Patterico's Pontifications

9/21/2008

Lefties on Privacy for Conservatives

Filed under: 2008 Election,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 1:06 pm



Attention conservatives: in case you didn’t understand it before, it should be clear now. There is strain of leftists out there who think that any violation of your privacy — any violation — is justified because of your political beliefs.

And this group is not a fringe group. They have some pretty prominent microphones.

For example, in an online dust-up at the L.A. Times web site, Amanda Marcotte tells us:

If the words “sanctity of life” or “sanctity of marriage” ever pass between your lips, I consider that an open invitation for the citizenry to file through your underwear drawer and follow you into any airport bathroom to witness any foot-tapping antics.

Now, Marcotte’s comment is made in the context of discussing Palin’s parenting abilities — but her comment makes it clear that she supports any intrusion if you’re a conservative.

Amanda Marcotte is no fringe voice. She is the editor of the popular Pandagon blog and has a published book — all sufficient to get her invited to participate in an online debate on the Los Angeles Times web site. She was even hired for a time to do blogger outreach for then-presidential candidate John Edwards, until the philanderer decided she was a liability because (among other things) she tends to call religious people “godbags,” which religious people don’t find endearing.

Here’s another example, from Tom Boggioni:

Ace O’ Spades takes time out from his long twilight struggle against Amanda Marcotte’s vagina to declare World of Warcraft Jihad on that kid who “hacked” Caribou Barbie’s emails causing her great harm slight trauma deserved ridicule over how stupid her password was.

That’s like reacting to your neighbor’s home burglary by ridiculing him for having a bad lock on his front door. You would never think to make such a asshole comment about your neighbor. Unless your neighbor is a Republican and you’re a Democrat, of course — because then your neighbor would be evil, so the niceties don’t really have to be observed.

(By the way, Boggioni accompanies his attack on Ace with a picture that Boggioni apparently considers unflattering, complete with a caption mocking 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 because Ace has his hands apart in the picture, under Ace’s face in the picture are the words “INVISABLE ACCORDION.” Yes, “invisible” is misspelled in the caption.) [UPDATE: Apparently, this may be some sort of LOLcats thing. Maybe someone at the L.A. Times could explain it; they’re the LOLcats experts.)

Tom Boggioni is no fringe voice. Sure, he may be a “[f]ormer bulk purchaser of women’s undergarments.” Currently, by day, he may be a “czar of positioning cash registers to maximize retail commerce and flow.” But by night, he runs “TBogg” — a blog sufficiently popular to garner an invitation to be hosted on the wildly popular lefty blog FireDogLake.

And he thinks it’s hilarious that a conservative’s e-mail was hacked.

Get it through your heads, conservatives. If you believe in any restrictions in abortion on demand — any! — then there is no violation of privacy so egregious that these people wouldn’t chuckle if it happened to you. If you have the gall to oppose doctors sticking scissors into babies’ heads and sucking out the brains with a suction catheter, then you’re “anti-choice” — and anti-privacy. And that means it’s OK to go through your underwear drawer.

If someone burglarized your home, copied your diary, set up a camera in your bedroom, and published everything they found online, Amanda Marcotte and Tom Boggioni and their readers would laugh and laugh until they couldn’t breathe.

Only one type of privacy violation seems to disturb them. They’ll get very mad if you try to listen to phone calls placed by terrorists.

Such hardball tactics, you see, should be reserved for the real enemy.

Republicans.

49 Responses to “Lefties on Privacy for Conservatives”

  1. These so called lefties are really just no different than Communists who justied every means on the end. It is contemptable, but that is who we are resisting.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  2. I’ve never been more proud to have met with Pandagon’s disapproval.

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  3. AP pretty much agrees that her lax security is the big deal in this story.

    Pat can’t really condone this sort of behavior, but I do.

