Patterico's Pontifications

12/13/2005

Another Post About Lying Martini Republic Alex, with a Bonus Observation About Race-Fixated Joseph

Filed under: Morons,Scum — Patterico @ 8:54 pm



Our favorite local liar, Alex from Martini Republic, recently portrayed a post of mine in this way:

At eleven o’clock last night, waiting for a man to die, dimbulb wingnut extraordinaire Patterico gets the lube and Kleenex out:

Luckily, in real life, we’re going to get our happy ending . . . in less than an hour.

Yes, he actually said “happy ending.” And Tbogg thought Malkin was getting overly excited at the prospect of a man’s death.

Here’s my actual post, from last night:

iowahawk has found one of Tookie’s children’s stories:

Once upon a time, down a bright sunny alley behind a magical cottage in a faraway kingdom called Compton, lived a little quacky ducky named Tookie. Tookie was brave and strong and all of the other duckies knew to respect him, because otherwise Tookie and his friend Sammy Sawed-Off would mess you up bad, understand?

It goes on like that. One problem: the story doesn’t have a happy ending. Tookie lives.

Luckily, in real life, we’re going to get our happy ending for once, in less than an hour. (Actually, it’s not really “happy” — but it’s as close as you can get in a situation like this.) And that ending will teach children more about morality than two dozen children’s books from Tookie.

I have bolded one sentence to emphasize what was left out by our lying friend Alex. Yes, I actually said “happy ending.” And I also actually said it wasn’t really happy. Alex doesn’t mention that. Nor does he mention the context of the “happy ending” phrase: a post about the irony of children’s books being authored by an unrepentant murderer who laughed about the gurgling sounds one of his victims made.

Of course, honesty has never been Alex’s strong suit, and a dishonest post by Alex is as unremarkable as a sunny day in southern California. What is remarkable about Alex’s post is his eager association of the concept of an execution with the concept of . . . masturbation. It makes you wonder what’s going on in that head of his. Note to Alex: I don’t want to know. Really.

Then you have his moron twin Joseph, who has attempted to make a name for himself by hurling off-the-wall and completely baseless accusations of racism at Kevin Roderick. Joseph continues the trend in a comment to Alex’s post, suggesting that my post criticizing a murderer is somehow racist. Defense attorneys, this genius suggests, could have me removed from any case involving a black defendant. All they have to do is print out my post — which is, recall, critical of a murderer, and says not one word about the murderer’s race — and give it to the judge.

A little fixated on race, are we, Joseph? What’s going on here? Some kind of overcompensation?

If I criticize a murderer, Joseph, I am criticizing a murderer. If you hear “black man” instead of “murderer,” that’s your problem, not mine. As I told another misguided commenter today, I don’t like murderers. The fact that you equate that with not liking black people says more about you than it does about me.

The psychologists would have a field day with these two and the word association book:

Psychologist: “Execution.”

Alex: Masturbation!

Psychologist: Um, yes. [Turns page.] “Murderer.”

Joseph: Black man!

Alex: Masturbation!

And these guys wonder why nobody really takes them seriously.

UPDATE: Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft, who has some honesty issues of her own, joins the party with a comment confirming that yes, I do indeed prosecute felonies. Does Jeralyn support moron Joseph’s scheme to try to “embarrass” me in real life by exposing my — gasp! — distaste for murderers? The placement of her comment on the moron brothers’ site suggests that she does.

I’ll say this for Jeralyn and Joseph, though: at least they have the guts to attach their actual names to their criticisms, however ridiculous they may be. You can’t say the same for Alex.

UPDATE x2: Joseph swings and misses again, trying to prove my “racism” by linking to this post — which, he fails to inform his readers, wasn’t written by me, but rather by guest poster See Dubya. (The post doesn’t prove that See Dubya is a racist, either; Joseph completely missed the point there as well.)

UPDATE x3: A good friend writes to ask why I would even acknowledge these idiots’ existence. They just want a reaction; why am I giving them one? He may have a point.

