On Friday, I wrote a post stating -- based on abundant evidence I had compiled that was indisputable and conclusive to all but the most fact-free eyes -- that an e-mail published by Jason Zengerle on the website of The New Republic was fraudulent. The e-mail was one purportedly written to the Townhouse list by Steve Gilliard, and it was clear that Zengerle's claim was false because no such e-mail was ever sent. Zengerle's silence over the weekend led a variety of right-wing bloggers and their commenters to spend the last two days calling me a liar, mocking my claims, giddily exchanging juvenile jokes with one another over my paranoia, and generally insisting that my accusation was false and baseless.
Jason Zengerle finally responded last night and, in doing so, confirmed that every single thing I said was, in fact, true:
Steve Gilliard claims that he did not write the email I attributed to him in this post. After doing some further investigating, I'm afraid to say that he is correct. He did not write that email. I apologize to Gilliard for not checking with him before publishing my post, and I regret the error.
I am going to do my best to avoid flamboyant displays of celebratory vindication and instead focus on what I think are the substantive issues illustrated by this episode. But having spent the weekend being called a "liar" by several of the most integrity-free bloggers on the planet, that is going to be a difficult challenge, and you should consider this a warning in advance that I will likely be imperfect in fulfilling that aspiration (what I do promise is that this will be my last post on this issue, and I will post later today on the truly big story of the weekend -- the vicious, all-out, and truly unAmerican calls for the criminal prosecution of (if not physical attacks on) our nation's most influential newspaper). These are the issues I think are worth noting from the Zengerle episode:
(1) Numerous bloggers -- who had no evidence of any kind and did not need any -- spent the weekend writing and/or approvingly linking to posts which stated or strongly implied that I was lying when claiming that the Gilliard e-mail was fake and/or that I had no basis for the accusation. The honor roll includes:
Tom Maguire - in a post entitled "Glenn Greenwald's career in comedy," he wrote:
Somehow that seems to change the balance of probabilities a bit, especially since the "fake" email makes the same point as the two authentic ones - why, one might wonder, would Mr. Zengerle bother to gild the lily with a fake email supporting two real ones? And does it seem "highly unlikely (to put it mildly)" that Zengerle would have three sources confirming two genuine and one fake email? . . .
What a tangled web we weave.
Maguire's characteristically glib, evasive and substance-free attack on my integrity then, as intended, led some of his commenters to say -- without contradiction -- things such as this:
I guess Geenwald is taking the TruthOut approach. That my story and I am sticking to it.
and this:
So Gilliard has just subtly admitted he has allowed fellow traveler, I mean Townhouser to make a total fool of himself?
Could it get any funnier? I wonder if Gilliard will get in more trouble for embarrassing Glenn or betraying the trust of the cult, I mean Townhouse?>
Jeff Goldstein - here ("Is Glenn Greenwald having a bad day or what?" and linking to The Commissar's claim (below) that I was lying) and here (claiming that I was "coaxed" by Kos into doing the "potentially libelous work" against Zengerle)
Various commenters of Goldstein's, such as Kent, then said things like this:
Given the well-documented history of duplicity on the part of Greenwald: #4—”4. The e-mail was indeed sent to the Townhouse e-mail list, and both Greenwald and Gilliard are lying.“—would be the simplest, and (therefore) most likely explanation.
Instapundit -- here (approvingly linking to the Maguire post and excitedly calling it "Comedy Gold!").
The Commissar - here ("I’d say that Greenwald’s much-vaunted credibility has just taken a hit") and here ("I am done and disgusted, Glenn. Your misrepresentations here are positively Rovian").
And there are plenty of others who, needless to say, followed along, applying a whole range of derogatory attributes to my credibility and judgment this weekend for having pointed out that the Gilliard e-mail is fake and, beyond that, that TNR's journalistic behavior in printing it was questionable at best. And then there were countless other individuals who came here to comment on the original post I wrote who accused me of lying, having lost all integrity, etc. etc. (see, for instance, here ("To be honest, you're looking pretty pathetic and desperate, and odds are you'll be burned big time on this")).
All weekend, people who had no evidence or proof whatsoever that the Gilliard e-mail was authentic were insisting -- in the face of waves of evidence to the contrary -- that the e-mail was authentic and that I was a liar, a moron, a hysteric, etc. Their desire for the e-mail to be authentic, and for me to be wrong, swamped any assessment of the evidence. They swarmed together to make assertions which were plainly false and for which they had no proof, and then used their groupthink to confirm the rightness of their claims (they wallowed in an orgy of incestuous links to one another, all of which were evidence-free and reasoning-free -- not to mention wrong -- as though the endless references to one another constituted "evidence" which justified their accusations).
That is significant because a willingness to ignore waves of evidence and assert plainly false facts that they want to believe are true is -- as I have argued many times before -- the predominant mental attribute that has governed our country over the last five years. It is that corrupt dynamic that explains how things are going really well in Iraq; how Saddam really did have WMDs when we invaded; how the chaos and anarchy in Iraq is the fault (and invention) of the news media; how Saddam personally participated in the 9/11 attacks; how terrorists did not know before the New York Times story in December, 2005 that we were trying to eavesdrop on their telephone calls; how terrorists did not know before this weekend that we were trying to monitor their bank transactions; how Bush is really popular and most of the country agrees with him and that data to the contrary is due to flawed and biased polls, etc. A desire for a fact to be true is sufficient to embrace it as true, even with no evidence that it is, and even in the face of abundant evidence that it is false.
Personally, if I told my readers that another blogger was lying or was drowning in paranoia when making certain claims, only for those claims to turn out to have been true all along, I'd be quite eager to retract my accusations and apologize for them as clearly and prominently as I could. I can't think of anything that would be a more immediate priority than that. But it goes without saying that different bloggers have different ethical standards which guide them, and in the case of some of the above-named bloggers, some are entirely unburdened by such standards at all.
Of all of these brave accusers, only the Commissar came close to an undiluted retraction of his false accusations ("the facts have borne out Greenwald’s contention. I stand corrected. He is no liar"). Maguire pathetically continues to insist that I really was wrong, and Maguire right, and that Zengerle's confession that the Gilliard e-mail was fake somehow does not really support my claim. Instapundit simply inserted an "Update" to his original post composed of the link to Zengerle's post along with a recommendation to read Maguire's continued insistence that I was wrong, and he then separately quoted Zengerle's retraction, but himself said nothing in the way of a retraction. And Goldstein is just deafeningly silent. Put another way, most of the false accusers are true to mendacious form.
As I said all weekend once these accusations against me were launched -- accusations I truly did not expect in light of how obvious and clear it was from the beginning, based on the evidence, that the Gilliard e-mail was a fake -- all I could do was wait until Zengerle confessed that the e-mail was fake, and we would then see the level of integrity and reliability of the accusers. That's what we are now seeing.
(2) Numerous commenters here demanded that I address the "substance" of Zengerle's claim that "liberal bloggers" are taking orders from Markos Moulitsas with regard to what they write. I have not addressed that accusation precisely because there is no "substance" to it, and there still is none. It is idiotic fantasy, based on nothing, and does not deserve a response. Although in my original post I did say that, for those who need a response, I found the responses by Ezra Klein and Max Sawicky more than persuasive.
I am not interested in trying to persuade anyone that I have not altered my opinion, expressed a political opinion which I do not hold, refrained from expressing an opinion which I wanted to express -- all because Markos directed or requested that I do so. Anyone who believes that is willing to believe accusations based on nothing, and is thus, by definition, someone who is not amenable to rational persuasion. The accusation is as baseless as it is offensive, and one is no more obligated to respond to such evidence-free accusations than if someone came and said: "hey, I heard you were a child molester - what do you have to say in response?" Revealingly, in his confession post, Zengerle -- in order to obscure his own journalistic failings -- repeats this accusation against me despite lacking any evidence to support the attack ("the seeming acquiescence of so many of these liberal bloggers (including Greenwald) to Moulitsas's demands").
Having said that, I'll make anyone a deal -- if anyone can present a shred of evidence, just an iota of proof, that I have ever altered a single opinion, expressed an opinion I do not hold, or refrained from expressing an opinion that I wanted to express, due to an order, directive or request from Markos, I will be happy to respond to these accusations. Until such time, they are not worth responding to, because they amount to nothing other than evidence-free fantasy. Neither Markos nor Jerome have any real leverage over any blogger that I know of -- and certainly have none over me -- and the notion that they control or dictate what is written here, or that I would change what I think in order to accommodate their desires, is nothing more than a desperate attempt to smear people's motives and attack their integrity with no evidence of any kind (see this weekend's shenanigans for an illustration of how that works). It is too transparent and frivolous to merit a real response.
(3) As for Jason Zengerle's confession, it is impossible to understand how he can continue to protect the identity of his "source" which he now admits: (a) furnished him false information; (b) purported to quote from an e-mail which does not exist and never did; and (c) refuses to respond to his inquiries or explain himself in any way. That "source" clearly fed Zengerle false information with the intent that he would print it, and Zengerle -- in an act which even he admits was journalistic sloppiness -- then printed it. What possible excuse is there to continue to protect the identity of a "source" who almost certainly deliberately fed him false information?
As for the persuasiveness of Zengerle's excuses for printing a false e-mail, I adopt in full this well-reasoned post from Lindsay Beyerstein, which makes clear that Zengerle and The New Republic still have questions to answer, to say the least.
