A MoDo Waiting in the Wings
This is rich. It shows the desperation that some of the “moderates” will engage in to try to smear conservative Republican bloggers.
Background: in a Dean’s World thread, Richard Bennett made this accusation about me:
Like many other self-absorbed tubers and vegetable rights advocates, you’ve claimed that Michael Schiavo abused his wife and actually put her in her coma in the first place by beating her.
That is a lie. I have never made that accusation. I called him on it, noting that he can’t prove that false accusation with a link. If you’re really interested (why would you be?), you can click on the link above and scroll down to see his incredible dishonesty and nastiness.
But Bennett is not the sort to back down just because he’s wrong. So ever since, he has desperately sought evidence that I really made that claim — and he has repeated the libel all over the Internet. He even tried it again the other day here at my site, attempting to leave a comment that said:
Well congratulations for turning the autopsy on its head. It clearly shows that Terri was not an abuse victim (as you claimed) and that she wasn’t capable of the responses to stimuli claimed by her parents toward the end.
Because Bennett is banned here, his comment went into automatic moderation. Since it repeated a lie he has spread about me on comment threads to at least a dozen different blog posts, I didn’t approve it, and it was never published. That’s the background. Now to the fun stuff:
In the comment thread to that John Cole post I linked last night, a commenter relied on the recent Schiavo autopsy report to make this claim:
Michael’s not a wife-beater and Terri wasn’t a bulimic (and all the smart-asses who claimed that her “eating disorder” proved that she didn’t want a feeding tube are, I’m sure, sanctimoniously polluting the comments section of DailyKos as we speak).
I made the observation:
I don’t think the report disproves the idea that she was a bulimic any more than it disproves the idea that Michael Schiavo abused her. In each instance, it simply debunks evidence previously thought by some to support the theory.
Anyone who actually glances at the damn thing can see this is true. The report does much to debunk each of those theories. But no definite conclusion is reached on either issue, despite what you are reading in the media and all over the Web. The main point of my comment was to attack the commenter’s overstatement regarding the report’s conclusions on bulimia. That point favors the perspective of Michael Schiavo supporters. It was a balanced comment, as anyone who reads the whole thing can see.
Yet Richard Bennett has this to say further down the comment thread:
“I don’t think the report disproves the idea that …Michael Schiavo abused [Terri]” – Paprika
There it is.
Yup, there it is: the evidence that you never had, and still don’t. And all you had to do to get that evidence is butcher my quote with an ellipsis to make it sound like the point of my comment was to attack Michael Schiavo. Which it wasn’t.
Hey, Bennett. I heard Maureen Dowd is on vacation. With a nasty, vicious, dishonest Dowdification like that one, you’d be a perfect guest columnist for her.
P.S. Bennett’s comment was posted at 4:18 a.m. this morning. (Note to Bennett: get some sleep!) Yet none of his supporters has yet stepped forward to denounce his dishonest quote-chopping. How about it, fans of Richard Bennett? Why the Silence?
I have about had it with the leftwing gloating over this sad case. I invite you sickos to read my LAST take on Schavio and argue ONE point I make. Because you can’t. YOU simply can’t.
http://rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_rightwingsparkle_archive.html#111887361280517107
*apologize for the linkwhoring.
Rightwingsparkle (4f96d3) — 6/17/2005 @ 7:31 amBOLTON NEEDS OUR HELP!
It takes 1 min and 48 seconds. oK, OK, it takes 2 min. That’s all.
Go to http://www.upordownvote.com…, then to “Action Center” (at the lower right section); then “Your Senator”
It gives the names, phone numbers and the e-mail addresses of the Senators. Call. Be nice (of course you all are). They will ask for a ZIP code (they prefer local zip codes from their home states). Call and ask for an “UP OR DOWN VOTE” and TO STOP THE FILIBUSTER.
1. Pryor (Arkansas)- he recently started hesitating – a very important vote!
2. Landrieu (LA) – already with us – encourage her.
3. Nelson (FL) – already with us – encourage her.
4. Byrd (W. Virginia) – facing a tough reelection. Needs us.
5. Lieberman (CT) – is not with us, but he should be;
6. Red State Voters – please call your Senator(s).
Call the White House and ask to keep the pressurre and never never withdraw Bolton’s nomination.
God bless you all.
David (03f14c) — 6/17/2005 @ 7:39 amCounting oneself moderate applies more to one’s voting patterns than how one behaves. This guy no more speaks for all moderates than Delay speaks for all conservatives.
People of all political stripes are capable of rude and lunatic behavior, so it shouldn’t be surprising to run into a Bennett.
I doubt his libels are motivated so much by your conservative politics, as by your regularly humiliating him in comments sections. If you were so inclined you could probably find “moderate” blogs where he attacks the site owner.
Pigilito (480b0d) — 6/17/2005 @ 8:00 amPerhaps, but self-described moderates do, as a group, seem to have the idea that their ideas are inherently reasonable/sensible/right solely because they happen to be near the “center” of the political spectrum, and to get testy when anyone questions the self-evident rightness of their viewpoint. I don’t know too many liberals who think their views are right solely because they are liberal, and I don’t think I know any conservatives who think their conservative views are right solely because they are conservative, but there do seem to be quite a few moderates who think they are right solely because they are “moderate” – and then exhibit no moderation at all when discussing the issue further.
