bustardblog

Goldstein Heart Frisch.

I’ve been to Germany dozens of times. In my opinion, the Germans tend to be more respectful of authority and less comfortable with moral ambiguity than we. Still, I have never been able to comprehend the atrocities committed under Hitler. Similarly, I’ve had a hard time with those Muslim fundamentalists who do evil, in the name of God. 

Some of the comments I've received to my posts concerning the Frisch/Goldstein mess  have actually given me some hints that further my understanding of such people. In no way am I comparing those who made comments on my posts to Nazis or Jihadists. But there is a quality in some of the comments that smells of an angry level of groupthink, combined with a sort of litmus test, able to determine good and evil with a certainty beyond question.

Quite a few of my readers argued that if I had received comments similar to the ones Goldstein received, I would feel threatened. Abolutely true. If I received comments like the ones posted by Blackfive, cherry picked and vacuum packed as they were by Blackfive, I’d feel threatened.

But the key isn't what I might feel – it’s what Goldstein did feel. And he said that he did not feel threatened “I don’t feel victimized… I don’t think she’s a threat. She’s more of an object lesson in having too many cats.”

Jamie McArdle wrote me that it was noteworthy that Jeff didn’t contact authorities, or anyone else; that his commenters did. I agree that it’s noteworthy; in fact I think it incredible.  If I thought that my child was being threatened, I would call the cops in two minutes. But Goldstein didn’t. Again, in such a situation, I'd be furiously pissed off. Not Goldstein. A few days after most of the vile comments were made and after Frisch offered her “apology” and resigned from her job – Goldstein wrote “Because until now, I haven’t really been pissed…” In one of my posts I wrote in amazement that Goldstein had allowed this to go on for a few days. If I thought that a commenter was threatening my child, I would ban that IP address immediately. But I heard back that Jeff only banned people who made really horrible comments. Which was it: He didn't think that threatening his child was a really horrible comment? Or he didn't think his child was threatend?

This was a game to both Jeff and to Deb. That is why I described Blackfive's comments as cherry picked and vacuum packed.  If you only read their comments, they seem threatening. In fact they are only disgusting and vile. Jeff acknowledges that it was just a game for him when he wrote:

"2. I allowed Debbie to continue commenting here because she was threatening to show her ass. Not that any of us wanted to see such a horrid, rippled thing, of course - but, well, we're intellectually curious. And adventurous!

3. She showed her ass. And it was every bit as ugly as we all knew it would be.

4. But no matter. I don't want apologies."

(Jeff can be pretty disgusting himself.)

In the comments section of his July 6 post, she writes that "you think that I am the scum of the earth and the feeling is more than mutual.', and then she compliments him for "just writing a post that disses me instead of just banning my bitchy ass." Goldstein responds by saying "When I'm done with you, Deb, you're going to be an internet verb. Enjoy."

At 12:28 AM on 07/07 she announced her disappointment in not being banned by that point,  saying "u win, jeffy baw. good nite." He began his response at 12:34 by saying "I can smell your fear, Deb..."

At 10:09 PM 07/06 he writes: "Aw. I do believe Deb's got a crush on me! Don't despair, though honey - you're like the fifth "academic" lesbian I've turned."

These taunts and dares are hardly responses I would make to someone threatening  sexually abuse of my child.

In fact, Deb explains why she is making such odious comments about two hours later:

Jeffy boy Goldstein allowed people to comment on my anatomy, etc. and make veiled threats of physical/sexual violence. He just sat by and watched and laughed... I decided to fight fire with fire and make comments about his "tyke" the same way his pathetic minions made comments about me."

I am not saying that this explanation is in any way a sufficient justification.  I do think it's important to note that Goldstein does not ask her to stop, nor to say that he finds her comments threatening. Instead he points out how pathetic he thinks her to be,"how sad."

Throughout these posts and comments, his readers advised Goldstein of the various law enforcement agencies they had contacted because of her "threats" or her "assault." Jeff never asks them to refrain from making such contacts.

