Over the last few days, Jason Zengerle of The New Republic has been engaged in a bizarre crusade to depict "liberal bloggers" as a bunch of mindless, obedient zombies who take orders about what to write from Markos Moulitsas, all in order to ensure that they can continue to enjoy the great financial wealth lavished upon them by virtue of their participation in the "Advertise Liberally" network, which Markos founded but does not operate. To prove this "point," Zengerle published what he purported to be various e-mails regarding recent accusations against Jerome Armstrong, which Zengerle claimed were sent to the "Townhouse" Google group -- comprised of 300 or so journalists, political operatives, bloggers, advocacy organizations, and others designed to facilitate communication between these usually isolated groups. To the extent the "substance" of Zengerle's accusations are worth responding to, Ezra Klein and Max Sawicky (among many) have done so quite thoroughly, respectively here and here.
But in spinning his laughable conspiracy, Zengerle published -- based on what Zengerle said was "three sources" -- what appears to be a completely fabricated e-mail, which Zengerle falsely claimed was sent to the "Townhouse" list by blogger Steve Gilliard. Yesterday, Zengerle wrote:
At the risk of engendering more charges that I'm violating the off-the-record nature of "Townhouse" (which, by the way, I'm not, since I am not a member of "Townhouse" and therefore am not bound by any off-the-record agreements, in the same way that any reporter who's leaked "confidential" documents is not bound to protect their confidentiality), let me reprint some of the e-mails that were going to the "Townhouse" list, according to three sources, before Kos sent out the e-mail I quoted in my original post on this topic. . . .
Also on the same day [June 18], the blogger Steve Gilliard wrote to the "Townhouse" list:
I dont see how this can be ignored. We should all write in defense of this once we know the facts. Jerome?
That e-mail is completely fictitious. Gilliard never sent any such thing to the Townhouse list, nor did anyone else do so. Nor, according to Gilliard, did he ever write any such e-mail at all, to Townhouse or anyone else. Zengerle caused The New Republic to print a completely fabricated e-mail and then falsely attribute it as one Gilliard sent to the Townhouse list. How and why did that happen?
What makes this all the more disturbing is Zengerle's claim that he was "re-print[ing] some of the e-mails that were going to the 'Townhouse' list, according to three sources . . . " It is difficult to see how Zengerle's claim about his sources could be true, to put it generously. It is highly unlikely (to put it mildly) that three different sources would send Zengerle the same fabricated e-mail and falsely tell him that it was sent by Gilliard to the Townhouse list. And it is equally unlikely that three different sources would confirm that Gilliard sent an e-mail that he, in fact, simply never sent.
Zengerle owes his readers and The New Republic an explanation, and soon. Did Zengerle really have three sources for these e-mails (as he claimed), or did he simply receive things from an anonymous source and then blindly rely on the veracity of what he was sent, only to claim that it was from "three sources" in order (a la Jason Leopold) to enhance the credibility of his claims? Or, a la Stephen Glass, did Zengerle simply fabricate e-mails in order to bolster his "story"?
It is one thing for a journalist to make a mistake; like everyone, they all do that at some point. But to expressly lie about your sources in order to make your assertions seem more substantial is as serious a journalistic breach as can be committed. Is this what Zengerle did?
In the wake of Yearly Kos, the profile of both Markos Moulitsas specifically and the "liberal blogosphere" generally has been raised significantly. Whereas old, obsolete opinion-makers like The New Republic, Joe Klein and David Broder first attempted to ignore the blogosphere, and then belittle it, they are now forced to accept that its influence and credibility are growing and are rendering them obsolete and irrelevant. And, unsurprisingly, they are quite unhappy about it, feel threatened by it, and are searching for ways to attack back.
That's all fair enough, and to be expected. If one believes (as I do) that the influence of the blogosphere is growing and that it is supplanting the stagnant, soul-less pundits of the mainstream media, it is only natural that those pundits who are being swept away will feel hostility and resentment. It used to be that writing for The New Republic brought prestige and influence. Now, thanks in large part to the growth of the vibrant and novel voices in the blogosphere, writing for The New Republic is a ticket to irrelevance, if not widespread mockery. As a result, people like Zengerle -- who believe that, as "journalists," they are superior to the unwashed blogging masses -- resent the blogosphere and want to do what they can to destroy its credibility. None of that is surprising or all that notable.
But in this case, did Zengerle's pretentious and obviously intense resentment of bloggers -- which I wrote about long ago -- lead him to make false claims about his sources? We know that Zengerle purported to print an e-mail from Gilliard to the Townhouse list which is a fake. The question now, for Zengerle, is why he did that. There were widespread calls for Jason Leopold to disclose his sources once his "sources" led him to print false claims that Karl Rove has been indicted. Shouldn't that same standard be applied to Zengerle?
UPDATE: To clarify the basis for my statement that the e-mail quoted by Zengerle was not one that was sent to the Townhouse list: When I read Zengerle's post (for the first time today), I recognized the other two e-mails to the Townhouse list which were quoted in Zengerle's post (one from Mike Stark and one from me), but did not remember -- at all -- the one attributed to Gilliard. Since I participated in that discussion, I was quite attentive to it, and would have remembered that Gilliard e-mail if it had been sent.
I then checked my in-box (which retains all e-mail received) and there was no such e-mail from Gilliard (I would have received it if, as Zengerle claimed, Gilliard sent it to the Townhouse list). I then sent e-mails asking whether anyone else had received such an e-mail, and multiple individuals (who are on the Townhouse list) confirmed that they also never received any such e-mail. Gilliard then confirmed by e-mail that he did not send such an e-mail.
It is beyond dispute that -- contrary to Zengerle's allegedly three-sourced assertion -- no such e-mail was written by Gilliard to the Townhouse list. It is a fake. The question, then, is whether Zengerle was telling the truth about the "three sources" who supposedly provided Zengerle with this fake e-mail.
UPDATE II: There are several recurring questions/objections/comments in the Comment section in response to this post, which I reply to here.
UPDATE III: Well after I posted this, Steve Gilliard wrote a post about this topic in which he said this:
Only problem: I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn't send any e-mail with that phrase at all.
That is about as definitive as it gets. Gilliard has no e-mail at all -- to Townhouse or anyone else -- with the phrases quoted by Zengarle, which is exactly what I said he said in this post. Nonetheless, in an excess of caution, Gilliard goes on to say this:
To be fair, I told Glenn I disagreed with the characterization of it being false, because I may have express (sic) some kind of sentiment close to that.
Steve told me he disagreed with my characterization that the e-mail was "false" in an e-mail long after this post was posted, which is fair enough, but I disagree with Steve's view. If -- as Gilliard says -- he never sent an e-mail as quoted by Zengarle, then the e-mail printed by Zengarle is a fake, regardless if Gilliard expressed similar sentiments elsewhere (and he has no record of doing so). Gilliard can say that he is unwilling based on these facts to accuse Zengarle of printing a fake e-mail, but I am not so unwilling, because everyone acknowledges -- and it is beyond dispute -- that Gilliard sent no such e-mail to Townhouse , which is what Zengarle claimed. Moreover, Gilliard himself says he did a comprehensive search of his e-mails and found no such e-mail to anyone.
Nonetheless, certain bloggers are intent on distorting the meaning of Gilliard's post to depict it as somehow being in conflict with what I wrote. It is nothing of the sort. Gilliard confirms the two facts I stated in this post: thbat (1) he never sent any e-mail quoted by Zengarle to the Townhouse list, and (2) he searched his e-mail and has no record of sending such an e-mail to anyone. That is precisely what I said.
And, e-mails sent to me by Gilliard prior to my posting this post (which Gilliard discussed and characterized in his post and I therefore feel comfortable re-prtinting) confirm that Gilliard's e-mails to me prior to this post confirm everything I wrote. Following are (relevant excerpts of) three separate e-mails sent to me by Gilliard prior to my posting this, all sent on Friday:
___________
EMAIL # 1:
____________
I can't find any such words for June 18 either.
I sent three e-mails to townhouse on that day and NONE of them have those words. At least, he's innacurate about his sourcing.
E-MAIL # 2:
____________
I just checked my name and Jerome Armstrong with gmail searchand I said nothing
about him on the 18th at ALL. So where do we go from here?
EMAIL # 3:
________
I can't find anything for that on the 18th or 19th at all. I do not find any e-mail using that phrase referring to Jerome Armstrong in June 2006, until this e-mail [the one I wrote in which I re-printed Zengarle's post].
Gilliard's e-mails were as clear as they could be. He stated definitively that he never sent any such email to Townhouse (a fact which is proven independent of Gilliard by the fact that no such e-mail was ever received by the Townhouse list), and he stated further that he did a search of all of his e-mail for June, 2006 and there was no such e-mail to anyone.
Let me be as clear as I can be. I re-iterate my statement that the e-mail printed by Zengerle is fake. Scores of individuals on the Townhouse list have confirmed that Gilliard never sent any such e-mail to Townhouse, and Gilliard has said the same thing. He also says he has no record of sending such an e-mail to anyone. Contrary to the claim of Zengarle or his "three sources," it was never sent by Gilliard to the Townhouse list. Thus, what Zengarle reported -- allegedly based on three sources -- is indisptuably false.
The e-mail was simply fabricated by either Zengarle or his sources. Zengarle can esaily prove that the e-mail is authentic. So far, he has been silent. He will either produce the authentic e-mail or retract what he wrote and explain why he printed a fake e-mail. There's no need to keep speculating. We ought to have the answer from Zengarle soon enough. I hope it will be sooner rather than later.
UPDATE IV: In light of the difficulty (most of it intentional) which some are having in understanding the relevance and implications of Zengarle's publishing a fake e-mail, I highly recommend this post from Lindsay Beyerstein, who spells it all out as clearly as can be.
And, as I have said multiple times, all of this speculation is really unnecessary, since Jason Zengarle will (presumably) soon respond to these accusations and let us all know whether the e-mail is fake or not. I not only look very forward to that moment, but also to what I'm certain will be the candid and straightfoward acknowledgments of error by those bloggers and commenters who spent the day giddily claiming that the e-mail was authentic and/or that no basis existed for the claim that it was false. In case it slips their minds, I'll be sure to remind them.
I guess you are in favor of Jason Lepold apologizing for the fabricated, but multiply sourced Rove indictment story as well then? Or is you real issue with Zenerle the fact that has lead to the implication that leftist bloggers are all KOS cultists?
ReplyDeleteI apologize for mis-spelling of Zengerle's last name.
ReplyDeleteFrom time to time I think that energy devoted to condemning the "soulless," "corrupt," etc., etc., commentators of the mainstream media might be more helpfully devoted to fundraising.
ReplyDeleteI guess you are in favor of Jason Lepold apologizing for the fabricated, but multiply sourced Rove indictment story as well then?
ReplyDeleteOf course. Who isn't?
Or is you real issue with Zenerle the fact that has lead to the implication that leftist bloggers are all KOS cultists?
In case you didn't notice, I didn't write about that topic, even though one of his posts included a reference to something I wrote, because the notion that liberal bloggers write what Kos tells them too is, in my view, too stupid to merit a response.
But what does merit examiniation is why this "journalist" published a fake e-mail in TNR in order to advance his anti-blogger crusade, and how it could possibly be the case that he was telling the truth that the e-mail camse from "three sources." I can't imagine anyone not thinking that those questions need to be answered.
Wow, the Zengerle Standard of Evidence is even lower than I thought.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the link to the archived post at the end regarding Zengerle is coming up as forbidden.
I'm sorry, but how do you even need a "source" for an email when it comes to discovering its validity? If you have the actual email, as a technical matter it should be a trivial exercise to determine its authenticity. Even as a printout, you'd have the header info.
ReplyDeleteIf three people just gave Zengerle text purportedly from Gilliard without a header, that would be a bit odd...
Has Gilliard confirmed this:
ReplyDeleteThat e-mail is completely fictitious. Gilliard never sent any such thing to the Townhouse list, nor did anyone else do so. Nor, according to Gilliard, did he ever write any such e-mail at all, to Townhouse or anyone else.
I checked Gilliard's site and didn't see anything
Maybe he can produce a cool fake website to show that the email is real.
ReplyDeleteWhy would he make up an email? It's not like Steven Gilliard isn't going to find out what was said and deny it, which would rather limit the value of the deception (to put it mildly). The most logical explanation is that he was played for a dupe.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but Zengerle's obviously right. I myself have not only not blogged on the Armstrong thing, I'm not even exactly sure what it is. And my blog doesn't even have advertisements. Thus is the power of the dreaded Kos.
ReplyDeleteAs for this newest development, I suspect that Jason got played, with his worst offense being journalistic negligence, rather than any sinister plot he created. And I haven't even read any of this, but is it possible that it's a different Gilliard? That's the reason why pseudonyms are necessary; not that I’d ever use one myself.
Has Gilliard confirmed this:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, independent of Gilliard, anyone on the Townhouse list can confirm that (and they have) that no such e-mail was sent to that list - by Gilliard or anyone else. And yes, Steve also confirmed it via e-mail that he did not write that e-mail.
If you have the actual email, as a technical matter it should be a trivial exercise to determine its authenticity. Even as a printout, you'd have the header info.
Great - then as Atrios just wrote, if Zengerle has the actual e-mail with proper headers, he can produce it and I will owe him a huge apology. That won't happen, though, because Gilliard never wrote or sent this e-mail.
And I believe that Zengerle said he had 3 sources who sent the e-mail to (a) bolster his credibility and (b) make it seem as though multiple people on the Townhouse list were working with him. Either way, it is extremely difficult to believe that 3 independent sources confirmed a fake e-mail. Only Zengerle can explain how that happened.
Why would he make up an email? It's not like Steven Gilliard isn't going to find out what was said and deny it, which would rather limit the value of the deception (to put it mildly). The most logical explanation is that he was played for a dupe.
Perhaps it's true that some "source" sent Zengerle a fake e-mail, which is why I said that, to me, the issue seems to be that Zengerle looks to have lied about his sources (claiming he had "three sources" for the e-mails), rather than that he simply made up the e-mail himself. But these are all questions at this point. I don't know the answers. Only Zengerle does.