UPDATE: Steve Gilliard -- who went out his way over the weekend to be extremely fair to Zengerle (more so, I believed, than was warranted) -- now lambasts the inadequacy of Zengerle's confession and TNR's ongoing refusal to do what they should in response to this "error":
I don't think Zengerle has handled this well, and this grudging article tries to minimize the gross error he has committed.
I don't think this is a minor error, nor does Frank Foer. Zengerle attributed to me words I have no record writing and is still protecting a source who sent him an e-mail which cannot be verified. He admits that he doesn't have have the headers to the e-mails he was sent from the list and then gracelessly raises the same issues for which he has relied upon on at leastone unverifivable e-mail for. . . .
Glenn Greenwald isn't the only one demanding that you reveal your source for my e-mail. . . . And I'm sorry, I don't think this is minor or a disraction. I find it unseemly to attempt to defend yourself after commiting a major breach of journalistic ethics by repeating the unproven charges which landed us here in the first place.
This stoppped being about Kos the minute TNR published an e-mail which they cannot confirm coming to me.Then it became about their ethics and practices.
I agree entirely with all of that.
* * * * * * * *
I will be on the Alan Colmes Show tonight at 11:06 p.m. EST to discuss How Would a Patriot Act? Conservative Mark Coffey, who is a Bush supporter, wrote an impressively fair and thoughtful review of the book here.
Steve Gilliard follows up in typically thoughtful and measured fashion.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, You do not mention David Brooks, who has alluded to these stealthless emails in attacking Kos. Are you asking for a retraction from Brooks?
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how someone like Glenn can come along and construct an evidence based case, listing their facts, the conclusions supported by those facts, the sources of those facts and make a statement fully supported by the evidence and have these tendendicious hacks come along and simply ignore all that and insist Glenn is lying, without making any case for how that can be so.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's all they can do to distract us from the real story of a journalist in a major (albeit waning) publication that has turned into a right wing noise machine shop either inventing an email and claiming 3 sources back it, or lying about having 3 sources, instead having 1 who is a liar and still keeping him/her anonymous.
If it were the NY Times doing this about a right wing blog, they'd be all over it a la Blair or Dan Rather (who seems to be the only jounalist they can ever think of who fell short of the high standards for truth used by the Right wing).
The RWNM has decided that if they can take down Kos, Greenwald, Jerome and few other prominent left wing bloggers they can deflate the whole movement.
ReplyDeleteWe'll see if a) they can really take down any of these people and b) if deflating any blog star would really hurt blogging substantially
We'll see.
I haven't paid much attention to past cases where a pundit or blogger made up a story this transparently false. Even without knowing anything about the guy who runs DailyKos (or even reading the blog), I know this accusation is false. It really doesn't make sense on its face.
ReplyDeleteMy severest criticisms of you (i.e. the ones you quoted) related to your refusal to ever mention Gilliard's documented "TNR quoted my email" comment.
ReplyDeleteIn the context of the debate and uncertainty that was ongoing, that was a highly relevant item.
It remains a possibility that Gilliard did indeed write such an email, albeit to a different addressee.
It bears repeating that you, Glenn, did not lie in this affair, and I retract such insinuations.
I am still curious, Commissar, why you regard Jerome's apparent religious beliefs an item of concern. Belief in astrology is no more well-founded than believing in any other supernatural phenomenon, but such beliefs are very widely held. As is belief in astrology, for that matter. Horoscopes run in most daily papers.
ReplyDeleteNeither Markos nor Jerome have any real leverage over any blogger that I know of -- and certainly have none over me -- and the notion that they control or dictate what is written here, or that I would change what I think in order to accommodate their desires, is nothing more than a desperate attempt to smear people's motives and attack their integrity with no evidence of any kind
ReplyDeleteAn another interesting angle to consider here is that there is a lot of evidence that the bigger\louder right wing voices such as Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. take their marching orders from the RNC or Karl Rove.
At some level they are aware of this top-down, group think mentality on their side and assume that everyone else must play by the same rules.
Um, Jon, you don't see a problem in JZ not picking up the phone or whacking on the keyboard to get in touch with Steve Gilliard to confirm the quotation? Read Gilliard's most recent post. It's linked in the second comment.
ReplyDeleteGame, set, and match to Greenwald.
ReplyDeleteNow it's time to haul out Occam's Razor. What's more likely, given the histories of TNR and Zenglerle: That a source or sources besides Zengerle exists for the faked e-mail, or that Zengerle made it up himself?
Goldstein hasn't exactly been silent; last nite in his comments section I posted a quote from and link to Zengerle's admission that Glenn was right. In comments Jeff replied (in part):
ReplyDeleteI’ll take Zerlenge’s word over Greenwald’s any day of the week.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSometimes I wonder.
ReplyDeleteI sit in sunny South Africa, a land widely known to be "fact free" and one which managed to miss most of the eligthenment, and I can't understand the foolishness of people.
Of their faith in blind belief.
I read Glenn's blog, becuase it is interesting. It offers detailed analysis of events that hardly ever make the South African media.
I read the Scienceblogs for much the same reasons.
I think the blogs of the American right should try to write well, learn to tolerate criticism and they will also see how to become popular and influential without the support of corporate puppet masters.
Well done, Mr Greenwald, well done, and well blogged.
I don't think MacGuire has anything to apologize for.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you have never heard of the phrase "What a tangled web we weave" -- a quote from Maguire's post -- but the next line is "when we practice to deceive."
Maguire writes with the same cowardly method that his hero Instapundit uses -- he never actually affirmatively says anything, only implies it and traffics in innuendo so that he can deny it later -- but any honest person would have to intepret that post as an accusation that I am lying ("What a tangled web we weave") and was simply wrong in my claim that the e-mail was fake ("Glenn Greenwald's career in comedy").
The more Maguire continues to insist that he really was right, the more he does the work of showing his true colors.
I'm as left-partisan as they come, but even so, it's abundantly clear to me that "I have no record of sending this e-mail" and "I did not write this e-mail" are two completely different statements. I hate non-denial denials when they come from the likes of Fleischer, McClellan, and Snow. I think the same when they come from one of our own.
ReplyDelete(I'm not disputing that no such e-mail was sent to the Townhouse list. I'm just saying that "I have no record of sending" and "I didn't write" aren't the same thing.)
(2) Numerous commenters here demanded that I address the "substance" of Zengerle's claim that "liberal bloggers" are taking orders from Markos Moulitsas with regard to what they write. I have not addressed that accusation precisely because there is no "susbtance" to it, and there still is none. It is idiotic fantasy, based on nothing, and does not deserve a response.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely believe that. But Glenn, if you decided tomorrow that the Republicans had stolen the 2004 election, could you write about it, day in and day out, as you have about NSA spying, without hearing from them? They absolutely refuse to consider the possibility,(along with almost every other prominent liberal bloggers-hmmm) Kos bans people who try to write about it as CT's, and they think it's bad for dems because voters might become despondent and stay home from the polls.
Would they not try to tell you to lay off, it could hurt the lefty blogosphere's credibility? As you are now one of the most popular and prominent among the left bloggers (I know, I know, you are not really left-but face it, lefty's love you and righties hate you)is it possible they might conceivably try to persuade you to "represent" you know?
This is not accusatory- I am genuinely curious as to how you answer this.
I am not sure there is a more important issue than vote theft- what the hell are we spending so much time on candidates that can never win? Seems a better use of time would be to work toward making sure every vote is counted accurately
As for Jason Zengerle's confession, it is impossible to understand how he can continue to protect the identity of his "source"
ReplyDeleteIf your source was your ass, you would protect it too.
The saddest part of the whole affair (and the one that seems to be the point of your post) is the degree to which "truth" has become whatever one wants to believe. Those of us who actually believe in an external "reality" accessible to reason are getting increasingly frustrated by its apparent irrelevance in today's discourse.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to echo the anonymous posting that hit at 1:00 pm. It smacks of a Rove-like campaign tactic to me (e.g., your candidate went AWOL from the National Guard during Vietnam and he's running against a decorated veteran - destory the decorated veteran by attacking him on his military career). In this case, you want to uphold the supremacy of a political movement that is rooted in blind fealty to an individual - one that gets its talking points sent out every morning from the RNC - so you attack the opposing political movement by alleging that it is controlled by a single individual. As in the Bush/Kerry case you, at the very least, create an attitude that "they're all the same" among people who stand to be influenced. If you are as succesful as the Bush campaign was (where there are people, today, who believe Bush served with honor and Kerry served with dishonor) you can persuade them that the rightwing blogosphere is the bastion of free thought and free expression while the left is captive to a cult leader. Next thing you know, someone on the right will announce that there really were WMD in Iraq and some people will belive it!! (I know, I know, nothing that crazy could ever happen).
ReplyDeletethis realy does seem like a textbook case of projection - these people all take their marching orders from the GOP spin machine. They simply cannot understand how a bottom-up, non-heirarchical knowledge-and-opinion swarm can possibly make any impact. Dialogue that veers outside the mental framework of the orthodoxy is dismissed and denigrated. And because they themselves take their marching orders from those they consider higher up and beyond reproach, they must assert that their opponents do the same, so they trot out the most visible member of the Other Tribe as the ringleader. It's much easier to get people to hate a symbolic individual than an amorphous group, after all.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you are worth ten of those clowns. Each.
ReplyDeleteThey all owe you an apology and TNR should slink away in shame.
