Fair is Fair
Patterico points out here that he is not all crazy all the time, as this quote reveals:
You’d have to be crazy to think that there is a widespread conspiracy of AP reporters to help the enemy. Most of them are out there doing a dangerous job. I don’t always think the information is reliable, which is in part a function of the nature of Iraq in general . . . but we should recognize the sacrifice they are making to try to tell us what’s going on.
This is a perfectly sane sentiment, and I was wrong to call Patterico a loon conspiracy theorist who thinks the media want to help the terrorists. So, I’m sorry for calling you a loony conspiracy theorist who thinks the media want to help the terrorists, Patterico.
Gavin adds: Jeez. Way to embolden the enemy, Neville Chamberlain. Seasoned Patterico-observers recognize this as his ‘fake-rational’ phase, to be followed in close order by a double-frothy conniption of screaming-mad zealotry. It’s like that thing in the sky, where the bright yellow object goes up and down and the silvery less-bright one follows it. There’s a word for that, I’m almost certain. [Gav out]
Unfortunately for Patty, many of the people whose credibility he seeks to bolster are precisely this crazy.
Debating Patterico is always extremely difficult, since he is, I imagine, a highly skilled attorney who constructs his arguments very carefully and always leaves himself an out whenever he writes something that sounds insane on its face. He also has an annoying gift for picking out any and all errors and hammering you in the face with them. For someone who is a talented prosecutor, I’d expect no less.
But some of the folks whom he carries water for are not quite so cleverly subtle. Let’s take Michelle Malkin, whom Patterico correctly says we have a particular animus toward. Patterico has defended Malkin on repeated occasions from lefty attacks, and has happily touted his association with her several times. All of which is well and good. But for someone who thinks it’s “crazy” to believe there is a widespread media conspiracy to help the enemy, Patterico sure did pick an odd horse to hitch his wagon to.
Last June, the New York Times travel section publilshed a fluffy article about the small town of St. Michaels, Maryland, where both Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have summer residences. The piece also featured pictures of Rumsfeld’s front driveway that the Times had gotten permission from Rumsfeld’s office to take. Michelle Malkin, sensing a Vast Media Conspiracy to Send Terrorists to Cheney and Rummy’s Summer Homes, then wrote the following (my emphasis):
WHEN THE LEFT INVADES OUR PRIVACY
By Michelle Malkin · July 01, 2006 06:41 AM
Why publish maps and specific street names and photographs of the private (not anymore) homes where the Vice President and Defense Secretary and their families spend their vacations?
Why?
Because blabbermouth Bill Keller feels like it, right? (Interesting timing, no?)
Because the “people” (you know: Code Pink, Fred Phelps, jihadis) have a “right to know,” right?
Because neighbors are talking and because the Washington Post blabbed it already, right? And because al Qaeda already must have an inkling that Rumsfeld and Cheney live somewhere in the greater Washington, D.C. area, right? So what’s the harm in handing them all the details, right?
Note the insinuation of collaboration between the Times and the jihadis. Note the dark hints that the Times published the article to exact revenge on the government for condemning their articles detailing the SWIFT bank records program.
Two days after the “NYT TRAVEL SECTION WANT DICK CHENEY DEAD!!!11!” bombshell broke, Michelle began promoting a demonstration outside the Times’ DC to protest the Times’ articles on the SWIFT program. Later in the day, she posted these lovely pictures of the protest on her blog:
The message here is clear: the Times is on the side of America’s enemies. The Times’ reporters are a bunch of traitors. And most importantly:
In all fairness, I don’t know the exact number of Americans that the Times’ reporting has killed, but I’d guess that it is significantly less than the number killed in the Iraq war.
