Glenn Greenwald whips himself into foaming frenzy, condemning the right for supposedly not doing something he doesn’t do – when he wants them to

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

I generally refrain from fisking the blogposts of those I disagree with because I don’t want to risk beginning a pointless and time-wasting blog war, but I’m making an exception this evening.  Glenn Greenwald, the poster-child of the left wing whine-o-sphere, wrote a post earlier today titled "Prominent right-wing blogger today calls for the murder of Supreme Court Justices – the Right fails to condemn it".  In it, he stridently takes to task the righties who rushed to Jeff Goldstein’s defense this weekend in the now-infamous Frisch affair.  They, he claims, are hypocrites for not rushing to condemn in a similar fashion the remarks made by Misha from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler blog, who he claims advocated the hanging of the USSC justices who were the majority in the Hamdan ruling.  He also cited other instances of comments made by conservatives in the blogosphere and punditsphere, some of which others would find offensive if attemping to engage in reasoned discourse, and noted the supposed ‘silence’ of the right in condemning those comments as well.

He makes a number of errors in his post, and in the process, exposes himself as the true hypocrite.   First, he spends three paragraphs pointing out those ‘offensive’ comments that conservatives have made that have supposedly stood unanswered by others on the right.   Apparently Mr. Greenwald thinks the monolith right (we all speak with one voice, you know) should spend their time scouring the rightie blogosphere and punditocracy for offensive comments and in turn post the obligatory condemnation, just as he, in turn, does with the leftie blogosphere  – that is, when he’s not busy blathering on about how Bush is the real terrorist mastermind who wakes up every morning dreaming of new ways to steal our rights via ripping up the Constitution.  Sorry, Glenn, but you don’t waste your time scanning liberal blogs and opinion pieces looking for vile things the left has said, and you can’t expect the right to do the same. 

He writes:

But while right-wing bloggers have to dig under rocks to find obscure commenters making reprehensible comments, many of the most prominent bloggers and opinion leaders on the Right routinely and blithely call for people’s deaths, and some even post their home addresses on the Internet for anyone who wants help making those recommendations turn into a reality. The most popular right-wing authors sell millions of books by attacking their political opponents as treasonous and mentally ill.
 

What Greenwald does not mention in his rant about how the right supposedly lets their own off without condemnation are the times the right has taken their own to task over comments they found over the line.   I can’t imagine why he’d want to leave those condemnations out of his b!tch-fest about how conservatives supposedly don’t practice what they preach, can you?  Here are some examples of the condemnations over comments prominent conservatives have made in the past.  I’ll start with my own, and the conservative in question for this little exercise will be Ann Coulter:

Within those posts are links to blogger reaction roundups.  Some bloggers praised Ann and some outright condemned her – both times.   I’d say it was about 50/50 for the 9-11 widows comments, and even some of those who were on the "Coulter had a point" as it related to that issue said that she could have and should have worded what she said better.  The reaction to the "ragheads" and shooting Bill Clinton comments were decidedly more negative.  

Pat Robertson is another example I’ll use.  Last August, Pat suggested that it might not be a bad idea for the US to assassinate Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.    I posted what I thought of those comments here by suggesting Pat take a long vacation out of the public eye.  The condemnation for Pat’s comments came from all corners (especially among Christians), and he ended up issuing an apology.

That was relatively easy information to find out.   Someone who has made it his mission in life to verbally draw and quarter the right (while at the same time implying he is politically neutral) should have been able to locate them via simple Google and/or blog searches – that is, if he wanted to.

Contrast that with Greenwald’s tepid, almost non-condemnation of now-former UofA teacher Deb Frisch’s vicious comments about Jeff Goldstein and his two year old son.  The only post on his blog which mentions Frisch is the one I refrenced at the beginning of this post.  This was a major topic of discussion on the blogosphere over the weekend, so it was impossible for Greenwald to miss.  

Just what was the extent of Greenwald’s comments on le affaire de Frisch?  Rather than pointedly addressing the clearly outrageous comments of a university professor, he utilized the blanket ‘both sides have their idiots’ condemnation here:

Let us stipulate that there are crazed, insane lunatics and repugnant individuals on both the Right and the Left. Any honest person would readily acknowledge that.

Are we supposed to be impressed by that generalized condemnation? I’m not.  Greenwald’s philosophy seems to be: if it’s something bad the right says, it’s standard operating procedure and should be roundly condemned.   But if it’s something the left says that is contempt-worthy, ‘each side has their nutcases.’  But back to what he asserted earlier which was:

But while right-wing bloggers have to dig under rocks to find obscure commenters making reprehensible comments,[…]

Really?  I can reference several without digging under rocks to find promiment liberals making reprehensible comments.  Here, I’ll share a few (emphasis added):

Example 1 – Larry Johnson: Karl [Rove] is a shameless bastard. Small wonder his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out.