    I don’t know whether you’ve covered this, Pat, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

    Dan Collins (4dc2da)

  4. Apparently the ends justifies the means. So can we repeal the Fourth Amendment now?

    Alta Bob (e70400)

  5. Boggioni is furthering a canard. Nobody knows what her password was, and it definitely wasn’t “popcorn.” The security problem was with yahoo, not Palin. The hacker exploited yahoo’s “forgot password” process and reset the password to “popcorn.”

    Bornalive (6885c7)

  6. Patterico, I just wanted to note a factual error (not yours, but you quoted it).

    No one knows what Palin’s password was. The hacker changed it to Popcorn because he was unable to guess the true password. He only was able to change this password because he had use of WAPO’s leaked demo opposition research with Palin’s zip code (and he found her high school from normal internet sources).

    A lot of people are trying to poke fun at Palin for anything they can grasp at, such as this idea that she did something wrong with this email account, or that her password was ‘popcorn’, b when none of us know what it actually was.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  7. Mr Treacher wrote:

    I’ve never been more proud to have met with Pandagon’s disapproval.

    Yeah, but you can’t beat this,

    Dana. Troglodyte. Misogynist. Obsessive. A complete loser. Every time I pick on him, no matter how nasty a person he is, I feel bad, because he is, after all, a loser.

    which was so wonderful I put on my site as a Testimonial. :)

    The Dana with the calculator (556f76)

  8. Miss Marcotte isn’t a fringe voice, but she’s increasingly a voice from the fringes. She absolutely abhors sexism and misogyny in any way, but puts up posts complaining that “high-end girlfriends” of ugly but wealthy men are really just prostitutes or mistresses, not really girlfriends, and combitching about men who think they can date women who are so pretty as to be “out of their league.”

    Sexism isn’t a problem for her, as long as it’s her own. Mine, well that’s a problem! :)

    The Dana with the calculator (556f76)

  9. Hmmm, I’ve just got to remember which name variant I used last!

    The greying Dana (556f76)

  10. She had a weak security question instead of password. I won’t get huffy about the distinction, but I may note it later when I get time.

    Patterico (2b124c)

  11. Those on the left have long viewed opinions that they disagree with as ‘evil’ and ‘contemptible’. This view results from their inability to think in a consistently logical pattern. An inability, I might add, that is found among all persons who are extremists, regardless of their political affiliation.

    It is an obvious step from that derangement to the belief that said opinions are ‘morally illegal’, and then just ‘illegal’, and thus deserving of no legal privacy protection.

    No, it is not a small fringe group. I believe we are beginning to see, through the increased exposure of advanced technology, that there are quite a bit more humans with severe personality disorders than we have ever approximated before.

    There is some news that might put a damper on this sort of behavior, if not cause the Obama team to have to distance themselves from what could be construed as a coordinated effort against Palin.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  12. Does anybody know how Amanda Marcotte reacted to her hero John Edwards being exposed as the orifice the rest of us knew he had to be because (among many other reasons) he hired her?

    L.N. Smithee (27530b)

  13. She had a weak security question instead of password.

    Next it’ll be her fault that they gave away the first 5 digits of her SSN…

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  14. L N Smithee asked:

    Does anybody know how Amanda Marcotte reacted to her hero John Edwards being exposed as the orifice the rest of us knew he had to be because (among many other reasons) he hired her?

    She was disappointed, of course. But then there was this:

    Okay you got Edwards, now quit giving McCain a free ride

    I’ve been skeptical about the Edwards story from the beginning, not because I think that any random politician is better than that. To be a successful politician, you have to have the cocky optimism and self-confidence that leads you to think that you can have affairs and get away with it. And probably the flattery-drawn ego that drives you to want that validation. But I was skeptical because the details being touted—the “love child”, the hidden names, the wife with cancer, etc.—were too tawdry for real life, like a soap opera plot. Turns out that I was wrong, though Edwards denies that the baby is his.

    My official stance is that unless it’s a matter of hypocrisy, it’s none of your damn business. So, if someone has a history of dogging gay people, prostitutes, people who have sex outside of marriage, etc., their business is now public property because they treat your business like it’s public property. Edwards, as far as I know, has never been a “sanctity of marriage” wanker, and so this is officially None Of Our Business, and anyone who dogged him on this story should be fired on the principle that they don’t know journalism from rooting around in the trash. Hypocrisy is a story; human weakness is not.

