"Think Progress" — if you want to call yourself that, don't make the "think" part seem like a joke.
(Why does it irk me that TP referred to me as "a woman named Ann Althouse"? A whiff of sexism there? Or is it like "A Man Called Horse" — kind of noble? I'll put it on my list of possible titles for the memoir I'm writing about my life as a blogger. A key chapter will be on the big difference between the way bloggers to my left and bloggers to my right treat me.)
In the comments at the Think Progress link:
Trying to insist Reynolds is vicariously part of this “smear” campaign you charge is being perpetrated, through Althouse’s bringing notice to an editorial in Investors Business Daily and calling it harsh, while guestblogging at Instapundit, is an absolute textbook example of what people mean when they use the term “moonbat.”Indeed.
Frankly, I haven't traced down the exact role of Jamie Gorelick as one of the government lawyers who played a role in restraining the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement. I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial I cited. Think Progress writes:
Shaffer’s story [re Able Danger], if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department.I didn't fact-check that either. I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot. But isn't that what the report of the 9/11 Commission should, in part, have been? I don't want to see Gorelick (or anyone else) smeared, but by serving on the Commission, she contributed to the feeling many of us have now that we were deprived of the whole story.
This isn't a vendetta about Gorelick. The only other mention of her on this blog is in this post linking to my own Instapundit post (to make a place for comments). I'm genuinely concerned about the Able Danger story. But now that Think Progress is drawing attention to Gorelick, I can see that her presence on the 9/11 Commission impairs the credibility of its report. That's terribly important!
Isn't it?
If it's not, explain why, respectfully and rationally, and I'll discuss it with you. Don't just go into that ridiculous hysterical mode. My recent experience with lefty blogs that misread, freak out, and hurl insults makes me unwilling to engage with people who don't show a commitment to civil discourse. I'm going to save time by assuming it's not going to go anywhere.
UPDATE: A shorter Atrios... Wait! You can't get any shorter. I mean: Thanks to Atrios for providing an instant example of what I'm saying about lefty blogs. Sigh.
IN THE COMMENTS: Lots of hardcore types making fools of themselves and some good observations too. I just wanted to highlight this statement of mine about fact-checking:
Bloggers link to articles and opinion pieces all the time without independently checking the facts in them. If someone just sent me a friendly email when there's an error, I'd check into it and make a correction. There's nothing to flake out about. You're just being hardcore partisans looking for ways to attack all the terribly many people you view as your enemies.
I'm supposed to do independent research before I blog about anything that contains factual statements? That's a weird requirement, yet Atrios and Think Progress are acting all triumphant as if this post admits to some big failing! Really, is it their contention that you can't link to an opinion piece without checking any facts it includes? Do they follow that rule? I think not!
Posts
109 comments:
"She's smarter than me." – Glenn Reynolds
i have dandruff that is smarter than Glenn Reynolds...
I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot. But isn't that what the report of the 9/11 Commission should, in part, have been?
Yes, we all would have loved to have seen this, fortunately though, your Chimp guaranteed this wasn't going to happen. I am not certain why you are upset with Gorelick being on the commission, it seems that Senator Roberts being on the commission was a great deal worse.
I don't think anyone is asking you to fact check editorials run in the major papers. But once you have printed one, I think everyone would agree that if the facts come out against the editorial, that you have an obligation to let your readers know.
I notice that a "feature" of most rightwing lawyer bloggers is that they don't believe they have this obligation to their readers or the objective facts. I've always thought this was due to how their legal training as an advocate of one side in trial overcame the morals that society tried and failed to implant.
Or shorter me, rightwing lawyers have a tendency to be what the rest of us would consider to be a liar, I wonder why, is it because you're rightwingers, or because you are lawyers?
Your reaction to the "Think Progress" entry is silly. I've read it and it's a well-thought-out piece. Unless you're not a woman, I don't see what your problem is. They don't agree with you, get over it.
One of the nice things, I suppose, about blogging and bloggers is that it allows other people to discern the limited range of the bloggers thinking, and our own, if we are sufficiently mature enough to do so, as well as express intelligent thoughts and insights.
I think the data showing that 90% of bloggers are 19-29 years old is reflected in both blogs and comments, and so as per your previous brouhaha over the London shooting, it isn't what you say so much as what people think you have said, or more apropos, what they want to wish they hear you to have said.
Many commenters are either cheerleaders or self appointed nemesis' on most blogs, so I read them for links to interesting blogs like yours, and not for the content of the comments, usually, although others are really pretty informative or enlightened in their own way.
So, long story short, I wouldn't sweat the small stuff.
As for the 9/11 Commission I think that we have enough concern on both sides of the aisle about its' composition so as to caste doubt on its' worth when it touches on any politically sensitive point, which these days may even includes its' title page.
Historians will look back through our times and discover far more flaws in the system than the ones we are aware of because we are all too emotionally involved with the events and the politics of the events. Systems do not, nor can they, anticipate asymmetric events. The 9/11 Commission is as useless as the system they investigated. Just as security is a myth when it comes to networked computers, so too is a logical algorithm to an abstract concept.
That's my point of view from the left side of the blogosphere, the old fart, high school degree side of the left.
genoasail: I'm only talking about how people have treated me, a blogger trying to be a centrist and trying to talk to everyone and not supporting either party. (I voted for Bush and Feingold.) I agree that there are firebrand bloggers on the right.
One interesting thing about this Able Danger situation - which appears currently to be a real mess of a story - with respect to Jamie Gorelick and the wall is that before she was the deputy attorney general, she was the general counsel at the Pentagon.
Which goes a certain distance in explaining how the culture she established with her Wall might have been applied more zealously than need be at DOD.
After all, she had been their boss and then was promoted.
A key chapter will be on the big difference between the way bloggers to my left and bloggers to my right treat me.
This was tongue in cheek, correct? Sarcasm is so hard to detect on the Internets.
Because otherwise ... wow.
People are mean on the Internet. People are mean in real life, too, which has always been, to me, the larger issue.
A.
a blogger trying to be a centrist
Uh, it's not working. You should probably just strive to be yourself. More honest to yourself and to your readers and will make you that much more credible.
Please see Heisenberg, Picasso, and Thompson for details.
quxxo: You talk about "most rightwing lawyers," but I doubt that you're familiar with my blog. I've taken many strong position that go to the left and not the right. I supprt gay marriage and abortion rights for example. Why haven't rightwing bloggers attacked me for that? Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement? It's been a distinct trend the whole time I've been blogging that lefties link what they don't like and assume they've found an enemy. They don't follow the blog generally and see the things they'd agree with. It's like they just want to alienate me. It's really sad. It makes me think: no wonder they lose elections. People on the right have been linking to what they agree with and ignoring the things they disagree with. That's a better strategy from my perspective. I have lots more to say on this subject, but need to rush off.
The fact that you voted for Bush tells me all I need to know about you. I have no respect for anyone who voted for George effin Bush. Anyone who voted for Bush, with the exception of the very rich, is merely a tool for this god awful administration.
You seem to be an intelligent woman. You write fairly well. With all of the information available to you, why in the world would you vote for Bush?
If you bought into the Swift Boat bullshit, then you're not terribly savvy. The information was out there, you know, the truth, but too many people like you prefer to ignore it. Look at the facts sometime ~ you might actually learn something.
"W" stands for Worst. president. ever.
Funny how the only posts that get any comment here are the ones Atrios links to.
You'd think those precious endorsements from Instacracker and the Pillsbury Doughboy would be worth more...
I'm genuinely concerned about the Able Danger story.
Followed by:
Frankly, I haven't traced down the exact role of Jamie Gorelick as one of the government lawyers who played a role in restraining the sharing of information between intelligence and law enforcement. I didn't fact-check the assertions in the editorial I cited. Think Progress writes: Shaffer’s story [re Able Danger], if it’s true, involved communications between the Department of Defense and the FBI. Gorelick’s 1995 memo was only about communications between the FBI and the criminal division of the Justice Department.I didn't fact-check that either. I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot.
Let's boil it down, "Ms. Althouse." You don't know what you're talking about, you cited links that don't know any more than you do about this "important issue," and you have the nerve to complain about those that disagree with you? I mean, all you've done is spout right-wing talking points about what is now turning out to be the biggest non-story since Joe McCarthy's "list," and NOW, now that others have criticized you, NOW you want to know the facts? Sorry, lady, the time to learn the facts is BEFORE you open your big yap and stick your foot in it. Sheesh.