Incidentally, Malkin was tipped off about the Times’ travel section piece by one Mr. David “D-Ho” Horowitz, who posted this charming argument on his blog (again, my emphasis):
In an apparent retaliation for criticism of its disclosure of classified intelligence to America’s enemies, the New York Times June 30th edition has printed huge color photos of the vacation residences of Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, identifying the small Maryland town where they live, showing the front driveway and in Rumsfeld’s case actually pointing out the hidden security camera in case any hostile intruders should get careless […]
Make no mistake about it, there is a war going on in this country. The aggressors in this war are Democrats, liberals and leftists who began a scorched earth campaign against President Bush before the initiation of hostilities in Iraq. The initiators of this war were Al Gore and Jimmy Carter who attacked the president’s attempt to rally the world against Saddam’s defiance of international law in September 2002 just after his appeal to the UN General Assembly. Coming from national leaders of the opposition party these were attacks unprecedented in the history of post-Civil War American politics. Carter’s perfidious decision to accept a Nobel Peace Prize designed to attack his own president followed shortly after (ed: ?!?!?!!?).
The campaign began in earnest with Nancy Pelosi’s attack on the liberation of Iraq as “too costly” on April 13, 2003, the day American troops pulled down Saddam’s statue and was raised to the level of political sabotage of our troops in Iraq and America’s war on terror when a Democratic chorus began hammering the commander-in-chief as a “liar” over the 16 words about Saddam’s effort to purchase fissionable uranium in Niger. The campaign to sabotage America’s war against the Islamo-fascist enemy has continued unabated through Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Haditha and the two intelligence programs that the New York Times exposed. Its agenda is to force an American defeat in Iraq using the model of Vietnam (“Bring the troops home,” while the battle is in progress). Let’s hope the American people wise up and stop it in its tracks.
D-Ho, as you can see, isn’t quite as careful as Malkin is. He flat out says that the New York Times and the Democratic Party are traitors who want to help the terrorists win. Though Michelle isn’t quite so bold (or maybe honest), she does hint at precisely the same thing: that, in an act of petty revenge, the Times published information that could lead terrorists to the homes of government officials.
This is frankly the sort of thing that would make even the most hardcore LaRouchie blush. As the talented Greg Sargent wrote:
I just got through talking with Hollen Wheeler, director of public affairs for Rumsfeld’s office. She confirmed what Glenn Greenwald has reported — that the photographer, Linda Spillers, had been granted permission to photograph Rumsfeld’s house by Rumsfeld himself.
“She got approval to take a picture,” Wheeler told me. “She called, we said fine, go take the picture. And that’s it.”
Wheeler also added of the picture: “It’s already out in the public domain. I’m a little confused about why this has caused such an uproar.” Wheeler declined to directly discuss the question of his security, saying that it was something they don’t discuss as a rule. But she said: “Did it affect the Secretary’s schedule in any way? No. Does it affect in any way how he does his business? No.”
I also checked in with Jonathan Cherry, a spokesperson for the Secret Service, which guards Cheney. His first response was not direct. It was this:
As you can imagine, we would prefer less information than more in that regard. However, we take necessary steps to provide security wherever one of our protectees lives, and do our best to be as unobtrusive as possible to neighbors and the general public.
Then, when I asked him directly whether the story posed a security threat, Cherry emailed:
No, it is not a threat.
So there you have it. That should settle this, right?
Pretty much.
To Patterico’s credit, he didn’t join this particular circle-jerk, perhaps sensing that its obvious lunacy would freak out the normals and discourage them from joining his many other crusades against the press. But this is only one example of the full-blown raging paranoia about the media that the right blogosphere displays on a daily basis.
Now, I’m not saying that Patterico should stop being friends with Malkin, or throw her under the bus, or even criticize her in any way. But I am saying he has some awfully strange standards about what is “rational” discourse and what is not, especially if he spends his time promoting people who are, by his own admission, “crazy.”
P.S.: I’ll let Patty have the last word in this little skirmish, since I’m utterly tired of it. But I will say that this entire debate has reinforced my love of blogs. If you had asked me as a child what I’d be doing at the age of 27, I think that having on-line nerd fights with L.A. assistant DAs would be pretty low on my list.
P.P.S.: For some reason, comments aren’t showing up in the thread. Hopefully, this is a temporary problem. At any rate, I have to get to work now.