    I’m not going to get on a high horse about his judgment, because he didn’t get on a high horse with me about mine. That’s all I’m going to say about that.

    Remember that Clinton’s infidelities improved his public approval ratings. Hell, maybe this will be good for Edwards’ reputation. That the woman involved in more age-appropriate takes away the thin thread of justification people had for hating on Clinton for the Lewinsky scandal.

    What I really hope will happen is that McCain takes the bait and says something about this. Then maybe the fact that he married his current wife a month after divorcing his first wife, who was disabled and not wealthy or politically connected, will become the story is should have been. You know, instead of this shit. Because McCain, with his fundie-pandering, is officially a giant hypocrite.

    And this:

    Please people

    Update, because a few decent people are confused: I was trying to let off some steam with a funny rant, and if you don’t get it, I’m sorry that I failed in making that more obvious. What this has to do with feminism is that the blog is getting swarmed now by conservatives who hate feminists and women in general, and are looking to score a few points by implying that the sole and only thing feminists should be worried about is protecting women from getting cheated on. Equal pay, reproductive rights, etc.? All things that need to be put on the backburner until every man alive is good at monogamy. That I disagree with this definition of feminism doesn’t seem to concern them, so I’m getting to the thread-closing portion of the day.

    I’m getting all these weird gloating trackbacks from right wingers about the Edwards scandal. I want to be angry, but I can’t. Because gloating about a hypocrite getting outed is a great liberal pleasure. But gloating about a liberal getting humiliated for his sex life? The territory of not only the underlaid, but the terminally uncool. Because I’m a mean person who enjoys judging people, it’s easy pickings. But. I really prefer judging people who don’t really care what I think of them. Like the other night I’m at a friend’s show, and the opening band has The Cadre Of Girlfriends, a group whose style of dressing, sexy-wise, is in inverse proportion to the quality of the band. So like, it was all tube dresses and MPDG-style white sundresses. I enjoy mocking people like that, because on the whole, they don’t care what I think and they’ll be just fine.

    But lord, the assholes who get personal pleasure out of Edwards’ humiliation and, for some reason think that tracking back to Pandagon is the best way to gloat about this? Under-sexed troglodytes. And on one hand, they deserve abuse because they suck and are horrible people who really, really hate women, in no small part because they’re stuck in a self-perpetuating no sex/misogyny loop. On the other hand, you’re picking on loser. My liberal heart feels pain about that. It’s a real dilemma, one I haven’t completely resolved.

    She was greatly offended that people would use the Edwards case to actually gloat a bit, since she, of course, would never gloat about anything at all. :)

    The Dana who Amanda loves (556f76)

  15. “Such hardball tactics, you see, should be reserved for the real enemy.

    Republicans.”

    That does seem to be the way it is among the left.

    Oh well, as I always say…

    Better to have the right enemies than the wrong friends.

    tyree (7a25f8)

  16. Can we apply Marcotte’s logic to her beliefs?

    If the words “sanctity of life” or “sanctity of marriage” ever pass between your lips, I consider that an open invitation for the citizenry to file through your underwear drawer and follow you into any airport bathroom to witness any foot-tapping antics.

    I’m sorry, but this sort of “logic” disgusts me. Because someone doesn’t subscribe to her position on the scope of the so-called “right to privacy,” then they’re not even entitled to the level of protection that everyone agrees to?

    So, if Marcotte supports “freedom of choice” that means that certain human beings don’t have a right to live, then she shouldn’t complain when someone sticks some forceps into her skull?

    Disgusting.

    Hoystory (08dea2)

  17. Thanks for the Marcotte madness, Dana.

    Amanda the Mad Panda wrote: …gloating about a hypocrite getting outed is a great liberal pleasure.

    Then it’s just a matter of time until she gets all over Obama’s posterior for race-baiting and guilt-by-association (McCain and Rush Limbaugh) in his Spanish advertisements.