Woohoo! You don't bother to update your readers about past posts with the current known facts, but you do support gay marriage and abortion rights. Near as I can tell, that is your answer to my original question. Seems like a non sequitur to me.
Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement?
Well Ms. Five Shots to the Noggin is Okay By Me, it's probably because all of us on the left are part of the fifth column, objectively pro-fascist, traitorous, treasonous, idiotarians that should be kicked out of the country, and we're upset about that, because if that occurred, we don't know when we could get the terrorists into therapy.
The dishonest quxxo failed to mention that we also eat Christian babies wrapped in bacon.
Oh, and would the woman named Ann Althouse have preferred "a pusillanimous, jiggling sac of bile who can't write worth a shit named Ann Althouse"? Note that I'm not calling you that--just asking a question because I'm sincerely interested in the answer.
Goesh, did you leave the lid off of the moonbat bait again? They're infesting all the crawl spaces.
Ploopus better show up or someone may usurp her position.
Actually Dave, I came over here from Lawyers, Guns and Money, who were discussing another one of Ann's posts, but are now dissing&cussing John Gibsons attempt to not look like a weasel for his remarks about shooting people in the head, which is what they were taking issue with with Ann. Small world.
Atrios was still in bed when I went through there.
Ms Althouse, I'd find your claim to being a centrist a lot more credible if you would in the future... FACT CHECK before disseminating something through Instapundit, which you must know is going to spread rapidly through the Right blogosphere.
If you want to be seen as objective, FACT CHECK. And be gracious when caught in an error.
You also seem remarkably self-absorbed, focusing almost entirely in this post on your own personal feelings.
What about Gorelick's? She didn't insult anyone, but is being singled out as the person who "fostered a culture" which led to 9/11. And nobody knows if this is true!
I'm sorry, but if you really want to be taken seriously as independent and objective, you would need to act like it.
I supprt gay marriage and abortion rights for example. Why haven't rightwing bloggers attacked me for that?
Because you also support Bush and, I presume, the war. Right-wing bloggers seem rather exclusively concerned with those two positions. Everything else is secondary.
Should you start criticizing the president, or pointing out the vast network of manipulations and lies on which his war was based, I'd expect your shiny new friends to disappear rather quickly.
A.
I thought that Atrios post very reasonable, by left-wing blogger standards: No foul language, no playground insults, no metaphors involving aggravated assault and/or sexual sadism, no bizarrely inappropriate use of words like "radical" or "extremist", no conspiracy theories, and he didn't call anybody a Nazi.
In short, he didn't come off as an irrationally belligerent, narcissistic, drunk teenager with Tourette's Syndrome. For that, he deserves encouragement. It was lazy and partisan, but I see that on right wing blogs all the time. No stones to throw there.
pseudolus: It sounds like you're saying that to be "credible" is to agree with all of your opinions. Not everybody uses that definition.
genoasail: The phrase was "media whore", which is metaphorical rather than literal, but you're right that it's unacceptable language, whether or not it's accurate. If it were acceptable, it wouldn't appear on 376 different pages of one the most popular left-wing blogs. Only seven instances on Atrios, by the way. Good for him.
Extra credit: Explain why you'll admit that it's unacceptable for Malkin to use sexist language, but you gave Harry Belafonte a pass when he called Colin Powell a "house n****r". Mad props if you're one of the few lefties who called him on that.
I don't think I've ever supported or denounced any positions (left or right) on this blog because, well, I don't think I've ever read it.
If it helps....
"I support gay marriage"
Brava!
"and abortion rights"
Attagirl!
I've taken many strong position that go to the left and not the right. I supprt gay marriage and abortion rights for example. Why haven't rightwing bloggers attacked me for that? Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement? It's been a distinct trend the whole time I've been blogging that lefties link what they don't like and assume they've found an enemy. They don't follow the blog generally and see the things they'd agree with. It's like they just want to alienate me. It's really sad. It makes me think: no wonder they lose elections. People on the right have been linking to what they agree with and ignoring the things they disagree with. That's a better strategy from my perspective.
It's all about you, Ann.
My, my, the comments section on this post should be Exhibit A for the prosecution in the Case For Heavy-Handed Moderating.
i have dandruff that is smarter than Glenn Reynolds...
The fact that you voted for Bush tells me all I need to know about you... Anyone who voted for Bush, with the exception of the very rich, is merely a tool for this god awful administration.
Give me a break, Althouse. You are no better than your scum sucking Dear Leader...
The recent visitors of this blog are doing a tremendous disservice to their cause, spraying invective like this - talk of "reichwingers" and "The worst. president. ever." strikes me less as commentary about Abel Danger and more like calculated venting.
It's all too obvious you were directed here and told to just scream and rant and moan as loudly as possible against your Villian of the Week.
You clearly no context as to the tone and attitude of this blog, and regular readers like me don't find you terribly convincing when you start putting words like FACT CHECK in big caps.
In all fairness, you can point to lots of nasty, fire-breathing, simplistic commentary from blogs all over the spectrum. Althouse's blog isn't one of them, and the lot of you sound like complete fools for targeting her as if she was the LGF or DailyKos comments section.
The lot of you would be far more convincing to those of us who aren't following this story closely if you didn't quite have your amps up to 11. Us reichwingers would appreciate it.
Sigh.
Many of my fellow lefty travelers are indeed exhibiting awfully poor manners.
I apologize on their behalf.
That said, I do think TP had a general point that many folks have made an awful quick & probably wrong leap of logic to begin attacking Gorelick, frequently mixing up the fact that the relevant communication was between DoD & FBI, while Gorelick's memo pertained to other communications. In a small way, your piece at Insty contributed to that growing groundswell of misplaced criticism.
It didn't merit lumping you or him in with "smearing" Gorelick, but it wasn't a particularly accurate or insightful post.
But again, the vitriol being slung your way here is extremely regrettable, and I'm saddened to see my fellow travelers stoop to it. Altho we are often called traitors for our opposition to Bush & the war -- and the temptation to fight back with fire of our own is strong -- that's not the right way to fight.
I'm sorry.
genoasail, the archives might shed some light on her 2004 vote -- which, I agree, is quite near unbelievable when taken alongside her professed beliefs in this post.
There were plenty of good and bad things about both candidates, and to me any reasonable person would be able to see that.
Sebastian, I predict that in twenty years, when the national 9/11-induced insanity has had a chance to dissipate and the facts about the Bush Administration's behavior before, during and after are widely known, you will be denying you ever said this.
You're correct - Judd should have called you "a blogger named Ann Althouse".
But your ass has been fact-checked, and he was right about that.
I've taken many strong position that go to the left and not the right. I supprt gay marriage and abortion rights for example. Why haven't rightwing bloggers attacked me for that? Why haven't leftwing bloggers given me any positive reinforcement?
Easy answer. Because the wing blogger finally know you're there. "A woman named" says it all, don't you think?
Professor Froward
I must call your "media whore" search technique into question. Is it fair to include occurrences in user comments when saying that a site contains a term? Maybe so - but the implication is that the site's authors regularly use it. Can you consider commentors to be authors? I think we can agree that that's a stretch.
Of course, you also find instances of a term being quoted.
This method also makes the numbers, well, wrong. The dailykos site, where its comments reside, gets searched. So does Eschaton - but those comments are on haloscan, not Eschaton... so it guarantees the result you found.
While it'd be interesting to do google searches for all sorts of unpleasant phrases lurking within websites of all stripes, it's not particularly instructive.
You got owned!
Trying to make sense of this:
If you voted for George Bush, you're an idiot rightwinger.
Such high-minded debate.
Aaron at 12:02---are you incorporating NYT crossword clues into your blog comments? Excellent!
Prof. Althouse:
It's been a distinct trend the whole time I've been blogging that lefties link what they don't like and assume they've found an enemy.
First, go read Powerline and LGF and try to say with a straight face that's peculiar to leftists. And then go read Matt Yglesias, Josh Marshall, and Ezra Klein and try to pretend it's universal among liberals. There are childish voices on both sides; I'm unconvinced that there's really any difference between the two sides of Blogsylvania.
Second, and more centrally, there's something deeply off-putting about a blogger complaining that commenters are too mean. You're a grown-up, and a law professor. If you make an ideogical point and leave comments open, expect the ideological underpinnings to be challenged. If you make a factual assumption, especially if it's not supported in fact, expect to be called on it. And if you're wrong, you're wrong; do the adult thing and admit it, don't complain that the bigger kids are picking on you.