Well, as a regular reader and comenter at Patterico’s I am often amazed at his tolerance for stupid arguments. Yours included (with apologies for being a rude guest at your site). I am no fan of Michelle Malkin and I have even posted a critique of her calling her “A Bigoted Creep”. But I have seen far worse from this site. Most recently, a post of yours I came upon by accident while surfing Google that mocked Dafydd ab Hugh’s appearance.
I hope he responds in an honest fashion. It would be easy for him to obfuscate this away
It sure did.
We’re not the nicest people out there. I won’t deny it.
nk,
If you consider mocking someones appearence to be worse than being a “bigoted creep” then the “left” and “right” have never been so far apart.
Yeah, but the guy is pounding away determinedly at this thing and even if he knows it’s crazy to go all the way to visualizing the evil conspiracy between the AP and the Jihadis, his commenters are already there. There’s something awfully disingenuous about a guy saying “Well it’d be just nuts to say there’s a terrorist conspiracy here,” and his readers to belly up to the comments saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll say it for you!” without even stopping to be concerned that he’s calling them crazy. Either they’re too stupid to understand the contempt in which he holds his conspiracy nut readers or there was a dog whistle being blown there.
Hehehe. Moose and squirelle.
Hk,
Is this a joke? You’ve seen far worse on the left than “bigoted creep”s ? Some examples if you’d please. Perhaps some where the leftie in question was calling for the murder of someone who disagreed with them. How about a leftleaning radio host mocking someone with a terminal illness?
Maybe my irony detector is on the blink, if so, apologies to you sir.
D-Ho.
Great. Here comes Barstow again . . .
bpower:
“Screw them. They’re mercenaries”.
In any case, I was probably being too subtle in my defense of Patterico. More lucidly: His site is a class act and he does not descend into the swamp. And he tolerates nonsense, including mine, from both the left and the right.
I think I just heard the sound of goalposts being moved.
i.e., from “far worse on this site” to an example (which I admit I find not all that offensive, by the way) picked from DKos.
I think I just heard the sound of goalposts being moved.
(i.e., from “far worse on this site” to an example–which I have to admit I find not particularly offensive,btw–picked from Daily Kos.)
Perhaps I shall go find a choice LGF quote about Rachel Corrie and use it to impugn Patterico’s commentators.
forked tongue, pleeeeeeaze go and find those quotes. I’m so tired of being slapped around by these dishonest jerks. And don’t let up on pattycakes. He’s great at giving us in left blogostan a hard time. Brad says he’s a great lawyer. Let’s check the record. Reality based community and all.
Debating Patterico is always extremely difficult, since he is, I imagine, a highly skilled attorney who constructs his arguments very carefully and always leaves himself an out whenever he writes something that sounds insane on its face.
In other words, he’s a dishonest sophist who isn’t confined by anything as petty as reality when arguing. Should you ever get the urge to be “fair” to this fucking tool again, go revisit the whole TBogg “outing” brouhaha, and watch as he tries his pathetic best to pretend that he isn’t threatening to out him, why, he’s just trying to defend the honor of a besmirched Asian pundit whose appearance TBogg mocked! Except, you know, for the inconvenient fact that he wasn’t mocking her appearance, but hey…
Seriously. Stop giving extra credit to these fuckwits for occasionally reaching a level of awareness that normal people operate at consistently. At the very least, wait until they show signs of being mortified at how fucking wrong they are about so many things on a regular basis.
What’s par on this course?
In all fairness, I don’t know the exact number of Americans that the Times’ reporting has killed, but I’d guess that it is significantly less than the number killed in the Iraq war.
Everybody forgets Judy Miller…
Seriously. Stop giving extra credit to these fuckwits for occasionally reaching a level of awareness that normal people operate at consistently. At the very least, wait until they show signs of being mortified at how fucking wrong they are about so many things on a regular basis.
I knew I’d get grief for this.
Anyway, the guy is good at what he does, which is to hack away relentlessly at any and all logical inconsistencies he can find. This isn’t saying anything about his moral character.
You’re forgetting the best part about the protest in front of the NYT building: the wingnuts actually argued that the “outing” of Rumsfeld’s beach house was the moral equivalent of outing Anne Frank. Don’t believe me? Click the link.