Has anyone emailed this post to Zengerle?
ReplyDeleteSomeone with a daily kos account should cross-post this as a diary on daily kos.
If you have the actual email, as a technical matter it should be a trivial exercise to determine its authenticity. Even as a printout, you'd have the header info.
ReplyDeleteGreat - then as Atrios just wrote, if Zengerle has the actual e-mail with proper headers, he can produce it and I will owe him a huge apology. That won't happen, though, because Gilliard never wrote or sent this e-mail.
I'm not sure that would really prove anything. If I was able to obtain an e-mail from Gilliard, I could copy and paste the header info on top of the fake text and then claim it was all one e-mail.
I do find the "three sources" claim interesting, since if it *is* true, then this speaks of a coordinated effort, i.e., a Rovian ratfuck. I actually hope that's what it is, because that would mean they're really really scared of Kos and the Kososphere, er, blogosphere.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteHas anyone emailed this post to Zengerle?
Someone with a daily kos account should cross-post this as a diary on daily kos.
As soon as Kos tells us to we... oops!
If there's one thing this has taught us, it's that you should never, *ever* hire a reporter named Jason, or any variation thereof.
ReplyDeleteEli said...
ReplyDeleteIf there's one thing this has taught us, it's that you should never, *ever* hire a reporter named Jason, or any variation thereof.
I thought Jason Robards was excellent as Ben Bradlee.
At 76, Broder is inherently obsolescent, and likely well aware of that. Otherwise, right on.
ReplyDeleteFrom: thenewrepublic@palmcoastd.com
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. XXXX,
We have cancelled your subscription as you requested. Please disregard any future invoices. You may receive one or two more issues; please keep them with our compliments.
Sincerely,
Stevie Navarro
Customer Service
Anyone remember that office of disinformation the Pentagon came up with, then pretended to scrap but really didn't?
ReplyDeleteI wonder what they've been up to for the last couple of years.
Glenn...
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly glad to see some focus put on The New Republic, as I am sick and tired of the fraud carried on in the MSM that TNR represents the liberal point of view. I'm not sure they represent ANY honest point of view nowadays, and your post certainly supports that belief.
One criticism - please don't compare Zengerle to Leopold. There is no evidence whatsoever that Karl Rove wasn't indicted. And an unverifiable statement by his lawyer does not count, nor, if it is true, does that statement rule out the possibility that Karl Rove was indicted by someone OTHER than Fitzgerald, or that he was indicted and the indictment was sealed or quashed.
Unless you have proof that Karl Rove was never indicted, please stop inferring that Leopold is a liar.
From a blurb (on Slate) for the Feb. 19, 2004 edition of TNR:
ReplyDeleteJason Zengerle wonders if Democrats should be excited about Limbaugh-esque blowhards like Randi Rhodes, a Bush-hating firebrand whose talk radio show will likely be syndicated nationwide in the coming months.
Or is you real issue with Zenerle the fact that has lead to the implication that leftist bloggers are all KOS cultists?
ReplyDeleteAnyone demented or dishonest enough to believe that "leftist bloggers are all KOS cultists" believed it before this fake story made the rounds, and will continue to believe it regardless of how thoroughly this story's debunked.
While there was a backchannel dialogue - beyond the Townhouse opt-in list - it was begun by a source that felt targeted by the new rules for the network, a network that Kos and MyDD had created.
ReplyDeleteAs I recall, Markos didn't take part in the ensuing discussion. And I certainly don't recall anything like the email from Steve Gilliard that you've debunked. Most on the email list didn't publicly take sides at all in the debate. A few did consider it a 'power play', but I recall several who considered it laughable as well that anyone should be intimidated because of the big dawgs involved.
I agreed with your points that as Kos and Jerome (and others) are now viewed as a force in national politics, they should anticipate more negative attacks. And certainly, I'd anticipate that there are legitimate points to critique about them, or about any of us. We are human, we err, and we're taking part in a process that spawns a lot of bias and oversight.
There's one nice difference I'd note about the words and actions of many progressive liberal bloggers, however, relative to media pundits and entrenched political operatives. Bloggers often get factchecked by their own readers, they regularly offer frontpage corrections and they are far more likely to issue apologies when they've screwed up badly.
The MSM tends to 'stay the course' with their mistakes or deliberate distortions, and most Beltway political operatives don't have the integrity to admit error at all.
I wonder which path Zengerle will take...
I suspect that he had 3 sources - one for each e-mail, and simply chose to imply that he had 3 sources for each e-mail. I also suspect that it's not a good idea to publish letters that Glenn Greenwald wrote to a private mailing list. Nice post.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally, Jason Zengerle was Stephen Glass's fact-checker at the New Republic. Zengerle was a new hire at the time. To be fair, Glass went to great lengths to fabricate his reporter's notes. Nevertheless, it's worth noting that it was Zengerle who fact-checked some of Glass's stories.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Stephen Glass: I seem to recall hearing that Zengerle was Glass' fact-checker at TNR.
ReplyDeleteCTPatriot:
ReplyDeleteplease stop inferring that Leopold is a liar.
No, he's implying that Leopold's a liar. ;)ˇ'
Atrios had an item with a link to this story here on Glenn's blog and in the last few minutes it was removed. Any idea what's up?
ReplyDeleteIs the story getting weirder or does it only seem odder by the minute. The worst pathologies are often carried by those who believe they won't get caught at what they do. Such disease infects king and scribe alike.
ReplyDeleteAtrios had an item with a link to this story here on Glenn's blog and in the last few minutes it was removed. Any idea what's up?
ReplyDeleteI just refreshed Atrios' page and the post was still there.
Atrios still has the link.
ReplyDeleteGood catch, GGreenwald. And holy crap I liked your book. it's hard to get a book right, even with great info--I applaud a great effort and I lalready ook forward to reading it again.
While the blogosphere fights amongst itself, the people who run this country continue to march in step:
ReplyDeleteA Plague on Both Their Houses
The congressional "debate" over the war shows that there are two wings of the War Party: Democrats and Republicans
The partisan war dance over Iraq began with the GOP's "stay the course" resolution [.pdf], and now the Senate has debated – and rejected – two Democratic alternatives: one saying we ought to "redeploy" the troops to the nearest convenient location by next summer, and another committing to a "phased withdrawal" that says nothing about how or when we're going to start letting the Iraqis steer without training wheels. The likely winner: another Republican resolution that basically boils down to shoot first and ask questions later. Yet the American people overwhelmingly oppose this rotten war and want out at the earliest opportunity. Isn't "democracy" wonderful? We yearn to export it at gunpoint globally – while shooting it dead on the home front.
The idea that ordinary Americans have any control over their country's foreign policy is, sadly, contradicted by history and refuted outright by our present predicament in Iraq. In 1916, Woodrow Wilson was reelected to the presidency chiefly on the strength of a slogan: "He kept us out of war." By 1917, the peacenik prez was leading the charge against Germany, jailing antiwar activists, and exhorting Americans to fight a "war to end all wars." In 1940, Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the voters: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Behind the scenes, however, he was maneuvering to do just that – and by the end of 1941, we were fighting a two-front war, embracing "Uncle" Joe Stalin as a fellow "anti-fascist," and planning the internment of the Japanese-American population.
In 2000, George W. Bush promised to introduce humility in the making of American foreign policy – an ingredient prominently lacking in the policies of his predecessor – and yet it wasn't all that long before we were enmeshed in the GWOT – a war, we are told, that will likely last for at least a generation, in which our war aims, stated as modestly as possible, are centered around a radical "transformation" of the Middle East: a "global democratic revolution," as our president puts it.
Liars, all – and not very good liars, at that. However, the problem is that, in each instance, the American people didn't have much of a choice. Oh, they could have voted for Alan Louis Benson in 1916, the Socialist Party candidate who opposed U.S. involvement in the Great War – but they would have been disappointed in his subsequent performance, in which he pulled a Lieberman, so to speak, and jumped on the pro-war bandwagon – eventually defecting from the Socialists in protest over their stand of "moral equivalence."
In the election of 1940, while Roosevelt paraded himself as the only politician with the stature to keep us out of war, Wendell Willkie pulled a Kerry and vacillated between denouncing America's military unpreparedness and calling the president a warmonger. After losing to Roosevelt, Willkie went on to become one of the biggest warmongers of them all, attacking noninterventionists as "isolationists" and acting as the president's roving ambassador.
In the Bush-Gore contest, the foreign policy debate consisted of the latter calling for a more interventionist posture, declaring "the United States is now the natural leader of the world," and demanding that the U.S. "step up to the plate, just like we did in World War II" – while the future progenitor of the relentlessly aggressive "Bush Doctrine" averred: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be."
When it comes to foreign policy, America's political leaders play a game of bait and switch – and the American people get taken in every time. Not that I'm blaming the victims of this ongoing fraud: after all, repressive ballot access laws limit our choices, and the great majority of congressional seats are shamelessly gerrymandered and therefore generally "safe" for one party or the other. In any case, the Congress of the United States has long since abandoned its constitutional duty to deal with matters of war and peace and given over its vital oversight function to lobbyists, both foreign and domestic. This has led to what is a curious conundrum for our supposedly "democratic" paradise. The American people – notoriously "isolationist," i.e., sympathetic to a foreign policy of minding our own business – are overwhelmingly opposed to the warmongering of our political elites. While voters certainly don't support the Republican stance of "staying the course" in Iraq, if the polls are to be believed they also reject the vaguely open-ended commitment embodied by the Levin proposal.
Which is why Sen. John McCain's contribution to the debate seems so… odd. The all-but-declared presidential candidate and fervent war-hawk declared:
"Drawdowns must be based on conditions in-country, not an arbitrary deadline rooted in our domestic politics."
Why must "drawdowns" be predicated on "conditions" in every country other than the United States? Is not the threat of bankruptcy, not to mention the moral bankruptcy engendered by this increasingly brutal war, at least equal in importance to the alleged benefits of "regime change" in Outer Slobbovia? And those are just a few of the many questions raised by McCain's complaint: one wonders, for example, what sort of "domestic politics" it is that completely ignores the will of the people. And one can't help but proffer that, indeed, domestic politics did play a key role in pushing us, kicking and screaming, down the path to war.
The War Party lobbied for war, and an important component of that effort was what John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt call "the Lobby," i.e., Israel's amen corner in the U.S. The Lobby's tremendous political and financial resources were brought to bear in an effort to minimize the risks and magnify the alleged threats – without regard for any reasonable interpretation of America's national interests. Instead, the U.S. military was – and is – being used to cleanse the Middle East of Israel's Arab and Persian enemies and extend the Jewish state's influence as far from the Promised Land as Kurdistan.
This view is increasingly accepted in U.S. military and academic circles, while the mainstream media won't touch it with a 10-foot pole – yet it explains the sort of "domestic politics" that got us where we are today. How is it that the American people are so far removed from the views of their rulers on the question of the war? The reason is because of the amazing success of the Lobby in circumventing popular antiwar sentiment and molding the mindset of our craven elites.
Speaking of Mearsheimer and Walt, they appeared at a forum at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, along with a number of other speakers, and Mearsheimer had this to say about a question concerning the proper "path to success in Iraq":
"I remember once in English [at West Point] class we read Albert Camus's book The Plague. I didn't know what The Plague was about or why we were reading it. But afterwards the instructor explained to us that The Plague was being read because of the Vietnam War. What Camus was saying in The Plague was that the plague came and went of its own accord. All sorts of minions ran around trying to deal with the plague, and they operated under the illusion that they could affect the plague one way or another. But the plague operated on its own schedule. That is what we were told was going on in Vietnam. Every time I look at the situation in Iraq today, I think of Vietnam, and I think of The Plague, and I just don't think there's very much we can do at this point. It is just out of our hands. There are forces that we don't have control over that are at play, and will determine the outcome of this one. I understand that's very hard for Americans to understand, because Americans believe that they can shape the world in their interests.
"But I learned during the Vietnam years when I was a kid at West Point, that there are some things in the world that you just don't control, and I think that's where we're at in Iraq."
A plague does not arise out of thin air: it is carried by a bacillus of some sort, a viral agent, a spore – an alien intruder that penetrates the body's natural defenses, wreaks havoc, and sometimes causes death. Oh, that there was some treatment – a vaccine, perhaps, that would repair the body politic's immune system, and neutralize the antibody-destroying infection that renders us helpless before foreign influences.
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
Wednesday's column, "Odyssey to America," elicited an unprecedented response from readers: the letters are still coming in, but surely by now we've topped 100. We have also raised some $2,000 toward Adil's legal fees – and that's not counting the contributions coming in by snail mail. This is nothing short of wonderful – I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. A very grateful – and amazed – young man is now beginning to experience an entirely new conceptual framework: it's called hope. NOTE: This fundraising appeal is entirely my own project, and has no connection to Antiwar.com.
This money doesn't quite cover the total cost of making an application for asylum in the U.S., which is – at a minimum – around $4000. If you haven't already, I suggest you go read "Odyssey to America," and then decide whether you want to make a difference – a big difference – in one person's life. And, yes, the movie rights are for sale – and I want to take this opportunity to publicly offer Keanu Reeves the leading role.
You can contribute via PayPal or credit card via PayPal . Or write to me, and I'll tell you how you can send a contribution via snail mail.
Here's the link to the Odyssey article:
Odyssey to America
A departure
Can I interest any of you lefty socialist types to join me, a selfish laissez-faire capitalist dupe according to this blog, and contribute a little to what appears to be one of those truly inspiring efforts?
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
There are many libertarians, and others, who profess a great love of "freedom" in the abstract. Still others profess so great a love of liberty that they are determined to spread their conception of it to the four corners of the earth – at gunpoint. But what about the freedom of a single individual? How about making a difference in the life of a single person? You can do it, and I'll tell you how. But just hang in there for a moment…
I have subtitled this column "A departure" because it is, for me, something extraordinary. I never – or almost never – allow my personal life, and particular my "sexual orientation," to figure much in my writing, especially for this site. Today's column is an exception. I won't deny that I have a personal interest in all this, but I would beg your indulgence a few moments longer to explain my larger point: that rather than pontificate about how we must "liberate" the peoples of the world from the yoke of "Islamofascism" and worse, I would offer an alternative – doing something concrete and constructive toward making it possible for at least one individual to live in freedom. And there is no collateral damage.