Actually, that's not unique to blogging. You might remember it from, you know, law school.
Oh but perhaps she not wrong at all.
Count me in with J when he says:
Many of my fellow lefty travelers are indeed exhibiting awfully poor manners. and In a small way, your piece at Insty contributed to that growing groundswell of misplaced criticism. I am embarrased by and angry at the juvenile level of rhetoric aimed at you here, but I am also disappointed in your anemic response to the legitimate criticism. The upshot is that I don't think you've been fair and evenhanded in following the Able Danger story developments.
I look at self-identified moderates who voted for Bush but say they support abortion rights and gay rights (Glenn Reynolds would be one of those), and it seems like cognitive dissonance to me. But human decisionmaking is full of compromises and rationalizing, so I trust that somewhere, a logic exists, even if I don't find it to be sound.
The important message for the left is that all this caterwauling and bile isn't going to change the course we're on in America. It is indeed people who self-identify as centrists that we have to understand and contend with, rather than be angry with.
For many, I think the key issue in 2004 was national security, and centrists were willing to overlook the danger a Bush administration poses to civil rights, possibly because the rights threatened weren't their own. The support Ann expresses for gay rights and abortion rights is a bit benign, without a vote behind it. Nonetheless, the left has to find a clear position on dealing with Islamist terrorism; it is a fact, not a fantasy of the right, that we have been under attack by a fascist ideology whose faithful are true threats to democracy. So long as the left has little more than criticism of Bush to offer, the center will break to the right in national elections.
Finally, Ann, it isn't a mystery why you're treated more politely from the right; if you started to criticize Bush, you'd get it full bore from that side. As simplistic as the left is with the "Bush voter=bad blogger," the right is just as banal with "Bush voter=good blogger." I have little doubt that had you voted for Kerry, and discussed it as publicly as you have with Bush, your centrist positions that lean right wouldn't get you much slack from the Malkin/O'Reilly/Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage fans out there. There are just way too many fleck-foamed mouths braying in cyberspace. I regret the display from the left that we've seen here today.
Elizabeth and J wrote the only articulate leftist posts on this thread.
As far as I can tell, Ann made one or two comments about Able Danger here and there. She wasn't covering it incessantly, moment to moment. And at various points the information has changed. If she got caught up in the emotion of a moment, and 5 days later the story changed, and she didn't go back to update, so what ultimately.
The people covering Able Danger more intensively are Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute and Andy McCarthy and John Podhoretz at the Corner. And many of their posts have included caveats and backtracking, because that is the nature of the information flow on this story.
Elizabeth, if you are interested in the process of how Ann came to support Bush for president for sociological reasons or to break through on your cognitive dissonance, she has a long post about it here.
And finally, Ann has criticized both left and right freely during her time blogging. Nevertheless, plenty of people both more left than she is and more right read her blog and enjoy it.
So it's a bit disingenuous for people who have never read her blog until today to answer that she's treated more politely from the right than the left because she never criticizes Bush. That's simply not true. And it's a question she has pondered before today's lamentable outpouring from the left, which is completely contrary to the tone of comments from her regular readers, both left and right.
alcibiades, thanks for the link to that post of Ann's.
It sure doesn't help with the cognitive dissonance tho. Complaining about Kerry for being wooden, not listening to questions & repeating the same stump speech lines? Has Ann ever watched Bush in action? Or heck, Scotty or Ari?
Furthermore, she got turned off by Kerry's "wrong war, wrong time" & an Iraq strategy of "trust me to do it better, aiming at the same goals."
Sooo, whattya think now Ann? Impressed with the Bushies competence? Think this was the right war? We have Colin Powell's former aide remarking that helping Powell's bogus presentation to the UN was the lowest day of his life. We constantly get more & more evidence of the shoddy planning for post-invasion, and the daily headlines of deaths & bombings (and stats like our inability, still, to return Iraq's electricity levels to those before the war) show how messed up the situation is. The 53 year-old National Guard father of a childhood friend was recently called into service & ships to Iraq soon. That, excuse me, is fucked up. And we're sure to hear more about Abu Ghraib soon, if the "Rule of Law -- Not!" Administration ever complies with Court orders to turn over further photos...for that disaster alone, there should no longer have been a respectable choice to vote for Bush.
I'd love to see either an apology to the country, world, and history, for voting for Bush, or a defense of why this was the Right War and how it has been carried out competently.
Ms. Althouse writes, "I'd love to read a very substantial, unbiased analysis about the role of government lawyers in stopping the flow of information about the 9/11 plot. But isn't that what the report of the 9/11 Commission should, in part, have been?"
That's what Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Report is about, particularly subsection 2. Always helpful to verify something at the source when one expresses an opinion. I think that along with benefiting Ms. Althouse, it would also help the commenters here on both sides if they actually read the report.
and regular readers like me don't find you terribly convincing when you start putting words like FACT CHECK in big caps
So you think Althouse's credibility is not at all damaged by her admission that she didn't check her facts.
However, drawing attention to this rather extraordinary admission in capital letters is a terrible Sin against Civil Discourse.
Interesting values you got there.
if you know of a case in which anyone other than islamists have blown up innocent civilians, please share it us.
Are you kidding me or just yourself.
Hint: Oklahoma.
If this attitude ever begins to fade, expect Republicans to start losing elections again. Otherwise, expect results like the last three election cycles.
A lot of you seem to think that way. Why, I'm not sure. Every major poll has shown a steady, major erosion in support for the war.
I've also never seen a single scrap of objective evidence for the theory that being mean to Bush lost anyone any election.
But regardless. The notion that it's bad politics to denounce Bush head-on when he has totally lost moderate Democrats and Independents, largely because of the Iraqi disaster, is silly.
And I do indeed have nothing but contempt for people who sold out the rights of American citizens on reproductive and sexual issues because they supported an obviously ill-planned war that was dishionestly "sold."
By all means, though, continue to pretend that being called names by strangers on the internet puts you in the moral or intellectual right. It must be pretty to think so.
Oh, I am enjoying Mr. Rosza's contribution to the Evlevated Discourse which animates the right blogosphere. Good for you!
Moon. Bats. Just shitting all over everywhere.
Control yourselves, people. You really think you're changing any minds?
You really think you are?
genoasail: I voted for Bush because I regard foreign policy as the most important function of the President. I gave Kerry a chance, but in the end I just couldn't trust him. Note that I voted for Feingold for Senator. I have a different view of what is needed in a Senator. By the way, a lot of people in Wisconsin did the same thing. Feingold got many more votes than Kerry.
To all the hotheads posting here: I could delete your posts, but I'm leaving them up because they disserve you.
Re fact-checking: Bloggers link to articles and opinion pieces all the time without independently checking the facts in them. If someone just sent me a friendly email when there's an error, I'd check into it and make a correction. There's nothing to flake out about. You're just being hardcore partisans looking for ways to attack all the terribly many people you view as your enemies.
Re the quotes in the header: They are a pretty recent addition, beginning with the Slate one, which I liked. (Slate's liberal, you know!) Then I just went back to other ones I could remember that were nice. If I had any from the left, I'd have loved to use them! That's my point. I didn't have them. Other than the Slate one.
buma: You think I'm a warblogger. Why? Read through the last month or year or whatever. Only a small percent of my posts are about the war!
Elizabeth: Throughout the campaign season, I openly talked about the candidates and was undecided until the end of September. During that whole period, I got no attention from lefty bloggers, while righty bloggers were engaging with me. All I'm saying is, lefties, you're not very good at engaging people who aren't hard left! If I were more right wing, I'd just laugh at you for being so inept. Here I am, trying to help, willing to engage with you, not responding to your ugliness with ugliness, and all you want to do is keep being nasty. Good luck with that!
Larry: On bringing out bullies by being perceived as weak. I don't think a centrist needs to be wishy-washy and I don't think reaching out to the other side is being weak. Anyway, I am using this experience as a crucible and intend to become stronger. This kind of attack is part of getting visibility, and I want to be a high profile blogger, so I accept what comes with it. It's nice to finally get a link from Atrios, who has never bothered with me before. I think it should count as strength that I'm not letting the jerks in the group get to me. I spent a lot of time the other day really arguing over many of the points, and I've gotten better at predicting what's going to be fruitless. So let the bullies go ahead and try to bait me. I genuinely appreciate the extra traffic and I think their idiotic behavior stands is self-refuting.