Feh. A pox on the lot of them.
At some level they are aware of this top-down, group think mentality on their side and assume that everyone else must play by the same rules.
ReplyDeleteThis has been evident for some time, and exposes both the weakness of this philosophy, as well as the strength of the progressive authors and progressive philosophy.
How many examples are there of rightwing noise being demonstrated as false, with no apology or acknowledgement from the noisemakers?
Greenwald, DailyKos, News Blog, have my confidence due to the very evident attention to detail, accuracy, and supporting evidence (not to mention some pretty saavy editorializing). I don't agree with everything, but then not everything agrees with me.
As to credibility, it's like money - you have to work awhile to earn it, and you can lose it all with a couple of bad decisions.
Since YearlyKos hit the newswire, the poor slobs on the right have had to scramble for definition, for substance, for acknowledgement, for credibility - all characteristics that Greenwald garners by simply exercising good writing.
I think it's kind of ironic, and more than a little amusing.
Mr Greenwald, you need only to continue doing what you have done thus far. The noisemakers will continue flinging feces at that which they cannot condone or understand - little will change that.
-GFO
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm as left-partisan as they come, but even so, it's abundantly clear to me that "I have no record of sending this e-mail" and "I did not write this e-mail" are two
ReplyDeletecompletely different statements.
Last time on this painfully simple point. Over the weekend, Gilliard quoted the TNR post and then wrote 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.
Why do you -- and many others like you -- continue to cite the first sentence (to support your claim that Gilliard never denied sending the e-mail) while completely and inexcusably ignoring the sencond sentence (in which Gilliard expressly says - "I didn't send any e-mail with that phrase at all"?
How can you come here with a straight face and say that Gilliard never denied writing that e-mail when he expressly said: "I didn't send any e-mail with that phrase at all."
How could he possibly have said it any more clearly?
If that Zengerle toad still has the email, then he DOES have the headers. The only way he doesn't have headers is if he deleted the email and only saved the actual false body-text OR the email was sent via anonymous remailer to strip the headers.
ReplyDeleteIf the former, he can simply state he made a boo-boo (ie, fuckup) and deleted the incriminating evidence...and then simply explain why he would do such a thing with a source's primary information while the story's blood is still warm. If the latter, though there are legitimate reasons for people to use anonymous remailers or simply anonymous mail systems (hushmail, for instance), such sources should be verified first since the actual sender is unidentifiable and can easily leave one standing around with their dick hanging out.
So...did Zengerle make a boo-boo and delete the primary source email or is he standing there by his lonesome with his dick hanging out? Which is it Zengerle? If anonymous email, are you going to simply trust whatever is sent you in the future without fact-checking? I have a hushmail account. Perhaps I'll start feeding you bullshit information now and see if you just like standing there with your dick airing out in public.
FACT: KOS is his one small echo-chamber. Anyone that talks about REAL liberal or progessive issues will be declared a "troll" and their diaries deleted.
ReplyDeleteFACT: KOS was a strong supporter of St. Ronnie Reagan. He is a REPUBLICAN.
It appears that he cannot get enough attention and kudos in that party, so he created his own little band of worshippers.
Then, he created a circle of links - the faux "advertise liberally" gang. Like KOS, they also do not allow discussion of many issues that are VITAL to progressive and liberal causes.
Of course, at the top of the list needs to be VOTE FRAUD.
The injust and illegal Iraq war is also a legit issue - KOS and the circle of links tried to actively DISCOURAGE last year's war protests.
Socio-economic issues? LOL - except for a piece here and there about minimum wage, labor and economic issues are BANNED!
Of course, that has traditionally been the heart of liberal politics, but neither KOS or his circle of links are actually "liberal" in any meaningful sense of the word.
You have benefitted greatly via that circle of links, glenn, and in accomodating that crowd, you lose much credibility talking about liberal issues to REAL liberals and progressives.
Pure speculation, of course, but there's a good chance that Zengerle received the text of those emails from an anonymous source and has no idea who the source is.
ReplyDeleteThat would certainly be interesting.
Glenn writes: How can you come here with a straight face and say that Gilliard never denied writing that e-mail when he expressly said: "I didn't send any e-mail with that phrase at all."
ReplyDeleteAnd whoever submitted such a faux "Gilliard" email to Zengerle is not returning Zengerle's calls. Why should we suppose that is?
Keep up the good work Mr. Greewald. We, the Enlightened American Public, sure do appreciate it. Good work. Keep them on their toes.
ReplyDelete"taking down" kos a step or two would be great for REAL liberals and progessives.
ReplyDeleteHE IS NOT A LIBERAL AND WASN'T EVEN A DEMOCRAT UNTIL HE SAW THAT HE WOULD NEVER BE GIVEN A GRAND PLATFORM IN THAT PARTY!
I am grateful that he supports many democrats now, but HE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE PART AND DOES NOT SPEAK FOR MOST LIBERALS.
He just makes in appear that way by banning anyone that supports liberals and democrats that does not totally agree with his agenda.
We would be better off without the "superblogs" that have tried to steal the great heritage of liberal and progessive politics in this country while mocking and banning the issues liberal/progressive once stood for.
john s costello: "it's abundantly clear to me that "I have no record of sending this e-mail" and "I did not write this e-mail" are two completely different statements. I hate non-denial denials when they come from the likes of Fleischer, McClellan, and Snow. I think the same when they come from one of our own."
ReplyDeleteGilliard made it completely clear why he said that. It's too bad that you wished he had said that he never wrote those words, but Gilliard was being a stickler for accuracy and truth -- he was NOT issuing a "non-denial denial."
If someone presented me with a sentence that they claimed was in an email from me, could I guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that I didn't write it? I write thousands of words a day, on a lot of subjects, to a lot of people, in a lot of different contexts.
If Gilliard had responded "I never wrote those words," to be entirely truthful he would have to know that he never wrote those words. He did much better -- he attested to what he could verify rather than going for the much broader denial that he could not, and I respect him a lot for that.
"....but neither KOS or his circle of links are actually "liberal" in any meaningful sense of the word."
ReplyDeleteWell, that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. While blogs (on both sides) talk about democracy, they aren't democracies. Whether Kos or Atrios or Glenn or anyone else doesn't want discussion of a particular topic on their blogs is their right. It's their freakin' blog. If you believe that "real liberals" are being blocked, start your own blog and make the case.
I'm a "real liberal" by what I can tell of your definition and I find more than enough discussion out there on issues that interest me - sometimes on Kos and sometimes on low traffic sites.
The world does not exist for our comfort and convenience - so if a blogger doesn't want to discuss your topic on his site that's your tough noogies. Sorry.
As a committed liberal who believes strongly in liberal causes, I would like to thank you for your committment to exposing the Administration's relentless assault on the separation of powers, civil liberties and openness in government -- which to me is even bigger than VOTE FRAUD, as it encompasses that and more.
ReplyDeleteWhile others continue to whine on a public board read by thousands that they aren't being heard, you step up to the plate Glenn by maintaining a sharp focus on reality. Keep fighting the good fight.
Thanks.
The "fact-free" living of the right goes well beyond the so-called War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq.
ReplyDeleteGlobal warming? Doesn't exist, because the right wingers don't want it to. God wouldn't let the world burn up, after all. All the evidence around global warming is irrelevant.
Evolution? Somehow evolution, and science in general, has become "liberal", with all of the connotations that carries for the right wing. For over 150 years the scientific evidence continues to support and refine the concepts of evolution. And for the first time in history a United States President has suggested that other things be taught in science classrooms, because right-wing opinions differ.
Tax cuts? Right wingers will tell you that tax cuts increase overall tax revenues. They ignore the boom in tax revenues that happened during the Clinton presidency, after the tax increases of Bush 1 and Clinton. The fact is the business cycle drives tax revenues much more than marginal tax rates. Right wingers don't want to hear it, because they are more interested in not paying taxes than in the facts.
Missle defense? In the last 20 years nothing has been demonstrated that remotely shows that missle defense will either 1) work at all, or 2) be a reasonably cost-effective deterrent. Has that influenced the right wingers? We know the end of that story.
The right wing in this country is upholding its tradition throughout history. Always wrong about human progress. Always.
The horses mouth is always best.
ReplyDeleteGilliard, when you call someone a liar who has checked his sources you fall prey to your own kneejerk tactic.
Keep up the good work, Glenn....
I believe old Mencken nailed the kind of thinking you discuss as characteristic of the last 5 years. The quote is something like the following:
ReplyDelete"The New Logic: It would be nice if it were true, hence it IS true."
I don't even know who this Zengerle is or why he's getting so much attention. I don't read TNR. Is it some kind of wingnut rag or a legit magazine?
ReplyDeleteIf it's a legit magazine where are the editors? Don't they have something to protect?
If someone falsley accuses you in print of saying something and they should have known better, i.e. a professional journalist, and there was malice in it, isn't that slander?
Aren't this Zengerle and TNR leaving themselves up for a nice big legal fight? Seems it would be pre-emptive to just admit what went wrong and fix it.
p.s. those questions weren't rhetorical.
but there's a good chance that Zengerle received the text of those emails from an anonymous source and has no idea who the source is.
ReplyDeleteI would say probably not. we can only speculate who the source was out to burn - Zengerle, Gilliard or KOS.
per Zengerle:
and TNR has been unable to determine why the first source--who has not responded to messages--included this one piece of incorrect information along with the accurate information the source sent us.