10 Responses to “Another Post About Lying Martini Republic Alex, with a Bonus Observation About Race-Fixated Joseph”

  1. MURDEROPHOBE!!!!!

    rls (0516f0)

  2. Wow your links give provide interesting morning stroll through the left side of the blogosphere.

    I guess what I take away from all of it is you just have to be really careful about what you post the more popular your blog gets Patterico. I understood your post and the context but nobody that reads about it through those blogs will understand it.

    Note about you guy’s debate with talkleft on the assassination thing. You let Jeralyn erect a strawman argument on blog comment policy. The real issue was the dishonesty of her original post (characterized as “criticizing” when it was really a call to kill the POTUS), but in the end she dodged it with the blog comment strawman. I can’t find a single place where she addresses the original point you guys were making. This is becoming a more prevalent tactic of the left but some of us miss it when they pull it.

    Dwilkers (a1687a)

  3. I guess what I take away from all of it is you just have to be really careful about what you post the more popular your blog gets Patterico. I understood your post and the context but nobody that reads about it through those blogs will understand it.

    I can’t live my life wondering how my posts might be distorted by some dishonest cretin.

    Patterico (806687)

  4. Admit it. You’re just prejudiced against sociopaths and murderers.

    Wait. So am I. 😉

    Anthony (Los Angeles) (f93591)

  5. I’ve actually visited Martini Republic and attempted dialogue regarding Bush’s visit to the Boy Scout Jamboree. They had ranted endlessly essentially that Bush “dissed” the Scouts by postponing his visit due to bad flying weather in the area, insisting that he virtually caused the heat injuries thereby experienced by the Scouts waiting his visit. As a retired military helicopter pilot I provided my take on the probable reasons and the decision-making process employed by the president’s pilots and included some weather information of which they were obviously ignorant. Real waste of time. Logical arguments and facts, which are pretty much the norm on this site, are not something either Alex or Joseph seem to be comfortable with.

    Harry Arthur (40c0a6)

  6. Quoting things out of context is bad but at least it shows a minimal effort to engage in debate of some kind (“see this guy’s an ‘asshat’ because he said ‘x…y…[bhk]…z…q’!”), but making threats just demonstrates a self-evident intellectual and moral inferiority to the target…

    You can make a point or you can make a threat but you can’t do both – and the latter route is a one way street, meaning once a person crosses the line their credibility is gone irretrievably and will spend their remaining days as an online (or hardcopy) presence circling the drain and becoming shriller and screechier in their attempt to convince themself they are still relevant.

    Think I’m wrong? Take a look at professor Ward Churchill and see where he’s ended up (gone from media darling to speaking behind closed doors and threatening lawsuits against anyone who even quotes him).

    Scott (57c0cc)

  7. Those dunderheads are still operating that site? I used to visit their site, but gave up about a year ago after the gratuitously rude comments directed at me, mostly by Alex, became too much to bother with. The blogosphere is big enough that I can find a left-leaning site to have sensible arguments with, and possibly learn something from. These guys are just churlish and rude.

    Brian (b0d240)

  8. I followed the link to the site, it’s one of those places where shouting marginally clever insults is mistaken for discorse. Trying to engage these guys in a conversation would be like wrestling with a pig, you both get dirty but the pig likes it. I would just leave them alone.

    Roscoe (713860)

  9. This is my take, my view and represents no one’s views.

    The job we do colors our worldview. I think a prosecutor has to fit the state’s decision of death penalty or not. By that I mean, a prosecutor in a state that finds death penalty unconstitutional may have a moral ethical difficulty in a case where if the charge is proven and defendant [accused] convicted, death penalty could be the punishment. Maybe a bit different from a case where a doctor is called upon to perform an abortion but either personally agrees with abortion or not. No different from a person enlisted to fight a war and he or she is a pacifist. No different from a person who is a butcher and then has a sudden or gradual religious conversion to a religion that eschews taking animal life. These are considerations that could come to play, when a state constitutionally disallows death penalty and then changes and allows death penalty. The prosecutor is required to move with the state constitutional interpretation. For some, it is an important change for others it is not. For some it is an issue for others not, depending on our inner chemistry.