Anyway, I am using this experience as a crucible and intend to become stronger. This kind of attack is part of getting visibility, and I want to be a high profile blogger, so I accept what comes with it.
Glad to see the not-fact-checking policy is working out for you so well! Kudos! You're going to be a STAR!
Counselor, you breathe some very rareified air if you think these "attacks" are ugly and nasty.
I would actually be very interested in a post from you in which discuss why you think the behavior of the posters here is anyway idiotic. Uncivil sure, but I think given the economic realities and incentives of the intarweb, teh behavior is completely rational, and far far from idiotic.
Arguably, unless you are a top-tier blogger, just participating in the intarweb as blogger or commenter is idiotic in the sense of this famous cliche:
Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
Also, regarding this quote of yours, I don't think a centrist needs to be wishy-washy and I don't think reaching out to the other side is being weak. Oxymoron alert. Self-contradiction inside. How can a centrist reach out to the other side?
That you have ambitions for your blog, that you think this attack is part of raising your visibility, that you pose that you are being nastily attacked when you really haven't been, that you market yourself as a centrist that reaches out to the other side. My conclusion: you're a wanker.
Brian: "That's what Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Report is about, particularly subsection 2. " I said I wanted something unbiased. My point here is that Gorelick's having played a role in the events being analyzed makes is a point of bias for the Commission.
Companies occasionally produce a product and then market it with two different brands, both to appeal to different segments of the market, as well as to legitimize the product itself. Ford and Mercury. GM and Pontiac.
Michael Totten and Ann Althouse?
If you aren't Michael Totten (or Roger Simon or Jeff Jarvis) you may wish to be careful, I think one of them has the copyright on
"social liberal centrist war hawk trying to reach out to the left but being dissed" and who knows, they might come after you....
"As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year."
Daniel Okrent, then-public editor of the NY Times, Oct 10, 2004.
I see things haven't changed at all.
quxxo: given your calling Bush a "chimp", it follows that since Kerry's grades were no better than Bush's, Kerry's a chimp, too. Name-calling is rarely productive, but if the names apply to your own side just as well, you only look that much stupider.
Thersites said, "I've also never seen a single scrap of objective evidence for the theory that being mean to Bush lost anyone any election."
Granted one vote may not lose an election, but abuse like calling Bush "Hitler" and comparing the Gitmo guards' behavior to that of Nazis goes far beyond "being mean" and has lost my vote for a Democrat at the national level for the foreseeable future.
Even if by some miracle leftists sincerely apologize and condemn and forego such rhetoric, I won't believe it.
In fact, my patience with the left ended a while ago and I won't waste any energy wading through abuse to maybe find a grain or two of something worthwhile.
Larry: I don't "try" to be a centrist. I really am in the center. I'm not partisan and don't like either party much at all. I have an aversion to party politics and I don't like the excess passion in politics. I'm genuinely trying to speak honestly about the things I perceive that seem worth sharing for one reason or another. One of my main topics all along has been the quality of political discourse. I write about it not to complain about how I'm treated but because it's important and I think I have something to say on the topic. That's much of what this post is all about.
SJS: When Clinton was first running for President, in the primaries, I rejected him, saying "He's a Republican." I think it would be good for the Republican Party to have some people like him (as it used to). And I think it's good for the Democratic Party to have some hawks. Apparently, Hillary Clinton thinks so too.
Better sit down Ann, you too Miklos. Iraq's women just got sold down the river by your chimpy d00d, the ferign policy exp3rt.
heh. heh. heh heh heh.
You may have misoverestimated him.
U.S. conceding to Iraqi Islamists, negotiators say
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Islam will be "the main source" of
Iraq's law and parliament will observe religious principles, negotiators said on Saturday after what some called a major turn in talks on the constitution and a shift in the U.S. position.
f agreed by Monday's parliamentary deadline, it would appear to be a major concession to Islamist leaders from the Shi'ite Muslim majority and sit uneasily with U.S. insistence on the primacy of democracy and human rights in the new Iraq.
But an official from one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties and a leading Sunni Arab negotiator said agreement had been reached, reversing an understanding reached earlier in the recent talks that Islam would simply be "a main source" of law.
Parliament would not be able to pass legislation that contradicted the principles of Islam, several negotiators told Reuters. One Shi'ite official said that a constitutional court would decide whether laws conformed to Islamic faith.
But Sunni negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak said that, at the insistence of U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, the constitution would also contain language stating that the "principles of democracy" would be respected.
Khalilzad, who said this month there would be "no compromise" on equal rights for women and minorities, helped draft a constitution in his native
Afghanistan which declared it an "Islamic Republic" in which no law could contradict Muslim principles.
It also, however, contained language establishing equal rights for women and protecting religious minorities.
Other Arab states, including secularly ruled Egypt, have similar phrasing in their constitutions, alloting a special role for Islam in the law.
Ms. Althouse writes, "My point here is that Gorelick's having played a role in the events being analyzed makes is a point of bias for the Commission." That's a reasonable point, although she was only one of ten Commission members, and the final report is substantially similar to the papers prepared by staff and not the Commission members.
But what you're really saying is that neither she nor anyone else who played a role in national security since the 1993 WTC bombing should have been on the Commission. Not sure I'd advise that, but I will stick with my advice that people commenting on the report should actually read it.
Sometimes I have days when I think, "The left's not so bad. Both sides say some rash things." Then I see stuff like this. This thread is utterly pathetic. I hope it is not representative of the average.
brian said: "But what you're really saying is that neither she nor anyone else who played a role in national security since the 1993 WTC bombing should have been on the Commission"
I think she is saying something narrower.
That people who wrote the policy should not have been on the Commission.
No, I take no pleasure in this outcome at all. It is a tragedy pure and simple. I think I was not clear, "heh. heh. heh heh heh" was my imitation of the chimp's notion of a snicker, not my taking pleasure at this at all.
I do think that Ann Althouse, who voted for Bush because she felt foreign policy was job one, and she couldn't trust Kerry, should be deep in rethink. Rice's current "success" is widely regarded as those things that Kerry had said we should be doing. Not only should she be rethinking her support of Bush, she should be taking responsibility for her actions. If she is of age, I would suggest she sign up. I also suggest she consider how she made such an egregious mistake, and what other possible mistakes she may have made.
In the meantime, Miklos, who claims to be concerned about women's rights and what muslim's are doing, well, I assume he is aghast about this as anyone.
And I assume he is about to apologize for his believing that the chimp was going to stand behind Iraq.
It seems we are not about to get the new democracy in Iraq that will transform the area. And tonight General Schoomaker is announcing plans to stay in Iraq at levels of 100,000 for four more years. Four more years. Four more years.
So much for Iran. And North Korea. And China.
This is a tragedy pure and simple. It would be good to see a centrist admit it.
Quxxo: What would Kerry have done differently? He had to deal with the situation that had already developed. What would he have done that would have made things work out better? By the way, I voted for Gore in 2000.
So Jon C & Jim C concede that they have no evidence whatsoever that the "mean language" or whatever of the Left has ever substantially affected an election.
What a surprise.
You all DO realize, by the way, that all major polls now say independents tend to side Democratic by about 60-40 -- and that's generous?
What might Kerry have done differently, starting in November 2004?
Not put such an intense focus on a deadline for a constitution?
Placed a firm timetable (based on benchmarks) for our withdrawal?
Increased the number of troops as appropriate? Improved how we train Iraqi troops? Improved how we train the leaders of those Iraqi troops (which many people say we are NOT doing at all.)
Moved to move NATO, or the UN, or Arab troops in? Reconciled with our allies? Moved to get rid of Halliburton as much as possible, favoring local companies in rebuilding their country? Redoubled, retripled efforts to improve local conditions by importing large numbers of electrical generators and then using locals to guard those and connect them to the grid?
Placed more women in the constitutional committees? Made agreement that sharia law not be the primary source of law and a pro-women's right laws be a benchmark in our withdrawal?
Ann, so go on vacation already.
What would Kerry have done differently?
He would not have felt politically compelled to avoid copping to the rather spectacular errors made by another administration. In other words, he wouldn't have had to keep lying to the American people.
Mr. Rosza is one sick puppy. I can see where your moral authority over there on the Right springs from.
You're free to fantasize that Kerry would have solved all the problems, but you don't convince me. I didn't vote for him because I thought he'd make things worse. He couldn't commit to following through, and I'm afraid he would have abandoned Iraq into chaos, which would have led to further bad effects.