What is this nonsense that Kos doesn't permit discussion of election fraud coming from? There was just a very nice diary from Chris Bowers on what it takes to stop election fraud.
ReplyDeleteRetreiving posts with "election fraud" as a tag yields dozens of diaries.
I don't get why people post things that are obviously false, and easily shown to be false. The idea of Markos as some kind of evil wizard controlling not only DailyKos, but all of the internets is insane. The whole operation is so clearly organized to empower the members that it is just silly to talk about him as some kind of power-mad evil operator.
That is significant because a willingness to ignore waves of evidence and assert plainly false facts that they want to believe are true is -- as I have argued many times before -- the predominant mental attribute that has governed our country over the last five years.
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you just described "truthiness."
When Stephen Colbert first came up with that word, I laughed like crazy -- but at the time I didn't even realize how thoroughly the truthiness virus had infected our body politic. But then someone I know told me just a few months ago that yes, Saddam was behind 9/11, and no amount of actual facts could cause him to re-examine his belief.
Yep, facts have a well-known liberal bias, so it's better to listen to your gut, which is telling you that Saddam was behind 9/11.
These are the type of people that would leave your ass to die on Mt. Everest just so they could get to the summit themselves.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't even link to their websites. I might cite them but I wouldn't even offer them the publicity of linking to them. They're way below you Glenn. Wow, imagine that, these funny things we in Nonbushworld call "facts" win again. Go figure....
ReplyDeleteI think Glenn has responded to and dispatched this entire episode quite well. All kudos to you.
ReplyDeleteBut (having been away) I'm confused as to what really started this. Am I right in saying that it began with Chris Suellentrop's article, fed to him by New Jersey mortgage broker and investigator of penny-stock scams Floyd Schneider, about Internet strategist Jerome Armstrong's run in with the SEC in the late 1990s over, among other things, stock touting charges and from there balloned into an apparent Left-Wing-Kos-Blog-Conspircy to take over the Blogosphere?
Anonymous Kos Hater:
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine why an individual like yourself might get banned from DailyKos what with your tangental, bold face, fact-free rants. Who wouldn't want such quality off-topic posting on their blog?
FYI: Kos doesn't ban all discussion of electoral fraud, many diaries on the subject exist, hit the rec list, etc. He bans conspiracy theories that lack evidence. I for one agree, as I am sick of the "why bother voting, the republicans will steal the election anyway" defeatist thinking that pervades the CT people. If one listens to them, you'd assume there were 535 Republicans in Congress, plus all 50 governors what with the republicans' omnipresent ability to rig any voting anywhere in country. Drawing straws for shotgun on a long road-trip? Don't bother, Karl Rove will ensure your right-wing friend wins anyway.
And he definitely doesn't ban discussion other progressive causes, that's an invention of your mind - I suggest you look in the mirror, and your didactic and brooks-no-denials style of posting as to why you might wear out your welcome somewhere. You seem like you go to blogs to preach, not discuss.
I don't know why anyone expects any of the 'wingers to show a sense of shame. People come over to MercRising all the time, post false and defamatory material-- usually anonymously-- and vanish when their lies are exposed.
ReplyDeleteThey are Abaddon, made flesh.
balloned into an apparent Left-Wing-Kos-Blog-Conspircy to take over the Blogosphere?
ReplyDeleteIn a Sunday op-ed column of the NYTimes, no less.
The amount of blogosphere content on Meet the Press yesterday was also interesting. We are influencing the stories at this point, even if the coverage is still largely derisive.
Oh, and when you have lefty loonies like this guy posting diaries, it demonstrates just how empty and meaningless the blogosphere really is.
Sorry you spent so much time working on this problem. I spent no time worrying about it because you always back up everything you say with facts and reason. Anyone that fell into believing the hype would be fool, and I see very few fools in your audience.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteYou're running into a mindset that I've seen over the past few years, the mindset that bothers me more than anything else. I coined the phrase "quiet hatred" to refer to it.
It's when a person or group doesn't have a loud, active hatred. If one of those people met you, they might shake your hand, they might treat you with whatever respect they treat another human being, they might even give you a dollar if you mentioned you had to walk a couple miles becuase you were a dollar short of bus fare.
But when they hear something bad about you, they believe it, instantly, and without engaging their critical facilities.
They believed it about Richard Clarke, a man trusted enough to run the 9/11 response, but who can't be trusted enough to raise questions over the next steps.
They believed it about Joseph Wilson, who raised excruciatingly fair questions, admitting up front that the government might have disregarded his reports, but he couldn't figure out why, but who clearly only said that because, well, just because. Because it sounded good, I suppose.
They believed it about judge Greer in Florida, an evangelical Christian who wouldn't even contemplate letting Terri Schiavo come to harm unjustly, but was willing to rule, based upon the best evidence available, on what she would have requested... and they believed it about every other judge that ruled on the case, because the other judges didn't agree with them.
And, as you see, they'll believe it about you. It's nasty, it's about someone they disagree with, so they'll trumpet it as if it were true.
The reason I call it hatred is exactly what you pointed out: when caught, they don't care. They don't think about how they attacked a person who didn't deserve to be attacked; they have no concern about the damage they might have done. Telling lies about the object of their quiet hatred just doesn't register as a bad thing for them.
I'm sorry you got hit by this pile of crap; you didn't deserve it. I wish I could say I was surprised, but I'm not.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteYour posts have real clout. Keep the punches coming.
calvin notes some similarity between this dust-up and the Dan Rather incident. Wrong-wing bloggers immediately jumping almost as if they were part of the plan.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Coffey sais you are devestatingly persuasive. .
ReplyDeleteHe, however, is ignorant and spelling-challenged.
Jay Ackroyd said...
ReplyDeleteballoned into an apparent Left-Wing-Kos-Blog-Conspircy to take over the Blogosphere?
In a Sunday op-ed column of the NYTimes, no less.
The amount of blogosphere content on Meet the Press yesterday was also interesting. We are influencing the stories at this point, even if the coverage is still largely derisive.
Oh, and when you have lefty loonies like this guy posting diaries, it demonstrates just how empty and meaningless the blogosphere really is.
It's not fair to the rest of us to reserve that coveted appellation for the likes of just Jimmy Carter. According to Chris Matthews, about 70% of the American population are "left wing whackjobs".
Now that Glenn has made short shrift of the D, C and B teams, I expect they will set the big guns of the A team on him next. We are confident he will prevail.
Mr. Shaughnessy,
ReplyDeleteSo, are you arguing that Abramoff was never at the White House?
Don't you see the distinction between Greenwald arguing "I've never done X and there's no evidence of X" when there is, in fact, no evidence of X, and McClelland arguing "Abramoff never did X and there is no evidence of X" when any half-aware reporter knows that Abramoff did in fact do X and that there is plenty of evidence of X?
Regarding the "no record of such an email" comment, I think Glenn addresses this well, but I think one point more needs to be made. This is what Gilliard said:
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. There's a similar phrase sent to Hubris Sonic a month before on an entirely different topic, and the Greenwald e-mail
Let's look at exactly what the "quote" is:
I dont see how this can be ignored. We should all write in defense of this once we know the facts. Jerome?
Given Gilliard's explanation, and the vagueness of the quote, it seems likely that Gilliard at some point in the past, on some entirely different issue, sent an email to a list of people including Jerome with the kicker asking for Jerome's opinion. Whoever is behind this smear campaign thought it would be funny to include this question, trimmed, modified, whatever.
TNR's refusal to "out" the source leaves me thinking it's the usual source for anonymous smearing.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI admire your restraint this weekend. You knew you would be vindicated shortly, but in the meantime you had to endure the worst kind of character assassination. You handled it well, I think.
There is indeed a similarity between Zengerle's transgression and the so-called "Rathergate" incident. Zengerle and his wingnut cohorts are shamelessly invoking the very defenses they ridiculed when invoked by Rather: they argue that the substance of Zengerle's story is true even if one of the source's was fabricated, and they argue that even though he has denied authoring the e-mail Gilliard has acknowledged perhaps authoring sentiments similar to those contained in the fake e-mail.
ReplyDeleteDid the wingnuts fall back when Rather produced the elderly secretary who confirmed typing memoes containing the substance of the allegedly forged memoes that Rather relied on? Of course not. The substance of Rather's report was confirmed by the secretary - Bush was indeed a slacker who had alienated his commanding officer - but this made no difference to the wingnuts, who continued to obsess about fonts and spacing.
Another wingnut hallmark: absolutely shameless hypocrisy.
Just like Vermontraccoon, I go away for the weekend, and just look at this mess!
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaughnessy, Glenn (probably) won't engage you on this, but I will. My mind is a blank slate, so go ahead and educate me on the "original issue" raised by Zengerle. Whatever the hell that issue is.
Oh, and don't throw out some tawdry insinuations, that won't work with me. Be affirmative about what you believe. Be sure to give links and provide evidence. I'll be waiting, David.
A separate point, which I thought I'd comment about separately.
ReplyDeleteGlenn's rightly annoyed about the smearing going on. It seems truly bizarre the number of people who are quite content to call him a liar without any shred of evidence to back them up. But at this point in time it seems clear that the right-wing Bush supporters left on that bandwagon have already been selected against (in an evolutionary sense) for their ability to refuse to admit to evidence that is obvious to most of us.
Evidence-free thinking is the modus operandi of the Bushites. Sad to watch.