I used the Blogspot search feature at the top of Greenwald’s blog and according to it, there are no posts at his blog referencing "Larry Johnson" who is a very prominent anti-war activist, so prominent, in fact, that he gave the DNC radio address one weekend last July.

Example 2 – Dr. Kamau Kambon: former visiting professor at NC State University who called for the extermination of white people.

Nothing on the Blogspot search of Greenwald’s blog on that one, either.

Example 3 – Democrat Alan Hevesi, comptroller for the state of New York, made comments at this year’s Queens College commencement about "putting a bullet between the president’s eyes."

Again, nothing found using the Blogspot search. Kinda odd that he’d have no comment to make on it, considering he’s from New York.  In fact, the day that the story about Hevesi’s despicable comments broke, Greenwald was promo-ing his book on his site – click here for who was blogging on the Hevesi story, and scroll to see the link to Glenn’s book promo post.

Greenwald, in a breathtaking display of blatant hypocrisy, does not practice what he preaches. 

Continuing:

Nobody needs to wade through the depths of comment sections to find this rhetoric on the Right, nor does anyone need to seize on totally obscure individuals and — a la Ward Churchill or Deb Frisch — absurdly try to transform them into some sort of political leader in order to impose responsibility for their moronic statements on people who never even heard of them before. One need only peruse the routine hate-mongering of the Right’s opinion leaders and their prominent bloggers — the Malkins and the Mishas and the David Horowitzs and the Ann Coulters — and one will find more hateful and deranged rhetoric than one can stomach. And it is almost never condemned, including by those who self-righteously parade themselves around as Defenders of Civility and have the audacity to demand that others condemn such rhetoric when it comes from far less significant and influential corners.

LOL.  Can you say "pot, kettle"? :)

Even more:

Based on the grieving rituals we had to endure this weekend over Jeff Goldstein’s sensibilities, I presume it’s fair to infer that the silence from right-wing bloggers over Misha’s calls for the deaths of journalists and Supreme Court Justices means — as one of the most-cited sermons put it — that "one might be tempted to think that this absolute lack of condemnation was a tacit acceptance of these tactics." One might be particularly tempted to think that given that such rhetoric flows not merely from obscure commenters on right-wing blogs, but also from the Right’s leading bloggers and pundits, with virtually no condemnation of any kind.

Untrue, as I noted earlier with the Coulter and Robertson examples. There are plenty on the right who will step up to the plate to condemn their own.  Greenwald, on the other hand, has demonstrated a number of times an unwillingness to condemn liberals on comments that no reasonable person could describe as "ok" and let pass without remarking on (such as the examples I cited above that Greenwald had no response to at his blog).

What the bottom line is here is that Glenn is upset that the right doesn’t condemn every supposedly ‘offensive comment’ he thinks they should, when he wants them to (there’s also the question as to what ‘offensive’ means to one person versus another).   I’m willing to give Greenwald the benefit of the doubt by saying that maybe he’s never even heard of the examples above that I gave of nutcases on the left gone over the edge – who knows? Maybe those stories weren’t featured prominently on Memeorandum for him to notice.  On the other hand, le affaire de Frisch was one of the most, if not the most, discussed issue this past weekend in the blogosphere so there is no way Sir Greenwald didn’t know about it.  At the time of this post, there is still no pointed condemnation of Frisch’s remarks by Greenwald, several days after the issue lit up the blogosphere.

For someone who supposedly doesn’t tie himself to either party, Greenwald has this peculiar fascination with slamming all things conservative, while curiously staying either silent or utilizing the generalized ‘both sides have crazies’ condemnation routine towards the left.  His assertion about the right having to "dig" to find reprehensible statements by the left is laughable – there are many more out there beyond the examples I posted which don’t require any digging beyond a simple Google search.   I suggest that in the future, should Mr. Greenwald desire to do a better job at presenting himself as an objective political observer, he utilize that Google search not on blogs, but instead on reprehensible statements made by Democrats that routinely get shoved under the rug or excused by the left and the MSM (like on racial issues, for example) and not condemned – by him.

Updated to add: I meant to note that Greenwald made it a point to note where the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler blog ranked in the TTLB ranking system, in an attempt to prove how many bloggers on the right ‘approve’ of that blog, based on links:

He’s the 42nd most linked-to blogger on the Internet, and he is in the blogroll of scores of right-wing bloggers, such as Michelle Malkin and Captian’s Quarters Blog.

What Greenwald doesn’t point out, though, is that in terms of actual traffic, his blog ranks 91, with an average of close to 20,000 hits a day.  The A-IR blog, on the other hand, sits at number 303 with an average of 3,210 hits per day.   That shows that the double standard messages from Greenwald like the one I referenced in this post get read by a lot more people than the posts at the A-IR blog.  Another little factoid that I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked that he didn’t mention.

Wed AM Update I: Dan Riehl  is onto Greenwald’s act, too.

