2 – The quotas on these events are quite small. If the recruiter gets a half dozen prospects and 1-2 recruits from the event he’ll be fine.
The Military isn’t looking to fill its quota in one shot from the student population of UCSC.
What’s interesting is the notion held by the Left that adults, and college students are, in most cases, legally adults have to be restricted from hearing certain options.
Personally, I have no problem with anti-war types and general anarcho-hippies from having a booth on either side of the recruiters giving their option to the military’s $50K for college, training, and commission.
Come to think of it, if they did that, the military just might be able to fill its quota from UC-SC.
preferably anonymous (002671) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:45 pmEr, no, I stated – twice – that he used racist language. I even went further, since your reading comprehension is obviously lacking, and noted the differences between “racist language” and “racist”.
You’re not that bright, are you?
RW (5a4e91) — 8/3/2006 @ 4:53 pmNo aphreal, my position is that the recruiters were doing the job we pay them to job in a perfectly legal and socially acceptable fashion.
I think it’s more likely that they know how to do their job than it is that you know how they should do their job. Or that I know. That’s why we trained and pay them to do it.
That they think it worth their while to seed it is evidence enough for me. They have EVERY right to do so UNMOLESTED. They have to answer for thier success or failure. They have the right to do their jobs as they see fit.
You seem to think that this isn’t quite true. Why?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 5:13 pmAnd that it’s OK for this to be done by criminals, who then become victims by virtue of the blowback that goes along with being violent, screeching little assholes.
Screw them. I feel nothing. 🙂
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 5:20 pmPablo:
I have *several times* said that I believe the military has the right to recruit on the UC Santa Cruz campus. I have never once said that I didn’t.
You seem to be equating “doing x is dumb” with “they have no right to do x”.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 5:35 pmaphrael, you are confusing the issue, and I don’t know whether it’s accidental or not. “Doing X is dumb because it won’t accomplish their goal” is a heck of a lot different from “Doing X is dumb because a howling mob might set upon those doing X.”
Doing X even though it might not accomplish their goal is no excuse for a howling mob to set upon those doing X.
Anwyn (03d912) — 8/3/2006 @ 5:37 pmAnwyn: yes, absolutely, doing x even though it won’t accomplish the goal is no excuse for a howling mob to set upon those doing x.
I’ve never denied that. 🙂
What I have said is this: in this particular case, it seems clear to me that doing x won’t accomplish the goal. Given that it seems clear to me that doing x wouldn’t accomplish the goal, it seems possible to me that the purpose in doing x was to provoke the howling mob.
Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. As I said in #193, the charitable interpretation of the military’s actions is to say that it wasn’t; the skeptical-of-government-power interpretation is to say that it was. I don’t know which interpretation is correct; since my general tendency is both to take the charitable interpretation and to take the skeptical of government power interpretation, i’m in trouble when they don’t align.
Either Pedro has been trying to convince me that it isn’t clear that doing x wouldn’t accomplish the goal, or i’ve been trying to convince him that it is clear, or both; that conversation isn’t going anywhere at the moment. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 5:43 pmErm. I meant ‘Pablo’, of course, not ‘Pedro’. My apologies; it’s clearly time to walk away from the computer a while. 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/3/2006 @ 5:47 pmGiven that it seems clear to me that doing x wouldn’t accomplish the goal, it seems possible to me that the purpose in doing x was to provoke the howling mob.
I’d say it’s more plausible to expect the military was doing its job and refusing to be intimidated therein by the possibility of a howling mob. Which, you know, high intimidation threshold is a good quality in a military.
Anwyn (03d912) — 8/3/2006 @ 5:48 pmNo, aphrael. I’m suggesting that you don’t know whether doing “x” is dumb or not, and even if it is, it doesn’t excuse criminal behavior.
Immette St. Guillen was dumb to be young, cute, alone and drunk in NYC at 4 AM. Whose fault was her murder?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/3/2006 @ 6:20 pmGiven that it seems clear to me that doing x wouldn’t accomplish the goal, it seems possible to me that the purpose in doing x was to provoke the howling mob.