Adil – not his real name – needs to raise $4,000 to take up his asylum case. Being a broke writer, I am not much help. So I'm turning to you, my loyal readers. It's been amazing watching him grow and develop, as he begins to understand how much is possible for him. But time is running out for him: all applicants for asylum must file their forms within one year of their arrival in the U.S. For Adil, the clock is ticking: he doesn't have a lot of time left.
For him to be sent back now would be an act of murder – it would not only endanger his life, it would threaten to crush that most precious commodity of all: his spirit. As I asked the American embassy official who interviewed us for his visitor's visa: Doesn't he deserve a chance?
I ask the same question of you. If you'd like to help contribute, in whatever way you can, large or small, to Adil's legal bills, DO NOT SEND A CONTRIBUTION TO ANTIWAR.COM.
You can contribute via PayPal or credit card via PayPal . Or write to me, and I'll tell you how you can send a contribution via snailmail.
NOTE: This fundraising appeal is entirely my own project, and has no connection to Antiwar.com.
I a really at a loss as why people like Justin Raimondo never become President. Can you imagine what the world would be like if they did?
Why can't the entire blogosphere get behind an effort to get people like Justin Raimondo in office? That's a sure way to change the world for the better and eliminate some of the monumental worldwide tragedy and suffering that happens outside of our eyesight both here and abroad.
A first step would be to help Justin help Adil. If you are walking along a beach and see a baby whale stranded on the shore, if you help to get it back into the ocean it doesn't save the world. But it saves that baby whale. It's a start.
Have a nice weekend, all.
ewo,
ReplyDeleteA simple link is worth a thousand words.
You guys are a threat now. That's why they are going after you. Worse they are usiong SOP, which is to project what they do on you. Look closely enough and you will find that it is the right wing blogs who take marching orders so that they can earn money from their ad network.
ReplyDeleteThe right wing "pundits" are desperate. They are laughably wrong as usual.
I just posted a mention of this in the comments to Lee Siegel's latest blathering on his blog at TNR. Hope no one minds.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteBecause I consider your greatest strength to be the fact that you are honest to a fault and because I tout your writings to others regularly, I am concerned that you seem to be overplaying this hand. I genuinely don't see that Zengerle is claiming to have three independent sources for the putative Gilliard email. I read him as claiming that he received material from three sources and that the email message in dispute was among them. Certainly that wouldn't clear up the mystery, but the evidence seems significantly less incriminating than you have indicated in this post.
PMain said...
ReplyDelete"I guess you are in favor of Jason Lepold apologizing for the fabricated, but multiply sourced Rove indictment story as well then?"
Well im my opinion, there is 1 of 2 ways for journalist to handle this kind of issue. As a reporter, if your source knowingly lied to you for whatever reason, (ala Leopold & Judy Miller) you do not need to neccessarily apologize, simply burn you source. A reporter cannot be held liable for the mendacious actions of a source. If however you are manufacturing information (ala Glass & cook) as it appears in this case, you loss all professional previledge to be considered a journalist. TNR's JZ need to come clean on this soon.
It may not be that the email is "completely fictitious", but perhaps the email was forwarded in regards to another conversation by Steve.
ReplyDeleteStill, then Jason implies "three sources", and states baldly:
"Also on the same day, the blogger Steve Gilliard wrote to the "Townhouse" list:
I dont see how this can be ignored. We should all write in defense of this once we know the facts. Jerome?"
Note that J.Z. has some wiggle room.
By putting this:
"let me reprint some of the e-mails that were going to the "Townhouse" list, according to three sources, before Kos sent out the e-mail I quoted in my original post on this topic."
And then separating out the three emails, I'm sure JZ is going to argue that his "three sources" didn't mean for all three emails. Maybe only one source per email!
I think that SG must have sent that email to SOME list, although clearly not the Townhouse list, since SG didn't say "I never wrote that", which I think he would have done. We'll see with SG now, whether he writes "I never wrote that email to Townhouse" or "I never wrote that email period".
So Jason, at the MOST, has - one source, that he implies is three, with a misstatement on where SG's email came from.
Not to mention of course, the clear ly fake and smearing "guilt by association" whereby Kos puts out his preference is somehow an implication that he "pulls the purse strings. Also not to mention that Chris Bowers is the sole control, for the main part, of the network.
So this guy keeps getting his stuff wrong, I wonder if he will suffer any consequence.
Keep in mind that this could be a reverse/Rather ratfuck: Zengerle could himself have been played by someone "on our side," who gave him two real plus one fake email to (a) see if he'd be gullible enough to bite and (b) undermine his credibility once he ran with it.
ReplyDeletecome on, glenn, you yourself are an example of the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links.
ReplyDeleteKos is a REPUBLICAN that cannot be a bigshot on his pet issues in that party, so he has created a little echo chamber at his site.
A few other blogs constantly link back and forth between themsleves, even though they mostly have no expertise or special insight about what they blog in.
Case in point - FDL. They rose to the top of the circle on links based on 24/7 speculation (virtually all wrong) about fitzmas.
In fact, most of what you cite as "progesssive" blogs will not allow discussions of vote fraud, the holes in the official 911 story, or the economic issues that are decimating working class families.
There is nothing "liberal" about these sites at all -- yet you are one of their main beneficiaries.
And now you are just throwing more of the same crap -- glenn, you have lost a lot of integrity in my book.
At least I know that americanblog and kos were really republicans that "split" because of a small number of pet issues.
You are not actually a liberal either.
Anonymous said a lot...anonymously. Weak. Weak as old asparagus.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeletecome on, glenn, you yourself are an example of the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links.
Believing in magic bullets, Beechcrafts into the Pentagon, and WTC7 being imploded by Silvestein do not a liberal make.
BTW choose a real handle. Some people might think you are hiding and have no courage in your convictions. Not me of course but y'know
Well, I'm late to the party here but over on DKos, someone has a post analyzing the legal documents in the SEC case against Jerome Armstrong. It is enlightening reading.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, Jerome will not be publically defending himself because part of the consent decree he agreed to bars him from doing so. An interesting read.
Well this is all very interesting (not) inside-the-blogway stuff. Seems to be a lot of it lately. Just a predictable reaction to YearlyKOS I guess. I'm sure there will be substantive matters to return to soon enough. Can't wait till the navel gazing is over, though.
ReplyDeleteBut hey, speaking of inside-the-blogway stuff, didn't Jason Leopold say--promise, IIRC--that he WAS going to burn his source if it turned out Rove wasn't indicted? What happened to that? I for one would very much like to know who ratfucked him. I think he could do the world and himself a favor by following through on that one.
This has degenerated into soap opera. Stop it, now.
ReplyDeleteNow hold on a second. Maybe Zengerle got played by someone on the Gilliard email, maybe not. But why in the heck would he fabricate it? Glenn, you acknowledge that your own email and the Stark email were in fact sent to the list. If Zengerle had those two, why would he have to make up the Gilliard one, which really doesn't add anything? (True, people have done stranger things. But I think we need more evidence than this before we assume that Zengerle did something so reckless, stupid, and unnecessary to his point. What does Gilliard say?)
ReplyDeleteLook, I don't think this "Kosola" thing is such a big deal. (The underlying Suellentrop article, however, does raise some questions that it might make sense for Armstrong to answer.) But Jeebus Christmas, what's up with the invective against the New Republic -- a magazine that's taken some rotten editorial stands and published a load of hoo-hah, but also consistently publishes some of the most interesting and important progressive political and policy articles? The "Kosola" story would have been nothing if Kos hadn't responded the way he did, by conflating opposition to him with opposition to progressivism.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteMy advice is still to run far away from this thing. Cut your losses and run. Your post is the opposite strategy.
So many questions. Here are my important ones first.
- Have you read the SEC documents related to Jerome?
- Have you read any of Jerome's stock related postings?
- With the information you have, are you comfortable that Jerome has done nothing wrong?
- Do you think it was appropriate for Kos to request, in private correspondence to other bloggers, "that you ignore this for now."
- Are there journalists on the Townhouse list?
Many more questions...
This part of a NY Post article does not bode well for how this will turn out.
Floyd Schneider, a New Jersey mortgage broker and investigator of penny-stock scams, said he was a repeated target of Armstrong's attacks because he criticized the finances and business models of firms Armstrong supported.
"[Armstrong] was among the nastiest and ugliest stock touts from that era," said Schneider. "The stocks he touted were dogs and rigged, so it makes sense that he had a deal with promoters."
Background on Floyd Schneider.
This part of a NY Post article does not bode well for how this will turn out.
ReplyDeleteYou must be a troll. Why not just cite some Fox News sources?
*- Do you think it was appropriate for Kos to request, in private correspondence to other bloggers, "that you ignore this for now."*
ReplyDeleteWhat could possibly be inappropriate about a private citizen making a personal request on a private email list?
Keeerist.
You want to worry about inappropriate?
How about corporate media eating up the propaganda of an administration run amok with a fork and spoon?
In the current political environment anyone getting het up about Kos being some kind of shadowy Blogfather demanding ring-kissing obesiance from his e-family is going far beyond making a mountain out of a molehill.
This is really getting funny. Why do the rightwingers always seem to build their attempted smears around sins they have themselves committed? It must be guilt projection or something.
ReplyDeleteJust as with the Swift Boat fabrications, this stumbling and attack on Gilliard/Kos/etc. seems to be an attempt to point out the mote without first removing the beam.
I don't understand exactly why, though of course it's fun to speculate, but progressive media seems to implode quite differently from conservative media. Think Pacifica, the Village Voice, etc. Now think Pajama Media.
ReplyDeleteThere are, of course, plenty of idiots to go around. And, of course, conservative media has more money and hence many more careers, think Little Timmy's conversion. But when significant progressive media starts to reach into the mainstream, whammo!, the crazies come out, mud flies and keeps flying. Think IndyMedia and now Kos. Everything degenerates fast and then goes downhill from there.
Now, it's possible I suppose that progressive media _is_ infested with crazies and bound to fail but, my god, it fails like the recent elections, always skewing south. Another other option is that the tools developed to fuck progressive media in countries on the front lines in the cold war--for insightful reading that names names, try Saunder's Who Paid the Piper?--has somehow been turned fairly aggressively against US progressive media. No, not necessarily run by the government but more probably run by rich donors to the GOP. No, not secret agents, no, not death squads but yes, more probably astroturf operations in India and lots of money to real idiots, etc.
I know, I know, it's impossible to think this way and fight the good fight but, for the love of god, it's there and it's not going away. No, I don't have any answers but I do wonder why the Townhouse list was on google and not a private list with some beefed up PGP action. And, of course, I wonder why some careers go north and some go south.
It's not a matter of watching for a knife in the back, it's more a matter of thinking way ahead, incorporating redundency into the system, and taking control of your own megaphone. Me thinks.
Andyt Ternay said...
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm late to the party here but over on DKos, someone has a post analyzing the legal documents in the SEC case against Jerome Armstrong. It is enlightening reading.
For one thing, Jerome will not be publically defending himself because part of the consent decree he agreed to bars him from doing so. An interesting read.
It's an interesting read only in the fallaciousness of its conclusions.
Everyone who knows anything about SEC consent decrees knows that the arguments made in that post don't hold water.
For every two people on Wall Street, at least one of them doesn't follow the rules.
For the SEC to bring this type of action against someone, they have him.
In the rare instance when their allegations are unfounded (I only know of one such a case in all the time I have been following Wall Street trading), the person of course didn't agree to a consent decree, aware, as anyone would be, that to do so permanently ruins a person's reputation.
It costs only filing fees to defend oneself. Contrary to popular mythology, it's common for an innocent person to defend himself if he cannot afford an attorney or doesn't want to waste the money.
This is especially true with charges brought by the SEC, which are civil actions and not criminal ones and the worst they can do to you is to fine you and bar you from certain activities in the future.
In agreeing to sign the consent decree, Armstrong was barred anyway so he had nothing to lose by defending himself if he thought the charges were fallacious.
To the poster who thinks $20,000 (all that was proven to be gained) is small fish to fry, how much does that poster think Martha Stewart gained by the "insider" sale that led to the events which culminated in her going to prison?
I have no idea whether Armstrong was innocent or guilty. I wasn't there. But if he was innocent, it was the height of stupidity for him to have signed that consent decree.
However money he had or didn't have, was he an orphan? Had no friends? Couldn't have borrowed money to cover the filing fees?
If there is anyone on this blog who would agree to a consent decree if he was wrongly accused of something, I would doubt it.
Former Trader said... I'm a former trader and presently a fool practicing law without a license.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 1:26 AM said... If I was anymore obvious, you'd be certain I was a troll.
Eli said...
ReplyDelete"I do find the "three sources" claim interesting, since if it *is* true, then this speaks of a coordinated effort, i.e., a Rovian ratfuck. I actually hope that's what it is, because that would mean they're really really scared of Kos and the Kososphere, er, blogosphere."
I suspect that this is an attempt to "swift boat" the blogosphere.
Politicians are finally waking up to the fact that the blogosphere is having an impact.
It's alot of things. Even they don't know what to make of it. It's not the minority leveraging the online appearance of a majority, like freep. It's an actual grassroots majority that will make the next election impossible to steal.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteIt's alot of things. Even they don't know what to make of it. It's not the minority leveraging the online appearance of a majority, like freep. It's an actual grassroots majority that will make the next election impossible to steal.
Let's hope so. I still have concerns about electronic voting machine manipulation/fraud and active suppression of valid voters.
Whereas old, obsolete opinion-makers like The New Republic, Joe Klein and David Broder first attempted to ignore the blogosphere, and then belittle it, they are now forced to accept that its influence and credibility are growing and are rendering them obsolete and irrelevant. And, unsurprisingly, they are quite unhappy about it, feel threatened by it, and are searching for ways to attack back.