Wed AM Update II: Patterico weighs in.  Slam!

Wed AM Update III: Welcome again, Instapundit readers! :)

66 thoughts on “Glenn Greenwald whips himself into foaming frenzy, condemning the right for supposedly not doing something he doesn’t do – when he wants them to

  1. – Your first impulse in regard to this equivalency nonsense was the correct one ST. I was there through the whole dispicable process, and believe me there was no “seeking out some obscure leftie blogger”. She came waltzing into Jeffs blog with the worst vindictive comments I think I ever witnessed, and announced proudly that she was there for only one purpose: To be so rotten in her comments that Jeff would have no choice but to ban her, and when he didn’t she just kept escalating the meaness and vileness of the rhetoric for several days running.

    – Greenwald, like so many of his gaggle is simply trying to cover up a very embarrassing situation he has no possible defense for, The hell with them. They lie lie lie. They have nothing. It’s a total waste of your time. Dr. Demento is headed for worse days if she doesn’t put a cork in it, and anyone on the Left that defends her is going to have a bad time of it.

    – Unfortunately, some of the Liberal bloggers are young and do not see the possible time bomb they’re holding. Putting your reputation in concert with a person who stridently uses sexual references toward a bloggers child, and makes references to not caring if that child gets “Bonet’d” is in danger of losing all viability as a blogger, and worse. Hopefully, the more mature people around them, if such exist, will advise them to do otherwise, but if not its their problem, and a waste of time to bother with. Thats just my take.

    – Bang **==

  2. Many in the right-wing blogosphere spent days condemning lefties for not speaking out against Frisch’s comments (when we didn’t even know that she or the comments existed). And, As Glenn points out, the right-wing tends to give its prominent bloggers a free pass – not Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson – your bloggers. That was his point.

    And you can fiddle around with blog stats all you like but when a site gets 20,000 hits/day, it’s safe to say they are widely read and are certainly not in the neighbourhood of that obscure Frisch person.

    You wrote:
    At the time of this post, there is still no pointed condemnation of Frisch’s remarks by Greenwald, several days after the issue lit up the blogosphere.

    Glenn wrote this in his post:

    Let us stipulate that there are crazed, insane lunatics and repugnant individuals on both the Right and the Left. Any honest person would readily acknowledge that.

    Or isn’t that enough of a condemnation for you?

    More to the point: do you condemn what your fellow right-wing bloggers have called for: the hanging of Supreme Court justices? I don’t see any comment from you about that.

  3. “Are we supposed to be impressed by that generalized condemnation?” Yes ST because the left likes to use generalized condemnations about any Bush or Rove or blogger they do not like.

  4. Pingback: The Mahablog » The Crickets, They Chirp

  5. One of the reasons I don’t condemn Conservative foot-in-mouth commenters too much is precisely this mind-set. The Left can attack all day long, in as vile terms as is humanly possible, including elected leftist officials, and all is well in the blogosphere. But let one Conservative allow their common sense to nap for just a moment, and the entire weight of Civilized Discourse must rain down upon them!

    Nonsense! ST, your remarks about Coulter were fine. I disagreed but, by GOD, it’s your blog, your opinion, and you made it well. My comments were simply in disagreement and that was that. Seemingly, according to yutzes like Greenwald, my duty was to call for her banning from the blogosphere, from book publishing, from newspaper columnizing, and from any job where she might possibly speak her mind! That’s what the Left expects and demands. Nothing less is acceptable.

    I won’t do it! To HELL with the Lefties! Let them do their own policing of their own nut cases. When they actually do that, then, and only then, will I feel compelled to be upset with a Righty’s errant remarks.

    Greenwald is a Leftists idiot. On that you may all quote me! LOL:d

  6. Congratulations on completely missing the point of Greenwald’s post, ST, though from you I shouldn’t have expected anything more than that.

    His point is that right-wingers go nuts over the comments by Deb Frisch, a college professor nobody’s ever heard of, yet Misha calls for the deaths of Supreme Court justices — on a blog linked to by dozens, if not hundreds, of right-wing blogs commonly accepted as popular representatives of the right — and Michelle Malkin and Captain Ed are never called upon to repudiate Misha.

    Or, to make it more simple for you:

    Left-blogosphere attitude: Misha, Deb Frisch, and Jeff Goldstein are all sickos.

    Right-blogosphere attitude: Deb Frisch is a sicko but MISHA AND GOLDSTEIN ARE GREAT!!1!!1!!one!1eleven

    What’s wrong with this picture?

  7. Keep in mind that Greenwald describes himself as he “was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters” therefore he is trained to speak much but mean little. His article is much ado about nothing and merely shows a marked disingenuousness. He offers little to nothing of substance yet wraps it all in obfuscation. Typical for liberal extremists like Greenwald.