    Second point I want to make is, we require black –white categories to facilitate our jobs. We believe in our jobs and that makes our job execution easier. The state executioner cannot be plagued with thoughts of rightness of death penalty whether from constitutional point or religious point or idealistic human rights point or social-economic point. A prosecutor has to have confidence and faith in the adversarial system and that justice is met through the system. He should not be plagued with what if the inquisitorial system is better than the adversarial system. A prosecutor reading the report of another prosecutor has to immerse himself in the analysis and findings and recommendation of the other prosecutor or district attorney or deputy district attorney. It is as if he was there prosecuting or having the facts before him and writing the report himself. He believes entirely the prosecutor’s observation that Tookie is guilty as charged. There is no room for doubt, whether beyond reasonable doubt, or beyond all reasonable doubt or beyond all doubt.

    Third point, is, I who is not a prosecutor, would not have such attachment as a prosecutor has. I have a little doubt, whether, Tookie did commit the 4 murders. I ponder why he denies he committed the 4 murders. I wonder whether he was so well set up and thus convicted. Yet I would set aside this niggling doubt, and accept in good faith that the system has worked. The jury was rightly picked, rightly briefed, there was a fair hearing, the jury was rightly persuaded by the facts before them, that Tookie did commit the 4 murders beyond reasonable doubt. I would set aside my niggling doubt why after he had his 6-7 years close to solitary confinement, and his transformation, he could still deny he committed the 4 murders even as he admitted his gang activity and publicly apologized for starting the Crips gang and the problems caused by Crips that he co-founded. Why this incongruence in Tookie? What is served by this incongruence ? Most people who have transformation of that type strive for congruence in their life, and why this anomaly? This is my niggling doubt of the incongruence. Yet I set aside the little doubt in the far recesses of my mind and heart, because, I belief society has to be governed by rules and procedure, even if there are flaws in the rules and procedure, whether they are flaws from the rules or human interpretation or application of the rules. Thus I accept the appellate decisions spawning 24 years.

    Fourth point, how does clemency work? Without a basic understanding of how it works and assuming it is based on Tookie’s (i) good work and continued good work, to society, or (ii) possible non guilt, …
    Is (i) met , when he worked with neighborhood kids on internet programs to help them from gang life and co-authored some 8 or more books.
    Is (i) met , when he worked with neighborhood kids on internet programs to help them from gang life and co-authored some 8 or more books but if he had debriefed the authorities and helped very significantly in dismantling Crips in LA and nationwide and even in South Africa?
    Is (ii) met , when he has created a doubt why a transformed man denies he murdered the 4 victims? Would a lie detector test help? Would psychiatrist’s report on this incongruence explain? Did Tookie blank out his mind of the 4 episodes? Is it knowledge he cannot live with and thus has emptied his mind of it, and thus he believes he never did it?

    How does Arnie determine guilt? Relying on the prosecutor’s report and recommendations? Taking in good faith the jury had decided, the death sentence had been made and 24 years appeal has not overturned it or called for a new hearing, and thus, Tookie is guilty. Why then “Arnie agonises over the clemency issue”? Guilt is easy to establish because it is reliance on the legal system that has decided Tookie is guilty as charged and as convicted.

    If guilt is a non issue in clemency, should Arnie look at policy considerations of (i) whether it is constitutional (ii) whether Tookie has done good to society and should be allowed to continue his good works? .

    I find Arnie’s conflation of guilt and thus no genuine redemption /atonement [ do not know how they are different atonement and redemption] a bit confusing because, if guilt is “legally established” how can “guilt” be a factor for considering redemption and atonement? It will definitely mean there can in no way be atonement /redemption if this route is taken. It is like saying the system finds you guilty and because of that, and because you deny guilt, you have not atoned or redeemed. It does not explore the possibility of what if he is not guilty or has a valid [insane, temporary or amnesia] reason for denying guilt and thus atonement and redemption should be independently considered.

