bustardblog

Glenn V. Rahm, Part Deux

In retrospect, my post on Glenn Greenwald's attack on Rahm Emanuel was a little too flip. Part of a comment that I received yesterday on my post says

I thought Rahm was an oily operative before Greenwald repeated what I already knew to be the truth about Foley.

What Greenwald did in order to attack Emanuel was to muddy the facts - both about what was known "to be the truth about Foley,"" and about the definition of a lie. 

Greenwald is proud to be an accomplished lawyer, yet in his post he wants us to believe, as Talk Left so aptly put it, that he is an "ingenue."

In his post Greenwald points to an interview Emanuel had with Stephanopolous back when the Foley story just broke. In it Emanuel was repeatedly quizzed about his knowledge of the e-mails Foley sent to pages. Emanuel carefully replies that he never saw them.

Greenwald concludes that  "Emanuel was clearly and deliberately misleading," and so is "guilty of the same thing, Exactly the same thing" as Hastert's Chief of Staff who has been "telling" "blatant lies" "ever since this scandal began."

In fact it is Greewald's post which is "deliberately misleading." Here's why:

1. As Talk Left put it "In every meaningful sense of the word, Emanuel ducked the question in order not to lie.  Ducking the question is not lying .... In any meaningful sense Glenn has misstated the meaning of lying."

2. Greenwald is sure that Emanuel lied, because of a CNN report which was based on the word of an un-named campaign committee aide.  Greenwald writes that the report stated that the

"Illinois Democrat was informed in 2005, but never saw the correspondence and did not have enough information to raise concerns. The aide said that Emanuel took no action because his knowledge was "cursory" and little more than 'rumor.'"

This is Greenwald's own description of the report.  In order to conclude that Emanuel is lying, Greenwald has to cherry pick from this uncorroborated report from an un-named source. Greenwald embraces the aide's conclusion that Emanuel was "informed in 2005" but rejects the aide's characterization of the information as "cursory and little more than rumor." And there was plenty of rumor.

3. Greenwald again tries to play the ingenue when he writes that "Any reasonable person would have come away from the interview (as I know I did) with the strong impression that Emanuel... had no reason to know anything was amiss with Foley until ABC broke the story." Accusations had started to float around Washington in 2003 and 2004 about Foley's behavior. Greenwald is far too smart not to know that such rumors fly around Washington at the speed of light.  There is no way any sentient Congressman had no suspicion that there might be something "amiss with Foley." In March 2005 one D.C. Blogger warned about Foley "If he cruises you in the bathrooms of Congress, Ignore him!". He also wrote in a headline:  "Read about how Mark Foley hit on men less than half his age at the Republican Convention." In another post; "A source has confirmed with blogACTIVE that Foley lives a practically out lifestyle at his Florida residence, often seen entertaining gay men, some of who the source described as "close to underage." This is not some obscure blogger: GQ magazine has done a piece on him, and Glenn Greenwald himself  has written extensively about him on his own blog. Even my commenter, with whose quote I started this piece, 'already knew the truth about Foley.' Somehow, Greenwald didn't, and neither, he implies, did the rest of Congress.

Near the conclusion of his piece, Greenwald writes about Emanuel:

"he sat there on ABC and adopted this melodramatically concerned, earnest voice, as he expressed righteous outrage."

If you substitute "he sat there on ABC..." with "he opined on his blog..." you've done a pretty good job of describing the sanctimonious Glenn Greenwald.

 

The Bustard's Return

Extensive surgery, an infection that required rehospitalization, and the first session of chemotherapy are now only memories, and so the blogging will begin again, albeit erratically.