You're free to fantasize that Kerry would have solved all the problems, but you don't convince me.
You mean, all the problems caused by the guy he was running against?
Right.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist
I'm an anarcho-communo-syndicalist. Help, I'm being oppressed.
I agree that attacking Ms. Althouse is pointless; she is, however, a delightfully ludicrous human being, and continues to say the most hilarious things.
Mr. Rosza,
Your list was a good one, and fair, but you omit that Iraq will likely be under Sharia law after this new constitution goes into place, and Iraqi women will now be much more restricted than they were under the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. How's that for irony, huh?
And add, please, Eric Alan Rudolph to your list of people who kill innocent civilians in the name of patriarchal religion/ideology.
Ann, in your response to me you say
Here I am, trying to help, willing to engage with you, not responding to your ugliness with ugliness, and all you want to do is keep being nasty. Good luck with that!
I hope that second person was directed at some general idea of leftists and not me specifically, as I've been quite careful to avoid ugliness and nastiness in the midst of this discussion, and indeed overall as I enjoy reading and posting to your blog, despite disagreeing with political bent of many of your readers. Maybe I'm being a bit oversensitive; am I?
Yes, I find that funny, but no, I don't find it funny when you attack people who might agree with you.
Nah, she'll never agree with me. She wants to be an Important Blogger? Sorry, but she's a clown.
I gotta say, lots of people on this thread are basically saying, waaaaah, the left was mean, so I voted for Bush.
Look, it's a Bad Word... but wow, what a bunch of wankers. Nobody needs to court you, or will. Bye-bye.
Wow... Reading through all of the comments here has made me physically ill.
A couple of things. Politics, you know, involves compromise.
Like Ms. Althouse, I am pro-choice and in favor of gay marriage, but voted for Bush.
There are many reasons for this, but the primary ones were: that it was not at all clear what Kerry stood for (I am not sure that he knew what he stood for); I prefer the people Bush would appoint as agency heads and judges than those Kerry would appoint (because I still believe, in you know, that doctrine called federalism which the NYT seems to think is discredited); as bad as Bush's economic policies have been on the spending side, those of the Democrats would have been worse; in the end, I really do think that democratization in the Middle East is important, even if I do think that a lot of what Bush has done to that end has been incompetent. As far as abortion and gay rights: there is no way that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. It just won't happen, in my opinion. And there is also no way that the Federal Marriage Amendment will ever pass. So, the things I did care about, Bush was essentially harmless on.
Now, certainly Kerry had his allure in some ways, but I could not reasonably vote for him.
Does that make me evil?
If you people ever read this blog, you would have maybe noticed Prof. Althouse criticizing the Bush administration and Republicans many many times. But no, I guess it is more convenient for you to come here and thump your chest at her.
If you think that people like Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse are partisan hacks for the Right, well, your credibility has now officially been shot. Go back to your daily Atrios and Think Progress reading. Because you know, Duncan Black, a strategist for the Democratic Party, he's not partisan or anything. Naah.
Scott: Good points about comments, Haloscan, quoted text, etc. 376 is not an accurate count of posts using that phrase. But remarkably foul language does crop up regularly in posts on Kos, outside of quotation marks; that's no secret. Glance down the first page of that Google search and you'll see several. I don't see much of that on conservative blogs, certainly not on ones as popular as Kos (Kim du Toit does swear like a sailor sometimes, and No Pasaran! is often wildly scurrilous, but those don't hold a fraction of the audience Kos does).
I wonder if H. S. Thompson isn't the problem. Have you ever run into any of those third-rate writers of the '30s and '40s who imitated Hemingway very obviously, and very badly? It's painfully awful stuff to read now, but at the time it must have looked very stylish to some people, if it found its way into print.
genoasail: The "whore" in "media whore" is figurative, not literal. "Media whore" is a stock phrase, commonly used. Malkin used it to mean what it means, and that meaning has nothing to do with literal prostitution. As I said before, and as I am about to say again, I'm not too keen on that kind of abusive language in debates about serious issues. And once more: I find it objectionable regardless of who does it.
I'm not sure what your point is about "misinformation" vs. "bullshit". If you run around yelling obscenities, most people will write you off as immature and overexcitable. You may think they ought not to, but they will anyway. If you figure you can find each one of them and talk each one into seeing it your way (probably by swearing at them), I won't try to stop you.
Is it that you think your feelings are a crucial component of your message? The thing is, your feelings interest me about as much as mine interest you: Zero.
Because you know, Duncan Black, a strategist for the Democratic Party, he's not partisan or anything. Naah.
A "strategist for the Democratic Party"?
Uh, what are you smoking, and can I have some?
Your opinions don't make you evil. They don't make you especially smart, either.
Ann Althouse said...
Quxxo: What would Kerry have done differently? He had to deal with the situation that had already developed. What would he have done that would have made things work out better? By the way, I voted for Gore in 2000.
For starters, he would have seriously investigated 1) torture in Guantanamo Bay, 2) torture in Abu Gharaib, and 3) torture in Afghanistan.
As a law professor, I would hope you are concerned with the fact that our military has tortured and killed prisoners in a systemic fashion.
It is the disdain that this administration treats the rule of law that most concerns me.
I am a liberal hawk, yet I feel that Iraq was a ridiculous war based on lies that has made the situation much worse. Unless you think that an anti-American, pro-Iranian Islamist state is a good outcome.
Fishbane: What do I think Gore would have done? That's a topic discussed on this blog a week ago: here.
Elizabeth: I'm not talking about you. The statement you quoted is about lefty bloggers who pay attention to me. You're a great commenter, and I appreciate the comments from the left like yours. My local friends are mostly to my left as well, and they are in no way jerks. And I should also give credit to Kevin Drum, who started out doing the usual lefty blogger thing to me, but stopped (for various reasons).
Swopa: Re quoting Investor's Business Daily: I introduced a quote from them with the statement that it was "harsh." My whole post that people freaked out about what just one of those, look what some people are saying posts. I never said I agree or they're right or anything. So your comment makes no sense.
You know, if you folks are so interested in getting facts straight, why do you continually fail to get the facts you state about ME straight? Apparently, your concern isn't with truth, but with your own politics. Truth is just a means to an end for you. A lot of bloggers should be apologizing to me for smearing me and unleashing this ugliness on me. But you're concerned about Gorelick's reputation. Why? Because of Truth? Ha!
A "strategist for the Democratic Party"?
Uh, what are you smoking, and can I have some?
Your opinions don't make you evil. They don't make you especially smart, either.
Oh, I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that. A strategist for groups affiliated with the Democratic Party. Happy now? Is there any other way to interpret what Media Matters does other than to spread DNC talking points? Wasn't it created by a Clintonite DNC operative? I apologize that I conflated Media Matters with DNC. It's just too hard to tell the distinction sometimes.
It seems to me a maximo lider fantasy to think you can vote for any candidate from any party and expect to enjoy the sleep of reason and blessed inactivity for the next 4 years. It was obvious, for instance, that if Bush won we'd have to have more environmental vigilance; that if Kerry won there'd be more of the Kelo type decisions in prospect and more need for vigilance about gun control.
Like most of the regular commenters (and, I expect, readers) of this blog, I normally split my vote - in my case, among three parties. When I told some friends I was voting for a new, upstart Democrat for Senator because he had a good record on the local scene, they told me, "You're not voting for Salazar. When the chips are down, you're voting for Boxer, Kennedy, and Schumer."
I'm maintaining hopes I was right, but this comment thread suggests there is less and less room for the likes of me among the Democrats.
For starters, he would have seriously investigated 1) torture in Guantanamo Bay, 2) torture in Abu Gharaib, and 3) torture in Afghanistan.
Umm... the military was already doing this. The only reason that you and I know about the fact that there was torture is because the lawyers for the yahoos who engaged in torture leaked the details of the investigation to embarass the military. Yes, just what we all would have needed: another blue ribbon fact-finding panel like the 9/11 commission. Give me a break!
As a law professor, I would hope you are concerned with the fact that our military has tortured and killed prisoners in a systemic fashion.
In a systemic fashion? Have you ever studied history? Do you have ANY perspective on the matter? Look, I think that the torture was atrocious, it embarassed us as a nation, it dehumanized us not just the detainees, and it should be investigated and punished vigorously. But when you guys start whining about how it is systematic and about how this administration is uniquely responsible for bad behavior by American soldiers, it makes me really wonder. American soldiers have committed torture in numerous wars. In fact, all soldiers have done that. Sometimes even at the command and direction of their superiors and even when the Geneva Convention does apply as a matter of law. Maybe before you start calling us callous, evil, stupid, etc. we should first agree on what the definition of torture is so that we can properly characterize behaviors afterwards. But before then, save the flamethrowing for the Democratic Underground blog.