Xrlq (5ffe06) — 6/17/2005 @ 8:46 amXrlq, I think no more than other groups, or at least not enough to explain why moderates like Bennett are testy (I have no idea where Bennett sits on the political spectrum. I am going with Patterico’s charachterization).
His liberal/conservative counterparts are also all around, spewing the same venom at those they feel are heretical or schismatic. However, to the extent moderates are smug about occupying the middle ground you have a point (I would leave out “solely”); but I think this plays a small part in how they/I put forward arguments.
Many liberals believe that because they are “progressives”, their views receive an extra helping of rightness. Doubtless conservatives fall into this error as well.
Just to be accurate about my own political leanings, I belong to the moderate conservative wing of the Republican party–where truth abides.
Pigilito (27f750) — 6/17/2005 @ 9:25 amI doubt his libels are motivated so much by your conservative politics, as by your regularly humiliating him in comments sections. If you were so inclined you could probably find “moderate” blogs where he attacks the site owner.
He seeks this out, gratuitously going around the Web making these smears. I feel that it’s necessary to defend myself when he lies about me. If I humiliate him as a result (and you’re saying that I do, and I agree), that’s his fault, not mine. Indeed, he is really humiliating himself by providing so many fora for his dishonesty to be exposed.
Patterico (e6d88d) — 6/17/2005 @ 11:51 amAgreed. You have no choice but to defend yourself. I imagine that if he can once make you concede a minor point, he will shout it from the highest tower.
The psychology of such people makes it unlikely he will stop his attacks. You might eventually be free of him, but then he’ll be off picking fights with some other poor blogger.
Pigilito (80425c) — 6/17/2005 @ 12:53 pmIf all statements (both written and spoken) had to be true there would be no MSM and no progressives. Honesty is the servamt amd tool of the vast “right wing conspiracy”.
Rod Stanton (be2363) — 6/17/2005 @ 1:21 pmI find it more than a little amusing that a hot head like Bennett could be considered a “moderate”. Moderate does not mean indecisive or undecided, rather it does mean someone who is not given to extremes. Obviously Mr. Bennett is a provocateur much like Howard Dean, Senator Durbin, vladimir Lenin, Jane Fonda, Al Sharpton Et al. He says things that he knows are not true for the effect it will have–Political advantage, created outrage or merely to get attention. What amazes me is how many provocative selfserving people (Senator McCain among them) are considered moderates because they betray their conservative base or enrage/insult the conservative base. Bennett is no more moderate than Patterico is the mother of his children. As for the value of Bennett’s point of view, there is none because of his dishonesty and his calculated bias against those who are concerned about the Schiavo case and its implications for those who are seriously crippled and yet desire to keep on living. It’s one of life’s many injustices that povocative phony people like Bennett, et Al. usually pay no price for their actions. I’m personally hoping that McCain will end up being the exception to this reality.
john (fc4860) — 6/17/2005 @ 2:46 pmI realize that this is probably off topic, and I agree this Bennet fellow sounds like a nutcase, but on the other hand, I think you’re misstating the strength of the statements about Terri’s potassium levels.
Clinically, you’re presented with a PM of a young and apparently healthy women who was long-term vegetative at time of death, and whose original diagnosis was anoxia consequent to cardiac arrest. At the time she presented at the ER, she was acutely hypokalemic and in arrest. She showed no other signs of caridiac issues, either at the time or on PM.
An MD would almost certainly take it as presumptively cardiac arrest as a consequence of the hypokalemia; yes, some of the drugs used can also induce hypokalemia, but then you’re left with a young woman who has a cardiac arrest for no reason at all. On the other hand, the patient had a history of recent dramatic weight loss, and what are the most common reasons for hypokalemia? Fasting, side effects of laxatives and diuretics, or excessive vomiting.
In other words, acute hypokalemia in combination with recent and very dramatic weight loss (something like 50 percent of her original body weight!) is very strongly indicative of bulemia nervosa; since there’s no description of a history of esophageal scarring that I notice, you might guess it as the “non-purging” type: using laxatives or diuretics.
In other words, while the PM doesn’t prove the original problem was the result of bulimia, it’s completely consistent with bulimia, and there’s no other indication of another plausible root cause. So while it may not conclusively demonstrate bulimia, taken as a whole it certainly doesn’t debunk the theory that bulimia was the cause of the hypokalemia. Would it be nice to have something confirmatory, like EKG traces showing QT wave prologation and a U wave? You bet. But to claim that the debunks evidence of bulimia is just too strong.
Charlie (Colorado) (ec12b3) — 6/19/2005 @ 7:08 pmHi,
Stumbled on your post, well what can I say? Nice one.
Gary Page (8381b5) — 9/19/2006 @ 2:19 pmGreat Site. Thanks.
Jim (378f48) — 12/11/2006 @ 11:47 amzebmlti jgeubl nkyd lgurtds spakqhw ubrtpkqi uigbypl
phfj ljmguesk (0a714a) — 6/7/2008 @ 10:06 amespv ydihzpw thqclidge utnpjx hmeprgxow btuvols hdit
tfwsx epyv (0a714a) — 6/7/2008 @ 10:11 am