  8. I just read Dan Riehl’s response to Greenwald’s nonsense and he pretty much nails it. His title sums it up nicely:

    Enough Of Greenwald, Already

  9. catnip: “Many in the right-wing blogosphere spent days condemning lefties for not speaking out against Frisch’s comments (when we didn’t even know that she or the comments existed). And, As Glenn points out, the right-wing tends to give its prominent bloggers a free pass – not Ann Coulter or Pat Robertson – your bloggers. That was his point.”

    ST: Um, no, he wasn’t just talking about bloggers. Did you even read what he wrote in full? I’ll recap, with emphasis added so you don’t miss it this time around:

    Nobody needs to wade through the depths of comment sections to find this rhetoric on the Right, nor does anyone need to seize on totally obscure individuals and — a la Ward Churchill or Deb Frisch — absurdly try to transform them into some sort of political leader in order to impose responsibility for their moronic statements on people who never even heard of them before. One need only peruse the routine hate-mongering of the Right’s opinion leaders and their prominent bloggers — the Malkins and the Mishas and the David Horowitzs and the Ann Coulters — and one will find more hateful and deranged rhetoric than one can stomach. And it is almost never condemned, […]

    catnip: “And you can fiddle around with blog stats all you like but when a site gets 20,000 hits/day, it’s safe to say they are widely read and are certainly not in the neighbourhood of that obscure Frisch person.”

    ST: That wasn’t my point. My point was that Greenwald was trying to pump up the A-IR’s popularity in the blogosphere based on links, yet failed to mention that his own blog was far more popular in terms of actual hits. So a lot more people are reading the double standard stuff from Glenn than the inflammatory stuff the A-IR blog posts.

    catnip: “Or isn’t that enough of a condemnation for you?”

    ST: Apparently, you selectively read my post as well as Glenn’s, because I wrote this in response to his generalized condemnation:

    Are we supposed to be impressed by that generalized condemnation? I’m not. Greenwald’s philosophy seems to be: if it’s something bad the right says, it’s standard operating procedure and should be roundly condemned. But if it’s something the left says that is contempt-worthy, ‘each side has their nutcases.’

    catnip: “More to the point: do you condemn what your fellow right-wing bloggers have called for: the hanging of Supreme Court justices? I don’t see any comment from you about that.”

    ST: Sure, I think it was an outrageous thing to post and shouldn’t have been said. But I’ll also point out that the A-IR blog has taken to task one prominent right wing blogger in the past, so that gives him a leg up in the ‘condeming your own side’ department over Greenwald.

    Now, I missed your condemnation of Frisch’s nasty comments about Goldstein and his 2 year old son. What were they again?

    Doug: “Congratulations on completely missing the point of Greenwald’s post, ST,”

    ST: Oh no, I got his “point” alright, which was to try and slam the right on a hypocrisy charge he himself is guilty of.

    Doug: “though from you I shouldn’t have expected anything more than that.”

    ST: Aw, I’m hurt.

  10. Congratulations on completely missing the point of Greenwald’s post, ST, though from you I shouldn’t have expected anything more than that.

    Congratulations on completely missing the point of everything.

    Doug, could you possibly explain the moral equivelence of an attack on an innocent two-year old for the comments of his father to an attack on public figures in response to their own decision?

  11. The libs that posted here are proving that Liberalism is a mental disease, and in their cases they need treatment, STAT!!

  12. Pingback: Classical Values

  13. OT a bit but apropos (somewhat)to your blogging tips post recently.

    When Bush leaves the WH in 2009, the bulk of Glenn’s content and the issue he obsesses about will be over. And golly, the Constitution will still be intact.

    What say Glenn then?

  14. Pingback: QandO

  15. So it’s not OK to make death threats against two-year-olds, but it’s perfectly OK to make death threats against Supreme Court justices, journalists, etc.

    My point, and Greenwald’s, is that it’s disgusting and abhorrent to make death threats against ANYBODY . . . but y’all just keep doin’ what you’re doin’, I guess.

  16. You just gotta love the liberals. Their idea of a stinging retort to reprehensible behavior by one of their own is to whine that “everybody does it!” Not only is that NOT true, didn’t your mama ever teach you nuthin? If everyone jumps off a cliff are you going to too?

  17. Doug: “So it’s not OK to make death threats against two-year-olds, but it’s perfectly OK to make death threats against Supreme Court justices, journalists, etc.”

    ST: Non sequitur.

    Doug: “My point, and Greenwald’s, is that it’s disgusting and abhorrent to make death threats against ANYBODY . . .”

    ST: Bravo! That’s certainly a bold and unpopular stance you’re taking there!

    ST: Of course, YOUR point is *not* Glenn’s point. His point is, as usual, to trash the right when they don’t bark on his command.

    Doug: “but y’all just keep doin’ what you’re doin’, I guess. ”

    ST: Not that we needed your permission …

  18. Now, I missed your condemnation of Frisch’s nasty comments about Goldstein and his 2 year old son. What were they again?