On July 7, a friend of Goldstein's, Froggy of Blackfive wrote a post repeating an argument of Jeff's: "Frisch ought to become her own unique internet verb for a deranged troll/cyber stalker."  He went on to complain of the "repeatedly and quite disturbing (sic) levied DEATH THREATS against Jeff's 2 year old child. " He updated the post to say he had just talked with Jeff on the phone. After talking to Goldstein, he issued a second update giving out detailed information about her employer and whom to contact to register a complaint. After a lot of e-mails were received by her employer which complained of her making physical threats, some of them threatened to try to harm that employer if she was not fired, she resigned. Later, she said that she had planned to quit anyway.

Frisch's comments were despicable. So was Goldstein's behavior.  He could easily have asked his friend Froggy or his audience to not contact her employer. He could have suggested that if they wanted to report her, they should be sure not to talk of threats. He knew that there were no threats. But instead, he let his friends speak of threats and of sexual abuse  Any basic, decent citizen would ask people to refrain from bothering the FBI and various law enforcement agencies from wasting their time on "crimes" that had never been committed.

It's my sense that Goldstein is quite proud of his little game of exposing Frisch's "ass." For him to imply that he or his family were somehow victims is a blatant lie.

Hitler made a specialty of laying blame on the other, most heavily on the Jew. He knew that by making public accusations against a group, the mere fact of their being untrue never removed the taint that clung to the accused. It's a talent that Karl Rove, and I fear Jeff Goldstein, have learned well.  Jihadists, also, enjoy demonizing their opponent, and blaming them for their own failures. It's this willingness to lie to achieve one's goals that I find so frightening.

She made vile comments. She did not threaten a child.

The People of the U.S. vs Froggy, and Goldstein

Some of our friends at Blackfive, Protein Wisdom, and the good Professor Frisch might be interested in a law suit involving John Fund, of the Opinion Journal, and his former girlfriend, Morgan Pillsbury.
She is suing him; accusing him of physical and emotional abuse.   He's "filed a counterclaim accusing her of ... contacting his employer."
I wonder why she contacted his employer? To engage in "hyperbole" regarding  "threats?" There is no indication that he suffered in any way from her contacting his employer.
Any lawyers out there who want to help the good Professor Frisch?
(H/T to Huffington Post, via Atrios)

P.S. Although there was no threat, ever, by Frisch, and Goldstein wrote that he was not a victim, he has now written that "my wife and son, on the other hand, were victimized. But they’ll live." Do you believe that the two year old child lost a lot of sleep? How was he victimized? Did he read the post about Frisch's lack of concern as to whether  he lived or died, and so was traumatized?  (I'm sure that the poor guy was probably victimized by the mainstream press; they all are.He's only two and already victimized by so many!) Jeff continues on about his wife and child: "But they'll live" - In how much hysterical dishonesty can this silly victim, Goldstein, indulge himself? There's no limit.

Death Threats, Again

The Supreme Court today ordered the arrest of the “writers” at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller. Although Justices Breyer and Ginsburg found that the instructions that had had  been posted on the site (“Five Ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required.”) were merely symptoms of hysteria, and not an actual death threat. Scalia and Thomas were in the majority, arguing that the reaction of the two justices  were further proof that democrats were really the party of death, as they had such a cavalier attitude  to being hung from a tree. Thomas , muttered something about a low tech lynching, and then  insisted that  a death threat was a serious matter, and those who made the threat must be held accountable. In their defense, the Rottweillers claimed that it was not nearly as bad as posting threats to a two year old. Scalia remarked that even the child of Jeff Goldstein, with all his premature protean knowledge, was probably unable to read the threat at the age of two. The Rottweillers, with the remnants of their tails firmly between their legs, were last seen scurrying off to Mexico, where their reception may be warmer than they expected.

P.S. if you are masochistic enough to go there, please see this piece about the death tax. It is hilarious. Not one fact appears in the post. Not one. Complete, total Bull….

Shame on NRO's Corner

The Corner was even more fun and informative than usual today. We learned some neat stuff:

• Castro is not God.
• Abu Gharaib was all about Hi-Jinks - not torture.
• The U.S. Supreme Court just doesn't understand how much hard, hard work Bush and the Congress do for us all.