28: your continual resort to Nazi imagery hurts your side of the argument more than you realize. An you're anti-war, but do you forget that it took war to defeat the Nazis? Perhaps you are a very young person. I hope you are, because if you're not, I just don't know what to say to you. I just wouldn't be interested in talking to you at all. But on the assumption that you are, I hope you take your studies seriously and keep your wits about you.
Hi Ann,
Instead of just dismissing 28's comments as the comments of someone very young, or someone you would not be interested in speaking with, may I ask you to give him (and me and others) a full-fledged response in a blog post.
Please explain to us your views on why the rising power of the religious right, as seen in Schiavo, Justice Sunday and Justice Sunday II, in America and specifically within the Administration and within Congress, the attacks against academia and intellectuals ala Intelligent Design and Global Warming and how the closeness of the Administration to corporate entities, Halliburton, Enron, the Steel Industry, and how the dumbing down of our civil rights ala the Patriot Act, and the repeal of Habeas ala Gitmo, and the repeal of the Geneva Convention ala Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, the rejection of the UN, the greater ease and allure of military solutions, the demonizing of allies that disagree with us, why all of this together should not alarm 28, or myself, or many of the friends I have that work with me in a very conservative state for a defense contractor?
I would think all of this taken together, as a pattern would be alarming to left and right.
So how is this different today than the rise of facism, or nazism was 70 years ago?
This is not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely like to know. My father fought in WWII. I had relatives in the camps. I want to make sure that my daughters and their children do not face a similar fate.
Is this akin to the rise of nazism, or fascism, or just a swing of the American Pendulum?
My historical understanding and reading leads me to be very worried, and I would appreciate your insights.
Is there any other way to interpret what Media Matters does other than to spread DNC talking points? Wasn't it created by a Clintonite DNC operative?
Yes.
No.
Because someone calls you names, you are disgusted. Ann, that is relatively low in the register of what I would consider disgusting.
What I would consider disgusting is when trolls from the right attempt to shut down a blog by posting hundreds of blank lines, assuming regular commenters' identities while posting racist and anti-semitic comments, and linking to child porn over and over again, like what happened here. Atrios has had to put up with trolls like that as well.
the report of the commission is not taken seriously, but is deemed a whitewash.
Uh, the 9/11 Report is indeed taken very seriously.
On the other hand, nobody genuinely interested in, well, *anything* looks at the WSJ opinion page as anything but a sick joke.
Kurds and Sunnis complain about Islamic Law in the Constitution and the forced timetable
The working draft of the constitution stipulates that no law can contradict Islamic principles. In talks with Shiite religious parties, Kurdish negotiators said they have pressed unsuccessfully to limit the definition of Islamic law to principles agreed upon by all groups. The Kurds said current language in the draft would subject Iraqis to extreme interpretations of Islamic law.
Kurds also contend that provisions in the draft would allow Islamic clerics to serve on the high court, which would interpret the constitution. That would potentially subject marriage, divorce, inheritance and other civil matters to religious law and could harm women's rights, according to the Kurdish negotiators and some women's groups.
Khalilzad supported those provisions and urged other groups to accept them, according to Kurds involved in the talks.
"Really, we are disappointed with that. It seems like the Americans want to have a constitution at any cost," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of the constitutional committee. "These things are not good -- giving the constitution an Islamic face.
"It is not good to have a constitution that would limit the liberties of people, the human rights, the freedoms," Othman said.
Other delegates also complained about pressure from Khalilzad.
"His main interest is to push the constitution on time, no matter what the constitution has in it,'' said Salih Mutlak, a Sunni delegate who has been outspoken against some compromise proposals.
"No country in the world can draft their constitution in three months. They themselves took 10 years," Mutlak said, referring to the United States. "Why do they wish to impose a silly constitution on us?"
Militias on the Rise Across Iraq
Shiite and Kurdish Groups Seizing Control, Instilling Fear in North and South. BASRA, Iraq -- Shiite and Kurdish militias, often operating as part of Iraqi government security forces, have carried out a wave of abductions, assassinations and other acts of intimidation, consolidating their control over territory across northern and southern Iraq and deepening the country's divide along ethnic and sectarian lines, according to political leaders, families of the victims, human rights activists and Iraqi officials.
While Iraqi representatives wrangle over the drafting of a constitution in Baghdad, the militias, and the Shiite and Kurdish parties that control them, are creating their own institutions of authority, unaccountable to elected governments, the activists and officials said. In Basra in the south, dominated by the Shiites, and Mosul in the north, ruled by the Kurds, as well as cities and villages around them, many residents have said they are powerless before the growing sway of the militias, which instill a climate of fear that many see as redolent of the era of former president Saddam Hussein.
This doesn't seem like a foreign policy success to me.
"I didn't fact check"
That pretty much seems to sum up the greatest weakness in all of your arguments. You consistently make these proclamations, and doggedly stick to them regardless of facts...
Then you get ticked when people respond to your blunt needle pricklings. Please...
Thersites--
You're right about the Clintonite part. It's run by David Brock. For some reason I thought that it was run by John Podesta. As for the other point, it is clearly a mouthpiece for the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Read their own mission statement!
Ratigan--
How do you know that it is trolls from the Right and not spambots or some such. Have you been over to Greg Djerejian's in the past year so? His comments had been taken over by the same "trolls from the Right." Regardless, so are you saying that you're taking it out on Ann for the fact that some idiot who votes Republican decided to ruin one of Atrios' comments' sections? Wow, I'm really glad that our political discourse has become so mature.
Pseudolus--
Slate and the DLC are Republican lite? So in other words, anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich is a right-winger. Ahh, I see.
Also, you really fail to understand nuance. Anyone who lumps Charles Krauthamer (who is pro-choice, pro-evolution, pro-gun control) with Dobson and Falwell is so blinded by ideology that he fails to see the gradations and distinctions among his opponents. It's like the people who call Thomas a Scalia clone and yet completely fail to understand the traditionalist/libertarian divide on the Right. Keep trucking my friend. There's many more elections for your side to lose yet!
quxxo--
Please explain your views on the rise of the laborite left (as far as its influence in the DNC goes) that is willing to throw the rest of America overboard to protect a few. Please explain your views on the rise of Ralph Neas and Nan Aron who find it ok to smear good people's names and distort judges' rulings. Please explain your views on the rise of Michael Moore who seems to think it is ok to say that the insurgents in Iraq are the moral ones and our soldiers deserve to die for only then will God forgive us. Please explain your views on the rise of Ward Churchill and his newfound fame on college speaking circuits.
Also, why do you think that this is a discussion about the Religious Right and about the war in Iraq? Is it to give you moral cover for comporting yourself like a pig? I guess if you think that Ann is pure evil, you're justified, huh?
rainlion--
It is one thing to respond, and it is another to berate, bash, and call someone evil. Sorry, but there's a difference. As Ann said, if someone had sent her a civil email, she would have done further research on it.
Disgusting, just disgusting. Maybe you guys should stop hiding behind handles and put your real names on here. That might make you more responsible.
Yevgeny, tovarich, fellow mathematican and physicist, what is your obsession with evil? You are the only person to bring up evil in this discussion? No one has called Ann evil. No one has called you evil.
I think you may be projecting again. You also have been misreading these comments and putting words into people's mouths. My bringing up the religious right was in direct response to Ann's patronizing dismissal to 28.
And yeah, when Nan and Ralph have the name recognition and power of James Dobson and ID is not being taught in the classrooms, then I will tell you what I think of the laborite left in the DNC.
In the meantime my precise mathematician, I will note that Michael Moore, movie maker, classifies himself as an independent.
Yevgeny, tovarich, you call me a pig and then tell me that your reading of these comments make you physically ill?
For some reason I thought that it was run by John Podesta. As for the other point, it is clearly a mouthpiece for the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Read their own mission statement!
Center for American Progress is the Podesta outfit.
MM is no such thing as you say it is. Your charge is, indeed, patently ridiculous -- as a quick look at their site should inform you.
The conception of "civil discourse" I see at this site is pretty debased. Mostly it seems to mean not using curse words. Regard for knowing what you're talking about? Not so much.