    I posted my condemnation of her vile comments on my blog and Goldstein’s (the first post I’ve ever made there). Abuse of that sort should not be tolerated by anyone. Period. Neither should the sort of behaviour Greenwald pointed out that appears on some right-wing blogs be given a free pass. It’s all equally uncalled for. This is not a partisan matter. This is about being human and humane.

  19. You know what’s hilarious? Leftards make a big deal about the ecosystem vs. traffic (one, I think in the comments at Greenwald’s, actually said he thought the ecosystem was rigged! LOL!). They’re soooo much better because they have so many readers, IOW. Yet they say we are an echo chamber? Um, wrong. The difference: the smaller blogs on the left get virtually no traffic, even compared with the right side’s “smaller” blogs. The “hivemind” (to which they refer) is only on the left. They ALL hang out at the same blogs, echoing one another.

    Besides, we all have these things called “lives” (as opposed to hanging out in mommy’s basement, which they actually say WE do!).

    Doug, with all due respect, Misha’s rhetoric is hardly a “death threat” or a “death wish” or whatever you want to call it. It’s hyperbole. Frisch’s comments may have been as well, but anyone who sexualizes a two year-old child or uses any violent or sexual “hyperbole” against a child should be gagged and muzzled. (

  20. Comment cut off: Note that “gagged and muzzled” was used as an example of hyperbole. I used those instead of “shot,” because I didn’t want to hurt anyone’s feewings.
    ;)

  21. I’ll try again.

    If you accuse the other side of hypocrisy it is irrelevant if you are guilty of their crime too. Only if you said it was a crime yourself are you also a hypocrit.

    The crime in this case is claiming that one side should condemn everyone offensive in their midst. Glenn never claimed anyone has a responsibility to do this (of course, since it would be ridiculous to have to comment on every comment made by every idiot). Commentators on the right did claim this though, and they are being correctly pointed out as hypocrits for doing so.

    This is basic logic, surely?

  22. So if I said, “Man, I wish someone would just walk up to Bush and blow his head off,” I could just defend that as “hyperbole” and good old-fashioned joshin’ and it would be OK, and all of you would be fine with that?

  23. Actually the logic is obviously not so basic!

    I meant to say the crime is ‘not condemning everyone offensive on your side’. The hypocrisy is claiming people have a responsibility to do this, then not doing it yourself. Glenn never claimed people have this responsibility in the first place. Hence he is not a hypocrit, but those cited on the right are

    Thanks for your patience

  24. BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!

    Now all you right-wingers shut up. Or we will molest/kill your children (he he he).

    (Posted from the official Leftist debating textbook)

  25. – Just a general note to all the Leftard apologists out there, and equivalency freakoids.

    – If you have a working brain cell in your skulls you will distance yourself from Frisch as far as possible. Period. All other words, or actions, in not protecting your own Blogging gravitas and reputation, is irrelevant. Being Left doesn’t mean you can be Right for once in your lives.

    – Bang **==

  26. Hello? Anybody home? If I said “Man, I wish someone would just walk up to Bush and blow his head off” and you got mad and I said, “Aw, come on, it was just some fun hyperbole, I was obviously just kiddin’ around,” would you accept that and let it slide? Or would you go around to Atrios, Kos, Sadly No!, etc. and demand that they “distance” themselves from me?

  27. Doug – this is not a “game”. Making statements of that nature in a post is a serious matter. But to answer your question, anyone making the comments that Frisch did, or things similar to what you posted, should be shunned, or whatever legal steps can be taken. Of course your type of comment would come more under the perview of the Secret Service. As hard as the Left would like to make this a partisan political issue, it simply is not. Its not about a verbal flame war between two adults. Its about indecent, and vicious comments directed toward another persons child. If you can not see clearly the difference between thouse two things, maybe you’ve answered the question you always have, as to why people do not take the Left serious, think of you as a group as children, lacking in maturity and introspective.

    – Would be a great time to suck it up and prove your detractors wrong.

    – Bang **==

  28. No, this is about the right wing having one set of rules for themselves and entirely different set of rules for their opponents — i.e. death threats for me, but not for thee.

    Personally I’d like to live in a world of death threats for nobody — as would the numerous lefty bloggers who have come forward to repudiate Frisch’s behavior — but thanks to people like you, Mischa, Malkin, etc. etc. etc., it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. Oh well . . . as a Christian (yes! we liberals really do go to church! pick your jaw up off the floor), I’ll be praying for it anyway. Bye.

  29. Pingback: protein wisdom

  30. – You just can not reason with the Left. They’re all raving lunitics. Let their demise be its own reward.

    – Bang **==

  31. { y a w n }

    No, this is about self-importance, self-righteousness,
    and a lack of productive activities for the spoiled
    and miseducated class.

  32. – Or possibly the spoiled, over educated, under experienced, immature “class”. Be sure to remember a Christmas card for your poli-sci prof. He or she has set you up for a rude awakening at some point in your life.