If one of the intellectual heros here can find the bit I wrote that merits a retraction, I would be delighted to consider it.
ReplyDeleteReally pathetic, Maquire. You want us to believe that Zengerle may in fact have received an authentic e-mail and merely misattributed it to Gilliard, and yet Zengerle has conspicuously neglected to avail himself of this defense. Why would Zengerle effectively plead to having been duped by an inauthentic e-mail if he could instead claim simple clerical error?
Maguire is the same kind of moron who argues that we've found WMD in Iraq and the Bush administration just doesn't want to claim vindication!
Don't say whether you did in fact receive one or more e-mails advising you how to handle one or more stories. Don't detail what you did in response to those instructions.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see some documentation of this alleged cabal.
The Protocols of the Elders of Blogistan, maybe?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/19/22319/1649
ReplyDeleteI stand corrected- there are diaries related to election fraud at Kos, but according to this commenter, they don't get front-paged and are not treated very well:
the direct hostility regarding this issue on KOS (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:overturned turtle, corvo, viscerality, cronyrodeo
Frankly, this is a huge issue, and posters with front-page rights like SusanB actively ridicule topics relating to voter fraud, actively calling them wacko conspiricy theories. Her group are actively enabling more voter fraud by not just inaction, but by deliberate supression and out right attacks of those who would speak on this issue.
by clcaev on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 04:14:59 AM PDT
good grief - so we need another blogging ethics conference...
ReplyDeleteLike you or you cohorts care...
What you will find is that I thought (and still think) Greenwald was ridiculous for leaping to the most implausible conclusion (the email was fabricated) when much more likely explanations were also plausible.
ReplyDeleteTom, your piont seems to rest on a strained distinction between "fabrication" and "misattribution."
Zengerle has admitted that the email was 1) not written by Gilliard and 2) not sent to Townhouse. Maybe someone wrote an email to someone else once upon a time that contained the phrasing Zengerle printed. But calling that a "misattribution" is straining the bounds of language beyond what they can bear. The whole point of the email, according Zengerle himself, was that it was sent to the Townhouse list prior to Kos's "dictat."
If you "misattribute" all the relevant information about an email (like its author and where and when it was sent), that's fabrication. Zengerle's source fabricated an email.
Can I ask how did you know Gilliard's e-mail was fake even if Zengerle did not show you the e-mail or Gilliard was not even sure about it since he said he expressed similar opinion and probably e-mailed something like that albeit not at Townhouse?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the e-mail was not to Townhouse but still sent by Gilliard?
Are you being fair to Zengerle? Because this is an attack to his character.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteBe aware that the right-wing bloggers have proved one thing. That they can effectively put pressure on and attack, reguardless of whether what they say is ultimately tue. There is no consequence to their reputation, thier readership or their sponsors for smearing without justification the successful left wing sphere and its pundits.
Their audience does not demand credibility, and will follow them off the edge of a cliff if Instapundit and friends declare that gravity is a hoax.
It is clear that these "pundits" can and should no longer be considered bloggers or journalists, rather they have revealed themselves as the cultists that they are. Cultists don't need proof, all they need is firey rhetoric and demagoguery. The right blogphere is not so much a political movement as a cult, and should be given no more legitamacy then the Jonestown cool-aid drinkers , or other such organizations.
The internet right should no longer get a pass to be treated as a legitimate institution. Unless they can police themselves and acknowledge their own mistakes they are just cultist with megaphones.
Now we know for sure where "the feverswamps and their followers" actually are. The whole feverswamp meme was yet another attempt of the right to project how they operate onto their opposition.
so if a blogger doesn't want to discuss your topic on his site that's your tough noogies.
ReplyDeleteNice bait and switch - clever lie.
No one is questioning anyones right to post things they deem important/relevant (well, maybe glenn is challenging it).
The point is that those that use technology to create an "echo-chamber" should have their little scam exposed.
And if those that host the "so-called-liberal" superblogs will not actually allow posts about traditional liberal topics (and they don't), then it is fair-game to talk about it on the sites that do.
While glenn may currently be one of the main benefactores of the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links, at least he has the balls to let people post comments from across the spectrum, left and right.
KOS is a liar - he does not represent liberals, he does not tolerate their diaries, he is actually a republican that couldn't be a superstar in that camp.
The "expertise" across his little faux "advertise liberally" circle of links was created just like the "expertise" within kos -- by endless link to those that catapult his propaganda and excluding those that don't.
No one here is saying he can't do that, but many do question his place in "liberal" politics because of his hijacking of the term "liberal" and misrepresentionss those about those on the left that disagree with him.
That is a fair topic and he is fair game by anyone - including TNR.
After all, when you proclaim to the world to be the defactor leader of "liberal" causes, you have bitten off a great deal. In this case, much more than kos can chew or back up with his hollow rhetoric.
He bans conspiracy theories that lack evidence.
ReplyDeleteYou are a liar and I am sure one of his valued sheeple....
I am glad I don't have to read the crap you write to get the fact because you wouldn't know any if they hit you right in the face.
Can I ask how did you know Gilliard's e-mail was fake even if Zengerle did not show you the e-mail or Gilliard was not even sure about it since he said he expressed similar opinion and probably e-mailed something like that albeit not at Townhouse?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the e-mail was not to Townhouse but still sent by Gilliard?
Are you being fair to Zengerle? Because this is an attack to his character.
You have to strain to be this stupid. Zengerle himself wrote it wasn't Gilliard's email. Why, oh, why is Jason Zengerle being so unfair to Jason Zengerle?
patience: Their audience does not demand credibility, and will follow them off the edge of a cliff if Instapundit and friends declare that gravity is a hoax.
ReplyDeleteThey demand credibility, they just base that credibility on preconceived notions and assumptions that are often buttressed by appeals to the emotions of shame, outrage, and disgust.
What the Tom Mcguire comment and the one by anonymous shortly after illustrate nicely is that truth no longer matters.
ReplyDeleteEveryone knew that the truth of what had transpired was going to be revealed by Monday. That didn't stop any of the posts over the weekend. But more tellingly now that everyone knows the truth, People are STILL clinging to the idea that you were somehow wrong and are carefully parsing your words to reassure themselves of the fact.
Amazing!
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe accusation is as baseless as it is offensive, and one is no more obligated to respond to such evidence-free accusations than if someone came and said: "hey, I heard you were a child molester - what do you have to say in response?"
Doesn't that describe just about every Republican campaign for the last couple of decades? That's what they get from owning the refs. The other side has to play by rules, but they don't, and until they actually have to pay a price for that kind of behavior, it's only going to get worse. Kerry learned the hard way that not responding is not an option.
Hmm, already deleted the story I linked to at dKos.
ReplyDeleteHere is where I found out about it An interesting thread in itself.
Tom Maguire: See Zengerle's retraction. He uses the word "authentic" modified by the word "not" about the "Gilliard" email. The source of the not authentic email isn't responding to Zengerle's "messages." A thing that ought to make one go hmmmmm.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaughnnessy: I've defended you when I thought some, including Glenn, were too sharp in their criticisms of you. But between your insistence on peddling the Gospel of the Third Party (almost no one here is on board with that, get it yet?), and now this self-important demand that Glenn prove a negative, I have also had it with you.
Glenn's email as reprinted in TNR speaks for itself: he felt Jerome should aggressively defend himself, or someone should do that who was in a position to undertake a defense on Jerome's behalf. There is ZERO indication, however, that Glenn Greenwald was a person in a position to do that, so all he could do was recommend against silence, and in favor of knowledgeable parties speaking out. That he did. Either defending or castigating Jerome at that point was not called for, in a knowledge vacuum from one side in the controversy. (Which isn't to say, in light of what is now known of the SEC action and the consent decree, and Jerome's less than compelling comments at MyDD, that it is imprudent for some liberal bloggers to speak out, and one writer at Ezra Klein's blog has done just that.)
But there is less than no evidence that this site's owner takes marching orders about what he will or won't write about. And it is a good thing that, as he has indicated, he will be moving on later today to important issues.
In my opinion, Glenn should ignore your pompous taunts and demands for proof that he is not a Kos puppet, because there is no satisfying you, not until Glenn turns this blog into a promotional device for Unity '08, or whatever third party movement lately suits your fancy.
Steve's got a new post up:
ReplyDeleteLink
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your coverage of this matter. The facts of the incident support you all down the line, and the goalpost-shifters, trolls, and Kos-haters are either silent or busily trying to parse words and sentences to "prove" they were right all along. Since this "proof" is nonexistent, they're left furiously spinning their statements. Final note: Steve Gilliard has a new post up showing that TNR will stonewall, and his confidence in Frank Foer was misplaced.
Sunny--
ReplyDeleteIt happens that I agree with you on the importance of election fraud, and think that it is very clear that the Republicans worked in Ohio to suppress Democratic registrations and interfered with voting in Democratic districts.
But you can't blame anybody at DKos when diaries on issues that are important to you don't make into the recommended column. You have to blame everybody.
At the heart of this nonsense, from Brooks on Sunday on down, is the idea that Kos is a "leader" of the bloggers. He has striven to not be a leader, and to use a model that minimizes leadership roles, by limiting front pagers to a year's tenure.
The different flavors of the collaborative model at Kos, here or at FireDogLake all depend on participation by the readership. But in Kos's case, the authority over content is very diffuse.