ReplyDeleteDid you write this with the famous Ghandi quote in mind?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"
Looks like we're approaching stage 3, at least on some level.
What troubles me the most about this whole flap is that the first mention of Jerome Armstrong's SEC problems made by any of the "big" bloggers, who scream bloody murder when right wingers or corporate media reporters or editors ty to hide detrimental information about one of their own, was in response to Zengerle's blog post.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think that Jerome's friends would have gotten out in front of the SEC filing and said, as I did when David Rosen was indicted, there's this filing, and I don't know the facts, but I have a hard time believing that this person I know is a person who could be guilty of these accusations. David Rosen was acquitted, by the way.
Zengerle's assertion that Markos controls anyone is silly, and deserves rebuttal, but the blogosphere was way behind on getting this information to its readers.
My estimation of progressive bloggers has taken a nose dive.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Once again they miss the point, it isn't about whether the decisions are popular or not, which I assume this one will be in many sectors, but about the usurpation of power by the executive branch. It is about not creating a monarchy in a Democratic Republic that was created from a rebellion against a Monarchs powers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news
/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html
Executive Order; Protecting the Property Rights of the American People
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Some responses to several of the points being made in Comments here:
ReplyDelete(1) Jason Zengrle specifically, and TNR generally, are plainly devoted - for whatever reasons - to attacking the blogosphere and destroying its credibility. If one believes (as I do) that the blogosphere is a uniquely valuable instrument for creating political change, then I think responding to those attacks and pointing out severe credibility problems among the anti-blogosphere crusaders is hardly a petty "navel-gazing" soap opera. Quite the contrary. Attacks of this sort could - as intended - undermine the blogosphere itself if they are not answered.
(2) In my view, TNR is a close second place - right after The Weekly Standard - when it comes to magazines which influenced the country to support an invasion of Iraq and which are still trying to advocate neoconservative views generally. I think its influence is pernicious and any opportunity to point out the serious problems with its credibility is one that ought to be taken.
(3) As several people have pointed out several times, and as I have tried to make as clear as possible, the issue is NOT whether the Steve Gilliard e-mail is fake (we know that it is; it was not sent to Townhouse). The issue is - HOW did Zengerle end up publishing a fake e-mail? Did he lie about having 3 sources? Did he only have one unreliable source which - in his haste to attack the blogosphere - he used without any confirmation? We know that he posted a fake e-mail. That seems journalistically irresponsible. Now the question - which only Zengerle can answer - is how that happened.
(4) I don't actually think the Gilliard e-mail is irrelevant. Even though it is shorter than the other two which Zengerle published, the fake Gilliard e-mail is really the ONLY one which bolsters Zengerle's point (namely - that bloggers wanted to write about this issue but then didn't when Markos requested silence). The first two e-mails (including mine) simply make the point that Jerome should himself respond to these charges because only he can. That doesn't at all suggest that bloggers wanted to write about this issue (I could not have possibly written about it, since I have no knowledge whatsoever of Jerome's situation, which is why I said that HE should respond).
The fake Gilliard e-mail is the only one which really supports Zengerle's claims, so there is incentive to fabricate it.
(5) I have no knowledge of any kind beyond what has been discussed about what Jerome did or how Markos operates. I have no reason whatsoever to be suspicious of Markos' credibility. All of his actions (including his favorable stance towards Mark Warner) seem entirely consistent with his stated goal -- to elect as many Democrats as possible regardless of where they fall on the ideological spectrum.
But either way, it matters little, because neither Markos nor Jerome are synonymous with the "blogosphere". Just as, say, Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass are not syonymous with "journalism" - because there are all different kinds of journalists who operate with all sorts of different rules -- Markos is only one blogger. Jerome is only one blogger. Accusations against Jerome are not accusations against "bloggers" generally, and therefore there is no obligation on the part of bloggers other than Jerome to respond to charges made against Jerome. Why would there be?
TOM MAGUIRE DEFENDS ZENGERLE AS FOLLOWS: That belated UPDATE implicitly admitting that two of the emails are genuine sort of dampens the point of the original absurdly misleading post.
ReplyDeleteIt was obvious from the beginning that two of three e-mails was accurate. I never suggested otherwise. The point is that Zengerle published a fake e-mail. Only someone entirely unburdened by ethical constraints would think that it's a defense to point out that at least two of three e-mails published by TNR were authentic.
It should therefore surprise nobody that you're here to assert exactly that defense. Some of what Jayson Blair wrote was accurate, too. But to people for whom ethics matters, it is the fact that he ublished fictitious material that is noteworthy. The fact that some of what he wrote is accurate is not a defense.
The point you claim was only made by the Gilliard email is, in reality, made quite clearly by the Kos email Zengerle cites in a different post:
You don't understand the point that Zengerle was trying to make. He was claiming in his last post that bloggers expressed a desire to write about this issue UNTIL Kos told them not to. An e-mail by Kos, quite obviously, could not constitute support for that claim, since a Kos e-mail does not reflect what other bloggers are saying.
The only evidence which could bolster Zengerle's accusation would be e-mails from other bloggers saying that they wanted to write about this issue. The only such e-mail Zengerle has to show that is the fake Gilliard e-mail.
"My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story."
ReplyDeleteIn fact, that's largely what's happening. To the extent the liberal blogosphere IS writing about Kosola, you are mostly attacking TNR.
Has Kos addressed the favorable treatment extended to Armstrong's employer at YKos?
Why did Kos lie and say Armstrong "Cannot speak" about the deal reached with the SEC? Armstrong is free to speak about it. I wish he would.
Has Kos addressed his 48-hour about-face on the Ohio Senate race, and Brown's subsequent large ad purchases on Kos' blogs?
Kos, via my friend DarkSyde, had posted dozens of pro-science pieces, and the liberal blogosphere generally claims a Republican "War on Science." Why is an astrologer a leader of such a movement?
Wouldn't it have been the duty of an honest journalist to check, among other sources, with Steve Gilliard himself?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it have been the duty of an honest journalist to check, among other sources, with Steve Gilliard himself?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Tom Maguire, he didn't need to. After all, SOME of the e-mails he published were authentic, so what's the big deal if he published a fake one?
The point here is very simple and narrow - Jason Zengerle purported to publish an e-mail from Steve Gilliard that was sent to Townhouse, but no such e-mail was ever sent. That means he published false information. Why and how did that happen?
Glenn says:
ReplyDeleteBut either way, it matters little, because neither Markos nor Jerome are synonymous with the "blogosphere". Just as, say, Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass are not syonymous with "journalism" - because there are all different kinds of journalists who operate with all sorts of different rules -- Markos is only one blogger.
This is something that they just don't get. Markos spoke about it at his Drum Major Institute appearance, and posted on this issue as well.
It doesn't matter if one blogger or two bloggers turn out to be in some way dishonest. It doesn't matter that Wonkette turned into an MSM ass-kisser, or that Jason Leopold turned out to be unreliable. Other people will step up.
If Markos got thrown in jail for some heinous sin, someone else would step up and take over the blog. As he has repeatedly said, he doesn't matter. His work is done. He has given us a collaborative model that empowers engaged citizens. That model transcends any particular blogger's work.
This presents a deep conflict for traditional journalists. Their story lines are anecdotal. They want to put a human face on to every story, focus on an individual to make the story "real" for their readers. (See today's NYT on women who have been flashed on the subway for an example.)
So they've decided that Markos and Jerome are the blogosphere--ironically enough, mostly because they've got a book out and because Markos hosted a very sucessful traditional media event. But they're wrong. The left blogosphere is way past the tipping point for self-sustainability. There's nothing that writers for small circulation weeklies can do about that. It just makes them look petty and out of touch.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteDo you think you'll be posting on yesterdays _real_ news about the Treasury Dep't's information-collection program? I think that it may begin to cleave some of the country-club Republicans.
The Commissar said...
ReplyDelete"My request to you guys is that you ignore this for now. It would make my life easier if we can confine the story."
"In fact, that's largely what's happening. To the extent the liberal blogosphere IS writing about Kosola, you are mostly attacking TNR.
Has Kos addressed the favorable treatment extended to Armstrong's employer at YKos?
Why did Kos lie and say Armstrong "Cannot speak" about the deal reached with the SEC? Armstrong is free to speak about it. I wish he would.
Has Kos addressed his 48-hour about-face on the Ohio Senate race, and Brown's subsequent large ad purchases on Kos' blogs?
Kos, via my friend DarkSyde, had posted dozens of pro-science pieces, and the liberal blogosphere generally claims a Republican "War on Science." Why is an astrologer a leader of such a movement?"
Why are you asking these questions here instead of asking them of Kos?
Unless your purpose is to trash Kos someplace where he won't see it and be able to answer your questions and or defend himself.
So, Commissar, what does any of what you just typed have to do with the fact that Jason Zengerle was caught passing off a faked e-mail as the linchpin of his "case" against the lefty blogosphere?
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Jay Ackroyd and others have it right: the traditional, established media is increasingly (and painfully) realizing the power of the open, unedited (for good or ill), and focused 'blogosphere' which does not operate within an established comfort zone, and which has the power to quickly investigate and expose issues of the day.
ReplyDeleteIts immediacy disallows editing that often shades the light of truth, and the established media thus sends its minions on attacks that lack substance and/or completeness. Kos is seen as the face and, as Glenn also correctly points out, by so doing established media spotlights its continued misunderstanding of blogging.
It is this medium and its impact that keeps hope alive (for this patriot) for a return to the rule of law in this great country.
I asked those questions at dKos and was promptly banned.
ReplyDeleteI bet there will be more developments on the email story. Maybe Giliard is lying and Greenwald didn't get it or lost it.
Maybe Giliard is lying and Greenwald didn't get it or lost it.
ReplyDeleteAt least 15 people on the Townhouse list have confirmed that they never got it and have no such e-mail in their in-box, and Gilliard confirmed that he never sent it to the Townhouse list.
But go ahead and ignore all of that evidence if you want and cling to the belief that it's real. Zengerle can resolve this very easily by simply producing the e-mail with the headers showing it was sent to Townhouse, which he must have seen before publishing it. But he can't and won't, because the e-mail was never sent. It is a fake.
"Banned"? I doubt it. Troll-rated for being an idiot is much more likely. Kos is going to back those candidates that he feels have the best chance of winning. Unfortunately for Hackett, he didn't have a chance with Ted Strickland moving to cut off his financial oxygen for the Senate race. Strickland, mind you, not Kos or Jerome. The deal was long before the blogosphere started talking about it. (And I say this as someone who donated to Hackett for both campaigns.)
ReplyDeleteSo now that we know why you hate Kos and Jerome and why you want to get revenge on them, let me ask you again: What does anything that posted -- true, false, or simply made up -- have to with the fact that Jason Zengerle was caught passing off a faked e-mail as the linchpin of his "case" against the lefty blogosphere?
The Commissar said...
ReplyDelete"I asked those questions at dKos and was promptly banned."
That still doesn't answer why you would ask them here. Or why you would think that anyone here would have the answers.
If you wanted to represent that you had been banned for asking these questions of Kos you should have stated so.
But then we get to the question of relevance to the subject which Phoenix woman asked you about.
I asked those questions at dKos and was promptly banned
ReplyDeleteSure you did.
Glenn, the sheer number of trolls trying to derail this discussion is a strong indication that your discovery of the linchpin's being faked is causing some of TNR's and/or the RNC's people to have trouble with their bowel movements.
ReplyDeleteIt might be instructive to go over Zengerle's other pieces to see how much other stuff he's simply made up in the manner of his former co-worker (and the guy that Z. was supposedly fact-checking).
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI see your response on the question of the email's source or authenticity. Zengerle is indeed obligated to respond with some evidence. Shall we say "within 24 business hours?"
Zengerle is indeed obligated to respond with some evidence. Shall we say "within 24 business hours?"
ReplyDeleteHe can have 24 weeks and he still won't be able to produce that e-mail from Gilliard to the Townhouse list because no such e-mail was sent.
But if I were a journalist and was being accused of having printed a fake e-mail, I'd be pretty eager to prove that it was authentic (or retract what I wrote and explain how it happened despite having "three sources").
The Commissar writes: I bet there will be more developments on the email story. Maybe Giliard is lying and Greenwald didn't get it or lost it.
ReplyDeleteI've been on both a Google and a Yahoo email list, and as far as I know, both services maintain searchable archives. It is reported at TNR that Townhouse is a Google list. (In the case of pvt lists, only members can access the archives.)
So, it seems to me it would be simple enough to allow a trusted, neutral third party to inspect the archives for the relevant period. Which is not to say I disbelieve Greenwald, because he'd have to be insane to go out on a limb like this, without having checked and double-checked to ensure that no such email was ever sent to the Townhouse list. My point is rather to demonstrate just how foolish he'd have to be if he were wrong, given how simple it would be to design a method of proving him so.
If Gilliard wrote any email of any sort on the Jerome issue, it would be in archives. At this point, the burden is on Zengerle to demonstrate the provenance of the Zengerle email, if it exists as an actual email at all.
BTW, I'm an occasional (and infrequent commenter under a different moniker) reader of yur blog, Commissar. It is very pro-science, among other things, and often interesting.
Re: "linchpin"
ReplyDeleteTo me, I found Markos' willingness to privately request "omerta" and have it followed was the "linchpin" of the story. I never focused much on the responses back. I observed the large degree of compliance that it obtained, and still obtains.
Glenn, as a good lawyer, has pounced a flaw in his adversary's case.
BTW, I am impressed with the thoughtful, non-ad-hominem character of your commenters, Glenn.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteOkay, to repeat endlessly "he won't produce it because he can't" is badgering the witness. Or something like that.
If Zengerle doesn't cough up some evidence quickly, then he's screwed the pooch.
Hypatia, I like to think I am pro-science, and am very critical of Creationists, *cough* astrologers, and other charlatans.