    – Bang **==

  33. OK, maybe I’m just confused at this point. Seems to me that the whole point being argued is not what is said, such as death threats, but what an ally of the one who speaks such nonsense does about it on his own volition. Is this not the case? It seems common place, to me, that the right will at the very least, question such rhetoric from a right wing speaker, far more often and quicker than we tend to see from the left when one of their own spews junk. ST’s examples should have been sufficient to illustrate how it is done by conservatives. Can’t recall any parallels from the left. Enlighten me if you can.

  34. It’s simple Marshall. They’re being contrite and mealy mouthed about it, like all children when they’re embarrassed. They’re only real rejoinder is “Well they did it too”, which is total BS, like only the equivacating left can BS, when they have nothing. To the best of my knowledge, nobody, in or out of public life has ever made veiled threats or sexual comments about someones real life child. So the “buts” are a totally defenseless red herring.

    They generally start off with “Don’t get me wrong, I thouroughly denounce what she did BUT…..”, and then they’re off on a rant about Coulter or Rush. They’re children. That’s the only way to explain it. A culture of hate that can’t stop for a minute, set aside the “hive thinking and talking points”, and just deal with it on a human level. They’ve been so indoctrinated in the hate culture they’re no longer capable of thinking for themselves.

    – It’s the fault of their leaders like Kos. He’s uses all the old Marxist tricks to animate the base, and then leaves the poorly armed creatures out in the cold to suffer the slings and arrows that they get hammered over by mature adults, while he hides.

    – I’ve seen a few cases where people have suddenly woken up, and without exception the first thing they feel is the deepest sort of embarrassment, and loathing, for the Atrios’s, Hampshers, Kos’s, and others, that set them up like that. It isn’t pretty. Those people use them to their own oppotunistic ends, and would dump everyone of them in a NY minute the instant they didn’t see them as “usefull” anymore.

    – But it all tunes in so well with the ytouthful rebellion troupe and “sticking it too the man”, that they lack the perspective to see that. I actually have moments when I feel sad for them.

    – Bang **==

  35. – But it all tunes in so well with the ytouthful rebellion troupe and “sticking it too the man”, that they lack the perspective to see that. I actually have moments when I feel sad for them. – Bang

    Liberals and their incessant “we’re rebelling, we’re the free thinkers, all you conservatives are all just marching lock step” meme/BS reminds me of the South Park episode where Stan was interested in joining the Goth kids because his girlfriend broke his heart:

    “If you want to be a non-conformist like us, you have to dress like us and listen to the same music we do.”

    Stan..”Errr…Okay.”

    Yeah, they’re “sticking it to the Man” alright, and showing how independent they are by verbatim quoting any and all talking points their minders give them. Lemmings, every one. “Bush lied!” Yeah, that’s original…try pulling your head out of your backside and looking around at the real world for a change, instead of parroting the party line.

  36. – Well, of course without “projection” there would be no “progressives” Sev. For instance, almost every diatribe starts with some allusion to a Hitler connection to Bush and the evil NeoCons. And yet when you listen to the rant at times its seems eerily similiar to what a German citizen might have over heard listening to a Berlin radio during the thirties.

    – That he started that way as the leader of the worst “National socialism” movement the world has ever known, may not be just a coincidence. Projection, and they see not a mote of it in their leaders.

    – Anyway, I’m already due for some “Bionic-man” work, so I don’t need to get my blood pressure up.

    – Bang **==

  37. Well gosh, Doug, part of the problem is that every time someone on the right does say something over the line, it’s broadcast on ABC, NBC, CNN, and CBS not to mention almost every newspaper in the country. Yet when Larry “There is no terrorist threat” Johnson jokes about Rove’s mother killing herself, I have to find it on the conservative’s blog sites.

    Why do you suppose that is?

    Also, if you are praying, you may want to be careful. That may get you kicked out of the Liberal Club. Didn’t they tell you that’s a no-no?

  38. Why do I find it no surprise that conservatives go into a feeding frenzy over Deb Frisch, then attack me when I call them and some of their moronic ramblings what they are, and then find out that people like you are using the Ad hominem about Greenwald? The study that showed those who were whiners as children grew up to be conservatives was absolutely correct and people like you are proving it. FYI, I did not then, and do not now support anyone threatening anyone in person, on a blog, in a movie theater, etc. For all you thick skulled individuals, that means I did not and do not support any of Frisch’s comments, though, unlike any of you, she acknowledged her mistake and apologized. Let’s see how many Ad hominems I get.

  39. – Well, don’t like to disappoint you maybe A. Patriot, maybe not, but no ad hominems. Frisch, well but she back-reeled her “acknowledgement”, and then proceeded to play the “victim”, peppering her posts with all sorts of excuses, and outright damage control driven lies. Last time I heard she was talking about shutting down her blog for 30 days, but we’ve seen what her promises mean in the past.