    If our job implicitly requires us to take a black-white picture with no greys, then, we like to see the issue end soonest as there is no doubt of the guilt position as well as the constitutional position. We would like other cases tried soonest and justice given to the victims. Our patience has been tried by the 24 years appellate process in Tookie’s case and the clemency , but because we uphold the adversarial system, and constitution, we have facilitated it through the 26 years since the 4 murders, and are thus happy when our forbearance is happily ended. We are happy we have upheld the adversarial and judicial system, the constitution, our badge of honor, and clemency. We are happy we have walked the extra mile because of our larger conviction and faith in the system that has run its legal judicial track of 24 years plus clemency.

    If our concerns are not to daily prosecute, then for some, it is an occasion to understand the prosecutorial view point and how our society should be defined. We would tend to linger and doubt here and there and plod along. We learn as we plod along . We chance this http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf and plough through those deep thoughts and ponder what we will decide when and if CA has to decide after the possible moratorium. We might wonder if it ended too early and whether it would have helped to have a longer time. We forget the 24 years as we were not there, till it hit the limelight and was brought to our doorstep forcing us to think of it. We are not happy it ended, but in some way, it frees us to do other things and after some time, we forget about it. We are happy to turn our attention to other mundane things, like the South Beach diet by a Miami renowned cardiologist, Dr. Arthur Agatston [ whose name is used in the measure of coronary calcium, called Agatston Score, and the protocol for calcium screening also referred to as the Agatston Method] recommends it for good blood chemistry and incidentally losing 7 pounds in 2 weeks and 40 pound in 1 year. Good blood chemistry, means, good cardiovascular health with good cholesterol, lipids, etc. # No.1 Bestseller with over 8 million copies sold http://www.southbeachdiet.com/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579546463/103-0714436-0824624?v=glance&n=283155

    Repeat: This is my take, my view and represents no one’s views.

    Yi Ling (0bb6d0)

  10. The South Beach Diet can’t save Tookie now!

    I am one for denial of clemency and execution of Tookie not saving of Tookie. The basis of my view is
    (i) I accept the validity and legitimacy of the legal process
    (ii) I do not think , in the absence of Tookie’s debriefing the authorities, he merits clemency on pragmatic grounds, whether that should be the basis of clemency is another issue.

    My position for denial of clemency is Tookie did not agree to debrief the authorities. Had he agreed to debrief the authorities and provided invaluable assistance to the authorities, I would have considered Tookie worthy of clemency on pragmatic and practical grounds. Because he did not debrief the authorities, I considered Tookie not worthy of clemency.

    I hope this clears the doubt raised by your statement, ” The South Beach Diet can’t save Tookie now!”

    The district attorney’s report , 57 pages, part reproduced:

    Page 52 of 57 on “review of letters opposing clemency page” :

    “Wesley D McBride, on behalf of over 1,600 law enforcement professionals as President of the California Gang Investigator’s Association writes:

    Mr. Williams has never agreed to be debriefed on the gang by the authorities, which he feels tantamount to becoming a “snitch” in gang parlance. This view casts serious doubt on his so called redemption and his disavowal of the gang lifestyle. It would seem that his gang mentality is still functioning and part of his persona.”

    Then refer to the “Conclusion” at page 54 of 57 district attorney’s report:

    “The petition for clemency filed on William’s behalf further contended that he has turned his back on the gang lifestyle of his younger years. However, Williams’ refusal to be debriefed proved otherwise. As Vernell Crittendon explained on 60 minutes, if Williams debriefed it would send a powerful message to those who look up to Williams and seek to emulate him.
    William’s refusal to debrief, and his characterization of the debriefing process as “snitching” clearly shows that Williams has not turned his back on the Crips gang, a gang he co-founded. No doubt Williams could provide substantial, in-depth insight into the history and structure of the Crips gang. Additionally, there can be little doubt that Williams could provide significant information relating to many unsolved crimes, including murders both inside and outside the prison walls. This information would help bring closure and some sense of justice to the families of many, many victims.”

    The South Beach diet is to save your heart from cardiovascular problems.

    Yi Ling (5e5349)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0702 secs.