Commissar
ReplyDeleteThe fact that 300 or so people active in the blogosphere discuss stuff off the record isn't surprising. You want to get stories right, and it's good to share sources and to be able to confirm things before posting them. I've recently been on the periphery of such discussions. I've developed a great deal more respect for the care with which people construct their posts because of it. Heck, even on this little tiny page I've just put together, there's been behind the scenes chatter of what to put up and how.
It's also not suprising that Markos would provide guidance on a story that's meant to torpedo the influence of the blogosphere.
And, you know, it's kinda interesting, because, again, we see transparency on the blogosphere and opacity from the traditional media. Glenn says what mail he got, and what mail he didn't. Nobody denies that Markos sent out an email asking folks to cut the oxygen off. Will Zengerle's sausage making process be laid out for all to see?
Well how did I do that?
ReplyDeleteWrong link in my previous post. I meant this one.
although I do like Matt Stoller's post.
Transparency in the blogosphere?
ReplyDeleteSuch as trying to scrub all references to astrology on MYDD?
http://wizbangblog.com/2006/06/23/jerome-armstrongs-nutroots.php
Jay's first post indicated he was a poster at MYDD.
ReplyDeleteYeah, commissar, I made a stupid mistake, and corrected it as soon as I realized it. If there had been a way to edit my comment, I would have done so.
ReplyDeleteOh, and your link on this astrology business you've been harping on fails.
ReplyDeleteWhen I go to that site and scroll down to find a mydd reference, there's a google cached reference that has this content:
Great day, Professor Pollkatz is back from haitus. I still miss the original chart of the Bush Index (I want my crossover), but everything else is back and updated, check it out.
And, as I've long suspected, the approval rating of Bush is directly tied to the price of gasoline. Whenever I've mentioned this hypothesis to people in person, they listen and then give a chuckle, probably thinking to themselves, 'yea, right, people aren't that simplistic'. Well, the fact that there are people for whom the price of gasoline means more to them than the politics of ideas is lunatic; but, here's the chart showing Bush's approval following the trendline indication of gasoline prices.
There's been a slide in the gasoline prices of late. At about 80 on the index is the resistance/support level. Mark this down: above 80, Bush's approval is good enough, but, below 80, he falls short. As the professor says:
This is important, folks. Bush's approval ratings go up and down with the cheapness of gasoline. It looks like maybe our election is in the hands of the Saudis. For more details on why the Saudis may "elect" to play this game, see Farenheit 9/11, now playing in a theater near you.
What does this have to do with astrology? And why would it be relevant in any case? Do you consider other, equally absurd, religious beliefs to constitute a devastating character flaw-- you know, like those professed by all our elected officials?
If there had been a way to edit my comment, I would have done so.
ReplyDeleteI always retype it then delete the original myself.....My spelling's always better the second time around.
Jay,
ReplyDeleteIf you're going to deny tht Jerome Armstrong is (or was) an astrologer, you'll fail.
Now, they are doing a cleanup at MYDD.
Here's one:
http://www.astro.com/h/gb2003_01_e.htm
Hi Alois and ian sadler,
I got into this with some zeal yesterday, and wrote out this article on the Implications of Varuna:
http://astroworld.mydd.com/archives/000384.html
It was quite interesting to compare the understanding with the TNO's and the Asteroids, as the latter went first to Planetary status, and then, over a ~50 year period, into asteroid status.
I agree that more study needs to be done to understand Varuna. It's only been two years, and is going to take a lot of work.
However, this site is invaluable as a means of education, and just as the 4 top asteroids are listed in the 'specials' section, the top TNO's being included might add a lot more study and awareness.
(10000) Pluto: 18'50 Sagittarius
(20000) Varuna: 12'04 Cancer
(28978) Ixion: 8'18 Sagittarius
(50000) Quaoar: 11'57 Sagittarius
These are the four largest, as far as I can tell from a days research. Pluto is larger by a factor of about 2 than any other known trans-Neptunian object (2200 km diameter for Pluto vs. ~1000 km diameter for (20000) Varuna, Ixion, 2002 AW197 and Quaoar).
I assume the Ixion listed in the minor planets is the same Ixion? And, does anyone know what 2002 AW197 has been named?
As a visual means to see the new paradigm check out:
http://www.alcyone.de/POrbits/english/varuna.html
This also has the discovery date of Varuna, which Ive been looking for, as November 28, 2000.
Jerome Armstrong [ mydd.xyz*xyz.mydd.com --- .xyz*xyz. -> * ]
Portland, usa --- Saturday, January 18, 2003 at 17:34 Universal Time (UT/GMT)
I'll not "derail" Glenn's comment thread further with this. Actually, I'd be delighted to have about a dozen commenters dispute Armstrong's astrological history.
Transparency in the blogosphere?
ReplyDeleteSuch as trying to scrub all references to astrology on MYDD?
http://wizbangblog.com/2006/06/23/jerome-armstrong
And regardless of the merits of whatever argument you're trying to make here, doesn't this illustrate that transparency? That you can't scrub references?
You're not getting the central point here. Maybe Jerome is a cad, a thief, a grifter who stole from widows and orphans. I don't happen to find that credible; I wouldn't find it credible if people were trying to smear you with the same kinds of charges in the same kind of context.
It doesn't matter. The model is what matters, and the model is bullet-proof. That's why TNR is frothing. They're irrelvant. Better, more timely analysis is taking place on the blogs. They're trying to slap Markos and Jerome's face onto the blogosphere, smear them, and discredit the enterprise.
The yammering yahoos in their underwear meme was exploded by dailykos, as has the lunatic left meme by clear evidence of blogosphere support for authenticity and leadership over position on the political spectrum.
So now they turn to smears and personal attacks. That won't work either, because the blogosphere (in just the last year) has become bigger than any set of participants. This is desperation, writ large.
"And regardless of the merits of whatever argument you're trying to make here, doesn't this illustrate that transparency? That you can't scrub references?"
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. Trying to scrub references is wholly transparent, because such efforts will be found out.
The logic is crystal clear.
I meant "YearlyKos" not dailykos in the post above.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you may have a point about JZ's email here. We'll have to see what comes of his attempt, or lack thereof, to explain where he got the three nonexistant emails.
ReplyDeleteThat said, TNR is not "irrelevant" or ticketed for oblivion. Radio didn't murder the NYT; TV didn't murder the radio; and blogging won't kill magazines.
TNR has great reporting by people like Crowley, and, usually, engaging perspectives. I can understand why you might think otherwise this week, but liberal blogs are not in a zero-sum death struggle with TNR. The real enemies that we all have are terrorism and bad policy. More immediately, we have a govt controlled by one party that hasn't been too effective of late.
Thanks for your reporting on this issue, but don't let's flip out.
I don't like Gilliard. I just about called him a liar above.
ReplyDeleteHis post on this matter IS DIRECTLY RELEVANT to Glenn's post, and casts it in a rather different light.
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/06/about-e-mails.html
Excerpt:
"I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn't send any e-mail with that phrase at all. There's a similar phrase sent to Hubris Sonic a month before on an entirely different topic, and the Greenwald e-mail
To be fair, I told Glenn I disagreed with the characterization of it being false, because I may have express some kind of sentiment close to that. The issue to me is not that Zengerle created it out of whole cloth, but if he got it from a source that he was too lazy and sloppy to confirm it with me. Let me be clear, I didn't deny writing the e-mail. I said that I had no record of writing such an e-mail with that phrase, to the list on that day."
The excerpt is just that. Read the whole thing.
My respect for Gilliard has just increased, and for Greenwald, decreased.
If the upshoot of this is that Gilliard sent such an email, but not to the Townhouse list ... well, then .. surely Zengerle must be drawn and quartered for such an egregious, lying, obviously Rovian, evil, LIE!
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteWith just what we know now, Jerome is finished in the political arena. No politician is going to want to hire or be associated with an admitted stock scammer. This is just reality. If this political reality has not been seriously addressed on the Townhouse list, then it would seem the closed nature of that list has created an insular environment and an inbred thought process that could have benefited from the open discussion of these issues.
Your post, which honestly is just attacking the messenger, could be interpreted as attaching yourself to Jerome's wagon. I think this would be a huge mistake. How this issue is being dealt with by the "Townhouse list" makes the the pathetic political incompetence of the democratic party seem like pure genius.
Glenn-- Now is the time to stand up and show what you are made of, both morally and intellectually.
I don't want to sit and watch as this issue becomes a trite, pathetic, but human, all too human, display of the same pathology that allows our elected representatives to sit on their hands over the NSA issue.
I see no reason why you should throw away your credibility over this.
If the upshoot of this is that Gilliard sent such an email, but not to the Townhouse list then Zengerle still lied.
ReplyDeleteHis quote is Also on the same day, the blogger Steve Gilliard wrote to the "Townhouse" list:
Pretty cut and dried.
"Nor, according to Gilliard, did he ever write any such e-mail at all, to Townhouse or anyone else."
ReplyDeleteGilliard did not say that. He makes that abundantly clear.
Pretty cut-and-dried.
Glenn: You're trying to have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you claim that TNR is "attacking the blogosphere and destroying its credibility" and say that you're challenging their reports on Armstrong and Moulitsas to prevent the blogosphere from being undermined.
Then, you claim "neither Markos nor Jerome are synonymous with the 'blogosphere'."
Which is it? Are they just two bloggers or do you agree with Moulitsas that an attack on him is an attack on all liberal bloggers?
To me, Zengerle's Gilliaird e-mail merits an explanation, but you're assuming it's an intentional hoax when it might be some kind of unintentional blunder, and it feels like a calculated effort to change the subject.
The big story here is Armstrong's alleged stock-touting and the possibility that he gets paid by clients who want favorable treatment on Daily Kos.
Your claim to be unable to comment on the touting, because you don't know the particulars, is a dodge. Surely you must have formed an opinion on people who shill stocks while secretly receiving compensation.
First, you claim that TNR is "attacking the blogosphere and destroying its credibility" and say that you're challenging their reports on Armstrong and Moulitsas to prevent the blogosphere from being undermined.
ReplyDeleteThen, you claim "neither Markos nor Jerome are synonymous with the 'blogosphere'.
This is entirely consistent. TNR is trying to attack the blogosphere and destroy its credibility by making Markos and Jerome synonymous with the blogosphere and then attacking them personally.
The fact that TNR is doing that doesn't mean they will be effective in either selling the characterization of the blogosphere as nothing more than Markos (Jerome has no presence at the moment) nor in the actual smears.
It's conceivable that Jerome could lose his job, I guess, but that's the only upshot that I could see--and even that seems unlikely.
So, yes, TNR is attacking the blogosphere through Markos and Jerome, and yes, it's not going to work in part because they are incorrect in their Markospomorphosis of the blogosphere.
American soldiers are dying in a war built on lies. The rule of law is being trashed by an executive that openly claims habeus corpus is a suggestion that can be ignored on convenience. The press and congress is in the tank. And a crowd of pompous twits wants to make up shit about the shadowy conspiracy lead by Kos. These are whitewater level fraudulent scandals. You guys are fundamentally stupid. Keep puffing.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Jew, so don't even bother calling me an anti-semite, as Peretz has done in the past to silence his critics.
ReplyDeleteMartin Peretz is a fascist. Period. He doesn't even love America. I would think a Harvard grad would be more well informed about the Arab contributions to civilization, but then Peretz is a clearly a racist as well.
"I have been in love only three times in my life. I was in love with my college roommate. I am in love with the state of Israel and I love Gene McCarthy." (told to Blair Clark in 1968; quoted in Washington Babylon, p. 6)
Arabs live in "societies that cannot make a brick let alone a microchip." 1996
In 1995, Peretz made headlines when he successfully pressured Vice President Al Gore to rescind his offer to Harvard historian and Tennessee writer Richard Marius to be a White House speechwriter. Peretz accused Marius of anti-Semitism, citing a 1992 book review in which Marius compared the tactics of the Israeli secret police searching for Palestinian terrorists in the occupied territories to the Nazi Gestapo in occupied Europe during World War II. Gore, a former student of Peretz's at Harvard in the 1960s, complied with his request. Many defenders of Marius – who had written a major Holocaust speech for Gore to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising and who criticized Martin Luther in a biography for the Reformation figure's anti-Semitic writings – said Peretz's charge was without merit.
In the movie Shattered Glass, which portrays the unmasking of writer Stephen Glass' serial fabrications in the pages of The New Republic, Peretz was presented as a capricious figure who regularly fired his top editors and who once degraded the magazine's staff by ordering them to circle every comma in an issue of the magazine. He was played by well-known Canadian director Ted Kotcheff.
On December 4, 1948, the New York Times published a letter to the editor signed by over two dozen prominent Jews condemning Menachem Begin and his Herut party on the occasion of Begin's visit to New York City.
Comparing Revisionist Zionism streams to "Nazi and fascist parties", the letter was signed by individuals like Albert Einstein and the anti-Zionists Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook. The letter began:
"Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.
The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents." (source: NY Times, December 4, 1948).
David Shoughnessy:
ReplyDeleteHow is this a significant story? Did Kos claim to be an incorruptible paragon of virtue? Did anyone hail Kos and Jerome as infallible sainted leaders? Here's the real story. The New Republic, a magazine with a shameful history of publishing fabrications ranging from Glass to Goebelesque pro Iraq war propaganda, has the unbelievable chutzpah to prouce a shoddy little hit piece on Kos/Jerome as if they had the credibility to tut-tut about the minor failings of other journalists. If the story was indeed true, and the liberal blogs all agreed not to carry the SEC story, it would be no ZERO interest to me or anyone else who relies on the blogs as sources of political information and content. When NBC is forced to warn the public that any stories or lack of stories on GE or GE related businesses must be evaluated skeptically or even to warn viewers that their tilte coverage on health issues may have something do do with their insurance company advertisers, than I'll be willing to listen to minor cavils about DKos. Otherwise, this is just a typical elite smear of anything threatening their inside trading control of the "marketplace of ideas".
Who's getting their marching orders from whom? Markos tells us what to do or say, eh?
ReplyDeleteGee, I wonder who that sounds like? If you don't know the answer, go read the chapter "The Press Haters" in Eric Boehlert's new book, Lapdogs.