We had a history of such a thing in the south that occurred back before I was born. I was taught that it was better to address the mob, change their minds and tell them that what they’re doing is downright wrong instead of telling folks that they shouldn’t do what they have a right – and what they want – to do.
Should the march from Selma have been postponed because of an impending angry mob?
RW (5a4e91) — 8/3/2006 @ 6:24 pmGood grief.
A WHOLE LOTTA PEOPLE need a hug around here.
steve miller (8d972f) — 8/3/2006 @ 6:41 pmI agree with MD in Philly in # 68. This ol’ blog just ain’t what it used to be. Just months ago, it was devoted to exploring the world’s numerous problems in politics. But lately the topic is how to practice the politics of personal destruction – a “smear the queer,“ mob mentality. Oh well, “all good things must come to an end…”
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/3/2006 @ 6:54 pmAphrael, I can see why Santa Cruz is not the best place for the military to recruit, but isn’t it an exaggeration to say that no good recruits will come from there? They’re not looking for a majority, or even a plurality, anywhere. “A few good men,” or so they say.
Xrlq (6a3c55) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:09 pm[…] And then there are other fans of his who hate me and think I’m stupid, but nevertheless say: “Of course you didn’t really out TBogg.” […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Hopefully Final Word on the TBogg Deal (421107) — 8/3/2006 @ 7:50 pmPossibly. Perhaps they simply need LIVES.
Patterico, mate: what fraction of your content recently has consisted of heavily slanted “summaries about” and “re-caps of” and (mustn’t forget) “last words on” the various flame-wars in which you’ve embroiled yourself? A fifth, a third… half? You do realise no-one cares, don’t you?
Major Outypants (57aa5a) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:14 pm“Does anyone else notice how most of our, uh, “guests” are incapable of writing a comment without using the word “fuck” or “shit” or some version thereof? I have a feeling that a lot of them are probably high school or college kids, who still think that throwing in profanity makes your argument seem so much more powerful.”
I second this and have noticed it on lefty blogs for some time. Now, maybe this occurs on right wing blogs of the extreme variety. I wouldn’t know because I don’t read them, like I don’t read Daily Kos. I have to say that I don’t think these are teenagers. Somebody noticed that the Yearly Kos convention was filled with pony-tailed gray-haired ex-hippies. I think these obscene commenters are aging lefties who never progressed beyond the obscenity stage.
Mike K (416363) — 8/3/2006 @ 8:53 pmOh, blow it out your ass Mike.
(Just rattling your chain. I hear it’s all the rage.)
[Yeah. So is leaving up what you believe is someone’s home address on your site all day — like you did with mine, until you learned it’s not really mine. Go away and don’t come back. — Patterico]
tbogg (3ec8e6) — 8/4/2006 @ 12:52 amMcCLOUD!
preferably anonymous (002671) — 8/4/2006 @ 4:29 amYou do realise no-one cares, don’t you?
I care a bit. 😉
I’m fascinated by the dishonesty and internal contradictions on the left. I am ever trying to decide which ones are simply lying and which ones are so dumb they actually believe what they’re saying. Patterico’s little expeditions into the left-o-sphere are interesting from that PoV.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 8/4/2006 @ 5:14 amAphrael, I realize I am coming late to the discussion, but I thought I’d try anyway. Let me first say that I really appreciate your civil, adult, tone. You are a model of civility that commentors from both sides should take to heart.
I think this comment you made is one reason people are perceiving you as blaming the victims for the actions of the thugs: “Similarly, the army has the right to recruit on the UC Santa Cruz campus — but it’s a bad idea, and it is responsible for the consequences.”
That’s a copy and paste quote by the way, and it’s that ‘responsible for the consequences’ phrase that won’t go down with me, and I’m sure with others here.