You, for instance, clearly know nothing about MM, but continue to pretend that you do. You prefer the conservative fantasy of that organization to finding out anything about it before you shoot your mouth off.
And you won't take responsibility for doing this, either.
Thersites--
I just agreed with you and admitted that I had been mistaken. And then that's how you treat someone?
As for Media Matters:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation -- news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda -- every day, in real time.
Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions."
"Media Matters for America -- a progressive, Washington-based, nonprofit research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media -- seeks dedicated, talented individuals to fill a number of job openings:"
This is from their own website. For some reason, they always criticize Republicans. And hmmm.... Democratic Senators ALWAYS use them as cover for their own slants on things. Hmm... I wonder if they have any ideological bias??? Hmm... I wonder if they repeated Dem talking points on the Memogate scandal? Hmmm.... Maybe you should take a look at their website before you start hurling insults at people.
quxxo--
Yes, I apologize you didn't call Ann evil. Someone else referred to anyone who voted for Bush as evil. You just referred to Ann as a liar:
" notice that a "feature" of most rightwing lawyer bloggers is that they don't believe they have this obligation to their readers or the objective facts. I've always thought this was due to how their legal training as an advocate of one side in trial overcame the morals that society tried and failed to implant.
Or shorter me, rightwing lawyers have a tendency to be what the rest of us would consider to be a liar, I wonder why, is it because you're rightwingers, or because you are lawyers?"
Please spare me quxxo, you're a martyr for the cause of secularism. Look, I hate the whole ID as much as anyone. But why the hell are you bringing it up? Ann's dismissal of 28 had NOTHING to do with the religious right. Nothing! And maybe she would not have been so dismissive had Nazi/Hitler comparisons not been thrown around by your esteemed 28.
As for calling you a pig, I apologize, but I did not call you a pig. I said that your behavior was that of one. Again, I am sorry I hurt your feeble feelings. But when you come on someone else's blog and start trolling her comments sections and instead of politely disagreeing, start hurling whatever insults you can at her, well, then there really is no other way to describe such behavior. Boorish. Now, is that better?
pseudolus--
Maybe the reason you got thrown out from LGF and Freepers is because you comport yourself on their site the same way you do here. Besides, this isn't LGF nor Freepers. This is Althouse. I still don't know of a single right-wing law prof threatening the career of a blogger who disagreed with him or her. But for some reason, this is a common feature on the Left (Francis Boyle at UIUC Law and Brian Leiter, Herr Philosophe himself).
Finally, you just gave away the game my friend by admitting that to you, anyone who votes for Bush are all the same.
Look, people let me just recap the events that happened here: Ann linked to some op-ed in the IBD which may have repeated an unsubstantiated claim. She didn't fact-check said claim. Some people started bashing her over at Think Progress. She complained. Atrios bashed her some more. A bunch of trolls came over here and started hurling insults at her for daring to suggest that she was not treated in a particularly polite manner. Then, Ann responds to ridiculous insults and insinuation with some pointed comments. And she's the bad guy in all of this? What planet are you on people!?
Look, this blog is actually extremely civil all of the other times. That's one of the main reasons I visit it almost daily. I find it interesting that it is the people who don't read it regularly who come over here to take rhetorical dumps in the comments sections. Please, if you don't like Ann or what she wrote, stop visiting this blog. I'm sure you can find Bush-hatred to which you are accustomed spewed elsewhere. I hear that Democratic Underground is good for those things. Or, hey, just go to a college campus. If you'd like, I can get you in touch with the Larouchies who stand outside of Zabar's on the Upper West Side every day screaming that Cheney is a Nazi because he reads Strauss. You can form new friends; maybe it'll take the edge off.
I just agreed with you and admitted that I had been mistaken. And then that's how you treat someone?
No, this is how I treat someone who shoots his mouth off sarcastically about things of which he is totally ignorant. Like what a 501(c)(3) is.
You called Duncan Black a "Democratic Party strategist" for working with MM. Then you said they spread DNC talking points. If they did either of these things, it would be against the law.
They exclusively focus on countering conservative disinformation in the media. Gosh, what a shock that they contradict Republicans. Gosh, what a shock that Democrats cite their independently produced, public reports.
I've just shown, very clearly, that you are the kind of person who makes outrageous charges without bothering to first check whether or not they are accurate or even make sense. Indeed, what you've said about MM is laughable. And your retreat from your first comments into claiming that MM is ideological is pathetic and dishonest.
So, how again are you the kind of person who has any right to lecture anyone else about "civil discourse"?
Yevgeny Vilensky:
How do you know that it is trolls from the Right and not spambots or some such.
- Do spambots single out a Muslim commenter and call him raghead? When he leaves for a while then comes back, does a spambot say "Welcome back, how's the wife? Beat her for me, will you? :)"? (yes, smiley included). Maybe they do, but I doubt it.
Also, same said trolls still engaged in discussion with the commenters (if you can call it that) amongst all the kiddie fiddling. If you read the post I linked to, you will see that it was a discussion between two LGFers over the "Muslim Problem" that ended up in the vile spamming.
******
Regardless, so are you saying that you're taking it out on Ann for the fact that some idiot who votes Republican decided to ruin one of Atrios' comments' sections? Wow, I'm really glad that our political discourse has become so mature.
- When else have I posted here? Where have I taken it out on Ann? I'm saying that it could be a lot worse in this blog than a little name calling.
I'm saying to Ann that it's a good thing she doesn't get on some of the Right's bad side.
Riiiiight, because being a 501(c)3 really does mean you're nonpartisan. So, the People For the American Way are nonpartisan too? How about the Christian Coalition. They are all 501(c)3's. It seems as though you are the one ignorant about 501(c)3's. They're allowed to be as partisan as they want in the sense of making statements criticizing one political party; they're just not allowed to make any statements endorsing the election or defeat of a candidate running for office. They also are not allowed to take money from political parties. That does not mean that they are not allowed to be mouthpieces for the Democratic or Republican Party.
Yevgeny,
I am quite familiar with history, thanks for the interest.
I would point out words like "callous," "stupid" and "evil" came from your keyboard and no one else's.
In fact, most of your argument is directed at strawmen of your own creation. Nobody is denying that torture has occurred before, and no one is saying that American soldiers are "uniquely" responsible for such tragic acts. But I suppose stating the obvious makes you feel better.
Now, you might have noticed, I worded my comment carefully. Kerry would have seriously investigated the torture. If you think any investigation that leads to the removal of no one with command responsibility, then you are living in another world than I am. The torture at Abu Gharaib was carried out in the open, on a daily basis. If this occurred at a United States prison, do you really think the warden would not be removed and criminally prosecuted? Do you have any conception of command responsibility?
And if you think the evidence that the same gross and disgusting tactics were used in three separate locations around the world does not indicate systemic torture, then, again, you are simply living in another world.
I am not sure where you came up with this "blame the lawyers" idea for the torture revelations, but they have come from many, many sources, including soldiers, civilians, and the press. And the FBI.
Lastly, besides the fact that such torture is illegal and grossly immoral, it is devestatingly counterproductive.
Even before our rationale shifted from "eliminate the imminent Iraqi threat" to "giving the Iraqi people freedom and democracy," we had the eyes of the world on us for our unpopular, illegal war. It was paramount that we conduct ourselves in the best possible fashion. And then, once we decided our new imperative was to "win their hearts and minds," it became doubly important that we conduct ourselves with honor and nobility.
We did not. And now, tragically, our nation will bear the consequences.
pseudolus: Am I angry about the 2000 election being stolen, you ask. I don't regard it as stolen. I voted for Gore and I rooted for him to the end, but accepted the result as legitimate. If you want to knew my analysis of Bush v. Gore, you can read my law review article, from a symposium about the case: THE AUTHORITATIVE LAWSAYING POWER OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT: CONFLICTS OF JUDICIAL ORTHODOXY IN THE BUSH-GORE LITIGATION, 61 Md. L. Rev. 508 (2002).
Riiiiight, because being a 501(c)3 really does mean you're nonpartisan.
Yeah, I knew you wouldn't be honest about this. You have no evidence for anything you've said about MM and have no interest whatsoever in whether or not what you say is accurate.
Typical of the utter debasement of civil discourse on display here on the part of the blogger and the "regulars."