The first point was made by the Son of Lucianne, Goldberg, who wrote today of news he had received that Castro had died. It was left to the ever effervescent K Lo to inform us that Jonah had it wrong once again. But she did point out that someday Castro will die. Can you get more informative than that?

Andy McCarthy gave us the other two bullets.  He wants the House and the White House to come up with a new system to try prisoners at Guantanamo, and for the Supreme Court to respect that "Congress and the Administration took the time and care in the middle of a war to enact" the legislation.

"Took the time...  in the middle of a war?" No President in modern American history has spent more time on vacation than George Bush.  As of ten months ago, Bush had spent 20% of his term on vacation.  And the Congress? As of today, it has been in session for  66 days this year. As USA Today reported: "roll call votes are seldom scheduled for Mondays or Fridays. In the House, they are often postponed until late Tuesday."  And those Tuesdays, which often start at five in the afternoon, make up about 22 of those 66 days. The suggestion that the U.S. Supreme Court should give extra weight to the efforts of our overworked President and Congress is hilarious.

McCarthy asks  that the new quasi-judicial system  "reaffirm that prisoners will be treated humanely - neither tortured, not subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment - as has been U.S. policy."

But what is his definition of torture, of cruel or degrading treatment? Those who died after interrogation at Abu Gharaib, were victims of "hi-jinks," not torture, according to McCarthy. They underwent "unpleasant, coercive interrogation," nothing more.  This is normal for The Corner: Jonah Goldberg says he has "no problem with a little smacky-face with prisoners." It sounds a lot like the way Protein Wisdom's Jeff Goldstein likes to play "smacky-face" with those who disagree with him.

When I read these bits at The Corner this morning, I laughed. But it isn't funny. McCarthy, Lopez, Goldstein and Goldberg all specialize in depicting the other as less than human. I hate having to make this argument; but the fact is that this specialty is the same one at which bin Laden and Hitler excelled. For Osama to portray us, or for Hitler to portray the Jews, as agents of the devil is not terribly disimilar from what those writers/bloggers are doing now.

Vile Wisdom

Yesterday I wrote a post characterizing Deb Frisch's recent comments at Protein Wisdom as despicable.I also wrote that they weren't actually threats, and she shouldn't lose her job because of repulsive comments.

A lot of commenters here thought that I was rationalizing or overly parsing - that the comments really were threatening. Many blogs from the right asserted that she was in fact threatening the child of the author at PW,  Jeff Goldstein.  Some argued that she should be held "accountable," others that she should lose her job, while others thought she deserved jail and/or bodily harm for threatening a two year old.
Blackfive wrote that she "repeatedly and quite disturbingly levied DEATH THREATS against Jeff's 2 year old child."

Gulf Coast stated that she "is threatening a two year old child." Sierra Faith chimed in "Most importantly, this sick person is threatening the life" of a 2 year old.
Right Wing Nation claimed she was "threatening Jeff Goldstein's child." While Right Wing Nut House said "Short version: Frisch made a series of what can only be termed threats against Jeff and his two year old son. The threats were both violent and sexual in nature." A piece entitled "Arizona Psych Professor Threatens Life of Two Year Old" was posted by Caos Blog. Lilac Rose sympathized with Jeff's having to endure "vile threats against his child." MarkinMexico wrote of her "hurling death threats and sexual innuendos." (I think he might have hurt Goldsteins pride with this one - he likes to think he's the best sexual innuendo hurler in town.) Moonbattery prefers labelling Frisch as the one who "threatened a conservative blogger's two-year-old child with sexcual abuse and death."

 

To put it bluntly, all of these bloggers knowingly were posting lies. What Frisch said was vile, but in no way threatening. After his website was shut down for a while, Goldstein wrote that never felt threatened nor "victimized."  He allowed Frisch to comment for a few days because he hoped that she would "show her ass." He wanted her to make a fool of herself, and to make her seem unbalanced. He succeeded. He does "not want apologies." It was a game to him – a vile, manipulative game. That's all. Because he played the game better than she did, he'd love a bottle of tequila as a victory prize. He also implies that she might have been drunk when she made her stupid comments

Before calling Deb Frisch's employer to register a "complaint," presumably about her threatening a two year old, Froggy of Blackfive talked with Jeff Goldstein.