The recruiters were the victims of a criminal attack, and in no way are the victims resposible for criminal activity against them. I do think this is akin to the same reasoning that would say a girl has the right to wear short skirts and hang out in dark allies on the wrong side of town, “but it’s a bad idea and she’s responsible for the consequences.” Except that the army in this case is actually doing their job, and putting up a table at a job fair should not be seen as risky behavior akin to hanging out in an alley half dressed at midnight. I do not think they should have expected to be the victims of a violent criminal attack, nor are they responsible for it.
That is my main point. Had you not said that the victims were responsible for the consequences I wouldn’t have put in my .02 at all. But now that I have, I have a little more. My husband was a recruiter for the Air Force before he retired, and I thought I could add a couple of perspective points from the recruiting side of things.
First of all ‘The Army’ didn’t make a decision to go there and recruit- recruiters, human beings in a very stressful job (they have quotas and are under a lot of pressure) made that decision. The military does not require recruiters to get approval for every single move they make, and setting up a booth at a job fire is routine.
Secondly, recruiters are doing more than hiring people to join the military. It’s a mistake to think that all they are supposed to do is hire. They are also a sort of public relations arm- they are supposed to be a presence in the community, visible, making friends, helping people feel comfortable around military folks.
Nationwide the worst state to recruit in is Oregon, and this isn’t just because they are liberal- it’s because there are no military bases in the state, and I’m not sure there have been in my lifetime. REcruiting gigs are easiest near military bases because of that presence/comfort level. So a decision to go to a college job fair at a liberal college isn’t as dumb as you seem to think- very probably the idea was that while they might get a recruit, more importantly they would just be a presence, personalizing the military for lefty college kids. While recruiting my husband did a lot of things that he knew weren’t going to net him a recruit that directly. That wasn’t wasting his time or being inefficient. It was doing his job, which encompassed far more than just hiring his quota each month. Showing up at a job fair at a lefty college is one of several ways to provide a human presence that in most cases simply helps people understand that the military is just human beings- it’s too bad that criminally minded students got away with criminal behavior, but I have a serious problem with saying, as you did, that the recruiters are ‘responsible for the consequences’ since those consequences were criminal activity and entirely rude, thuggish, appalling behavior by *other people*. They did nothing that warranted criminal behavior, and the only people responsible for the consequences are the people who chose to engage in criminal activity.
DeputyHeadmistress (f54022) — 8/4/2006 @ 8:42 amHmm. OK, the strange paragraphing behavior doesn’t exist right now under firefox, but it does show up for me if I use IE.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/4/2006 @ 10:17 amDeputy Headmistress — there’s little worse than coming late to an online conversation-party and feeling like your words have been ignored. 🙂
I find the debate about ‘responsibility’ interesting, because it’s increasingly clear to me that even those who believe in the importance of ‘personal responsibility’ disagree on how far to take it. I quite firmly believe that if I walk into a hostile environment (say, a country bar in Kentucky) and engage in legal but inadvisable behavior (trying to pick up a guy), I am responsible for what transpires if I could have reasonably predicted that reaction. The difference with rape is that I believe that there should be no place where the reaction to a woman’s “wearing short skirts and hanging out in dark alleys” should result in rape — that should simply never be a predictable consequence, and the fact that it is speaks not to misbehavior on the part of the women involved, but to misbehavior on the part of the individuals, and a systemic societal problem in that the existence of such places is tolerated.
The sense that i’m getting is that those people who are criticizing me are of the opinion that, similarly, there should be no place in the country where military recruiters can reasonably expect to be the victims of a violent attack, and that the fact that they *were* the victims of a violent criminal attack is therefore not their responsibility.
That’s a fair point.
At the same time, I think it’s important to acknowledge that the world is not as ideal as we would have it; I would hold myself responsible if I got jumped for being openly gay in a place where I could reasonably predict that it might lead to me being jumped — because even though I think such places shouldn’t exist, I *also* am fully aware that the world falls short of my ideals in this regard.