    – Bang **==

  40. For all you thick skulled individuals, that means I did not and do not support any of Frisch’s comments, though, unlike any of you, she acknowledged her mistake and apologized. Let’s see how many Ad hominems I get.

    That’s not exactly true, “A. Patriot.” She offered a tepid, Clintonesque sort of third-person “apology,” and then started backtracking from it…while trying to pass herself off as the victim of the whole affair.

    And as far as “Ad hominems” go…this “thick-skulled” commenter respectfully suggests that you don’t use such attacks if you don’t want to be subjected to them. :d

    Finally – speaking as somebody who regularly reads and comments on Misha’s blog – there’s no comparison between Misha’s comments and Deb Frisch’s. If Misha was the sort of person who targeted children with death threats and threats of sexual violence, as Deb Frisch did to Jeff Goldstein’s toddler son, I wouldn’t be reading him… and I’d also be filing complaints with the FBI. Nothing I’ve seen on Misha’s blog – I’ve been reading him for two years now – comes anywhere close to that. Or to Kos’ “Screw them” comment. Or the typical Democratic Underground thread, for that matter.

    Be serious, “Patriot”: who hasn’t said “Gosh, somebody ought to kill that jerk?” at some point in their lives? That’s what Misha’s rant about five boneheaded Supreme Court justices boils down to…and if you can’t recognize the difference between that and “I’m going to kill that jerk” – more precisely, “I’m going to rape and kill that jerk’s wife and toddler son” – then you seriously need to recalibrate your moral compass.

  41. Excellent points, Wes – from what I’ve read of Misha’s blog from other bloggers and commenters, this is standard fare for him (hyperbole) and when looked at from that context, it sheds a whole new light on Glenn’s hyperventilating.

    Another good point you made: if Glenn others felt Misha’s comment was a serious enough threat, did any of them perform their civic duty by calling the FBI and informing them there’s a ‘maniac’ blogger on the loose?

  42. Pingback: Don't Go Into The Light

  43. Doug, I guess I’ll have to make the question more direct and less nuanced.

    What did Jeff’s two year old do to offend Frisch so?

  44. So it’s not OK to make death threats against two-year-olds, but it’s perfectly OK to make death threats against Supreme Court justices, journalists, etc.

    So I guess you actually believe both of those incidents were actual, valid, actionable threats on someone’s life? Please explain why you think either party’s comments were valid threats. The only reason they can be considered morally equivelent is if you actually believe they are true death threats.

    Since none of us actually believe that–you don’t believe it, do you?–then they are entirely different.

    One is an assault on an innocent and one is an assault on a group that chose to make an opinion in conflict with someone elses. Misha responded to their action in his usual way. Frisch chose to react to Jeff’s opinion with a disgusting attack on his child. Again, please explain the moral equivelence.

  45. Sorry for basically repeating what Wes said. I should have read the other comments before posting:-"

  46. Pingback: Ace of Spades HQ

  47. So “choosing to make an opinion in conflict with someone else’s” is all the impetus one needs to make a justifiable, non-criticizable death threat against someone? By that rationale, if Frisch had simply made the death threat against Goldstein as opposed to his child, it would’ve been OK — is that what you’re saying?

    Here’s the thing, Barney — no, I don’t actually believe Misha intended to go and lynch five Supreme Court justices. But I don’t think Frisch actually intended to go kill Jeff Goldstein’s child, either. To make an idle threat to do so was incredibly stupid, childish, and deserving of scorn, but what Misha did was no less so. Yet somehow conservatives are all up in arms about the first offense while conveniently ignoring the second because he’s one of their own.

  48. Doug, you’re stuck on the death threat. You ignore who the threat was directed at. Misha directed his at the source. Frisch directed not only a death threat, but also sexual assault at an innocent child. The child in no way offended Frisch. Misha did not suggest ki–y-diddling the judges children. Again, please explain how those are morally equivelent.

  49. Pingback: Jon Swift

  50. This is such a straw man for Republicans. How can do you compare Frisch and Coulter or that Churchill and Robertson? The problem is that no one even knows who these people are when you set them up as some representative of the left. I only learned who Churchill was through right wing websites and I still have no idea who this Frisch lady is. For all I know she’s a Nazi, Communist janitor. The REASON that we don’t condemn these people is because WE DON’T KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

  51. Barney, a death threat is a death threat is a death threat. Why can’t you bring yourself to just condemn death threats period? Or are you just too busy trying to contrive reasons why it’s OK for right-wingers to do it but not lefties?

  52. First of all, it wasn’t a “death threat”. It was the rhetorical equivalent of yelling “kill the ump!” at a baseball game. Only a demagogue would actually think that the fan wanted to kill the umpire. It was a silly thing to say but hardly a threat.