Again, I make no excuse for her horrible words. But she is no longer employed – in large part  because a lot of  wing-nut bloggers wrote to her employer accusing her of threatening a 2 year old.

Goldstein’s behavior can only be characterized as despicable. He has allowed someone to be punished for an act that he knew did not happen. Apparently, he sat back and chuckled as his fellow wing nuts tried to get Frisch fired for threatening his child, although he knew there was no threat.  I'm not surprised by Goldstein's cruel dishonesty as I have seen his m.o. before. But a lot of bloggers, and a lot of commenters at my blog, also were lying about what was happening. They claim to be outraged  that a child was threatened, when they know it never happened. Why? I don’t understand what excitement and pleasure they get by trying to destroy Frisch’s career.  As Goldstein put it – she’s the kind of woman who has too many cats.
 

I realize that the Republican party relies on smears, lies and vile manipulation to remain in power. I recognize the swiftboating, the accusations of treason, the phony outrage over leaks, for what they are. But the only explanations that I can see for destroying a part-time college teacher’s career is simple cruelty, or a desire to maintain those skills which they need to remain in power.  An election is coming, and they must keep their knives sharp.

Protein Wisdom

I'm a bit fearful about getting involved in the latest Jeff Goldstein uproar, which of course means that I really have no choice but to do so.

The lastest brouhaha regarding the author of the blog Protein Wisdom, concerns some totally despicable comments made by a troll from the left.

This has caused enormous amounts of outrage from the right.(here, here and here are examples) The question is whether this outrage is in any way sincere, or is it as manufactured as Bush's playacting when he appeared to be angry about the New York Times' "disgraceful" article concerning SWIFT and international banking.

Blackfive, a very conservative blog, is one of those taking the lead on this, describing the situation as one in which the troll "has repeatedly and quite disturbing levied DEATH THREATS against Jeff's 2 year old child." Another wrote how the troll "made a stream of death threats against Goldstein's two-year-old son." In fact, the troll made no death threats. None. All of the quotes and links that these guys refer you to, are hideous statements to the effect of 'if something atrocious happens to your kid, it would not bother me one bit. I wouldn't mind if your kid was killed." This is not the same as saying that ' I want to kill your kid.'  It's disgusting, but not threatening. It's hard to tell if this is a sincere, albeit hysterical, overreaction, or an attempt to manipulate their readers by essentially lying to them. Last week, Morgan was really inappropriate when she said 'If Bill Keller were to be tried and found guilty of treason and then sent to the gas chamber, I wouldn't have a problem with it." But she did not threaten his life.

Blackfive then ratchets it up a notch by giving the name of the troll, as well as the name, address, phone number and contact name of the troll's employer. Blackfive explains that she contacted the employer, and kindly publishes the information in case her readers would like to contact them as well.  Essentially they are trying to get the troll fired because they hate her comments. I agree that her comments are hateful, but not nearly as hateful as trying to get the troll fired.

If Mr. Goldstein had really been upset about the comments, why did he not ban her IP address? Instead, his friends are lobbying to have her fired.

I do not know the dates on which the troll made her comments, but I suspect that they might be retaliation. Not that the comments are acceptable, but it has to be noted that while the right is fond of characterizing Jeff Goldstein as "the very insightful conservative blogger", he also is a particularly vicious one. After a contentious argument with a blogger from the left, Goldstein thought it perfectly appropriate to "out" his anonymity, as well as his wife's. He proceeded to give details of the man's employer. A commenter of Goldstein's made a sexually abusive comment about the man's young child.

This kind of commenting is despicable. Destroying someone's anonymity is unacceptable. But trying to get someone fired because of despicable comments is even worse.

UPDATE:

Whle I was writing this, the troller resigned from her job. After speaking to Jeff Goldstein,  Blackfive  chose to contact the troller's employer, and published details so that others could do the same. The troller's life has now been in fact threatened, even though, she never threatened anyone. She has lost her job.  Blackfive will soon be changing its name to Brown Shirts.