Enough Of Greenwald, Already
Glenn Greenwald, who can’t even seem to get a blog template right, is headlining a post "Prominent right-wing blogger today calls for the murder of Supreme Court Justices – the Right fails to condemn it."
He’s referring to this post by Misha of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler blog. The post goes on about the Supreme Court after linking to the horrific video of two soldiers who were recently tortured, murdered and mutilated.
(WARNING: You do NOT want to click the above link if you’re in any way inclined to acts of rage and violence and most CERTAINLY not if you’ve got any loaded firearms nearby).
Try doing anything to those mutilating darlings of the Supremes in order to extract life-saving intel from them, and then wait for the Supreme Whores to decide that you were “humiliating” them in doing so.
Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required. Until then, here’s the message to our troops overseas: Shoot to kill, don’t bother taking prisoners.
I’m not going to condemn that from Misha because I don’t see it as anything other than hyperbole and it’s Misha’s blog and a matter of free individual speech. But I will say something about Greenwald, as he seems determined to make himself the most annoying little twit of the Left – perhaps, in his mind, a star.
Here’s Greenwald on White Supremacist Matthew Hale’s Internet speech:
Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer for Mr. Hale, said the charges filed today might stem from a misinterpretation of a statement by his client on the Internet that "we are in a state of war with Judge Lefkow."
"They are probably trying to take things he said along the lines of political advocacy and turn it into a crime," Mr. Greenwald said. "The F.B.I. may have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric."
Clearly given Greenwald’s own reasoning on Hale, he’s simply trying to gin up some controversy here to benefit his blog traffic – as he seems to be doing more and more.
Time was when Hollywood studios would pluck some chorus girl out of the line and apply money, power and influence to make her a star. Now apparently an off-shoot of a $140 million+ corporation, Working Assets, has plucked an average, unemployed lawyer named Greenwald to be the Left’s star lawyer blogger. He could start by keeping his New York license current.
Greenwald’s book and blog were all but created out of whole cloth by prominent liberal blogs and a media machine. Someone should take the time to teach him how to get a link straight, or write a 300 word post in 300 words. Instead, he seems to prefer 2,000 or so words of the most incredibly dry prose, I doubt many even bother reading the full tripe. If he’s simply looking to fascinate himself, he might opt for actual masturbation, instead – and give everyone a break. Check back posts, every blog on the Left was basically begging people to buy the book when it came out, such was the coordinated effort.
On February 15, I asked Greenwald if he’d like to do a book. Working Assets stepped up to fund the project and launch Working Assets Publishing. By March 1, we had a contract and Greenwald sat down to write. There was a printer to find, a distributor to lure, an editorial team to assemble, and all of it managed by a quickly-formed publishing division at the San Francisco headquarters of Working Assets. After some very long days, we delivered the book to the printer on April 24. The day before, I sent digital manuscripts to seven bloggers I’d been working with and asked them to post about the book, if they found it worthy. Within days How Would a Patriot Act? rose from obscurity to number one on Amazon largely because those initial blogs ignited a wildfire of mentions and purchase links throughout the blogosphere.
He claims to have been involved in some of the highest-profile free speech cases over the past few years. He might want to correct his blog to indicate one – Matthew Hale. You can read most of the history on Hale here. Greenwald appears to have lost just about everything he’s litigated and I believe he only represented Hale and his Church regarding his law license – running into enough controversy there over some information he shared regarding a passed note.
Even some liberal friends I talk to admit they are tired of watching him get kicked around by Tom Maguire: Glenn Greenwald’s Career In Comedy and Glenn: As usual, Glenn Greenwald is clueless – and whomever else from the right that has bothered to take him on.
He appears to lack the academic background to pass as a serious Constitutional scholar, as he evidently wants to be billed. There are no decades of litigation experience, and as far as I can tell, he may not be currently qualified to walk into court as a lawyer in New York – though, as a non-lawyer, that’s unclear. Still, given all of the above, you’d think NYU would have given him the intelligence to know when to shut up. Alas, once again, it seems an all too liberal education has failed us, in the end.
(minor grammatical correction last sentence)
So your reasoned and thoughtful response to Glenn Greenwald’s point that a prominent right-wing blogger called for the lynching of five Supreme Court justices; or that said blogger’s readers posted comments calling for genocide against Muslims and extrajudicial executions, is to attack Glenn’s skill with a blog template, or whether he wrote his own book or tried as many free speech cases as he said he did?
Interesting.
No his response to Greenwald’s point was to:
A)dismiss the inflammatory post as hyperbolic rhetoric
and
B)point out Greenwald’s hypocrisy.
The rest of the post is a well deserved critic of Greenwald.
Glenn Greenwald perfectly represents that which I loathe the most about the Stupid Blogosphere–blowhards who take themselves and blogging WAY too seriously. WAY. I’m as much for ethics as anyone, but I am in ANY venture. It’s not like “blogging” should be something so extraordinary. And these “big bloggers” and “serious bloggers” are, to me, like being the champion shuffleboard player in a retirement community. You’re a big deal among a very small community. It’s pretty comical if you think about it. So who the hell does Greenwald or any other blowhard think they are? (It’s not just on the left, to be sure–they’re on the left, center, right, up, down, whatever.)
Obviously Greenwald and these moral relativists don’t have children of their own and can’t possibly imagine the sanctity (whoops! that sounded…religious or something! LOL) of a child’s life and dignity, or imagine how fiercely a parent loves their child and will fight to the death for that child. Obviously. And obviously they can’t distinguish between Misha–who is WELL-KNOWN for his rhetoric–making comments like that, and a psychologist/university professor who makes violent and sexual references to a two year-old child. In case they didn’t know, there IS a difference.