Anyway, the guy is good at what he does, which is to hack away relentlessly at any and all logical inconsistencies he can find.
Actually, the job of a lawyer is to hack away at anything they can convince their audience to perceive as a logical inconsistency. This is made easier by the existence of actual logical inconsistency, but this condition is by no means necessary. Further, they will hack away at only those perceived inconsistencies which might bolster the opposition if left unchallenged. There is no interest in accuracy, only in convincing an audience of their rhetorical victory.
Sure, some lawyers will not argue a case dishonestly, but they sacrifice professional growth for their principles in doing so.
There’s been a misconception in this dumb Jamil Jamail Hasenpfeffer Inc saga, and that has to do with the reason they’re doing it. Contrary to what I’ve seen you writing, Brad, I don’t believe the right really thinks they’ll be able to let any air out of Iraq war coverage via this pin prick. All they want is to fill the air, to have something to say. If they stop talking, they lose the initiative, and a deluge of depressing facts will flow in to fill the void. They don’t believe what they write, and they don’t think their dedicated readership believes it either. They write knowing that they influence a small army of motivated advocates who’ll trumpet at least part of whatever they say, and who’ll be quiet about the parts even they can’t stomach, and through these advocates they’ll give ammo to the fence-sitters, the half-attentive country club card-room gossipers, the email-forwarding, Hillary-hating geriatrics and the rest of the Drudge constituency. So you don’t see PattyEff talking much about religious matters except to do some spurious legalistic cuticle management on the Schiavo case. It’s all just red meat. It’s only meant to keep people angry and give them reason to avoid depressing reality. After mocking their logic, it’s best just to move on, because by lingering on it you allow them to extend the lifespan of their manufactured controversies. Basically, you play right into their hands.
By the way, you’re giving this goofball too much credit. He’s eager and committed, but ‘talented’? Hardly. He’s nothing but a soldier; don’t waste your time on anything but the capos. Now let’s get off the Jamil thing, eh?
Crazy is as crazy does. Take it from a shrink. On a vaguely related note, who is crazy enough to challenge the critic who placed this politically incorrect Dr. BLT song at #8 among the best 40 songs of 2006?
http://www.morethings.com/music/best_songs_2006.htm
By the way, you’re giving this goofball too much credit. He’s eager and committed, but ‘talented’?
Ever read WHO’S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? Remember the part where George is telling Nick about how you may not like farting, but you can acknowledge that someone is good at it? It’s like that.
Gnarls Barkley, the artist who you’ll notice stole the number one spot from yours truly on this same top 40 best records list (actually I love his record, even more than mine), says we’re all crazy.
In all fairness, I don’t know the exact number of Americans that the Times’ reporting has killed, but I’d guess that it is significantly less than the number killed in the Iraq war.
Probably one less then Maklin killed . . . . .
NK thinks that Kos is worse than Malkin for the “Screw them. They’re mercenariesâ€? comment.
Let’s compare a summary of their two most famous comments:
Malkin:
“We were right to intern under-age American citizens in WWII because they were of Japanese ancestry. We should consider doing the same to Arabic and/or Muslim citizens.”
Kos:
“I’m tired of the publicity and outrage over the deaths of ‘civilians’ when hundreds of our soldiers have died without even a mention. They weren’t ‘civilians’–they were mercenaries, and their actions and lack of accountability just make Iraqis angrier and more likely to kill more soldiers. Speaking as a former soldier, I ‘screw them.’ ”
Hm…which one is “worse”?
In all fairness, I don’t know the exact number of Americans that the Times’ reporting has killed, but I’d guess that it is significantly less than the number killed in the Iraq war.
Depending on what view you take of the Times’ reporting during the pre-war period, this statement might be mathematically impossible.
As for Kos vs. Malkin, one has to take into account the fact that Markos actually apologized.
Playing with numbers is one thing, playing with lives is quite another. Despite the sentiments I expressed in my now famous/infamous song, I believe that strategical errors are to blame for the loss of far too many lives. There’s only one sentiment that fits the stark reality of such a needless and profound loss, and that is the sentiment reflected in the song that the rock critic I link to above placed as the very best record of 2006, “Crazy” by Gnarls Barkley.