    I’ll be waiting on the shores of the river Styx with my skates and hockey stick.

    L.N. Smithee (b011d1)

  18. Ah Amanda, the cutting edge of Austin’s progressive, “thinking” community. This town is full of shrill adolescents like her who are convinced that quasi-fascistic desires wrapped in profanity laden tirades against all-things right of Mao count as cutting edge dissident belief.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  19. I’m very tempted to say “Well Republicans are the real enemy.” But I’m too nice a person. I will simply remind you all of the antics of Michelle Malkin, who’s up for rifling through the underwear drawers — and anything else — of anyone who dosen’t share her beliefs who has even the slightest of negative opinions about U.S. “Foreign Policy” (ie.genocide)

    David Ehrenstein (70d3a5)

  20. What is really disturbing is that people like that can read posts like this and really not understand what we are talking about at all. They honestly see no contradiction or potential danger to themselves once they get on the slippery slope of “some people deserve privacy but others don’t. Who decides?

    rockmom (e42807)

  21. If the words “sanctity of life” or “sanctity of marriage” ever pass between your lips, I consider that an open invitation for the citizenry to file through your underwear drawer and follow you into any airport bathroom to witness any foot-tapping antics.

    I sure don’t want to know what passes between Marcotte’s lips because no doubt its utterly disgusting but since when did sanctity of life become the condition for punitive action? How screwed up must one’s (Cliche Alert…but its fitting…) moral compass be to assume sanctity of life is so evil that it is the litmus test to determine whether one’s privacy can be justifiably invaded?

    Marcotte is the worst, yet apt face of feminism today and reflects the self-indulgent anger that singularly propels the movement. Its all about Palin’s fresh eggs and they cannot stand it, nor be honest about it. Or its just the fact that Marcotte is just seriously pissed off that no one wants to remotely know whats in her underwear drawer. Meh.

    The Dana who is a conservative feminist! (4d3ea0)

  22. All I can see is…
    If one of these freaks desires to “get in my face” and “invade my privacy”, they had better be sure I’m not focusing on my front sight first.

    Another Drew (551fef)

  23. Juan wrote: No one knows what Palin’s password was. The hacker changed it to Popcorn because he was unable to guess the true password. He only was able to change this password because he had use of WAPO’s leaked demo opposition research with Palin’s zip code (and he found her high school from normal internet sources).

    In addition to that, if the guilty party is indeed David Kernell, he may have played himself, as the expression goes. Gateway Pundit, who is all over the incident, suggests that “popcorn” was a semi-clever self-reference (Kernell=kernel=corn).

    L.N. Smithee (b011d1)

  24. 21. Amen brother. Mr. Ruger doesn’t like close-talkers.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  25. Amanda can’t ever be accused of being a hypocrite …

    One has to actually have morals and ethics in the first place.

    Darleen (187edc)

  26. These people are not the sort to meet you face to face. They’ll write an anonymous letter to your boss or to the newspaper. You’d never get a clear shot at them. They work in the dark. Try replying to one of these creeps e-mail addresses. They are all fake.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  27. It seems the email hacker’s privacy has now been invaded by the FBI.

    Evil Pundit (843b74)

  28. I just wanted to point it out, Patterico. It’s just one of those details that annoys me to see.

    And it’s not clear that she had weak security questions (though she probably did). Any source claiming she did is highly suspect, and Kernell had access to all kinds of information about her, thanks to the oppo research. I think it’s worthing considering that she didn’t have anything in this email account that was extremely sensitive, and probably didn’t care to obfuscate her verification information. Keep in mind that even under the most hostile account of the facts, the hacker wasn’t able to hack into her account at first… he had to guess and guess and guess. Yahoo’s security should have been good enough that an IP that has never access the account legitimately, and is repeatedly attempting to gain access through a backdoor, needs to be banned from access.