If Misha ever DID make comments about someone’s kid like Frisch did, I can guarantee people would be ALL up his ass. But he wouldn’t do that–EVER–because he’s a father.
Greenwald and those who equate commentary that sounds like it came from a pedophile with commentary that is honestly, QUITE COMMON in the blogosphere are either seriously stupid or they’re just totally dishonest. And really, the rhetoric Misha uses IS very common on the blogs–including, if not especially–on his side. Does Greenwald ever leave his own blog to see the violence “threatened” or “advocated” in his allies’ commentary? I doubt it. I doubt blowhards like him sully their imaginary wingtips in the fever swamps like Kos, the DUh, Atrios, and countless others. I think he’d find it quite enlightening to do so. Personally, I find it entertaining (as something to laugh AT, not with).
Greenwald’s little tantrum is hilarious. I guess that had to do, lacking any quotes that measure up (or should I say DOWN) to some snapperhead failed university professor’s filth.
Which reminds me–all this “I’d never heard of her!!!” bullshit misses the point. She’s a f’ing university professor (or was), and shouldn’t be teaching (psychology!) with that mentality. EVERYONE knows she was a nobody blogger, in fact we laughed about how her traffic went from almost zip to an avalanche overnight. But they are whining that “everyone” on the right was “demanding” apologies from the left. That’s utter bullshit. I’m sure there were one or two who did, but I didn’t see posts like that. What pisses me off about “The Left” is ONLY the people like Greenwald, Sadly No, and others like that “Gideon” fucktard, whoever he is. Those who act like it’s “no different” from something that is NOT the same. They’re blinded by their partisan politics. Meanwhile, there are plenty of others on the left who have posted, HAVE BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED, and who have commented at Frisch’s shitty blog condemning her. They do understand it’s not about politics, it’s about human decency.
Get it straight, partisan Deb-apologists: IT IS NOT OK TO MAKE SEXUAL AND VIOLENT REFERENCES TO A CHILD. EVER.
And I’ll make a “threat” (oooh, get scared!) right now: if anyone were to ever speak to me like she did to Jeff about MY child, I can guaranfuckingtee I won’t be making them a blogtard celebrity of the day, I will make it my mission to destroy everything about their lives until they are sorry they ever took a breath on this earth.
(Oh, and Kathy? Can it.)
F.E.T.E.
Beth,
That was an incredibly dishonest rant, and you should know it. Point out one person that has defended Frisch. None. And yet you call people “Deb-apologists”? No, it is you who are an apologist for the same type of vile garbage coming from the other direction. Greenwald is right on in his critique. It is a parlor game on the right to dredge up totally unknown lunatics on the left and to pretend that they are spokespeople for the “left”, while the real spokespeople of the right (as judged by book sales, site hits, links, and mutual promotion) do the same thing.
You people are absolutely revolting. Go ahead…be apologists for people advocating the lynching of supreme court justices (hey, they are not children!). There is no use arguing with y’all, just please keep doing what you are doing. You must think that the average American (people whose votes I’m sure you would love to influence) are really stupid – but guess what? They can hear you real well. They can see exactly the type of people you are. You make it plain on a daily basis. Even wonder why your “movement” is heading in reverse? Why your party is so low in the polls?
It probably isnt so much Bush as much as the vile ugliness of his supporters.
Glenn Greenwald whips himself into foaming frenzy, condemning the right for supposedly not doing something he doesnt do – when he wants them to
I generally refrain from frisking the blogposts of those I disagree with because I dont want to risk beginning a pointless and time-wastingblog war, but Im making an exception this evening. Glenn Greenwald, the poster-child of…
Here’s What I posted at Sistah Toldjah’s. Leftie readers should pay particular attention. The Blog you save may be your own.
- Your first impulse in regard to this equivalency nonsense was the correct one ST. I was there through the whole dispicable process, and believe me there was no “seeking out some obscure leftie blogger”. She came waltzing into Jeffs blog with the worst vindictive comments I think I ever witnessed, and announced proudly that she was there for only one purpose: To be so rotten in her comments that Jeff would have no choice but to ban her, and when he didn’t she just kept escalating the meaness and vileness of the rhetoric for several days running.
- Greenwald, like so many of his gaggle, is simply trying to cover up a very embarrassing situation he has no possible defense for. It’s a total waste of your time. Dr. Demento is headed for worse days if she doesn’t put a cork in it, and anyone on the Left that defends her is going to have a bad time of it too. Her comments have been forwarded to the Portland FBI AIC, exactly as she posted them, as cached on the net, to preclude exactly the sort of damage control lies she is now using to try to rewrite her actions, and gain support from others with.
- Nobody in their right mind would defend someone that willfully threatens, or makes sexual comments about a child. Nobody. I don’t care what your politics are, and childish attempts to deflect with immature excuses like “well look what so and so is doing” is a recipe for disaster. If any Conservative blogger did what she did I would be for shunning them, and any other form of punishment that could be legally meeted out. I don’t give a damn about the politics of an individual that would even think of such a thing. You start attacking children and I’m on your sorry ass like a cheap suit. You lefties listening to this? You think we have political differences, you start using this ploy and a new “angle” and the gloves are off. Thats a promise, and anyone with a brain, Left or Right, or Green or Blue will join me in that, I assure you. So if I were you I’d think very carefully before jumping into this particular fire.
- Unfortunately, some of the Liberal bloggers are young and do not see the possible time bomb they’re holding. Putting your reputation in concert with a person who stridently uses sexual references toward a bloggers child, and makes references to not caring if that child gets “Bonet’d” is in danger of losing all viability as a blogger, and worse. Hopefully, the more mature people around them, if such exist, will advise them to do otherwise, to not only not support and defend such a person, but distance themselves totally from that individual. But if not its their problem, and a waste of time to bother with. There are lines you don’t cross, and some things more important than politics.