To paraphrase Thers, Michelle Malkin wrote this book so any reasonable person with facts wins.
I dunno why you don’t mention In Defense of Internment in the post. It’s a much better example of lunacy and lies that is in print and that Malkin continues to push.
Hm…clarification on my comment:
Malkin argues that the government should take a defined, specific action that happens to be unconstitutional and illegal.
Kos rants about press coverage of something that happened in another country and doesn’t argue for any particular action by the government. (“Screw them” is not a policy that can be implemented without further details; none were offered or solicited.)
In my mind, Malkin is worse because she is actively trying to get the government to do something wrong. Kos is mouthing off but doesn’t suggest or advocate any action. (If he started a PAC for the literal screwing of mercenaries, that would be different.) The level of vitriol, obscenity, or “civility” in either statement is irrelevant.
Personally, we’d like to thank Bush and Cheney for all the new recruits…
Zwei Seelen wohnen, Ach!, in seiner Brust.
Patterico’s got two types of bait/switches, both of which have been ably identified here. 1) Get something moderate and judicious in print to use an alibi when people start crticizing his crazy stuff. 2) Playing wink-wink-nudge-nudge with his commenters, getting them to say things that he doesn’t want to be explicit about.
One example will have to suffice for many: Ann Coulter’s infamous regret that Timothy McVeigh hadn’t blown up the NY Times offices instead of the OK city building. You can find a few places where Patterico, wholly appropriately, denounces such a “joke”. And then you find this:
“I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.”
http://patterico.com/2006/06/22/4757/new-york-times-publishes-classified-details-of-legal-and-formerly-effective-anti-terrorism-program/
Sane people wouldn’t be tempted by any such thought Not even remotely tempted.. But along come Patterico’s commenters:
“Here’s the little missive I sent:
You disgusting, despicable, self-absorbed little pricks. I wouldn’t piss on any of you if you were on fire. I hope that when the 7th-century animals pull off the next attack that’s successful because of the effective, legal programs you assholes have exposed and rendered useless, the NYT building is the first place hit. Ann Coulter was right, McVeigh should have parked his truck in front of the Times building.
PIGS. FUCKING TREASONOUS PIGS.
Comment by CraigC — 6/22/2006 @ 11:39 pm”
Patterico is sympathetic, though he can’t be as blunt as CraigC.
“I understand the emotion, believe me. I didn’t quite go the “Ann Coulter was rightâ€? route, but (as I said in the post) I understand the temptation. I, like you, am totally enraged.
I want to see an independent prosecutor looking into both the NYT and LAT stories.
Comment by Patterico — 6/22/2006 @ 11:44 pm”
Another commenter on that thread envisioned “the people” lynching the staff of the NYTimes themselves.
When Patterico wants to appear judicious and beg for free books: he styles himself a “media critic” (really) and touts the legal analyses on his blogs. Other times, he’s just the type of poo-flinger he regularly excoriates, i.e.
“Deep down, I bet Howard Dean is actually disappointed by the capture of Saddam. ”
http://patterico.com/2003/12/14/995/thoughts-on-the-capture-of-saddam/#more-995
Or a slightly windier version of the same from just last month:
“Bad news for others is sometimes good news for the individual.
I was reminded of this when I read this post by lefty Iraqi blogger Zeyad about the “Burning Six� incident. Zeyad basically makes many of the arguments you have heard from lefties on the Jamil Hussein issue — some of which may be valid, by the way. But this is the part that jumped out at me:
I have heard from friends in Baghdad that they have seen a cell phone video of the burning incident and that it was broadcast on Zawra TV. They couldn’t get me the clip when I asked for it, though. Mosques have been burned before in Baghdad, so I also can’t see why that would be surprising to some American bloggers. Just check my YouTube page on the sidebar for examples.
If such a video emerged, it would be bad news for Iraq and for the Burning Six — but good news for the lecturing left.