    I know a lot of people who run their businesses or hold important documents in Gmail and google docs… it’s a common mistake that even savvy technophiles make. Had Governor Palin used a simple password, that would have betrayed ignorance of a well known security measure. That she used fairly conventional verification questions just shows that she makes the same mistake a lot of folks do.

    At least I think that’s a distinction with a difference.

    Juan (4cdfb7)

  29. I guess that Sarah Palin’s primary failing is to be a human being, and not perfect such as someone from the Left.

    Another Drew (551fef)

  30. David Error-enstein wrote: I will simply remind you all of the antics of Michelle Malkin, who’s up for rifling through the underwear drawers — and anything else — of anyone who dosen’t share her beliefs who has even the slightest of negative opinions about U.S. “Foreign Policy” (ie.genocide)

    You must be quite the acrobat, Dave. With one hand, you post on Patterico. With the other, you grasp at straws.

    L.N. Smithee (b011d1)

  31. I hope he has a free hand to summon his team of freedom fighters to help overthrow this genocidal menace under which he is forced to live.

    Jack Klompus (b0e238)

  32. David Ehrenstein: I will simply remind you all of the antics of Michelle Malkin, who’s up for rifling through the underwear drawers — and anything else — of anyone who dosen’t share her beliefs who has even the slightest of negative opinions about U.S. “Foreign Policy” (ie.genocide)

    I’ve read about people, like yourself, who live in their own delusional parallel universes. There is hope, if you sincerely want to journey back to reality.

    aunursa (5daa82)

  33. Hey, L.N. Smithee: you-know-who is just a troll. He likes to play victim and say outrageous things to be what he thinks is cool and edgy. Like the other trolls.

    Not worth your effort. Seriously, you will never get those minutes back. The shrieking and the spitting aren’t worth your time.

    The sad thing is, the guy can be well spoken, thoughtful, and civil. But not recently.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  34. You mean like not in the last three years, give or take, Eric?

    With the other, you grasp at straws.

    We all know what The Troll in question is usually grasping when he posts here – but never mind…PLEASE DON’T FEED THE TROLL!

    Thank you.

    Dmac (e639cc)

  35. Ehrenstein

    Re Malkin. I’ve never read anything she’s written that justifies your allegations. Post your proof.

    Terry Gain (7586e3)

  36. Ehrenstein… Re Malkin. I’ve never read anything she’s written that justifies your allegations. Post your proof.

    Terry– I appreciate and understand your request of DE, but trust me, making the request isn’t worth your time. Here’s what DE will write back (if anything) in response:

    – “Google is your friend.”
    – “I’m not your f*cking monkey!!!”

    qdpsteve (dc65ab)

  37. Dmac, Q, we all know the situation. As I say, you can never get those moments you used replying to nonsense back. Ever. Because it isn’t about discussion or debate, but anger and vindictiveness.

    You are correct, Dmac. But I am trying to stay positive.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  38. Eric – I disagree. An unanswered call for support of a charge is a statement against the charge. In writing.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  39. I’m sorry, Apogee. Have at it. But it reminds me of the old story about wrestling with a pig: it wastes your own time, it gets you all muddy, and the pig likes it.

    Not, of course, that I have anything against Porcine-Americans. I’m no speciest. Furthermore, how overly sensitive to think I would be using that metaphor to refer to people, lipstick or not.

    I hope your experience tilting at this particular windmill is more positive than my own. That would be good to see.

    Eric Blair (2708f4)

  40. You Know Jew Who, wrote: I’m very tempted to say “Well Republicans are the real enemy.” But I’m too nice a person.
    — No you’re not. By announcing what you’re not going to say, you’ve said it anyway.

    I will simply remind you all of the antics of Michelle Malkin
    — Hopefully, to make the point that scummy tactics know no party divisions, but should be avoided anyway.

    Icy Truth (b40a74)

  41. Hi Steve!

    Dmac knows perfectly well that I actually exist. And if you want to know what I look like go directly to You Tube.

    David Ehrenstein (70d3a5)

  42. Mr Smithee wrote:

    Thanks for the Marcotte madness, Dana.