Big Bang,
What a load of utter hogwash that was. Do you think that by screaming louder you can obscure reality?
Repeat. No one has defended Frisch. She is as much of a vile creature as you say. Greenwald also said as much, about three times in his article (if my memory serves me).
OK? Got that? Everyone, even eeeeeeeeeevil liberals, agrees with you about vile comments about children.
Happy? Not yet? OK. She is vile. I denounce her. Everyone denounces her.
And yes, she is an obscure nobody.
Now, as for Coulter, Savage, Rottweiler, hanging Supreme Court justices, committing genocide against “ragheads” etc. etc. etc.
You got any denouncing to do?
Tano… don’t be an ass. If the shoe doesn’t fit, take a deep breath and stand back. Don’t give me any shit about this. I personally took the time to shop around to a pretty good sampling of Lefty blogs, just to see what the general trend was, and it wasn’t great, but not all bad. The idiots that are trying to turn this into a political fight know who they are, and know as well I’m directing this at them. If you’re not totally stupid you’ll either join everyone with a working brain cell who are full metal jacket condemning this dispicable crap, or at least be smart enough to get out of the way.
Really shocking. This could be solved in a few seconds: Show us some links of lefty bloggers supporting and lionizing Deb Fritsch. What’s that you say? Oh, I know, you can’t find any such links. They don’t exist. She’s shit, and was never regarded as anything at all by the left. Her one claim to fame – being an asshole on a righty blog.
Meanwhile, Greenwald’s points are valid. Nice doggie Misha is using classic eliminationist rhetoric; it may be hyperbole, but it’s wrong and inappropriate and deep in Riehl’s heart, he knows it (Riehl is a smart guy and I respect him, though a tad less after this post). So instead of playing games and slipping away from glenn’s point and smearing him with everything you’ve got, how about just facing up to the truth, that Misha wrote something wildly inappropriate, something that you’d jump on had a lefty made a similar remark in regard to one of your own. Come on Riehl. Just do it.
Fer chrissakes he points to that as an example of Misha going over the top? That was nothing.
GG should have searched Rottie for what the Emperor dished in the direction of “prominent blogger” and syndicated columnist Debbie Schussel, as much a rightwinger as you can find. That post he took to task was downright tame compared to some of the bombs Misha has thrown across all these years. I think he’s just jealous that Misha has such a high rating in N.Z’s Ecosphere.
Uhm Richard?… She has the messages from those who support her on her own page…
You’ll find them a few items below the “article” where she denigrates those two brave young men whose bodies were desecrated.
Also, there’s a Tucson paper article online… Check out some of the comments for Deb’s like-minded fans that you say don’t exist.
Greenwald is another example of the Blog gravy train of the left.
Greenwald is looking to make a splash and a buck on the left side of blogland in the same way that Kos, Oliver and Co are.
Since Kos et/al have already demonstrated that there is money to be made as a pixel-evangelist the time to get in is now before enough people wise up to it. When blogs on the right link back to post they comment on the left I will click back and read it in context, I don’t bother to do so with Greenwald anymore since he is provoking looking for clicks.
It’s another example of the cult of belief that has become the left side of the blogisphere.
As for the question of Micsh: I generally don’t read his blog anymore specifically because this is normal for him. He always has been over the top and loud, that is and has always been his stick. That stick was funny for about 1 or two posts but it’s not for me. To make a fuss about Micsh is like complaining about Jessica Simpson showing off her body or Ronco trying to sell knifes on TV. It’s what they do and have always done, why are you shocked? He thinks he’s Andrew Dice Clay fine, but when you think of the A list of blogs of the right you think of Malkin, Captain’s Quarters, PowerLine, The Corner, and LGF (at least I do) You don’t think of Micsh. True is has been around a long time so that give him some props but so has Allen Thicke and now he’s hawking “psudo” vegas trips. That being said it is not uncommon for the right side to point out idiocy on DU or Kos so in this case Greenwald’s post is not without a point, under the broken watch theory this was bound to happen sooner or later.
BTW I didn’t include Instapundit on the list above because with the exception of guns and the war he is not really a man of the right. His blog is my home page and my first stop in the morning and evening, but right wing he isn’t. Note to readers, if you consider him right wing you a likely farther to the left than you think.
Dan, I think you’ve got this completely wrong, but it can likely be easily repaired simply by amending your dictionary:
lawyer n. one who is willing to lie in exchange for money.
Pretty much everything aligns if you adopt this definition.
Keep in mind that Greenwald describes himself in terms that he “was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters” so he’s trained in being disingenuous and wrapping things up in so much obsfuscation. Greenwald has shown himself to be devoid of integrity and honor by his own words in his blog. Those in the blog-o-sphere who wish to engage in intelligent discourse whether from the left or the right would be better off avoiding Greenwald and those like him.
Kos is an asshole, in his own words. You can achieve fame (and sometimes fortune) by being a public asshole. This is nothing new. Greenwald is merely doing something he hopes will work for him. It’s hard to say what he really believes, and what’s to keep the wheels greased.
While Kos and other assholes (this is hardly exclusive to the left, BTW) certainly may gain an audience by catering to man’s baser instincts, it’s no way to conduct one’s affairs in the long term. Right now, it’s backfiring on Marcos.
Even when these houses of cards don’t collapse, they are almost always self-limiting. Asshole Al “Tawana” Sharpton will never be president, no matter how many times he runs for office. Asshole Spike “I brake for leftists” Lee is finding himself increasingly indebted to a core “Michael Moore” audience. Although his crowd makes him a pretty fair living, he is obliged to tailor his subjects and storylines to their tastes. His next film is about Katrina. Guess who the villain of the piece will be.