Sunny,
ReplyDeletethe link works fine:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/6/17/133624/699
As Atrios says:
ReplyDeleteBurning sources who mislead you just seems like a nobrainer to me. Aside from punshing someone who aided and abetted your screwup, it also sends a signal to other would-be bullshitters that their attempts may not be consequence free.
Exactly.
TNR doesn't even have the excuse of wanting to defend their "access" to a "powerful source", i.e., an RNC or Bush staffer or conservative lobbyist who makes them sit up and beg in exchange for taking them to fancy restaurants. None of the people on the Townhouse list could wine-and-dine a typical lazy-ass spoiled-brat Beltway typist beyond maybe a Coke and a hamburger or two.
So TNR's either defending bullshit sources who are useless even as sources of free food and perks, or they're defending another Stephen Glass make-up artist.
Neither scenario speaks well for TNR.
Interesting....even potential "misattribution" immunizes your claims from being false, because they're potentially false in -only- one major way.
ReplyDeleteWhat a racket. Here's a scoop! George Bush placed this classified in the Washington City Paper: "GWM, 59, looking for discreet fun with young stud."
It's not "fabricated" though...it might just be misattributed. So it's cool.
You're one of the most balanced and credible bloggers I'm aware of. I don't think the slime machine will do too much damage, although I truly regret that this happened at all. It's discouraging to see honest people's reputations tarnished time and time again, while other's lies are ignored.
ReplyDeleteThe different flavors of the collaborative model at Kos, here or at FireDogLake all depend on participation by the readership. But in Kos's case, the authority over content is very diffuse.
ReplyDeleteYou are either not reading the threads or you are stupid: THESE SITES DO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO POST THINGS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE LIMITED RANGE OF TOPICS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE.
They do not represent "liberals," they only represent themselves and they are creating their own little "echo-chamber" to promote themselves as the "experts".
While I guess it is their right -- it is really just another way to lie and annoint yourself the expert.
Yes, glenn tolerates more of a dialog here - but the fact that kos and his cohorts DO NOT REPRESENT LIBERAL AND PROGRESSIVE Americans is a worthy topic to discuss.
Anonymous Anti-Kossian said...
ReplyDeleteKos has said time and again what his aim is: Electing Democrats. There are far too many Democrats who are just too far to the right for my taste, but so is most of Alabama. Hence I don't live there, but for a Democrat to get elected there at this time, he has represent the people and their opinions there at this time. If you don't like Kos, start an anti- Kos blog. You will attract lots of wingers and Maoists. They have so much in common these days.
Kos ate my brain and made me watch badminton.
ReplyDeleteanonymous said:
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you just described "truthiness."
When Stephen Colbert first came up with that word, I laughed like crazy -- but at the time I didn't even realize how thoroughly the truthiness virus had infected our body politic. But then someone I know told me just a few months ago that yes, Saddam was behind 9/11, and no amount of actual facts could cause him to re-examine his belief.
Hardly new. Certainly Saint Ronnie was a practised exponent of this school of rhetoric, with his "welfare mothers drivign Cadillacs", etc.
If it made a "good story" (i.e., it ought to be true at least within your own belief system), then by golly, it was true, because even if factually flawed, it illustrated a "higher point"....
And we have descended from there to the point where pretty much any word out of the mouth of the maladministration and their RW acolytes and sycophants is "truthiness", including the words "and" and "the".
Cheers,
Sometimes you just can't keep a good wank down. Don't sweat it, Glenn. The more kerning expeditions that the hacks embark on, and the more times they subsequently fall on their face, the more people will realize that they're simply too stupid to put their shoes on the right foot.
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaughnessy
ReplyDeleteThere are legitmate questions as to independence and integrity raised by these developments. If you don't care to know the answers that's up to you.
Let's start with you. Whose payroll are you on? Why does it matter a whit whether Jerome Armstrong is a nutjob, or that Kos wrote a book with him? If you say you're not on anyone's payroll, what would make me believe you? You obviously have an agenda. What aren't you telling us Shaughnessy, if that is your real name?
Me, I just think you're a paranoid desperate for attention -- but, then really, whatever you say or write this is the assumption I'll continue to employ.
See how this game works?
Calling people who criticize Kos "haters" is a little like calling Michael Moore a "traitor" for criticizing Bush.
ReplyDeleteI do not hate Kos. I do not like the fact that he has become the de facto spokesperson for the liberal blogosphere;wheter he sought that position is irrelevant. I just think, because he fails to make an issue of election fraud, despite the fact that so many commenters on the blogs are concerned about it, does a disservice to everyone.
And this is an entirely liberal concern, as conservatives could care less because they WIN, and don't care how.
Look at Cleland in Georgia. Busby in Cali. Mondale in Minn. Kerry in '04. Gore in 2000. One could go on and on.
What exactly is more important? All this stumping for candidates will not amount to a hill of beans if they are allowed to continue the theft.
The left needs to face the facts
And until the left faces the rot that defines the Democratic Party, there is no hope for a fair election in this country. In other words: those who think the White House can be retaken in 2008, but refuse to face the theft of the vote in 2004, should prepare to be ruled by the likes of Jeb Bush, now and forever.
From Mark Crispen Miller:
We also hear that Democrats have been reluctant to speak out about election fraud because they fear that doing so might cut down voter turnout on Election Day. By such logic, we should henceforth utter not a peep about election fraud, so that the Democratic turnout will break records. Then, when the Republicans win yet again, because they've rigged the system, how will all those Democratic voters feel? Maybe those who haven't killed themselves, or fled the country, will recover just enough to vote again. Would it then be prudent for the Democrats to talk about election fraud? Or would it still seem sensible to keep the subject under wraps?
The argument is idiotic, yet the people who have seriously made it -- Bernie Sanders, Markos Moulitsas, Hillary Clinton's and Chuck Schumer's people, among others -- are extremely bright. The argument, as foolish as it is, does not bespeak a low I.Q., but, I would suggest, a subtler kind of incapacity: a refusal and/or inability to face a deeply terrifying truth. The Democrats refuse to talk about election fraud because they cannot, will not, wrap their minds around the implications of what happened in 2004, and what is happening right now, and what will keep on happening until we, as a people, face the issue. In short, whatever clever-sounding rationales they may invoke (no doubt in all sincerity), the Democrats won't talk about election fraud because they're in denial, which is itself based on a lethal combination of inertia, self-interest and, above all -- or below all -- fear.
Jay Ackroyd: I was attempting to link to a diary in which a diarist announced he was leaving dKos because the blog powers that be were not interested in this sugject. Go back to the Progressive Independent and follow the link to this:
Daily Kos and Salon enable election fraud.
by stevietheman
Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 11:23:19 PM PDT
No story to tell. Remove my account. I'm working only with true progressives now.
* stevietheman's diary :: ::
*
Mark Crispin Miller and RFK, Jr. are right, and DKos and Salon are wrong.
Tags: GBCW
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=31566&mesg_id=31566
I stand corrected- there are diaries related to election fraud at Kos, but according to this commenter, they don't get front-paged and are not treated very well
ReplyDeleteYou know where I go for THE scoop on election fraud? The Brad Blog. See, Brad has lay claim to that piece of blog realestate and he's really good at it. It is his sight's prime focus. It is the sites that many other sites link to when they do post an election fraud story.
DKos is huge and it has staked out a different, though nicely meshing bit of blog realestate. A big central commons. Don't like it? Tough. That's the way the world sits right now. Other sites have their own niches within this ecosphere and they all tend to complement (and avoid stepping on toes).
I don't generally come to Unclaimed Territory to get the scoop on the latest voter fraud scandal either. I come here for in-depth, insightful posts on specific issues that often involve rights and the Constitutional issues.
Quit complaining about DKos not covering YOUR pet story. You can also help your pet story (yes, vote fraud is very important) by posting at DKos, regardless of whether it gets front-paged or not. You put eyes on it and DKos has a LOT of eyes. You can do the same by posting, as appropriate to Firedoglake and help put eyes on particular stories but don't lose sight of the fact that Brad Blog is THE site for all things vote fraud.
The proper venue for the proper story. Nothing wrong with that and it helps keep the overall community vital and alive. I'm a Kossack, but also a regular here, at Brad Blog, at Firedog, at Hullabaloo, and a host of other sites. Each has their particular strengths and each is different. Accept that and be happier.
David Shaughnessy’s gigantic bruised ego is back again today, once again making pompous demands that Glenn refute absurd charges for which he hasn’t the slightest evidence.
ReplyDeleteDavid, what evidence do you have that Markos has some sort of leverage over what Glenn writes? If you have any such evidence present it; if not, stop these ridiculous accusations. Put up, or shut up.
I say you receiving cash from a conspiracy of DLCers and neo-con operatives at The New Republic to undermine effective bloggers who might undermine the “bi-partisan” dream ticket of McCain/Lieberman.
It’s time you prove that you are not receiving cash payments from them, and that you are part of this sleazy conspiracy.
Will you please prove that you are not part of this shadowy conspiracy and that all of your comments here are sent to you as part of this vicious campaign coordinated by the McCain/Lieberman Unity Ticket?
Please provide us with some proof David, or we must denounce your honesty and integrity and conclude that you are a paid operative and part of a larger conspiracy.
If you can make such demands from Glenn, why can’t we make similar demands from you?
The lie that I keep seeing in this thread is that somehow talking about free, open, verifiable elections cannot be done because it is "tinfoil hattie."