    We live to serve. :)

    I occasionally read and comment on Pandagon; it is possible that I am not their favorite reader.

    Amanda's favorite Dana (3e4784)

  43. The Dana who is a conservative feminist! wrote:

    I sure don’t want to know what passes between Marcotte’s lips because no doubt its utterly disgusting but since when did sanctity of life become the condition for punitive action? How screwed up must one’s (Cliche Alert…but its fitting…) moral compass be to assume sanctity of life is so evil that it is the litmus test to determine whether one’s privacy can be justifiably invaded?

    First of all, I’m certain that the lovely Miss Marcotte would not agree with the notion that anyone could be a “conservative feminist;” to her, such would be a contradiction in terms. That, of course, is why Sarah Palin is under attack by our friends on the left: even though she did exactly what they have said all along that they wanted — succeeded in her chosen field without being discriminated against because of her gender — because she does not toe the Official Liberal Line, she is anathema. It’s somehow much better to celebrate a woman who achieved what she has because she was married to a powerful man than a woman who succeeded without great wealth, a famous family or political connections, if the latter’s ideology is wrong!

    As for why “sanctity of life” is such a horrible thing, it is because the term sanctity of life tells t=our friends on theleft just exactly what they are supporting; it isn’t antiseptic like a “woman’s right to choose.”

    The dirty little secret about the liberal feminists is that what they really want to have is all of the irresponsibility that men have enjoyed for so many centuries, but they can’t be honest and say that, can they?

    The Dana who is a conservative masculinist! (3e4784)

  44. Next it’ll be her fault that they gave away the first 5 digits of her SSN…

    Horror of horrors! They gave away public information available to anyone with 15 seconds and a Lexis account! What will those dastardly lefties think of next?!?!

    Seitz (a49fcd)

  45. It amuses me to see people act like email hacking is harmless and unimportant or that Palin deserved it for using an account that could be hacked with minimal effort.

    There are many people in America who receive snail mail in old-fashioned mailboxes and much of that mail is of far more importance than Palin’s email. It’s easy for people to take mail out of those mailboxes — far easier than it was for Palin’s hacker to access her email — but that doesn’t excuse their actions nor does it make the recipient foolish for using the U.S. Mail.

    DRJ (c953ab)

  46. Great point, DRJ – As I said in another thread:

    Regarding Republicans, many leftists believe the right to privacy is measured by the ability to violate that right.

    Apogee (366e8b)

  47. “What is really disturbing is that people like that can read posts like this and really not understand what we are talking about at all. They honestly see no contradiction or potential danger to themselves once they get on the slippery slope of “some people deserve privacy but others don’t. Who decides?

    Comment by rockmom — 9/21/2008 @ 3:29 pm”

    I don’t understand this faux controversy – where is it stated by “they” that “some people deserve privacy but others don’t”?

    Just because a blogger makes fun of the fact that some kid was able to access Palin’s email doesn’t mean that he or any of his readers thinks it wasn’t a legit invasion of her privacy.

    Plus, what I find to be “really disturbing” about posts like this and comments like yours, rockmom, is the fact that you don’t really understand how offensive it is to compare a stupid kid gaining access to Palin’s email account in a criminal manner to a woman having the right to privately choose to have a child or not. One of those invasions is a lot more important than the other and one is unavoidable criminal behavior, while the other is State sponsored and wholly avoidable.

    jlo (f3a186)

  48. And he thinks it’s hilarious that a conservative’s e-mail was hacked.

    No, he finds the wingnut response, so lacking in self-awareness, ironic. From this stems the hilarity.

    Twisted_Colour (d0f5dd)

  49. Twisted – #48 – No, he finds the wingnut response, so lacking in self-awareness, ironic. From this stems the hilarity.

    Care to back up that talking point? Thought not. More leftist intellectual superiority – at least that’s what you tell yourself.

    You would then apparently find the left’s invasion of Palin’s family ironic, given that Obama himself stated that it was unacceptable behavior. Right? Or is it just simply hypocritical?

    Apogee (366e8b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3748 secs.