When I think of integrity I think of people like Warren Buffet, who maintained course during the late 90′s, when his investing skills seemed to abandon him and his company’s stock price took a nosedive. He just said, it’s a free country – invest with someone else. In the end, he was vindictaed. Through the worst of it (and it got pretty bad there) you knew who he was.
With Greenwald et al, it’s hard to say “who” they are. They pose as champions of noble causes, of people of integrity and passion, as truthtellers and progressives. Who doesn’t carry at least a little of such self-serving facades around with them? But Marcos, well, we know who he is. He’s a self-proclaimed asshole, and damned proud of it. That, we can take to the bank.
Beth:
“Which reminds me–all this “I’d never heard of her!!!” bullshit misses the point. She’s a f’ing university professor (or was), and shouldn’t be teaching (psychology!)”
Does this qualify under the heading of Physician Heal Thyself?
Tano:
“Point out one person that has defended Frisch. None.”
http://bustardblog.typepad.com/bustardblog/2006/07/yesterday_i_wro.html#comments
Now, this rationalizing weasel will tell you he’s NOT defending Frisch, but he has a handy explanation for everything she said, minimizing it to being *mere* rudeness. Out of line, but *mere* rudeness.
When you say one thing and do another, you’re a hypocrite, and when the something you do effectively defends someone else, then you are — as the words suggest — defending that someone else.
Additionally, there was a Tuscon newspaper which massively downplayed the Frisch comments and magnified a single Goldstein comment by lopping off the bits that were very obviously sarcasm, leaving only what suited the reporter’s [or editor's] taste for sensationalism, thus making it appear as if it were Goldstein who did the real threatening.
You can probably google for it; I no longer have the link.
Needless to say, mischaracterization of the factual record like that has the effect of creating support and defense among the stupid people who don’t really know what’s going on — which is most of them — whether you care to admit it or not.
Sorry bud.
“You must think that the average American … are really stupid”
Most Americans, hell, most PEOPLE, know one or two subjects very very well, enough to make a living at it, they know a handful of subjects well enough to have around as hobbies, but on the millions upon millions of other subjects they are, as you said, stupid. Cretinous. Imbecilic. And frankly most of them know it. But there are a growing number of people out there who’ve heard of, e.g., “the military”, and they’ve seen, e.g., “Saving Private Ryan”, and they then deign to tell people who have been in the military their entire adults lives, or who’ve worked with the military since getting out of college, or both [like me], that everything they’re doing is wrong and they know better. Witness all the armchair generals saying how to do the Iraq war.
Some folks even used to watch “Hogan’s Heroes” which talked about the Geneva Conventions, and so now they also know all there is to know about that, as well. And, well, I’m sure you’ve seen the know-nothings describing how the administration just got a smack-down on Hamdan, and all. Ignoramuses barking at the moon.
But, to briefly recap: yes, most Americans are stupid about most things. Even — shocking as this may be — you.
Big Bang:
“If the shoe doesn’t fit, take a deep breath and stand back. Don’t give me any shit about this.”
Impressive! Not merely a mixed metaphor but mangled.
I’ve got barn shoes that are covered in horse shit, so i could give you shit simply by seeing if the shoe fits you. But you’d have to stand back if you took a deep breath, cuz they reek.
Dogs seem to find them tasty though…
Godfather:
You must have seen the same article I did.
Son of…Link, please! Who are the prominent lefty bloggers standing behind Deb and praising her?
It just seems like less than a week ago that Glenn Greenwald was in CY’s comments section bemoaning the notion of a blogger being called out to post outrage about someone at the request of another.
Oh, yeah, it was less than a week ago.
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/185222.php
I even went there and mocked him because that’s basically all he does…and he follows it up with a post on his site calling for bloggers on the right to display outrage at his selected target.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Hey, Glenn, Zenergle is still awaiting that apology for your charge that he made up an e-mail. Those of us who don’t live in the astrology-based-community won’t forget.
Thank you all. The next time I dismiss another business idea as presuming that the customers are idiots, I will remember all of you. And make millions.
Here’s the Tuscon ‘Citizen’ article:
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/18667.php
richard,
Who are the prominent lefty bloggers standing behind misha’s comments and praising him for them? Sadly no put up a mega-long defense of Frisch by way of attempting to make Goldstein, and not her, to be the actual bad apple in the kerkuffle. One of the resident moonbats at firedoglake did, as well.
Sorry, we’re not falling for the “okay, I’ll say that I don’t condone what she said but…” and then post 1,500 words decrying the right for being the actual wrong in the story as “not defending” routine.
Sorry, first sentence should say “prominent righty bloggers”
So Richard and Tano, would you consider Sadly No and TBogg prominent. I think you would.
Patterico (http://patterico.com/2006/07/10/4854/patterico-descends-into-the-snake-pit-again/#comments) has the story and links of his attempt to talk rationally to Sadly Retarded and what a waste of time that was. Same as talking to you Partisan Cheese.
Oh, and wasn’t it Atrios who said just a few weeks ago that he wants the entire staff of ABCs The Note put up against the wall and shot? Sound somewhat intemperate to me. What no complaints about that one? Yes, off course, the only people allowed to counsel murder are the left. Seems to have been that way in history as well. What is the count so far in Democide 180 Miillion killed off by leftward states(their own people).
I always wondered why Greewald was on the Townhouse list.
In a more sane era of commenting at John Cole’s site, someone asked why Greenwald was on the center right section of the blogroll. Cole answered that where Greenwald asked to be placed.