Btw, take note of the new blog URL: Welcome to Pottersville: Population 300,000,000.
The Commissar said...
ReplyDeleteI asked those questions at dKos and was promptly banned.
Bullguano. A single idiotic and juvenile comment of yours (Shouldn't you be out vandalizing TNR displays, per Dear Leader's orders? by commissar on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 01:15:58 PM EDT)
was trollrated by the community out of existence. Your other comments, which were responded to and refuted, are still intact. That's the way DailyKos works.
I can understand your embarassment on getting called on your bad behavior in a public forum. But if you don't like it, maybe you're better off staying away and sulking privately.
________
Gris Lobo said...
...Why are you asking these questions here instead of asking them of Kos?
Unless your purpose is to trash Kos someplace where he won't see it and be able to answer your questions and or defend himself.
11:16 AM
Gris, you nailed it. And Commissar clearly can't take the heat, so he's pretending he's been locked out of the kitchen.
Davi Shoughnessy:
ReplyDeleteThe claim is that (a) Jerome had some unknown trouble with SEC and (b)kos convinced other bloggers to not touch the story. If true, who cares? Does this rise to the level of the Wen Ho Lee case or the refusal of the networks to _sell_ adverts to UCC? No. What I see is a fake controversy that carries the implication "don't trust blogs". The overblown story, the terribly shoddy "reporting", the gross double standard - none of that strikes me as an ingredient of an important story.
Sharoney,
ReplyDeleteI can no longer comment at all at dKos. So more than "one comment was troll-rated out of existence."
There was no shortage of ad hominem attacks addressed to me by loyal members.
BTW, Kos did instruct his minions to vandalize the TNR displays.
Sharoney,
ReplyDeleteNo one at dKos responded to Dear Leader's 48-hour about-face on Hackett. Selling him out for Sherrod Brown, as soon as he got the word from Mark Warner's astrologer.
I doubt Greenwald wants us replaying this pissing contest on his thread, but here you are, claiming I was not "locked out of the kitchen."
I sure was. "That's the way dailyKos works," you coward.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteNow we see a comment from Gilliard himself (above) complaining about "his email" being quoted by TNR.
Is it still "fake?"
David Shoughnessy:
ReplyDeleteSuppose that Jerome was guilty of something underhanded and Kos had a tantrum demanding that nobody say anything. Why would I care?
What infuriates me is a sleazy attempt to smear blogs over what is, at most, nothing. How dare Jason Glass' fact checker write such bullshit in the pages of the credulous retransmitters of George Bush's Iraw lie?
No one at dKos responded to Dear Leader's 48-hour about-face on Hackett. Selling him out for Sherrod Brown, as soon as he got the word from Mark Warner's astrologer.
ReplyDeleteBut if you look at Kos'
post
you see a lot of argument and free spirited debate. Conclusion: you are a liar and a troll.
Citizen K,
ReplyDeleteThe liberal blogs, and Glenn’s participation in them, threaten David Shaughnessy’s goal of a third party.
He wants to do everything possible to undermine the liberals and supporters of the Democratic Party like Kos. That’s why he wants to promote this conspiracy theory of a “corrupt cabal” run by Kos and implemented by mindless robots like Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, etc.
David has gone from interesting, to irrelevant, to downright pathetic.
A short sad trip it’s been.
Oh heck, no biggie, TNR is just using the internets to make their own realities. Again.
ReplyDeleteFrom Martin Peretz "defense" of TNR:
ReplyDelete"The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security "reform," against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman's entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito. And, institutionally, TNR was against several policies that I favor, including allowing the government more rather than less leeway in ferreting out terrorists and allies of terrorists. From today's newspapers: I see nothing wrong with the feds scrutinizing international monetary exchanges in the dragnet for enemies of not just our civilization but civilization. But TNR is a heterodox institution, a concept Kos surely cannot fathom."
How ignorant do you have to be to think that the New Republic is a "neo-con" publication? Those are not the positions on issues a neo-con, paleo-con, or a regular con would take.
It only proves that Greenwald and most of the left have no conception of what "neo-cons" believe. Of course, this won't stop him or others from making fools of themselves by referring to everyone they disagree with a a "neo-con" because it makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.
Your update ignores Gilliard's own claiming of the email ih his comments
ReplyDeleteYou also glide over your quote of Gilliard "not sending it to the list ... or anyone else." Gilliard contradicted that.
I am done and disgusted, Glenn. Your misrepresentations here are positively Rovian
You also glide over your quote of Gilliard "not sending it to the list ... or anyone else." Gilliard contradicted that.
ReplyDeletePlease try to comprehend these words, written by Steve Gilliard:
Only problem: I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn't send any e-mail with that phrase at all.
Do you understand what the phrase "anyone else" means? Do you understand what it means when someone says "I didn't send any e-mail with that phrase at all"?
It means he searched his e-mail and there is nothing containing the phrases quoted by Zengarle which Gilliard sent to Townhouse OR TO ANYONE ELSE - exactly what I said. Basic comprehension of the language will resolve your confusion. Seriously, please concentrate just a little.
Scores of individuals on the Townhouse list have confirmed that Gilliard never sent any such e-mail to Townhouse, and Gilliard has said the same thing
ReplyDeleteUmmm, Glenn...reread what Gilliard wrote. He never said he didn't send it. Also, name some of the "scores of individuals" or STFU.
here's why I like blogs-
ReplyDeleteif this story had happened a few years back the target of the lie would be beholden to the very media smearing him to get his message out.
Now?
A few days later and the story (such an accurate word in this case) is debunked by several outlets, including the target of the lie himself.
"Ummm, Glenn...reread what Gilliard wrote. He never said he didn't send it. "
ReplyDeleteYes he did, quite clearly.
He *did* hedge by saying he might have said something similar in some other context to someone unconnected with the list at some other time, but that he can't find any record of it ever leaving his computer.
So yeah, you've got THAT going for you. =D
Ummm, Glenn...reread what Gilliard wrote. He never said he didn't send it.
ReplyDeleteWhy are so many people who refuse to read basic English commenting here today? Please reconcile what you just said with this statement from Gilliard's post:
“I have no record of sending such an e-mail to the Townhouse list, Kos, Armstrong, who did not participate in any of the discussions, or anyone else. I didn’t send any e-mail with that phrase at all”
Steve said: "I didn't send any e-mail with that phrase at all." How can you come here with a straight face and claim that Steve never denied sending the e-mail? What do those words mean to you??
As for the Townhouse bloggers who confirmed never receiving the e-mail, most did that in private e-mails to me, but Atrios, Lindsay Bernstein and Taylor Marsh are all bloggers who posted about this.
I love how desperate people are to believe this e-mail is not fake. Let's hear from Jason and we will know for sure soon enough.
If Kos is imprisoned for this, do not despair for him, he is quite looking forward to "dropping the soap."
ReplyDeleteHe is already enrolled in a Summer community education class to teach the fine art of making wine in the toilet.
As for the Townhouse bloggers who confirmed never receiving the e-mail, most did that in private e-mails to me, but Atrios, Lindsay Bernstein and Taylor Marsh are all bloggers who posted about this.
ReplyDeleteUmm, Glenn..you may want to reread what these three wrote also. None of them claim they did not see the email from Gilliard. They simply refer back to your denial. In other words, they're leaving you to hang on your own.
To be honest, you're looking pretty pathetic and desperate, and odds are you'll be burned big time on this.
So, who are these partisan hack journalists that belong to Townhouse? David Schuster...Keith Olberman, maybe?
Gilliard's own words:
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, I told Glenn I disagreed with the characterization of it being false, because I may have express some kind of sentiment close to that. The issue to me is not that Zengerle created it out of whole cloth, but if he got it from a source that he was too lazy and sloppy to confirm it with me. Let me be clear, I didn’t deny writing the e-mail.I said that I had no record of writing such an e-mail with that phrase, to the list on that day.
Umm, Glenn...so where do you get the idea that he never denied writing it?
This is so sad.
To be honest, you're looking pretty pathetic and desperate, and odds are you'll be burned big time on this.
ReplyDeleteTime will tell. Why don't you leave some contact information so that way, you can be reminded to come back and let us know if you were right.
Time will tell. Why don't you leave some contact information so that way, you can be reminded to come back and let us know if you were right.
ReplyDelete7:44 PM
Just send up the bat signal and I'll be there!
When it rain, it pours
ReplyDeleteMan. Is Glenn Greenwald having a bad day or what...?
Maybe he should have had his chart done. As a Towhouse premium club member, I hear you get a 20% discount—though that’s probably just another of Zengerle’s vicious RIGHT-WING LIES!
POWER TO THE PEOPLE-POWERED PEOPLES’ PEOPLE!
Posted by Jeff Goldstein @ 02:27 PM
Blogroll me
13 Comments • 0 Trackbacks • Email this
~~~
Ummm, Glenn...word's getting around about your stupidity. I think it's time to cut bait.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI just read your update 3, and believe this really closes the loop on whether Gilliard sent the email quoted by TNR. Clearly, he didn't (unfortunately, that was left ambiguous in Gilliard's post).
I think some caution is necessary when somebody's job may be in the balance, as it may well be with Zengerle, so I'm sympathetic with Gilliard's intentions.
I don't know if this will ease your frustration (per your update 4), but there's a number of blogs posting about this story, and in the process of going back and forth between these blogs commenters may have missed update 3.
Now, I'd say Zengerle has some 'splaining to do.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteZengerle's shoddy "reporting" is secondary. The primary issue is TNR's use of the standard Republican "discredit the messenger" scheme. What Zengerle alleges is nothing compared MSM or Republican standard procedure and is not a big deal. Essentially, Zengerle is painting "acts like a political movement" as something immoral. This is the same gameplan that has Democrats as "partisan" and "playing politics" and "playing the race card" for attempting to fight back against republican over-reaching. The idea is to deligitemize opposition. That he makes up his evidence is just a distraction.
Glenn--
ReplyDeleteStand up and be a MAN and answer some god damn questions! This whole thing reeks of rotting fish.
I have been here long enough to know you are not this fucking stupid. You are well aware of what the issues are. These emails are leaking because some people are very uncomfortable with what is going on. Jerome is an admitted stock shill. There is an obvious concerted effort to hope this goes away. Is it this fucking hard to stand up and do the right thing?
Suck it up, be a man and address the issue with confidence and forthrightness and then move on.
Did the whole world go crazy in a day? Is everybody really for sale? At such low low prices?
And to think, I have just started drinking.
Sounds like Gilliard's email is "fake" but "accurate." Maybe Dan Rather will do a story about this at CBS. Oh wait....nevermind.
ReplyDeleteGosh, don't you really think it incredibly unlikely that Zengerle made up the email? I mean, wouldn't that take just a second to refute?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it more likely that he was incorrect in attributing it to Gilliard, perhaps, or stating that is was sent to Townhouse?
I know that either of those possibilities provides a convenient means to dismiss Zengerle's entire point, in the typical style of progressive argument ("Zengerle LIED!!!"), but if I may offer some advice:
Don't get too far out on Zengerle, Greenwald.
The Commissar said...
ReplyDeleteSharoney,
I can no longer comment at all at dKos. So more than "one comment was troll-rated out of existence."
There was no shortage of ad hominem attacks addressed to me by loyal members.
BTW, Kos did instruct his minions to vandalize the TNR displays.
5:05 PM
He did? Cite? C'mon. Link to his actual words, if you dare. Of course, if you did that, you'll have to redefine the word "vandalize."
And what's with the "astrologer" fixation? Did a gypsy fortuneteller insult your tiny little blog, or something?
And as for the namecalling, nice try. I've been called worse than that by better boys than you. And I don't email them to continue the venom offsite, either, like you did to several posters on DailyKos.
Re: SoullessCommentator at 7:33, is there a point in there somewhere?
And Glenn, nice takedown, as usual, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Zengerle to acknowledge that, like so many of his wingnut friends, he just Makes Shit Up. Maybe he'll do us all a favor and slink into the same cave Ben "Boy Wonder" Dolmenech now inhabits.
By the way, Markos told me to post this. Every single word of it, verbatim.
Okay, I read the whole mess through, again, and I still think something is amiss. It's really a lose-lose for everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteYou can pick over the details but, unfortunately, the more picking the more the whole mess just gathers steam.
I can't think of anything useful except backing up and rethinking the ways that progressive blogs communicate to each other and the general orgranization of progessive group blogs. Even if 90% of all of this is on the up and up and everyone is _trying_ to do the right thing, there's still a smear going down. And you can count on smears on progressive blogs to increase as the election nears.
So, diversify, stick to your guns, think way ahead, and come up with a real plan to deal with this shit. Already.
lastnamechosen:
ReplyDeleteAnd to think, I have just started drinking.
Send me a note when you start hoisting whole bottles and I will send you my own theories on who really wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
So you have that to look forward to... Hope that cheers you up!!!
Meanwhile, a taste of the bubbly never really hurt anyone---especially on weekends :)
There is deep iron in wingnut trolls, who endlessly blasted Dan Rather for his defense of the TANG memo story with the mocking phrase "fake but accurate", attempting to use the same logic now.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, hypocrisy has no meaning in the world of the right-wing loon.
How much distance is there in a light year squared?
ReplyDeleteWhatever, that's about the distance between David Shaughnessy and the rest of the posters on this thread.
Citizen K asks: Why would I care?
You wouldn't. Only people with intelligence and integrity care about the things David Shaughnessy cares about.
Jerome's presumed offense is treated like he forgot to put his blinking light on when making a turn.
That about sums up the integrity, apparently, of the "progressive" blogosphere, to indulge in a generalization which may actually define the specifics of the genre. I see why people like Justin Raimondo and Paul Craig Roberts don't have blogs. Wouldn't slum.
Back to you citizen k, as you seem to represent the mindset of the other sycophantic frauds on this thread: here's a clue---the reason some of us care is because when we find out someone is a crook,
Main Entry: 2crook
Function: noun
4 : a person who engages in fraudulent or criminal practices
whether that person has espoused causes in which we believe or not, we no longer are interested in reading anything he has to say.
Get it?