Do some lefties hope such a video surfaces? Well. I would never say out loud that the Glenn Greenwalds and Eric Boehlerts of the world would be thrilled to their core to see such a video emerge. But I can guarantee you this: if such a video were to emerge, they would run, not walk, to their computers. And if you thought that they were lecturing, moralistic, humorless scolds before, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”
http://patterico.com/2007/01/11/
Such talk isn’t meant to shed light on an issue. It throws feces at people Patterico disagrees with.
Furthermore, Kos’ statement was a one-off statement spoken obviously out of frustration for the amount of hand-wringing over ‘civilians’ who chose to go to Iraq compared to the not small amount of concern paid to dead soldiers making a fraction of the pay and who had no choice in the matter.
And unlike Malkin, Kos did not base a large part of his career on this statement, write a book about it, or go on a publicity tour to defend it.
Gavin:
You can actually find many more egregious examples right within Malkin’s handling of the Jamil Hussein case.
To wit, there’s her poll that asked: “Who’s the biggest terrorist propaganda tool?” (The New York Times beat out the AP 40%-35%.) This is one of several posts where Malkin refers to the AP as “Associated (with terrorists) Press”.
Ooops, I meant Brad.
[IOoops! Sorry, I meant Brad.]
m. croche at 19:22: that’s some good research there. i wonder if patterico would play the goldstein “out of context” card if presented with it? inquiring minds….
Brad, you should stop treating these bampots like they’ve come third in the Special Olympics. You’ve set the bar pretty low when “Look! look! I said something normal once!” becomes a statement worthy of praise. Patterico is a dick. He’s also a liar and an idiotic right-wing prick. you know this, you’ve dealt with it before. He also smells of poo and has cooties.
Forgive me if I’m OT here but I’m still wondering how a paper which was with only the possible exception of Scaife, the driving force in the various Clinton Scandals (seriously it was like the Times was jeaslous the the Washington Post helped bring down Nixon and wanted Clinton for itself) a tool of the Democratic Party. Heck, I could see how opne could argue that they turned on Clinton when he triangulated with the 1994 Gingrichites, but the Times vendetta against Bill Clinton appears to have begun during his intial campaign for the Presidency; not as would be expected if the Times was a bastion of the Far Left, after his decison to sign off on things like Social Security reform.
More to the point, why wiould a paper alligned with the left carry Judith Miller for so long, acting as an important resource in marshalling public support for the invasion of Iraq? Heck if the wingnuts want to be crazy paraoids they should at least attempt to establish an alternate narrative that isn’t self-contradictory (on it’s surface, I’m purposefully ignoring the illogic behind the assumption that American Progressive would ally themselves with people whose cloeset idelogical analouges are the Christan Theocrats such as Rushdoony).
Hell, just for fun I’ll try, here goes, The NYT and the rest of the liberal media are in bed with the Islamists (ignoring why as explained above) –with me so far wingnuts?– this explains all of there seemingly contradictory actions:
1) Attacking Clinton: Discrediting an Intelligent, Charasmatic man who could appeal to moderates within the Islamic world, and who tried to bring peace to the Isreali/Palestinian conflict is simply good logic, after Bill Clinton, if not besieged constantly could help resolve the very issues that help you gain support and funding, additionally his actions following the 1993 WTC attacks suggest that he will destory AQ et al’s networks if they attack. Similar justifications are behind the media’s handling of the 200 election and its aftermath, and the media osbeqiousness about the 2004 election, especially the repeated usage of terror alerts to pump Bush (that is to say wingnuts, that Terrorists wanted Bush to win, I know its hard to grasp, but Dubya is an incompetent and his administrations decision to invade Iraq has help AQ in a way that UBL could never have orchestrated on his own).
2) Intial Opposition to the War in Afghanistan constrasted with the Invasion of Iraq, while the MSM didn’t exactly object to the invasion of Afghanistan, its slight reluctance here is Haydenesque compared to its cheerleading and outright war-mongering with regards to Iraq (this is where my pseudo theory will start to lose the wingnut who somehow stayed on past my argument that the media, and the Terrorists wanted Bush in Office). Why did the media help push Iraq? Simple there AQ masters knew that a sustained U.S. presence in Afghanistan (something which was so universally accepted it didn’t exaclty inflame the Muslim world and aid the generation of recruits and funds) combined with Pakistan cooperation would crush their organization and that they needed to take the heat off ASAP.