Now that I read how Greenwald’s book and stuff came to be I understand that Greenwald was intended to be a cutout. Someone that lefty bloggers could point to as a good right leaning libertarian. That was then why he was on the townhouse list. A coordination for talking points. That certainly explains the seemingly synchronous burst of left blog outrage. The coordinated attacks using the same language on Jeff Goldstein. Certainly explains why they were so upset with TNR. He outed their whole classified operation.
We don’t take this fellow on half as often as we should.
He, Digby, Niewart, and John Aravosis, get away with the most excreable screeds against conservatives only because it is so exhausting to debunk their exaggerations, half truths, and in some cases, lies about the right.
Kudos to you for taking him on.
“Before impugning an opponent’s motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments. ”
-Sidney Hook
———————
Dan’s entire post is nothing but an ad hominem on Greenwald, except for his appalling defense of Misha’s eliminationist, homicidal rhetoric as “hyperbole.” I don’t care what adjective is employed to describe Misha’s vile commentary about ropes and trees vis-a-vis both Supreme Court justices and journalists, it is repulsive, and the right would be in a foaming frenzy if a popular left-wing blogger spewed out such filth.
Greenwald may be wordy, but his points in that post are stinging for their truth. Truth that Dan does not grapple with.
Greewald would have had a stronger if he wasn’t linking to accusations of his own prominent lunatic fringe (at Digby) taking up the case that Limbaugh (love em or hate em) was a pedophile (http://qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4220).
I think the agreement was throughtly answered and Greenwald was properly trounced for the cad he is.
Mona, you are ridiculous. I will say some thing here that I won’t on QandO because of my respect for Jon and McQ wanting to keep you as their pet leftie.
Jeff G was right when he called you Greenwald’s intellectual concubine. Do you hunt down every anti greenwald post on the net and slavishly defend no matter what crap he serves out. As you do on QandO and used to on Protein Wisdom before he got laughed off.
I note you still haven’t responded to Lance (on QandO) to his massive eviserating (boy that was a big can of intellectual whup as) of your core arguments.
Dan, sorry if I am out of line here. No sure what the boundaries are. Appologies if I am taking liberties.
Lord of the Dunce
Poor Glenn Greenwald. He tries hard. He really, really does. But no matter how he tries to rationalize it, hyperbole against public figures does not come close to equating to terroristic threats uttered against children. Nevertheless, Greenwald, tries …
“Dan’s entire post is nothing but an ad hominem on Greenwald”
Point of order:
In order to truly qualify as ad hominem it has to be irrelevant to the subject and unwarranted.
Simply calling someone an ignoramus isn’t ad hominem if he doesn’t know the subject he’s babbling upon, e.g.
Since the subject [seems to be] this “Greenwald’s” character, discussing his character is not irrelevent to the subject of his character; and holding positions that suggest his character is less than sterling — and daring to say so — is therefore not unwarranted.
It may very well be slanderous if notoriously untrue, but it’s not ad hominem.
Dan,
You really need to think things through a little better before you post. Do you really not understand the difference between condemning speech as reprehensible and believing that it is a crime? Greenwald wasn’t saying that Misha shouldn’t be allowed to say idiotic things. He was saying people should condemn him for being a nutjob. I’m sure Greenwald would gladly defend Misha’s right under the First Amendment to say idiotic hateful things, just like he did with Hale. If you thought about this for more than 5 seconds, you’ll see that there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in holding those two positions.
As for your impugning of Glenn’s credentials, it just shows how little you know about the legal world. Glenn worked for the top law firm in the country. He’s an incredibly bright, accomplished lawyer.
And he gets a lot of traffic (and the attention of liberal bloggers) because he’s a really good writer. The idea that he’s some “contruction” of the liberal blogosphere is just about the stupidest statement I’ve ever read. For a blogger, you don’t seem to have much of a clue how this whole blogosphere thing works.
So, not one rightwinger in this comment section is going to condemn the statement concerning stringing up Supreme Court Justices? Is that the answer?
Interesting that you attack Greenwald for writing a book, and Working Assets for publishing it. Oh, and gasp! Imagine bloggers supporting a book they found to be relevant! Last I knew, plenty of new conservative voices were getting published by multi-million dollar companies. I approached Glenn about writing a book, because I found his blog to be a place visited by both liberals and true conservatives (not toe-licking obedients), and his arguments about President Bush’s reliance on radical theories of executive power were, at the time, unique and on-the-mark. Back in January, mainstream media were not speaking about unitary executive power or connecting the dots for the American people, so we put out a book that did just that. Burns you up, that we found the money to publish a book? Rather, I think it burns you up that this message got out, and is resonating with the American public more every day. I am astounded by the hypocrisy that people such as yourself show at every turn. Use your brain, sir, if you’ve got one left after all the toe-licking you’ve been doing to curry the favor of the authoritarians-in-charge. Good luck to you.
Glenn worked for the top law firm in the country
Really? There are ranking and he worked the very best? Or you are just uisng your creative license to make stuff up? Tell us what firm and the circumstances of his departure? Did he make partner and leave? Why is his NY license not current? Or if you dont know just say so, but it will give us the context of your spirited defense and maybe exactly what you know about the “legal world”.
Did he threaten to molest/murder the 2-year old children anyone?
What is Karl Rove thinking in hiring Greenwald as his secret agent to make leftists look so stupid?
Greenwald = NEOCON COINTELPRO AGENT
Palooza, guess you haven’t been paying attention
So, not one rightwinger in this comment section is going to condemn the statement concerning stringing up Supreme Court Justices?
Is that the answer?
So how about an equal condemnation for Atrios wanting death to the ABC the note staff. You answer that one and I awill answer your question. I know exactly what allusion Atrios was aiming for.