ReplyDeleteKos is one of the leading figure in catapulting that propaganda to the sheeple that believe he represents the left (he does not).
To talk about the objective FACT that we need to have elections that can be verified in order to have a legitimate democracy should transcend left AND right.
It just happens that we have a preznut that has stolen 2 elections - but even those that refuse to acknowledge the facts behind this should be able to agree that our government lacks legitimacy when we cannot recount and verify the official vote counts.
Kos is a liar and on some important issues, is "catapulting the propaganda."
pallidoris, Kos is just one example of a pervasive attitude: an epidemic of liberal bloggers who refuse to engage this issue, and at times actively discourage discussion of it. As you say, all of the blogs have their own areas of concern, and with the left, getting progressive candidates elected is a prime subject.
ReplyDeleteBut how the hell are we supposed to do that if the Repubs are going to steal the election and get away with it?
This is a four alarm fire. It seems to me, this is an issue that all the bloggers should get together on. They are not simply allowing Bradblog (whom I love and read all the time)to do his thing. They are erecting a wall around discussion of something that has implicaions far deeper than any one candidate. This is the life or death of our democracy. Ignore it, and we perish. It's as simple as that.
Pallidoris you are so full of feces that it actually oozes out of my monitor when I read you post.
ReplyDeleteBRAD COULD BE TWICE AS EFFECTIVE IF THE "ALL BLOG, NO ACTION, BAN REAL LIBERAL ISSUES" CROWD WOULD SHOW SOME SUPPORT.
You, I, and every reasonable reader knows this is not an issue of, "he's doing it so I don't have to." You are a liar.
Kos has created a little echo-chamber that he directly controls at KOS and another echo-chamber via the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links.
They discredit the work of brad and others when they proclaim to BE the liberal blogosphere and ban any reasonable dialog about these issues.
What a cop out, saying that "brad is already doint it."
You are really one of kos fools, aren't you.
The proper venue for the proper story.
ReplyDeleteSo guess you are telling me that if I want to read republican crap disguised as a liberal take, I should read kos...
Talking about the lying liars, both left and right, is important.
kos=lying liar
DAVID SHAUGHENESSY has vowed at least 10 times - like a little girl who feels unliked - that he is going away and NEVER COMING BACK.
ReplyDeleteAnd every time, he crawls back.
Lord, let him mean it this time.
pallidoris,
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between Brad Blog and dKos and I think you know it. dKos is allegedly a general interest Demorcrat/left site with front-page blogging and diaries, whereas Brad Blog is a one-man, narrowly focused blog. If dKos is not what it purports to be (and I think it isn't, with its infighting and topics that are "untouchable"), it will eventually wither in effectiveness. You appear ready to toss over any part of the left that would make you uncomfortable rather than to confront things that may be important to the continuing health of this country. That, more than any supposed "conspiracy theory" will kill any vitality in our poitical movement in this country.
Release the hounds!
ReplyDeleteYou all are no better than the right-wing lunatics you so despise. With luck, you will cancel one another out.
You have met the enemy and you are them.
Find another football. You won't have Shaughnessy to kick around anymore.
Congratulations! The echo chamber has been purged.
That's brilliant satire. It combines all of Nixon's immense sense of self-pity, Bush's fact-free counter attack with Lieberman's studied martyr complex. Unity 08 indeed!
It's so over-the-top, I can't believe that the actual David Shaughnessy would write it (whoever he is) -- but it's so preening in its hurt that I can't discount it either.
However, I think it's obvious that under Zengerle rules, we can quote this as coming from DS though.
Sir, you have still not answered the question: have you or have you not stopped beating your wife?
ReplyDeleteThis is all "Rather" suspicious.
BRAD COULD BE TWICE AS EFFECTIVE IF THE "ALL BLOG, NO ACTION, BAN REAL LIBERAL ISSUES" CROWD WOULD SHOW SOME SUPPORT.
ReplyDeleteAND YOU COULD BE INFINITELY MORE EFFECTIVE IF YOU WEREN'T SUCH A UNBAREABLY HYSTERICAL DOUCHEBAG.
Oh, and by the way, pallidoris, you said this:
ReplyDeleteQuit complaining about DKos not covering YOUR pet story.
and the more I thought about it, the more I saw red. Gawd. Quit echoing your favorite blogs, and THINK for yourself. This is not MY frickin' issue, this is an issue of democracy shattering proportions, and if you can't see that, then there truly is no hope.
Does all this anonymous election fraud, anti-kos animus signify a different and new slew of posting spam that we get to enjoy with every new Greenwald posting? Boy, I sure hope so.
ReplyDeleteI've already made my plans should another election fall to fraud. I suggest you do the same rather than scream incoherently and repetitively. I also suggest a nice merlot or shiraz and a sit outside listening to the birds singing.
And every time, he crawls back.
ReplyDeleteOh, please, David prides himself on his integrity, and he continually lectures the ‘mindless robots on this list who take their orders from Glenn’ how he has much more integrity than they do.
To come back now would make him look incredibly foolish. Surely, he’s smarter than that. He’s smarter than all of us here, too; or so he continually reminds us.
He’ll never be back!
sunny: I stand corrected- there are diaries related to election fraud at Kos, but according to this commenter, they don't get front-paged and are not treated very well
ReplyDeleteI've read far more about election fraud in Recommended Diaries at dKos than anywhere else in the blogosphere. It might not get front-paged, and that may be because Kos doesn't want to focus on it for whatever reason, but it's ridiculous to leap from "providing a forum for, but not showcasing X" to "suppressing X".
So consider yourself ridiculed, not merely corrected.
This is not MY frickin' issue, this is an issue of democracy shattering proportions, and if you can't see that, then there truly is no hope.
ReplyDeletePoor wording on my part. Election fraud is serious...but sorry, it is not going to be THE story at every blog every day. That isn't the way it is. Sure would make the blogosphere less interesting and useful if it were, regardless of its seriousness.
The Kos site (and Greenwald and Firedoglake and Digby and on and on) is operating on the assumption that the election system WILL work, one way or another. Brad Blog is singularly focused on the assumption that it will not work at all the way it is supposed to. The story, inspite of your anger at DKos not solely focusing on it, is getting out and getting action. Maybe not as quickly as you feel it needs to but it is. Hell, how many states have been running into problems and are involved in various lawsuits over infernal voting computers? Quite a few. The noise will get louder as election day approaches and, unlike in 2000 and 2004, it is a pretty good bet that a "funny" result (or set of results) come fall '06 will not be accepted quietly.
DKos is a different animal than what you want. It is HUGE and sometimes, even a worthy story doesn't make it. Timing and skill in authorship plays a roll here. Also, hysterics (or the hint of hysterics) wont go over well at all. The READERS vote the story up or down, not Kos himself. If you don't snag the readers first and then hold them with a good post, then you wont get the votes and your story will drift off the bottom of the new diary list.
That's the cost of dealing with many many thousands of readers.
David Shaughnessy, when I mentioned "tawdry insinuations", I had this in mind from your post earlier today:
ReplyDelete...If I am not mistaken, this is precisely the tactic utilized by the dearly-departed Scott McClellan concerning the Abramoff/Bush photos...And the other trick you're using...is a positively Rovian diversion...No need to address whether there is in fact a cabal of bloggers that "suggests" what you should or should not write about...No, don't explain anything. It is beneath you. Don't say whether you did in fact receive one or more e-mails advising you how to handle one or more stories...
But then I followed your advice and I found more of these tawdry insinuations:
the independence and integrity of the so-called progressive blogs is in question, and that is regardless of whether the compromising factor is personal financial gain, groupthink pressures to remain silent about corruption, or something else...The question of whether one of the premier bloggers is corrupt can hardly be dismissed...I suspected that [Glenn Greenwald] was being seduced by the acclaim and power and I warned him about it...Whether the independence and integrity of the so-called progressive blogs is in question due to personal financial gain, groupthink pressures to remain silent about corruption, or something else. While the question of whether one of the premier bloggers is corrupt can hardly be dismissed, the larger question is not whether one person has been corrupted, but whether there is a cabal that has been complicit in concealing that corruption...You seldom get the facts by entering into a conspiracy of silence...More importantly, aren't you concerned about the implications for the integrity and independence of the progressive blogosphere?...
Regarding all of these insinuations: you understand that it's not up to Glenn to prove his (or Jerome Armstrong's) "innocence", right? That the burden is on you to prove "guilt" by providing evidence? Asking suggestive questions and making declarative statements without any evidence is really nothing more than slander (or in this case, libel).
If I understand your point correctly, you're disturbed by the harm in credibility the progressive blogosphere may take because of Jerome's activities in the past. You're also disturbed by the possibility that Kos directed other bloggers to ignore Jerome's past.
To your first concern: as I understand it, Jerome can't talk about it, and he can't ask anyone else to talk about it (or not talk about it). Furthermore, any problem Jerome had in the past is Jerome's and Jerome's alone. Glenn Greenwald doesn't have anything to do with it, because...
To your second concern: there is no evidence to suggest that Kos is directing other bloggers to do jacks--t, and there are multiple denials of such activity. Why is this unsatisfactory to you? You think they're lying? Fine, prove it.
You want to make this about independence and credibility? Glenn Greenwald was right- the email was fabricated. How's being right add to someone's credibility? Oh, that's right, after Zengerle admitted the email was fake, you wrote this whopper:
...But what if that MSM source had a nefarious incentive to make the erroneous assertion in the first place?...