    Secondly, A. Patriot, is there a blog you’ve visited in the last two days where you haven’t mentioned that study about conservatives growing up to be whiners? Did you read the report or are you just parotting the usual Leftard BS?

    A. Patriot: For all you thick skulled individuals…
    A. Patriot:
    , Let’s see how many Ad hominems I get. Because of the hypocracy!

    Frisch’s remarks were revolting and the fact that people like Doug can’t see the difference speaks volumes about the mindset of the left.

  53. – Apparently the great Kossak leader Kos has sent down the marching orders to his prolitariat hoards that Progressive Marxist policy for the “Frisch affair”will be handled as follows:

    a) It’s ok to issue a soft repudiation along the lines of “she shouldn’t do that” on Frisch’s comments.

    b) It is however, a requirement to adamently tie any statements of mild dissaproval to the usual torrent of Left talking points, and political equivalency, working in the usual “Coulterism’s, Rush’s sex life, and any other bitchy red herring’s that can be managed. Slipping the words Zionist Neocon warmongers, Isreal, and oil into your comments would be good too”.

    c) One good approach is to simply deny that you’ve ever heard of this woman, covering your eyes, and holding your hands over your ears, singing lalalalalala, if any Rethuglican’s try to actually execise their free speech rights, which all good Kommrads know, were only invented for us. Use the Constitution as often as possible against the riechwing-nuts. Its your patriotic doodie.”

    Your Fearless Leader: Kos Moulitosis

    – Bang **==

  54. Great post, ST. Another very prominent example is Debbie Schlussel, who was excoriated for far FAR less than threatening a child (and excoriated even by Misha, as you can see from the links)

  55. Doug, why should I condemn something I don’t think needs condemning?
    I’m not concerned about her death threat or his death threat–it was hyperbole. My concern is the target. You can’t seem to bring yourself to admit the two targets fall into different classes. Jeff’s child had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
    Can you please tell me how his child took part? Can you tell me why his child is a legitimate target of her hate?

  56. Earth to Barney. I never said his child was a legitimate target of hate. In fact, I have referred to Frisch’s comments as “sick,” “disgusting,” “abhorrent,” “incredibly stupid,” “childish,” and “deserving of scorn” — in this comment thread alone! — yet apparently none of this has been able to penetrate your skull, because you’re too busy trying to delude yourself into believing that your side of the blogosphere holds any kind of innate moral superiority over mine.

    I’ll say it again real slow so you can understand. Death threats are stupid, wrong, and unnecessary regardless of the target and regardless of whether the threat-maker was “just joking.” But apparently you think they’re OK as long as the target is an adult, as long as they did something to “offend” you — and oh yeah, as long as it’s a right-winger making the threats.

  57. No, Doug, you can make a death threat against me. I don’t care. It doesn’t offend me. It doesn’t bother me. I’m not afraid of you. Her death threats wouldn’t have offended anyone, either, if she had directed them at Jeff. I realize that you don’t understand the difference between innocents and lawful combatants. Try to get this through your thick skull:

    The Death Threat Wasn’t The Issue.

    I realize that the death threat is the only thing that concerns you: “a death threat is a death threat is a death threat.”
    Got it. I understand your thought process completely. But you don’t understand ours. Not a problem. We tried to explain it to you but you don’t understand. I realize that it is a very complex, nuanced position. We don’t expect you to understand everything. We just try to help as much as we can.

  58. Barney15e: =d> Do you think Doug is well enough to take jpe back to outhouse for dinner and drinks or should steve:)>-pecker drive’em home………..again.

  59. I think it’s time for some perspective here:

    Okay, so the right gets the vapors and declares a leftist conspiracy when some random nutjob suggests vile things about the offspring of someone who has himself suggested vile things. ‘Where are the condemnations from the left? Their silence implies consent!’ they shout. To which the left responds, ‘Yeah, she’s a random nutjob suggesting vile things. And, by the way, if we’re supposed to condemn a random nutjob, why haven’t you condemned the continuing veiled and not-so-veiled threats coming from the not-so-random, media-feted nutjobs that the right calls their own?” And the right cries, ‘Aha! That’s not an unequivocal condemnation! And look at… um… hey, look at that former visiting professor guy at NCSU. We pwn you now! I’m rubber you’re glue…’

    But I’m really glad that the right has taken a stand on this. Given all the inflammatory rhetoric in the blogosphere, I was wondering where the line of reasonable discourse was to be drawn. Now I know: children are off limits. We can speak longingly of hanging judges, blowing up reporters, and slapping people in the face with one’s penis, we can level accusations of treason against those who disagree with the president and publish their personal information with the intent to intimidate them into silence, we can speak dismissively about the civil rights and separation of powers that allowed the U.S. to shine forth as that ‘beacon on a hill’, but if one random, unhinged person makes lewd and threatening comments about someone’s child, we must cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

    Nice to see that there’s still a line to be drawn, somewhere.

Comments are closed.