3) (The part the wingnuts will buy while somehow ignoring all of what I tyed before) The publication of the AG photo’s, all the wiretap stuff, etc.,
The MSM did all this to either inform the Terrorist or inflame the Muslim world, this is also the reason that the Muhammed Cartoons were so highly publicized, (they weren’t run because doing that in area’s outiside the Muslim world would make people realize how close some the cartoons came to Der Spiegel illustratioins of Jews, and thus turn some their allies in the Western world –useful idiots suchs as the Wingers primarily– against them).
So there you have it a self-contained nutbar theory explaining the MSM actions without contradicting itself by claiming that the Democratic Party is somehow involved.
mocked Dafydd ab Hugh’s appearance
Wait, we were supposed to mock his appearance?
I thought we were supposed to mock his cod-Welsh nym and general idiocy. At least, that’s what I recall doing.
Also, remember, that during the NYT TRAVEL SECTION WANTS CHENEY DEAD!!!1!! brouhaha, some wingnuts proceeded to post photos and/or maps and directions to the home of the hapless freelance photographer who did nothing more than take the photos she was paid to take. Said photographer, of course, unlike Darth Cheney, having no Secret Service to protect her or her family from any crazed fanboy who might have decided to please his idol by doing real damage to a real person. See, for example, Teh Malkin-Thing’s fake anthrax adorer.
I still remember, with utter disgust, Patterico’s passive-aggressive tapdance, ever-so-delicate, ‘shall I or shan’t I?’ crap over the ‘outing’ of TBogg.
As well as Patty’s total panic and attempted obfuscation of what it was he was threatening to do when he got called on it. Some of which occurred in comments on this very blog, if I remember correctly.
I don’t care if he’s as good as Clarence Darrow, he’s a nasty piece of work. He likes to seem reasonable when it seems he might profit from doing so, but Mr. Hyde is just lurking under the surface, waiting to jump out, snarling.
Plus, as you point out, for someone who apparently wishes to be thought respectable and reasonable, he keeps some awfully unsavory company.
Neither you nor the AP owes any of these moronic fuckwits any apologies, even if some of their kern-scanning bore some shrivelled fruit in the form of poor grammar or word choices. Frankly, I’m not even willing to concede that much, considering the beginning of the original AP story, which basically said, ‘Some Sunni residents claim that…’
The larger issues still hold. Iraq is a hellhole. The people responsible for that are not the people who report on it.
I didn’t know about Patterico until he threatened to out TBogg for dissing Malkin. (Any chance this ethically-challenged idiot was on the Incompetence Team in the OJ trial?)
Patterico:
…if I thought someone [i.e. TBogg] was a shitbag and I knew who they were and they deserved to have the world know who they are, I might clue the world in.
testing
um… patsy is just another mediocre reactionary. he’s no worse than most of the pinhead brigade and is better than the truly ugly – coulter, malkin, etc. – only because he’s had a lot of practice appearing “reasonable.” that he is of the same cloth as malkin etc. is indicated by the fact that he’s willing to ride their coattails, pretend they’re not batshit insane, and pass out the exact same kool-aid after diluting it slightly.
the fact that he occasionally posts a pseudo-condemnation of their lunacy indicates nothing more than that every truly insane movement ideology needs it’s apologists to present a friendly public face – polite, respectable people out front to reassure the good germans that they didn’t just see what they thought they saw and that in any case it’ll all be alright.
i will concede that he’s a “class act:” it’s hard to be an effective apologist without being exceptionally polite.
but anyway, who the fuck cares?
patsy’s just a bad clown, lacking both the talent to create something original and the consistency to take the ideas he picks up from others to their logical conclusions. it’s like deciding to pick on the 50th percentile of “Clueless Follower.” why bother?