There are some things at which you don't get three strikes. Once up at bat as a CROOK, you're out.
I am beginning to understand those anons who posted about the circle of links. I never understood what they were talking about because these childish turf wars between rising stars on the blogosphere do not interest me. Ideas do.
But it appears one may not be able to separate the tactics and what appears to be an ever increasing tendency to be selective in one's condemnation of wrongdoing in the "progressive" blogosphere from the personalities behind the blogs.
Sad to watch people selling out so soon for so little. At least Willie Sutton had some flair and went where the $$$$ were.
David Shaugnessy, you're the best!
PS. Glenn, the article to which you link which is supposed to tell us why the Zengerle brouhaha is an important story is less than persuasive. Yawn. And Tapped's take on this story is certainly biased away from reality. The important story is the one David Shaughnessy outlines. Sorry you aren't more interested in that. The question is: why not?
My estimation of progressive bloggers has taken a nose dive.
Carolyn Kay
Precisely.
Markos says he doesn't want to be the voice of his own site, much less the blogosphere, yet he allows the corporate media to put him in that position by giving them interviews and getting in front of their cameras.
ReplyDeleteAs long as he puts himself out there, he has something of an obligation to be at least a little careful of what he does and says, even in what is supposed to be a private forum. As we've seen, there's little or nothing that's really private in this online world we're building. When it's establishment figures who are caught in the Web, we're happy about that.
I understand wanting to defend a friend, but I don't understand doing it thoughtlessly and blindly. If we want others to be open and aboveboard, we'd better be that ourselves.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
PS: And Jerome's case, if it could be aired out, is a non-story (he was a poor grad student at the time so he settled because he had no money). Jerome can't talk about it now since the case is not fully closed. But once it is, he'll go on the offensive. That should be a couple of months off.
ReplyDeleteJesus, kos, excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for your blogging partner Jerome to "go on the offensive."
Apparently "progressives" have little understanding of consent decrees. Those who sign them are not poor grad students. They are guilty as hell. It's the SEC's way of protecting the public from crooks without having to litigate the cases of all the Jeromes in this world. There are, alas, far too many of them. And his little apologist Markos reveals his true colors in his unprinicipled defense of his dishonest friend and unsavory business partner.
But then that's not really a surprise is it? Did Kos and Jerome ever really look like stalwart upright types to anyone?
I'd say this better characterizes them:
bullshit
vulgar slang
• noun nonsense.
• verb (bullshitted, bullshitting) talk nonsense in an attempt to deceive.
Notify me when Jerome starts bringing those lawsuits to clear his name, will ya kos? Tie a string around your finger to remind yourself about that, y'hear?
Boy, Warner must be really bad news. Any politician stupid and desperate enough to hook himself up with these two con artists must be the pits. But he sure knows how to throw a party....
Does it worry you that you're much, much farther out in front of this than Gilliard is willing to be? And why are you intentionally refusing to acknowledge the difference between not having a record of something, and not having written it? It's impossible to miss that difference, so it must be intentional that you're ignoring it, right?
ReplyDeleteIf the email is phony, then either Zengerle was tricked (and this is by far more likely) or he made it up (which makes no sense). The way to clear this up is to make your little behind-the-scenes email list public. You, or, rather, the people actually in charge of it, won't do that. They have so much more to lose here, than this little battle. Maybe that's why nobody else has your back in any meaningful way.
Now I'm convinced the email is a phony ROVE plot to out the Townhouse Conspirators! It all makes sense. The VRWC is even vaster than could possibly have been imagined. Like the cosmos. . .
Eyes Wide Open has proved conclusively that Glenn and all progressive bloggers are totally guilty of selling out and have absolutely no integrity. Only the great David Shaugnessy has integrity because no one in his third party has sold out. (It’s a fantasy, after all.)
ReplyDeleteThank goodness all Libertarians have absolute integrity that can’t be compromised. I think Grover Norquist is a perfect example.
If all progressives are judged by what someone named Jerome did (and I’ve never even been to his blog) then why can’t we judge the integrity of all libertarians by the behavior of Grover Norquist?
As sure as the planets spin in their orbits or the sun rises in the east, the left will eat its own.
ReplyDeleteThis "scandal" is incomprehensible to anyone with a normal life. No wonder James Taranto called Glenn Greenwald "silly." Is there any further doubt that the "blogosphere" is little more than an electronic sandbox for those, like Glenn Greenwald, who suffer from an extreme case of arrested development?
David Shaugnessy:
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of GG: I realize he has decided I don't exist
Oh, poor David, Glenn hasn't taken time from his book tour to respond to each and every insult that you write here?
Or, maybe, Glenn would like nothing better than to massage your giant ego, but it’s just that he can’t get permission from Markos to respond to your comment.
Since we all know that every progressive blogger has to clear everything they write with Markos, it sometimes takes a little time to get clearance for a comment or observation.
Be patient, David.
EWO,
ReplyDeleteA light year squared is a measure of area, not distance. Just like one foot squared = 1 sq. ft.
David S. writes:
ReplyDeleteI supposed this is what passes for sarcasm in the high-school lunchroom.
oooh, what a comeback!
Of course, if you didn’t like someone accusing your “Third Party” as being just a “fantasy” you could have easily provided us with links to the names, bios, and resumes of its members, officers and candidates.
That way we could all evaluate their “integrity” for ourselves, and check to see if there was any conflicts of interest.
Perhaps that would be more effective in disputing this silly notion that you’re living in a fantasy world than accusing someone of high school humor.
Just saying.
I see David Brooks of the NY Times picks up the rumor and flys with it today.
ReplyDeleteWho cares if it's true; it certainly makes good copy.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThe part that makes this a story & does indeed question the integrity of the “Screw Them” nation is if KOS did indeed pocket some money, directly or indirectly. I am waiting to see verified proof before proclaiming his guilt. But you have to admit his subsequent e-mail asking that the oxygen be removed from the story & the lack of left-side Bloggers to address the subject alone is rather suspect. Your only response so far is to show that Zengerle may have incorrectly used 1 e-mail out of 3 to prove a point – not really damning evidence. Whether Zengerle lied or not, reflects solely on his journalistic integrity & doesn’t change the dynamics of the story itself. Gilliard’s non-response only adds more of a shadow. They were his words, but not direct quotes & the fact that he will not deny mailing the e-mail casts further doubt & implies he actually agrees w/ the sentiment that the questionable e-mail, as reported by Zengerle, related – another thing Gilliard hasn’t denied but actually agreed with.
So what is the point? The emails may not have been mailed to the “Townhouse Group” & the direct quotes may not be the exact wording, but the e-mail itself hasn’t been wholly denied by the reported author, Gilliard, or the point that was made by it. What if Zengerle mistook who it was sent to &/or edited it to protect his source? Once again the information shown from the purported e-mail it is not effected. You’ve done a marvelous job of showing that the evidence is questionable as worded, but not it’s content – you know, the thing that gave the story legs.
The real question, not being addressed, lies in the arms of Armstrong & KOS. Are they paid political shills or not? These are the questions that need to be addressed & these are the questions not being addressed by the left, you or anyone but the political right side of the blogsphere. The repercussions of this are far reaching, because if KOS & Armstrong are guilty or even appear guilty, this will taint the authenticity of their supporters & the elected officials that have used dKOS as a sounding board or publicly accepted his approval for their actions or campaigns. All of which could have been prevented by KOS, once again if guilty, had he employed full disclosure. As this blog-circus continues & the left bands together to ignore it completely or to protect him & Armstrong, regardless of guilt or innocence, the continued attacks on the questioners shows the lack of integrity of the left side, for not questioning it from the get-go & assuming an unjustified defensive posture. Given the media attention KOS himself has recently received, his relationship to Armstrong, the use of his blog by top Democrat politicians makes the questioning completely justified & the lack of internal questioning quite damning. It’s the questioning & the questioners that have received the most blowback, not the questions themselves. Sure KOS denied it, but then so did Armstrong initially deny the SEC charges. Hmm… inside trading felons acting as political consultants to politicians, who have a demonstrable relationship to well known, very public Bloggers like KOS, nope no story there.
Hmm… inside trading felons acting as political consultants to politicians, who have a demonstrable relationship to well known, very public Bloggers like KOS, nope no story there.
ReplyDeletePMain, while I agree with you that the issues surrounding Armstrong raise questions of integrity, it also will not do to over-state what those issues are. Armstrong's encounter with the SEC was a civil matter, not criminal, and it did not involve "insider trading." Armstrong was alleged in a civil action to have touted stock while secretly agreeing to be paid by the company whose stock he was touting.
Further, neither Armstrong, nor anyone at his direction, may publicly deny the allegations because Armstrong signed a civil consent decree in which he agrees that:
Defendant agrees not to take any action or to make or permit to be made any public statement denying, directly or indirectly, any allegation in the complaint or creating the impression that the complaint is without factual basis.
The astrology nonsense, as extensive as it appears to have been where Armstrong is concerned, has a whiff of charlatanry about it, and is embarrassing no matter how you cut it. The left would be going wild if such a thing came out about any of the prominent bloggers on the right. (And they have justly ridiculed Coulter and others who promote creationist/ID bullsp*t.)
But you will note that Greenwald -- in his email quoted by TNR -- urged that Jerome address the accusations head on, or that someone on his behalf should do so. He did not say: "Yes Master Kos, so let it be (un)written, so let it be (not) done." Now it turns out, however, that it would be hard to craft any "defense" that would not violate the consent decree Armstrong signed, in a civil matter.
Armstrong really can't say much about the SEC matter by way of defense, and neither can anyone else in consultation with him. As to the implications of payola vis-a-vis Kos, Armstrong and those candidates who employ Armstrong, those explanations, if more are to come, must come from Kos and Armstrong. Other left bloggers who have had any public affiliation with Kos and/or Armstrong will have to assess what ethical duties, if any, they have to comment on what has been said, or will be said, or what perhaps should be done and by whom.
Opinions about their obligations among such bloggers no doubt will vary.
David’s ego writes:
ReplyDeleteThe upshot of this is the GG should have listened to me. I could have saved him a lot of grief.
Yes, and David Shaugnessy’s integrity-laden “Third Party” would have saved the day by now, if only Glenn had listened to his sage advise.
But now Glenn is screwed, his blog under investigation by SEC for involvement with the hopelessly corrupt and traitorous “advertise liberally” who, by the way, are under investigation for their links to Al Qaeda.
David Shaugnessy has always been right. Why, oh why, didn’t Glenn obey David’s ultimatum to form a third party.
Glenn will regret not listening to David the rest of life, and he’ll have plenty of time to think about it in his cell, as he’s waterboarded (perfectly legal, by the way) for his SEC violations and his terrorist connections to that fascist Markos.
The rest of us will shake our head sadly at Glenn’s plight, while we live in the corrupt-free world of David Shaugnessy’s wondrous “Third Party” – where it never rains, and politicians are always so full of integrity that they have to keep it stored when they travel.
Yes, I know Glenn made that point as well & Hypatia was quite correct that I did not point that out. It's just funny that a post or demand for the truth, publicly, not an e-mail talking about the potential fall-out from it, didn't follow TNR’s publication here. Nor has any one prominent “progressive”, liberal or left leaning Blogger put forth the call for the truth. Their silence follows KOS’ call to starve the story of oxygen, which for the most part, has been done by the left-hand side of blog-verse. That only adds to the suspicion & the guise of the cover up. Regardless of KOS’ innocence, the repercussions of any taint could have a lasting effect on the politicians, who’d have no issue releasing the information & will hold no loyalties to KOS or Armstrong when it comes down to it. In their effort to protect themselves or KOS… or just to stay out of it, the left may have inadvertently dug itself deeper into the hole – the result was something else Glenn has written about via e-mail & not publicly & shows his concern.
ReplyDeleteMy point is where is the left’s demand for the truth, not the fisking of some e-mail that a particular group did or did not receive, w/ which the author will not deny he wrote it, sent it or didn’t imply the very content? Funny how Gilliard won’t deny the e-mail & demands to see it entirely… what to refresh his memory or is it to figure out who outed him? In all of the fury being generated by the left to prove that they don’t toe Kos’ line, by not questioning it or demanding the truth, they are none-the-less toeing that line. Unless Atrios, FIreDogLake, Talkleft, MyDD, DU, Glenn or DailyKOS have openly demanded the truth behind the accusations & I just missed the post. For the most part all are silent or are attacking those doing the questioning. For Glenn’s part it is only 1 e-mail, that the author denies a phrase of, but doesn’t deny sending or deny sending something that mirrors the sentiment of that reported.
Or would it better to apply the same criteria of guilt I saw imposed here regarding Rove’s pending indictment, the NYT’s releasing of the NSA wiretap information & Bushco’s trampling of “rights” or other mis-deeds that followed post after post here. I do recall me asking for examples or proof of any specific violations or the name of someone who was affected – none appeared. So by the same standards, I could argue that KOS is guilty of being a paid political shill & his followers, apologists, supporters & allies are all mindless “cultists” following the orders of KOS & not questioning him… right? The problem is I wouldn’t accept the inane argument that all Bush supporters were “cultists”, that because Malkin or other political Bloggers made a point it represented all of the conservative movement or all of the other conjecture laden points I have argued against w/ Glenn & posters here. I will wait for proof before assuming guilt. It is just that those that are generally the loudest against the mis-doings of the right & totally silent now which is what KOS wanted in the first place.
Zengerle has responded at The Plank.
ReplyDeleteZengerle admits the initial source of the "Gilliard" email won't reply to inquiries and it is not real, while the other two who vouched for its accuracy merely "erred." The "Gilliard" email he quoted is fake.
ReplyDeleteGlenn was right.
David Shaughnessy writes many of you surely know that Brooks is a generally fair-minded and sensible person.
ReplyDeleteRighto. Next troll please.
David’s ego“h” writes:
ReplyDeleteIntegrity matters
Yes, David, it does. And that’s why us “GeeGees” expect Glenn Greenwald to take Jerome to task, if he deserves it, once he has access to all the facts.