And Jennifer, toe licking is what the townhouse list is for. Dan is pointing out that the whole Greenwald situation is a scam. Greenwald was propped up by Kos, Armstrong and the corporate side of the far left political machine (Move on types) to pretend to be a rational voice in the center. Funny thing is, after the TNR article, we all know who is pulling the strings on that puppet. Dance monkey, dance…
I believe I read somewhere that Greenwald worked for Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Any law student will tell you that Wachtell is widely regarded as the most prestigious firm in the country. For rankings of firms, go to http://www.vault.com.
“The idea that he’s some “contruction” of the liberal blogosphere is just about the stupidest statement I’ve ever read.”
Not enough time has passed since kos’s “let’s let this story starve of oxygen” e-mail to townhouse (which his minions summarily heeded with few exceptions) for any of us to read that statement with a straight face. The ‘construction’ sometimes consists of payola, sometimes a bit of astrology and a whole lot of kinsmanship, and in this case it apparently consists of being propped up.
No wonder Greenwald’s one-trick-pony act gets so much attention from the townhouse gang – it’s all part of the setup.
Faggots. Flames. Bloggers. (Some context required)
Glenn Greenwald thinks the Deb Frisch debate (discussed infra) really ought to be about Misha, for saying the following: Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required. This is at least as old as the T shirt. Well, let’s…
So, not one rightwinger in this comment section is going to condemn the statement concerning stringing up Supreme Court Justices?
Is that the answer?
Interesting that you attack Greenwald for writing a book, and Working Assets for publishing it.
Hi Jennifer – I think it’s absolutely fine that the book was done. All I pointed out was the concerted effort to make it appear to be a quick success. From a business perspective, what you’ve done is first rate. But, here’s a tip for your next title – Patriotic Americans already know how to act, they don’t require an out of work lawyer to tell them how. Why am I not surprised that would be lost on the Left? Imagine that! ; ))
First, I think Greenwald’s arguments have been answered a number of times in a number of places. Is Misha’s commentary obnoxious? Well, yes. Does talking about stringing up Supreme Court Justices compare to threatening a child’s health and well-being?
No.
Stop. No. It doesn’t.
To give you an example that may or may not make sense to you, the 2nd Amendment is an implicit license to kill your government, should no other plausible avenue exist to reform it. SCOTUS is part of the government. It’s a pretty simple equation. The Bill of Rights exist as a check on government power. The second of those rights is the right to own a weapon. Do the math. That right to own a weapon doesn’t exist to kill little kids. Ergo, one of these comments is not like the other.
Now, back to Misha’s comment. There’s a lot of that going on. The left has constantly said the same kinds of things re: Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice. It’s pretty mainstream, actually. Does that excuse Misha? No. He does go over the top on this stuff, and it is meant to be both ranting and venting on his part.
Let’s just take an aside to Misha’s post. Because I believe, as should be obvious, “…that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it… ”
Sometimes you’ve got to do some shootin’ and lynchin’. Misha’s point, as far as I can tell, is that 5 members of SCOTUS seem to be oblivious to the world around them, that they want to hamstring America by trying to grant Geneva Convention rights to people who clearly have no respect for those rights, and do not care to share those rights with their own captives. Misha has a very good point. We hear endless moaning about protecting the “rights” of Guantanamo detainees – people who were often caught in violation of Geneva Convention safeguards, which should nullify their Geneva Convention rights – but we do not hear the same kind of rage directed at the kinds of people who cut off the heads of American soldiers. Well, other than to blame Bush instead of the guy holding the knife. The depraved are unconvinced of the superiority of a pacifist or docile position. After all, they force their women into that position for their entire lives.
Misha sees the SCOTUS as objectively assisting the enemy here, and that implies a loss of life to people who are better men than what sits on the SCOTUS. I tend to agree. Does that mean I want them hanged? Not quite yet. Your mileage may vary.
But what is not at variance is how this possibly equates to Frisch’s comments regarding Goldstein’s child. Let me repeat: child. I seem to recall the left always doing things (well, other than THAT thing) for “the children.”
Since Frisch’s comments are worse in nature than Misha’s, you’re unlikely to get the same response from any calm, sane person regarding the two comments. Killing, alas, does not always carry the same moral weight. That should be pretty obvious. Some people deserve some killin’. (And isn’t that, really, the point behind all the “Bush = Hitler” signs you see in the hands of literally thousands of lefties?)
I like Misha. Haven’t read him in a year or two, but if you read Misha’s not-so-angry posts, you’ll realize he’s pretty level headed. It was probably hyperbole. And it’s hyperbole that is very, very common.
People forget how blogs cross a threshold between private conversation and public display. That includes the bloggers who make out-of-hand comments. Anyone with any honesty will admit to having said in private, “I think X should be strung up.” Given the kinds of protest signs that commonly appear at left-wing rallies, I would think that prediliction is obvious. The problem is the personal nature of the blogosphere allows those comments to get flung out for a few billion people to see. That doesn’t excuse it, but it does shed a little light on it.
I think I have just answered Greenwald’s argument. Now to his motives and Dan’s post. Dan isn’t making any less of an ad hominem than anybody else who says, “well, you’re not criticising Ann Coulter.” In fact, Dan is pointing out that in a professional context, Greenwald has made exactly the counter-argument, that hyperbole isn’t meant to be taken seriously. That’s not just people forgetting that the Internet is not a half-drunk conversation over a poker table. Greenwald made it in a legal setting.
Dan is further pointing out that Greenwald’s prominence is undeserved. I see Dan’s arguments as purposely related and necessarily so, but not dependent. Dan is not saying, “Greenwald is a hack (which he is). Therefore we should ignore his question.” Dan isn’t equating Misha’s comments with Frisch’s as Greenwald (and apparently some commenters) seem to be doing. Dan isn’t defending Misha’s comment. He’s dismissing it as hyperbole and moving on to something he feels is more important.