Thank you much for your perspective about the broader public relations role of military recruiters. I concede that recruiters are human beings in a very stressful job; I suspect that that makes recruiters prone to making the same sorts of errors which other humans in highly stressful jobs make (although I also suspect that anyone in the army is better conditioned to deal with stressful situations than are most civilians). I think that trying to help people feel comfortable around the military, and increasing the understanding civilians have of military life, is a *fantastic* thing to do; the utter incomprehension many on the left have of what military life is like is one of the primary forces making cross-cultural communication within the United States so difficult.
I am not convinced that showing up at a job fair in the middle of an actively hostile campus is the best way to go about that; I think that the majority of students at UC Santa Cruz viewed that as a hostile act — a loud shouting of “see, even in your cozy little anti-military sanctuary, you can’t get away from the military. we’re here, you hippie losers, deal with it.” I would agree that, to the extent I have accurately characterized the reaction of that community, that reaction is unreasonable — it is the members of the community basically making up a story about why the recruiter is there. However, them making up such a story could be predicted by anyone familiar with the community — and the widespread belief in such a story would undercut whatever positive effects there were of the recruiter’s presence.
At the same time, I would expect that the recruiter would not necessarily be familiar enough with that community to predict that outcome.
Even so, your explanation makes a lot of sense, and “community outreach” into a hostile community seems much more rational to me than “recruiting” in a hostile community; your explanation has moved me off of the fence I described in #234, and I now believe that the intent was more likely benign than not. Thank you! 🙂
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 8/4/2006 @ 10:35 amAdd the fact that we’re talking about not just public, but Government property, and that’s exactly right.
The UCSC campus is not a hick bar. It’s an institution of higher education. NO ONE should have an expectation of being assaulted there, particularly not while doing their jobs.
If being a recruiter is “risky behavior” at UCSC, then UCSC has a very serious problem.
Let me also extend kudos for your on topic argumentation. It’s all too rare.
Pablo (efa871) — 8/4/2006 @ 11:11 amThis is the most stupid post I have ever read. Seriously? “Outting” a blogger. Naming his blog “TBogg” wasn’t exactly secrect fucking code. I figured his name was probably Tom and that Bogg was part of his last name ages ago. I’m amazed anyone actually took the time to write about it.
I’m taking this time to “out” a country. Did you all know that the guy who calls him self ” the U.S.” is actually….THE UNITED STATES!!! Incredible, huh?
You all need to get a friggin’ life.
And by the way…Malkin is a talentless hack and a bitch to boot. That’s not an insult…that’s a fact.
Kevin B (35f54e) — 8/4/2006 @ 11:42 amHezbollywood Horror: “Civil Defense Worker” doubles as Traveling Mortician
By Reuven Koret August 3, 2006
[…]
Despite extensive coverage in the blogosphere, one key fact has been missing: the identity of the person prominently posing many of the corpses for the international press. Against the powerful images of dead children, facts and reason don’t stand a chance.
Later in the AP report we learn about the circumstances by which Jradi said he was summoned to the scene. “Jradi said he got the call to rush to Qana from Tyre. But he couldn’t go immediately, with Israeli warplanes still overhead. ‘It was too dangerous,’ he said.”
Abu Shadi, it turns out, has a very distinctive form of transportation.
He was also photographed in Qana holding a dead child while in full rescue worker gear in one picture. But in another he is holding the same child dressed just in a black t-shirt, without his flak jacket, flourescent vest, radio and helmet. In the widely distributed blog entry Milking It, EUReferendum exhaustively examines the photographic evidence and time-stamps of the “rescue” operation.
The man and his refrigerator truck
But here’s something new, which may explain a great deal:
Mark MacKinnon of The Globe and Mail reported from nearby Tyre, Lebanon on July 26, describing the many difficulties caused by the rising death toll in that city. “Abu Shadi, the mortician at the government hospital in the city, agrees. He’s processed 100 bodies — many of them grotesquely mangled and burned — and on his pickup runs has been forced to leave behind many more that he can’t recover from cars and destroyed buildings.
“It’s much more [than the official count],” he says. “There are many trapped under the rubble. The death toll will reach 1,000.”