Further, everyone taking part in this particular fecal slap fight knows exactly what everyone else will say, which makes it boring and totally lacking in humor.
Well there was that horribly offensive yet delicious looking gigantic submarine sandwich.
um… patsy is just another mediocre reactionary. he’s no worse than most of the pinhead brigade and is better than the truly ugly – coulter, malkin, etc. – only because he’s had a lot of practice appearing “reasonable.” that he is of the same cloth as malkin etc. is indicated by the fact that he’s willing to ride their coattails, pretend they’re not batshit insane, and pass out the exact same kool-aid after diluting it slightly.
the fact that he occasionally posts a pseudo-condemnation of their lunacy indicates nothing more than that every truly insane movement ideology needs it’s apologists to present a friendly public face – polite, respectable people out front to reassure the good germans that they didn’t just see what they thought they saw and that in any case it’ll all be alright.
i will concede that he’s a “class act:” it’s hard to be an effective apologist without being exceptionally polite.
but anyway, who the fuck cares?
patsy’s just a bad clown, lacking the talent to either create something original or to take the ideas he picks up from others to their logical conclusions. it’s like deciding to pick on the 50th percentile of “Clueless Follower.” why bother?
um… patsy is just another mediocre reactionary. he’s no worse than most of the pinhead brigade and is better than the truly ugly – coulter, malkin, etc. – only because he’s had a lot of practice appearing “reasonable.” that he is of the same cloth as malkin etc. is indicated by the fact that he’s willing to ride their coattails, pretend they’re not batshit insane, and pass out the exact same kool-aid after diluting it slightly.
the fact that he occasionally posts a pseudo-condemnation of their lunacy indicates nothing more than that every truly insane movement ideology needs it’s apologists to present a friendly public face – polite, respectable people out front to reassure the good germans that they didn’t just see what they thought they saw and that in any case it’ll all be alright.
i will concede that he’s a “class act:” it’s hard to be an effective apologist without being exceptionally polite.
but anyway, who the fuck cares?
patsy’s just a bad clown, lacking both the talent to create something original and the consistency to take the ideas he picks up from others to their logical conclusions. it’s like deciding to pick on the 50th percentile of “Clueless Follower.” why bother?
uh. oops. sorry.
the bright yellow object goes up and down and the silvery less-bright one follows it.
No, I’m sorry, now you’ve lost all credibility in my eyes. This morning the silvery less-bright object went down first and the bright yellow object was following it.
I demand a retraction!
I also want to know what I was doing up so early this morning.
I’ll take that as a compliment, Pinko. Are you proud of me for making Blogcritic Magazine writer Al Barger’s top 10 Best Records of 2006? I owe it all to the folks right here for getting the critics to notice by being among the first to post my songs.
Anyway, the guy is good at what he does, which is to hack away relentlessly at any and all logical inconsistencies he can find.
Too bad he can’t seem to find his own, or he’d be too busy to ever bother us again.
The point is, Brad, this tendency of yours to try and be overly fair to idiots who don’t really deserve it is fine in ordinary life; it makes you a decent person. It’s different here, and you know it. Trying to be gracious over something irrelevant isn’t going to be seen by him or his fascist associates as a kindness to be appreciated (or reciprocated), it’ll be seen as a weakness to be exploited.
If anything, he deserves extra scorn for supposedly being better than Malkin, et. al. but still supporting them anyway.
BTW, I hate myself for bragging about this. You don’t see Gnarls Barkley on the internet braggging that he made #1 on the same list of Best Songs of 2006. On the other hand, I don’t know what else to do with the news. Those who say I’m off topic need to hear the song. Call me a self-promoter but please don’t say I’m off topic.
Hey, cs, that was very me of you, what you did there upthread. What’s funny is those are my initials, and I swear to God for a millisecond there I actually thought “there I go being all awkward again.”
Sorry, I can’t figure out how to share the humor of it without sounding like I’m making fun of you.
I know it’s off-topic, but I have to point out just how much I love that the public affairs officer Hollen Wheeler talks exactly like Rumsfeld does at press conferences:
Beautiful.