If anything, Dan is defending Misha’s right to make the comment. Something that can’t so much be said for threatening a child per Frisch. What Dan is pointing out, I think, is that for Greenwald to equate Frisch with Misha is appalling, considering Greenwald previously – in a legal setting – defended somebody who said something very similar to what Misha said.
And Mona, if you don’t think rhetroic like that comes oozing out of the left, perhaps you haven’t met Markos “Screw ‘em” Moulitsas.
As to Coulter, Hannity, etc., Well, you’ve got Franken, Moore, etc., Again, there’s a lot of it going round. Does that excuse it? No. Coulter’s comments, particularly the one re: Sept.11 Wives, have drawn quite a bit of fire from the right. As has her defense of Joe McCarthy. (David Horowitz pinged her for that.) If you don’t believe it check around. Point of fact, I think Goldstein made a comment about it. I’m certain Ace did.
HOWEVER, what you don’t see on the right are truly prominent people in “responsible” positions like the DNC guy who said Rumseld should be put against a wall and someone should, “PULL, PULL, PULL.” Or when guys like Murtha and Biden keep insinuating that Bush is a greater evil than Hussein or the Jihadis. That’s taking vile and irresponsible to a new level. And as I recall, that didn’t get a lot of coverage on the left of the blogosphere or the “trusted” MSM. I may be wrong about the blogosphere.
I believe I read somewhere that Greenwald worked for Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Any law student will tell you that Wachtell is widely regarded as the most prestigious firm in the country. For rankings of firms, go to http://www.vault.com.
Did you just type ” I believe I read somewhere”? So now you are not sure who he worked for and dont have an immediate source? What about the progress of his career at whatever firm he was at? Did he make partner, which is a significnat milestone at any firm. Or two years and asked to leave?
I went to vault.com and found no rankings. I have to admit its a big site but the rankings were not obvious. How about a link? Or maybe they aren’t there. If not you still got your statment about any law student. It aint much but hey, you did trot it out, so if thats your story stick to it.
What Grayson said, especially about the 2nd Amendment. The whole point that was listed next was to allow the citizenry to blow away any government that tried to shut down the First, Third, Fourth….
“Dance monkey, dance…”
Jeez, I’m gonna use that line at least twenty times before the sun goes down.
Condemn This!
Patterico and Amy Ridenour are worked up about Glenn Greenwald’s post noting that right wing bloggers “have not said a word of condemnation about these death calls from a prominent blogger
Greenwald’s wikipedia entry mentions his past employment at Wachtell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
Here’s the link to the Vault prestige rankings:
http://www.vault.com/nr/lawrankings.jsp?law2006=2&ch_id=242&top100=1
For the record, it is VERY hard to get a job at Wachtell. You have to graduate at the very top of your class at one of the nation’s top law schools.
Mr Maxwell, if you’re trying to be a pedantic, contrarian asshole, you’re succeeding.
Law firms are “rated” by almost everyone associated with law, and there are, almost literally, hundreds of different criteria for such rankings.
Billable hours, “reputation”, winning percentage, etcetera. And what’s more, most of those rankings will get you those rankings by location, and by legal specialty.
West’s Law has rankings. The Chamber of Commerce. The ABA. et freakin cetera.
I just googled for “law firm ranking” and found out that “Morrison & Foerster Ranks Sixth in The American Lawyer’s A-List of Top 20 Law Firms”. Wow. I didn’t know that until JUST NOW.
Morrison and Foerster … “mofo” … cool:
http://www.mofo.com/
But I’m sure you can find somebody else’s ranking of “mofo” [hahahahahahaha] and find that they’re “really” 18th.
Stop being a putz, please.
Mr Maxwell:
“I went to vault.com and found no rankings.”
On the left hand side of vault.com is a coded button under “hot links”; it was probably indecipherable to you since it was written in legalese. It says: “Top 100 Firm Guide”. It is the third button down.
“I have to admit its a big site but the rankings were not obvious.”
Once you click on the top hundred button you get to a page that has more legal garbledygook on it. It’s entitled “Top 100 Law Firms, 2006 Rankings”.
Then it has a big, bold-faced heading in more gibberish, saying “Prestige Rankings” with a ling titled “Top 100 Law Prestige rankings” immediately below it.
“How about a link?”
And when you click on this hard-to-find link, you get to:
http://www.vault.com/nr/lawrankings.jsp?law2006=2&ch_id=242&top100=1
which lists Wachtell at #1.
I can see how you were confused. It took me all of 35 seconds to find it.
[sorry Mike, I was on a roll and just wanted to rub a face in dumbness. I saw your link to the same spot.]
You folks can go on and on about the “presitge” rankings of law firms, but in Manhattan, the top dog is Weitz & Luxenberg.
They got the NY State Assembly squarely in their pocket. Who needs billable hours or other somesuch when you can control what laws get put on the books?
For the record, it is VERY hard to get a job at Wachtell.
Probably even more difficult to keep it, just sayin. I have no idea what his circumstances are or were. But I will say I have met very few scholars, or successful litigators who decided to give up either pursuit for blogging. Generally people who truly excel in their field like to remind there for a while.
Well thanks for the links. It does appear that he worked at Wachtell for a couple of years per Wiki. And at least somebody does think of Wachtell as #1. So my skepticism was not warranted. We dont appear to know why he left the firm.He idd stay in law,as he started a law firm. What is the ranking of the firm he started? I could not find it in the list. It starts with Greenwald in the name ( per Wiki).
But that was your jumping off point to say that someone here did not know anything about law or blogging. I would say we know that Glenn did not last long at this prestigious firm. Why? We dont know. But it might be relevant to response to this poster.