Thersites--
What do you want as far as evidence goes? I quoted from MM's own website! They admit that their entire point is to bash what conservatives say. They admit that they are "progressive." They get much of their money from George Soros. I am not quite sure how more explicit it can be that Media Matters is not a neutral arbitrer of truth. They're not FactCheck, which is more or less neutral. Thersites, tell me of a single instance of Media Matters slamming a liberal source for innacuracy. It doesn't happen. Why? Because their very mission statement says that they want to slam conservative sources. And they're actually wrong or manipulative of the truth themselves half the time. But that's a whole 'nother story.
The Exalted--
I never said blame the lawyers. The female general who was in charge of Abu Ghraib was reassigned. There are numerous investigations currently going on within the military to investigate the matter. Again, I ask you, would a "blue ribbon" panel have been a good idea? Would it have unearthed some truths? Would it have Constitutional authority to actually remove those members of the command who failed in their responibilities?
As for torture, again, that is why I said, "define torture." I do not agree that what is happening in Guantanamo is torture. I would hope that reasonable people could disagree on this issue. And what of the fact that the reason Abu Ghraib was investigated in the first place is that the military itself thought it was disgusting what went on there and went forward to conduct an investigation?
As for the war being illegal, that is also a matter up for debate. Kofi Annan is not an authority on international law. Not sure why his statement on this matters. As far as international law is concerned, we were on the right side here, since Saddam broke a treaty he signed to end a war he had started (by not allowing inspectors in). Now, I am not saying that this necessarily rose to the level of going to war, just that on international law grounds, we were well within our rights. The prudence of the war can and ought be debated. But not when people start hurling Nazi epithets and calling Bush and those who voted for him "scum-sucking."
You implied in your post that Ann was being callous. If "I hope as a law professor..." was not a sarcastic remark, then I apologize. But the implication in this entire thread is that those who voted for Bush are either willfully ignoring evil, are tools of evil, or are stupid. Read vicki's post. Read quxxo's early posts where he called Ann a liar because she's supposedly a Right-wing lawyer. Read the post by ntodd where he called Althouse all kinds of epithets. Read the post by Brando where he said:
"You are no better than your scum sucking Dear Leader who has all the sudden silenced himself over the Plame leak because of its faux concerns for "an ongoing investigation" when it turned out that their previous talking points turned out to be BALD FACE LIES."
Maybe you haven't been following this thread.
Oh wait, or is scum-sucking supposed to mean something other than evil?
Yevgeny,
I ask why do you bring up other's posts? I have not commented in anything less than a civil fahsion, so, please, if you have problems with others direct your ire at them, not me. I really could care less what they have written if it is juvenile, it has nothing to do with me.
Now, some major points here.
1) The treatment of prisoners in Guantamo is torture.
How you can posit this is not so is hard to understand. Prisoners have been chained to the floor for upwards of 36 hours in 100+ degree temperatures, forced to defecate and urinate on themselves, without food and water. This has been documented by the FBI.
The use of hooding, stress positions, nudity and dogs, all of which the pictures of from Abu Gharaib so shocked the world, were all pioneered at Guantamo. Again, this is documented by many sources from within the government.
A American MP, during an exercise simulating an uncooperative prisoner, was beaten so badly he suffered brain damage. This is significant because it demonstrates the MO at this sad, degenerate place. Beat, beat, and beat some more.
The doctors that treat the prisoners, in apparent disregard of their Hippocratic oaths, inform the guards of methods that they think, based on their personal examinations, will allow them to more easily break the prisoners.
Intelligence officers pose as their lawyers to obtain information.
Need I remind you that the majority of these prisoners have not been charged with crimes.
Yes, this sounds like an upstanding institution run well in accordance with our American values...um.
2) The Iraq war was illegal.
I suspect this position is shared by 95% of legal academians. In international law, as determined by the UN Charter of which we are a creator of and signatory to, war is allowed only in 1) self defense, or 2) with explict Security Council authorization. Neither was present here. Now, I do not think that the United States should have to wait for the UN's mandate before engaging in a war it deems absolutely necessary (Kosovo, for one), but we do so in full knowledge that our actions are illegal to the world at large. To argue otherwise is disingenous and/or ignorant.
3) Your whole "blue ribbon" stuff is blowing smoke. Bush, as Commander-in-Chief, can lean on the military to clean this up. Do you really think that reassigning the general in charge is the appropriate remedy? Do you understand that prisoners were tortured, raped, sodomized and murdered in the open? Good christ man.
A prisoner in Afghanistan had his legs beaten so badly that he died. Imagine the sadism involved that he died from injuries to his legs! Initially, this death was deemed from "natural causes." It was not investigated until, I believe, 2 years later. You don't think something smells?
Going into Iraq, our troops should have been given a dictate that they should treat everyone with the utmost respect, because 1) we wanted to prove to the world that we are the ones in the right, and 2) we are trying to win "the hearts and minds" of the iraqis so that they will create a liberal democracy to begin the transformation of the middle east.
Instead, we imported our tactics from Guantamo, all of which were explicitly sanctioned by Rumsfeld, and indirectly sanctioned by the White House through Alberto Gonzalez's office in its Geneva Convention memos.
Yet, no high profile heads have rolled. In fact, no heads have rolled at all, except for a few low level "bad apples." And guess who called these people "a few bad apples" so famously? Right, Rumsfeld, the same man who signed off on the tactics they were using in those photos.
Amazing, contemptible, disgusting.
I've said a lot here, but it is all rolled up in the same rotten package.
its been more than well proven here that "MM" is just a mouthpiece for the DNC. please, give it up.
No it hasn't. If you had proof of that, you could put them out of business right now, because that would be against the law.
What do you want as far as evidence goes?
Evidence that Duncan Black is a "strategist for the Democratic Party," as you claimed, citing his association with MM. For one thing. Or that there is any sort of collaboration between the Democratic Party and MM in the spread of "talking points." For another.
Both of these statements are ludicrous, so you're left with the accusation that MM has a particular point of view. Horrors. Oh, and fevered wingnut demonization of George Soros.
You seem unclear on the nature of "evidence," and frankly you sound like a cultist. You need help.
I see no evidence from any of the "regulars" here that you are capable of participating in any form of adult debate, which requires honesty and objectivity, not childish snivelling about the Evil Soros.
Considering the previous two presidential elections were two of the closest in history, the republican triumphalism here would be amusing, if it were not so mean spirited.
Of course Media Matters is a liberal organization. Of course Media Matters only targets conservatives. It is silly to dispute this.
But are their articles factually correct and fair? I challenge anyone here to find one that is not.
Keep yourselfs ignorant
Outstanding.
Mm, 3% is losing "big" now eh..my, how things have changed. I don't recall democrats saying such idiotic things after Clinton's 9 point victory in 1996 . . .I guess Clinton's 4 point win in 1992 was a cataclysmic landslide!
And it is funny you mention "propaganda movies," perhaps you are familiar with the current administration's creation of fake news reports and payments to journalists. I suppose these are equal in your eyes, even though one is the product of the federal government in contravention of clearly defined rules and procedures, while F9/11 was the creation of an independent filmmaker.
Nice.
The Exalted and Thersites---
Look at their "info" on the Manuel Miranda case and Memogate. While hypertechnically accurate, their reports are clearly unfair, as they fail to mention that the only reason there is an investigation into the matter is that the Democrats demanded it and fail to acknowledge that the memos Miranda found on the shared computers had not been secured. For some reason they fail to mention that.
Also, for some reason they fail to discuss the contents of those memos because I seem to recall they got the NAACP legal head disbarred in Virginia for trying to improperly influence a Court while it was reviewing a case before it.
So, you nitwit, you can't support your charge that Atrios is a "Democratic Party strategist" or that MM deliberately spreads DNC talking points.
You're dishonestly trying to change the subject because you know you made reckless accusations without checking the facts.
So we'll ignore your silly, irrlevant statements about Miranda for the moment and reiterate: what makes you qualified to participate in civil discourse when you are so obviously a liar and a fool?
I will generously permit you to escape my contempt when you copy me your apology to Duncan Black and to Media Matters for your reckless and untrue allegations.
These discussions (preferably civil) and the tension they engender, help ensure that this country never elects an extremist from either the right or the left.
Well, you messed that one up pretty royally, then.
Thersites--
Namecalling certainly reflects well on you.
Sorry, you picked a rather obscure item, and you conceded at the outset that the Media Matters piece is accurate.
So, I will expend no further energy on it.
Identify something they have written that is false (a challenge that is all too easy with the polemicists on the right) or let them be.
I see you ignored all else I wrote.
Namecalling certainly reflects well on you.
You got nothing.
Post a Comment