A Token of the Conservatives

As we all know, discussing identity politics is just another of the innumerable liberal failings. The left is always playing the gay card, or the race card, or the whatever card, while  the right is above such issues.  They believe that race should not be a consideration in any decision, which is why affirmative action is so evil. Bloggers like Michelle Malkin and Powerline are firm in their assertion that race is not a factor to them.  Positive comments from both adorn the site of the conservative, African-American female blogger, LaShawn Barber.
After Bush finally spoke at the NAACP conference, I was curious to check out Ms Barber's site.  One thing she had to say was to describe that organization as just a social club of Limousine Liberal Negros. This week she also condemned the concept of reparations, because "blacks already receive reparation with every lowered standard, every welfare check.." Now you see why wing-nuts love her.
In her own comments on Bush's speech, Malkin linked to Barber. Both she and Powerline link to her quite often.
They link to her quite often when she writes about - identity politics. I looked at the last 50 links from Michelle. I divided links into two categories - one I called major, in which the link includes and extensive quote, or a real description. I called links where Barber is just a mention as minor links (the link lists, or the ones that say "More from LaShawnBarber", for example). Eight major links* were to posts where the subject was identity politics; and there was only one major link to a post about a different topic. Twenty minor links went to identity fifteen went to other subjects. Powerline did not link so often, but there is the same pattern. Six major links were to a post about identity politics, one went to a post concerned with another matter.
Malkin and her friends at Powerline agree on many things - one of which is that an African-American woman is really an expert only on being an African-American Woman. The right has decided to embrace her because of her race. Her race enables them to agree with her condemnation of other victims of discrimination without appearing racist or insensitive. The poor woman benefits from a twisted form of  affirmative action, even as she denounces it. 

N.B. Similarity to Justice Clarence ("victim of a high tech lynching") Thomas.

* some examples of such links are here and here

I also analyzed many links from Instapundit to Ms Barber, and I have to say that no such pattern emerged. He linked to her posts on a wide array of topics. Two Points for Mr. Reynolds.

Attaturk

The utterly amazing Attaturk, over at Rising Hegemon, must be read at least daily. From his secret source deep inside the administration, he recently received the following:

"WHITE HOUSE MEMORANDA

From:  George Bush (as dictated)

To: File

Re:  Morning tasks

Find out why the right-side of my nose hurts.  "

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.

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.

Blogging Failures

I have finally figured out what has been going on this week, and it so happens to be entirely the fault of Mr. Duncan Black. (He was probably acting on orders he received from Generalissimo Marcos Franco of Kos, but I'm far to terrified to accuse Him directly.)
My problems have been caused by my recent acquisition of Tivo. I have two telephone lines, and supposedly Tivo is on one totally separate from the one I use to connect to the web. Still when ever Tivo decides in wants to know Fox's schedule for tonight, or when the next Spanish novella is coming on, I get kicked off, even though I think that I'm still typing away in Typepad.
My solution thus far is to disconnect Tivo, but I'm sure that I'll figure it all out. Eventually.

Well Informed, Indeed

Informed Comment, Prof. Juan Cole's blog, should really be read daily. A section from today's post:

Bush tried to define down victory to a general ability of people to go about their lives. He said it was unreasonable to expect to end "all violence." But Mr. Bush, no one suggested that you end "all violence." The goal here is to win the guerrilla war.

During a guerrilla war, people always go about their daily lives, except when a bomb is going off in their specific neighborhood. So if the goal is that Iraqis should be able to buy bread and go to school and drive to work, most of them have that already most of the time. It is just that little problem of some 12,000 people a year being blown up, assassinated, or beheaded and their heads wrapped in cellophane and stored in banana crates along the side of the road that remains.

AdNag & The YearlyKos

I won't speculate on AdNag's responsibility for the photograph that accompanied his demeaning piece about bloggers and the YearlKos convention.  His disdainful attitude towards bloggers was amply demonstrated by his article alone.
His description of Ned Lamont's career will be taught in Journalism Schools as an example of lazy reporting. In 1984 Mr. Lamont founded "Lamont Digital Systems (LDS), a privately held company focused on building advanced telecommunications platforms for residential gated communities and colleges and universities." The article calls hims a "cable television executive."
He also wrote that

Blogging is nowhere near the force among Republicans as it is among Democrats, and talk radio is a much more effective tool for Republicans.

I was sure that this statement was wildly off the mark, but I am happy to report that in fact the left is more successful at blogging than the right, although the margin is much smaller than AdNag would have you believe. There are 7 left-leaning blogs in today's technorati top 100 rating, and 6 right-leaning ones.  I wasn't able to get technorati's list for 6 months ago, and instead analysed feedster's  Nov/Dec 2005 list.  At that time 14 of the top 100 blogs were wingnuts, and 11 were proud moonbats.

(One of the nicest things to notice is the decline in the popularity of Assrocket's Powerline.)