“Mr. Shadi was standing in front of a refrigeration truck that was packed with 20 bodies, days after he helped bury 74 bodies in a mass grave. When he opened the door to show the black body bags haphazardly piled on top of each other, a staggering stench came out, despite the refrigeration. Next to the truck stood 40 empty wooden caskets, waiting for new arrivals.”
Based on these descriptions, it seems highly likely that Abu Shadi the mortician and Abu Shadi the green-helmeted “civil defense worker” are one and the same. And, in the double role, Abu Shadi was among the first to arrive, before the media did, with his refrigerated truck that in recent days had been carrying around corpses.
“The refrigerated truck that bodies are stored in had just emptied the day before with a mass burial. It is already filling up again, with the bodies of children. ”
We have pictures of Abu Shadi Jradi standing by the refrigerator truck, corpse in hand, and then, in different dress, posing with the same corpse in a different location.
Complicating the naming issue is a video which shows him at Qana, addressed in Arabic by a journalist by the named of “Abdel Qader” although — as in the case of Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), Yasser Arafat (Abu Amar) and many others — the “Abu” may be a nom de guerre.
The tantalizing question, which may never be answered, is this: was Abu Shadi’s refrigerated truck empty when he arrived at Qana that morning?
One might also ask: why was a “mortician” was among the first to be called to a presumed rescue situation, the very same “mortician” who ten years ago was posing headless child corpses?
Mr. Shadi had claimed much numbers twice as high, repeated — even to this day. “Green Helmet” says in the video that fifteen bodies have been pulled from the wreckage, and he estimates that there were 210 (!) total victims.
The Red Cross and Human Rights Watch now confirm that the quantity of deaths has been greatly exaggerated, nearly double what was claimed by Lebanese officials. There were not “dozens” of children killed, as early reports have claimed.
And there really is no way to know by how much the deaths have been “padded” with refrigerated and transplanted corpses from Tyre or other locations.
And there remains the horrific possibility, as reported in a Lebanese publication but not confirmed, that Hezbollah placed rocket launchers on the roof and brought disabled children and the aged to be sacrificial victims, precisely as they became, possibly after a detonation of explosively charges long after the Israeli attack.
More: http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/9036.htm
g.a. (af7c4b) — 8/4/2006 @ 12:26 pmThe defense of the incredible moron and liar Malkin by obviously
michael blechman (a02572) — 8/4/2006 @ 12:41 pmdemented scum such as this idiot calling itself “Patterico” is just
another day on the dipshit planet. The honor and duty of our
citizens and press are to allow any opinion to be heard. It is also our duty to call bullshit and point out the truth as it applies to these lying, misleading, warmongering, immigrant bashing, veteran cheating, election stealing, education denying shitheels.
The methods used to waste time and energy and mislead into
useless dead ended crap are here at “Patterico’s” screed screen
as an example of useless bullshit. This has been my first and last reading of this morons crap. Thanks to TBogg for his usual
good taste and openly logical reading.
Meanwhile back on Earth…………………………………
This has been my first and last reading of this morons crap.
Hip, hip, HOORAY! Patterico’s commentators’ median and average IQ just rebounded back above 3 digits.
Cordially…
Rick (048868) — 8/4/2006 @ 1:53 pmAnd by the way…Malkin is a talentless hack and a bitch to boot. That’s not an insult…that’s a fact.
Friday’s Fact of the Day brought to us by the Reality-Based Community, overlooking gargantuan beams in its eyes since 1968.
Cordially
Rick (048868) — 8/4/2006 @ 2:09 pmADA Patrick Frey….does the city know what you do? Do they suspect yet that you’re abusing your position to get inside information on other bloggers? Dangerous, Patrick, very dangerous. You’re playing with fire.
A Commentator (0ba059) — 8/5/2006 @ 8:46 am[…] Ace’s appearance. This attack on Ace’s looks comes from a guy whom a commenter once described as “an old(er) guy who looks like [a] metrosexual version of McCloud.” Apparently […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Lefties on Privacy for Conservatives (b16ea8) — 9/21/2008 @ 1:06 pm