I have in the past read exchanges with Tom Maguirre and Glenn Greenwald. Eviserated is the word that comes to mind.
Can you point to Greenwald’s post demanding those who threatened to kill Mr Bush, be brought to the attention of law enfrocement?
Typepad is melting comments away on their blogs – no idea if they’ll return. Fifty or so are gone from this post now. Hopefully they are republishing. But comment at your own risk for now.
Memo
From: Karl “Ace of Spades” Rove To: The Dextrosphere Re: Your apparent mental retardation Stop linking the foaming, insipid Glenn Greenwald. For the love of Satan, the man only needs to say “I like cock” and every one of you…
Lord of the Dunce
Poor Glenn Greenwald. He tries hard. He really, really does. But no matter how he tries to rationalize it, hyperbole against public figures does not come close to equating to terroristic threats uttered against children. Nevertheless, Greenwald, tries …
Shooting Frisch in a Barrel
Deb Frisch learned the hard way that sometimes the virtual hunter can become the prey when the conservative bloggers sighted her in their crosshairs.
Yikes! We Call Blogospheric Time Out
For nearly three years now the half-vast editorial staff have watched blogospheric dustups with growing bemusement and what we can only describe as helpless frustration. Though we had better reason than many to Pile On to the last Deb…
The whole Greenwald phenomenon is puzzling, isn’t it? He shot to internet stardom based on his “Bush Cultist” meme, which the left just ate up. The meme, of course, was discredited before he even proposed it by conservative opposition to Harriet Miers, and after by the Dubai ports deal and Bush’s soft-on-immigration approach. Greenwald just has a lousy track record as a pundit, yet lefty blogs keep on lapping his stuff up. Given the star system on the left blogosphere in which everyone surrounds and defends a few top bloggers (Kos, Duncan Black, and now Greenwald), that side seems to be much more cultish than the right.
What’s heartening, though, is that a few dissenting liberal blogs are now criticizing this blog culture.
- Apparently the great Kossak leader Kos has sent down the marching orders to his prolitariat hoards that Progressive Marxist policy for the “Frisch affair” will be handled as follows:
a) It’s ok to issue a soft repudiation along the lines of “she shouldn’t do that” on Frisch’s comments.
b) It is however, a requirement to adamently tie any statements of mild dissaproval to the usual torrent of Left talking points, and political equivalency, working in the usual “Coulterism’s, Rush’s sex life, and any other bitchy red herring’s that can be managed. Slipping the words Zionist Neocon warmongers, Isreal, and oil into your comments would be good too”.
c) One good approach is to simply deny that you’ve ever heard of this woman, covering your eyes, and holding your hands over your ears, singing lalalalalala, if any Rethuglican’s try to actually exercise their free speech rights, which all good Kommrads know, were only invented for us. Use the Constitution as often as possible against the riechwing-nuts. Its your patriotic doodie.”
Your Fearless Leader: Kos Moulitosis
Weekend Doucheblogging
Others wiser than I have cautioned, Never wrestle with a douche, it will waste your time, annoy the douche, and leave you feeling disturbingly fresh. But Im less wise than they are, by definition, so here goes.
…
Lost freedom?
Is there anybody who voted against the Commander-in-Chief who can remain free? So asks Glenn Greenwald in his latest post. Anybody? I’m thinking it over. I’m thinking it over! The problem is, absent some sort of coup, Bush only has…
Lost freedom?
Is there anybody who voted against the Commander-in-Chief who can remain free? So asks Glenn Greenwald. Anybody? I’m thinking it over. I’m thinking it over! The problem is, absent some sort of coup, Bush only has a couple of years…
Big Bang Hunter,
Are you really that stupid or do you just play an idiot in the blogosphere?
Frisch was an unknown blogger who said some dumb things and paid a high price for it. Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh and the rest are much higher profile swine who get on national TV and make their vile comments and are usually not challenged for those comments.
To play like conservatives aren’t allowed to voice their opinions in the public forum is to be a fool or a liar.
Both liberals and conservative bloggers and pundits attack each other all the time. One of your people suggests we should hang Supreme Court Justices, then the libs make a stink out of it. One of our people makes creepy comments about another blogger’s kid, then your people make some hay out of it. THat’s how it works. Stop whining about not being allowed to respond.
By the way, there is a lot more talk from the right about hanging/executing/eliminating liberals and other internal enemies than there is from the left.
Funny, that I keep reading Greenwald saying Frisch was “an unknown”. Until tonight, I had never heard of Firsh, never heard of Greenwald, never heard of Riehl, never heard of most of the bloggers involved in this whole controversy.
I hate to say it, but bloggers remind me of acadmeics. “I am the preeminent authority on the works of Rigoberta Menchu” [actually, work... or ghost-written work, but you get the point] may impress three people in the world, but “I run the 672nd rated blog in Virginia” is no more impressive.
Anyway, a take from someone outside the “blogosphere” (hate that word): The idiot Frisch should have been sacked, as a professor should be held to the ethical standards we expect of your average middle school student. If I had said what she did when I was 6 my parents would have smacked me, so why should an “educated professional” be let off the hook for this.
As far the hypothetical lynching of Justices, I think anyone not currently sniffing glue can see it for a bit of (perhaps tasteless) over the top rhetoric, and can see Greenwald’s hyperventilation as a bit of partisan melodrama masquerading as offense.
Anyway, sorry about my generally dismissive view of bloggers, but I still think blogging is right up there with myspace networking and speed dating as “important” activities of the twenty-aughts that will join the counter-culture of the 60′s and “whip inflation now” as things seen as important at one time, and destined to become the butt of many a future joke.
Sorry guys, you may be on the (self-described and self-asserted) cutting edge of society, but that doesn’t mean you’re relevant to the vast majority of us.