And, if what Jerome did was totally corrupt, I don’t expect him (Jerome)to have any credibility or influence on the “cool kids” anymore. (A stark contrast to Republican shills).
{And since your answer to the fundamentally corrupt duopoly doesn’t exist outside of your pathetic little comments, we don’t have examples of how “your” politicians and party would react to such charges.}
David's Ego“h” also writes: Integrity is for jokes
No, David, your hopeless pomposity is for jokes. Integrity is something that us “Gee Gees” take very seriously, which, unfortunately is something we can no longer do with your condescending remarks.
David shaughnessy says: Yes, Glenn was right about this
ReplyDeleteYes, and quite a few right-wing bloggers owe him a concession, if not an outright apology. The Commissar called Glenn a "liar," and if the Commissar is a man of honor he will apologize.
As for the rest of your claims, Glenn's email as reprinted in TNR speaks for itself. He thought Jerome should straightforwardly answer the issue of the SEC charges. As it turns out, Jerome cannot do that, and if Glenn were to take on a proxy defense of Jerome -- that would possibly put Glenn in complicity with violating a Court order.
Glenn didn't know more than what was claimed in a few venues like the NY post, and WAS NOT in a position to address the SEC matter until Jerome provided his side -- which Jerome cannot really do. So what should Glenn have posted, given his vacuum of information?
Perhaps now that more is known Glenn will eventually opine on the substance of the various allegations swirling around Armstrong and Kos (I personally think he should, but that is up to him); for now, however, he deserves to revel in having been right about the three fabricators and/or liars who are Zengerle's sources -- at least one of whom Zengerle should reveal, since the source won't even attempt an explanation for having caused to be published a clearly fake email.
Great! I'll be waiting. One thing, though: You seldom get the facts by entering into a conspiracy of silence.
ReplyDelete(BTW: If you'd like respect, please act accordingly. And you might begin by identifying yourself in some manner.)
David,
If Glenn is trying to get the facts before commenting (which is what it looks like from Z’s apology) then that is hardly a “conspiracy of silence” – especially if Jerome is prohibited from defending himself at this point due to agreements in the case.
Secondly, Glenn always has identified himself, and that hasn’t stopped you from insulting him, or treating him with disrespect. Why should anyone here expect to be treated with respect if we give you a name?
"Yes, Glenn was right about this but that is overshadowed by the much larger point. Indeed, it strikes me as little more than a quasi-Rovian distraction from the real question: Whether there are undisclosed biases that are compromising the integrity of the progressive bloggers? "
ReplyDeleteA mainstream media outlet flat-out LIES about a blogger, gets called on it, and all you can do is moan and cry about the need for a Blogger Ethics Panel?
Grow up!
I never gratuitously insult people on this blog.
ReplyDeleteNo, you so ever helpfully point out that we’re mindless clones incapable of any thought that isn’t spoon fed us by GG or Markos the Fascist, and that we’re all entirely without integrity for not supporting your ideas.
David Shaughnessy writes: Hypatia, aren't you concerned about the implications for the integrity and independence of the progressive blogosphere?
ReplyDeleteI am sympathetic to the position stated by Mr. Stark in the email TNR reprinted (one of the two non-fabricated emails). I do think there are issues w/ Armstrong, and possibly ones that intersect with Kos. That all remains to be seen.
But I do not believe that Glenn Greenwald lets anyone dictate to him what he will or won't write about. Bloggers on an email list discussing issues is so not a scandal -- and I'd bet the farm that right-wing bloggers have email lists, even if informal ones where a bunch get CCed. Further, Glenn disagreed with Kos's suggestion to try silence, but he was not then in any position to hold forth on Jerome Armstrong's issues with the SEC. Instead, he prudently suggested that Jerome needed to step forth himself -- but Jerome, as it turns out, actually is very limited in being able to do that.
Zengerle has promptly admitted the error on Gilliard's email. (Which admission of error I linked to on my 'tiny little blog').
ReplyDeleteScore one gnat for the Great Distractor, Mr. Greenwald.
Any response to the substantive issues raised by TNRs points?
Yup, Commissar clumisly shifts the goalposts. You should have seen the smarmy, unctuous way he tried to get Steve Gilliard to admit that maybe he might have written the post. He cared much more than he admits.
ReplyDeleteThe Commissar writes: Zengerle has promptly admitted the error on Gilliard's email. (Which admission of error I linked to on my 'tiny little blog')
ReplyDeleteScore one gnat for the Great Distractor, Mr. Greenwald.
Error? Someone who now refuses to respond to Zengerle's inquiries as to provenance clearly did exactly what Greenwald said -- this person fabricated the email that best buttresses Zengerle's accusations. And two other sources just sort of... forgot that they hadn't actually ever seen it; they vouched for its authenticity as a Townhouse post.
Greenwald said it was a fake, and you, Commissar, called him a "liar."
Now, I respect your blog, and have enjoyed your posts on creationists/IDers, and one a long time ago on female teachers who seduce their male students resulted in one of the most lengthy, entertaining threads I can think of.
You've struck me as right-wing on foreign policy, but reasonable and not willing to be a GOP-bot; you've seemed honest. So, I would expect a bit more of a gracious admission from you that you should not have called Glenn a liar. Further, if TNR had made such "errors" regarding right-of-center bloggers you like, I don't think you'd consider it a "gnat's issue." Nor do I think you would even accept the "error" codswollop. Do you really think I'm wrong about all that?
The Commissar can be straight up about some stuff, let's see if we can all cut through the crap here.
ReplyDeleteUpdate to my post on this:
ReplyDeleteI have been called to task by commenter Hypatia/Mona for failing to retract my accusation that Greenwald was liar. While I think his persistant refusal to mention Gilliard’s “my email” comment fell short of “the whole truth,” the facts have borne out Greenwald’s contention.
I stand corrected. He is no liar.
Have you seen this TNR diatribe on bloggers? Shessh. It must be a TNR contagion.
ReplyDeleteHypatia,
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't salute him just yet. I want to see his apologies on all the other blogs he's been peddling his bullshit theories on before I call him anything near honest.
I dunno. When I call someone a name and find out I was in the wrong, I usually apologize.
ReplyDeleteHave you seen this TNR diatribe on bloggers?
ReplyDeleteFor a total demolition of Siegel's unhinged rant, see James Wolcott
This is how I understand it. Somebody sent TNR 3 emails which revealed: Armstrong has an ongoing case; Greenwald e-mail wants Jerome to explain himself but Kos asked bloggers to hold off for 2 months until Jerome himself is able to explain himself after case is closed. ---It seems to me the only wrong thing here is that somebody wanted this revealed to MSM sneakily instead of just writing about it in his blog.
ReplyDeleteI dont understand why Greenwald would get so mad about ?fake Gillard letter when he himself wrote something similar and expressed the same sentiment. Is Greenwald setting up Zengerle. But what it looks like to me there is a traitor in your midst and make something normal look wrong.
Regarding accusing Jerome Kos payola, etc., I dont agree with it, I dont think Kos is being paid to give his opinion. It is within his character to like Warner, Dean, Clark, Feingold, Brown etc. Even if Hillary or Kerry pays Kos, I dont think kos will endorse them. If Jerome and kos are friends wouldnt they share same likes and dislikes. I'm able to influence friends and relatives about a candidate I like by building him up.
Nevertheless the netroots movement is not about kos it is about people getting involve to make sure we have good governement.
"Hypatia" said...
ReplyDeletewhat should Glenn have posted, given his vacuum of information?
I already gave an example:
"You'd think that Jerome's friends would have gotten out in front of the SEC filing and said, as I did when David Rosen was indicted, there's this filing, and I don't know the facts, but I have a hard time believing that this person I know is a person who could be guilty of these accusations. David Rosen was acquitted, by the way."
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
EWO,
ReplyDeleteA light year squared is a measure of area, not distance. Just like one foot squared = 1 sq. ft.
I was wondering about that when I wrote it. Thanks. I guess what I should have said was to take the number associated with a light year and square that number, and voila.
PS: And Jerome's case, if it could be aired out, is a non-story (he was a poor grad student at the time so he settled because he had no money). Jerome can't talk about it now since the case is not fully closed. But once it is, he'll go on the offensive. That should be a couple of months off.
Whoops, pass the shovel. I do remember it as hypatia does that someone who signs a consent decree is restrained from commenting on the facts associated with the case. So how is it then that Jerome will "go on the offensive"? Another lie from a person to whom lies come easily it seems.
No, David, your hopeless pomposity is for jokes.
This particular anon, who is very prolific on this blog and unmercifully identifiable, is one of those people akin to those who "hate the rich" in terms of money, but in this poor soul's case he "hates the smart". Have vs. have-not type of thing....
Whenever someone intelligent who is gifted with a superior ability to use logic makes astute observations and eloquently frames his arguments, this gnat thinks it's pompous. Sad.
David’s ego writes:
Mr. Gnat: 'Dis for you:
Main Entry: ego
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'e-(")gO also 'e-
Inflected Form(s): plural egos
Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, I -- more at I
1 : the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world
2 a : EGOTISM 2 b : SELF -esteem 1
3 : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality.
The "ego" is the "self." Ego in Greek means I. You should try getting one. Any would be better than the lack of one you have now.
This is your cue to post the entries about the Ayatollah Rand. Come on, you know you want to.....
And since your answer to the fundamentally corrupt duopoly doesn’t exist outside of your pathetic little comments, we don’t have examples of how “your” politicians and party would react to such charges.
Anon, if I were you I wouldn't use the words "pathetic" and "little". You're an easy enough target already without setting yourself up for a knockout.
David, thanks for the great posts. I love watching your mind work.
Pmain, you make some good points.
Finally, when I wrote above about those who sell out soon for little, I wasn't talking about Glenn. I am the same fan of Glenn's I always was. I do think he makes some missteps, but so do we all.
A passion for justice is what counts most. I increasingly worry about the company Glenn keeps, but the road is never all that easy, and people have to figure out for themselves how to navigate it. I am confident Glenn will end up on the high road. But if he insulted David Shaughnessy as David seems to think he did, I don't think that was nice or warranted, unless I missed something.
Guess what the prime rate is now? It's 8%! Who woulda thunk?
Tom Maguire asks: How many folks think that it is possible that the primary source copy/pasted a genuine email from another discusson into the email to Zengerle and *misattributed* it to Gilliard?
ReplyDeleteAnd how many folks think two other sources vouching that this email was written to the Townhouse list doesn't discredit them all? Whatever the provenance of that "Gilliard" email, whether composed from wholecloth, or cut and pasted from some entirely different exchange between other people, (Gilliard searched all of his June email archives and found no such email as that coming from him in that month), something is, to understate, amiss.
The faux Gilliard email cannot constitute proof that Kos is enforcing silence via the Townhouse list members, because no such message was sent by anyone to that list. And the original source of that faux email has gone silent -- won't respond to the inquiries regarding provinance that Zengerele has asked him/her for. That doesn't smell like the behavior of an honest person.
MinuteMan:
ReplyDeleteHow many folks think that, having read Zengerle's explanation, the email was "completley fabricated", and that no other explanation is possible?
How many folks think that it is possible that the primary source copy/pasted a genuine email from another discusson into the email to Zengerle and *misattributed* it to Gilliard?
Huh? So if I take some random email from, say, the "skinheads unite" mailing list and attribute it to "Tom Maguire" then you would say that's not a complete fabrication because there really was some original out there by some other person?
Some folks have an extraordinarily low standard for what constitutes truth, I guess.
Wow! Could we chill for a sec?
ReplyDeleteWhen Tom observes that 'just plain making up emails is unlikely' he has a very good point. For reasons that are obvious at this juncture.
Gilliard's hemming and hawing also are suggestive.
Thus my "smarmy and unctuous" suggestion that Gilliard sent the email, BUT NOT TO THE TOWNHOUSE LIST.
Pure speculation on my part.
After carefully examining the email in question, I can tell you that there is absolutely no way it was typed on a 1972 IBM Selectric Typewriter.
ReplyDelete22 Words! 22 Words!
ReplyDeleteDear Glenn, the issues remain the same:
The “fiercely independent” lefty blogs coordinated their “fiercely independent” posts on Townhouse like teenyboppers trading make-up tips on MySpace.
Kos tried to take advantage of this and the “fiercely independent” lefty bloggers largely went along.
A “fiercely independent” star-twiddling stock swindler is still handling lefty campaign contributions.
And the “fiercely independent” Kos Moulitsas’ loyalties seem to be tied damn tightly to monies sent to his star-twiddling stock swindler buddy.
When you find something in those 22 Words! that discredit that, you just let us know, ‘kay?
The Commisar:
ReplyDeleteWhen Tom observes that 'just plain making up emails is unlikely' he has a very good point. For reasons that are obvious at this juncture.
Gilliard's hemming and hawing also are suggestive.
Thus my "smarmy and unctuous" suggestion that Gilliard sent the email, BUT NOT TO THE TOWNHOUSE LIST.
Pure speculation on my part.
Yep. I'll speculate you're an eedjit ... and that the person(s) with the most to gain by this e-mail wasn't Steve Gilliard, but rather someone who had it out for him and others. Seeing as he didn't write it (and Zengerle now acknowledges that), let's get on with the "investigation".
Cheers,
Glenn, why don't you instead wonder whether Kos has another Armando in Jerome, rather than if Zengerle is TNR's Stephen Glass?
ReplyDeleteAs a TRUE progressive (I voted Green in 2004) I have a couple of other comments.
1. The idea that TNR (besides Peretz himself) is "neocon" are ridiculous. The mag as a whole I would call "neocentrist" if you insist on a label.
2. For "ewo," Raimundo is anti-Semitic; want to rethink? That said, I agree w/a fair amount of what he has to say, but always take his comments on the Middle East with a great of salt.
3. For "eli," yes, I'm sure TNR is just quaking in its boots about the blogosphere. Please.
4. For everybody -- Kos doesn't care about getting money; for him, assuming Jerome's candidates can end Kos' highly touted string of near-misses, he gets "power" and "fame" (put in square quotes because that would be based on his own definition of both words). It's clear that those two words ARE money to Kos.