He/she probably did have a nefarious motivation, but the motivation was probably to hurt the liberal blogs, not help them. But that's not how you see it, for some reason. In your mind there's still something "nefarious" about Glenn being right. That's way out of the mainstream, buddy, and you need to come to grips with that.
The independence and credibility of the progressive blogospere may be questionable in your mind, but that's not the same as it being questionable, period. If you want to convince me (or anyone else) that there's something fishy going on, give me evidence. Simply asking suggestive questions isn't enough to tarnish someone's reputation, at least not in my book. Stop asking the questions and go find the answers yourself. Then come back and present your case (here or on your own blog).
As an aside, I think if you wanted to look into nefarious dealings on the liberal side, go take a look at Huffington Post. They arbitrarily censor commenters, the tech staff will themselves comment on blogs without disclosure, and they just recently banned a blogger for a very questionable offense. There's dirt there if you're intent on finding dirt in the liberal blogosphere.
If you're just going to sit here and ask Glenn to prove a negative (about himself, no less), however, in my mind you're just being an a--hole. You are, of course, free to be an a--hole, but you should at least be aware that one person on this thread thinks you're being an a--hole by throwing insinuations out there without any proof.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI had the great good fortune to meet you in Cambridge last week and it was apparent to all of us in the room what a class act you are.
Don't let this crap get you down and keep up the excellent work!
P.S. Tommy, you have no idea how funny that is!!
Glenn: (claiming that I was "coaxed" by Kos into doing the "potentially libelous work" against Zengerle)
ReplyDeleteI think it's counterproductive to call this 'claiming' given that it's embedded in what's clearly a piece of satire. 'Insinuating' or 'suggesting' would be a more realistic claim.
Don't let yourself look like a WATB when you're the one with integrity here.
So consider yourself ridiculed, not merely corrected.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm ridiculed? Another example of how this issue will not get anywhere in the left blogs. No one can get through withough comments such as yours.
Go back through the comments- I said Kos is merely an example.
I am grateful Glenn allows these discussions, and I sincerely hope he will post on this soon.
Election fraud or tampering is a local matter that has national ramifications when electoral votes in key states swing a presidential election one way or another. It has no effect on us in many states. It does not happen in my state. It is a matter for the people in states like Ohio and Florida and a few other states like New Mexico or Arizona and districts. I happen to agree with those who think something unexplainable happened in 2004, but don't exaggerate the problem. I live in the home of hi-tech and we don't even use electronic voting. I always vote absentee.
ReplyDeleteWhere's Bart & Shooter?
ReplyDeleteTHESE SITES DO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO POST THINGS THAT ARE NOT WITHIN THE LIMITED RANGE OF TOPICS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE?
ReplyDeleteYes, you say this, in all caps to give yourself extra authority. But I see no evidence of this. The claim in this thread has been that election fraud discussions have not been permitted. That is clearly not so, as my note referring to election fraud tags demonstrates.
But I say "you" and you are anonymous, so you're not even willing to stand by a monicker when making these specious arguments.
Sunny--
ReplyDeleteI reiterate. I agree with you on the importance of this issue, and I do hope that Glenn or one of his other front pagers will post on it.
But that doesn't mean that the DKos model is stamping down this issue. The notion that some monolithic force is setting the blogospheric agenda is absurd. It denies the model in a profound way. You may want it to be the case that there are leaders and powerbrokers, but I'm telling you,even if Time magazine says so, it's not the case.
David Shaughnessy
ReplyDeleteI just don't get this. I don't get any of this. Are you surprised that there is communication among like-minded bloggers on what they're gonna post? Are you surprised that friends email each other? Do you think that the quality of prose that shows up on the better sites doesn't reflect consideration and communication? I just set up a site, a little tiny site, that'll get maybe a hundred visitors a month. (www.schumerwatch.blogspot.com). In doing so, I've coordinated content and design with at least half a dozen people. Does that make me some kind of conspirator? Or someone trying to put out a useful, timely product? Is it all surprising that people email each other over pressing issues?
David,
ReplyDeleteThe two overarching questions are:
1. What actually happened, both in terms of the underlying matters, and also with regard to the efforts to squelch the story?
2. What are the implications of what happened, if any, for the credibility of the blogs in question?
xxxxxx
You cant seem to wrap your mind around the notion that this is what the reporter should have asked and produced credible evidence to support his position.
He did produce some evidence -which wasnt damning and one piece that turned out to be false that would have been. Additionally Glen reference two other bloggers who addressed the questions that you asked and indicated that they "spoke" for him. About now you remind me of a nineteenth century redneck about behind the cabin, peppering the dead horse with rifle shots. Time to move on dont yoy think?
Dear Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThe chimps are throwing banana peels at you!!! Keep rattlin' their cages, it makes me deliriously happy!
All the piling on from left and right over this nonsense is indicative of the sloppy thinking in the Americam political scene, on or off the internet.
ReplyDelete"Journalists", bloggers and commenters state all kinds of "facts" without any visual proof, or source identity. This needs to stop. Anonymous sources need to take a hike and people need to display the courage of their convinctions and the reliability of their facts by allowing their identities to be revealed, before they are given one inch of typewritten space. Anything else is just slander and not worth reading or paying attention to.
The notion that some monolithic force is setting the blogospheric agenda is absurd.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and I never said there was. I think it is fear of losing credibility-I guess in the eyes of the msm, who never lose an opportunity to ridicule the notion of election fraud; can you imagine Jane Hamsher ridiculing Kos if he chose to hammer on election fraud?
Again, I defer to Mark Crispin Miller, who thinks it is fear of a terrifying truth:
The argument is idiotic, yet the people who have seriously made it -- Bernie Sanders, Markos Moulitsas, Hillary Clinton's and Chuck Schumer's people, among others -- are extremely bright. The argument, as foolish as it is, does not bespeak a low I.Q., but, I would suggest, a subtler kind of incapacity: a refusal and/or inability to face a deeply terrifying truth. The Democrats refuse to talk about election fraud because they cannot, will not, wrap their minds around the implications of what happened in 2004, and what is happening right now, and what will keep on happening until we, as a people, face the issue. In short, whatever clever-sounding rationales they may invoke (no doubt in all sincerity), the Democrats won't talk about election fraud because they're in denial, which is itself based on a lethal combination of inertia, self-interest and, above all -- or below all -- fear.
David Shaughnessy said:
ReplyDelete1. [Was Glenn Greenwald] asked to keep silent?
2. If so, what was [Glenn Greenwald's] response?
The two overarching questions are:
1. What actually happened, both in terms of the underlying matters, and also with regard to the efforts to squelch the story?
2. What are the implications of what happened, if any, for the credibility of the blogs in question?
David, I can guess at the answers to those questions right now, and I'd wager my answers are accurate.
1. Was Glenn Greenwald asked to keep silent? Yes. Or no. It doesn't matter because...
2. What was Glenn Greenwald's response? Nothing, he'll continue to write whatever he damn well feels like writing about.
The core issues you bring up are issues that should be dealt with by Markos or Jerome, not by Glenn. Go take this up with them.
But you are right, I don't care too much about this story. Liberal bloggers getting together and talking strategy with each other doesn't bother me. Facts and reality have always guided and always will guide the writings of the liberal blogosphere. Regardless of what Jerome or Kos did or didn't do, that won't change.
"Having said that, I'll make anyone a deal -- if anyone can present a shred of evidence, just an iota of proof, that I have ever altered a single opinion, expressed an opinion I do not hold, or refrained from expressing an opinion that I wanted to express, due to an order, directive or request from Markos, I will be happy to respond to these accusations."
ReplyDeletePiffle!! Who needs evidence when they have Truthiness? \snark
I couldn't agree more with your point about the frenzy to believe. I've seen it all too many times in the comments at mediamatters.org.
-- Sagra
Pallidoris
ReplyDeleteYou're a condenscending little ass with nothing to say. If your "pet issue" is defending kos, you will find many that disagree and, unlike kos and the faux "advertise liberally" circle of links, we are allowed to share these thoughts here.
But at least you shared what flavor of kool-aide you drink over there.
sunny: So I'm ridiculed?
ReplyDeleteYes. You made a ridiculous suggestion. I ridicule it and you.
Jay Ackroyd
ReplyDeleteLOL - like you are saying such important things because of the name you use!
Just more BS
Besides, can't help it if mom had a sick sense of humor (and was still under seditives" when she signed my name as "anonymous" on the birth paperwork.
You are truly and insensitive person that hates diversity.
Are you surprised that there is communication among like-minded bloggers on what they're gonna post?
ReplyDeleteDo you just skip the threads or are you a moron? They are "like minded" cuz anyone else is banned.
Just another version of an echo chamber. Just cuz it works on the right (with the help of MSM) doesn't mean its appropriate for those that want to see change.
Jay Ackroyd wrote:
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaughnessy
I just don't get this. I don't get any of this.
Jay,
Glenn has addressed the issue raised by David repeatedly, and he did so again in his post today:
I have not addressed that accusation precisely because there is no "substance" to it, and there still is none. It is idiotic fantasy, based on nothing, and does not deserve a response. Although in my original post I did say that, for those who need a response, I found the responses by Ezra Klein and Max Sawicky more than persuasive.
I am not interested in trying to persuade anyone that I have not altered my opinion, expressed a political opinion which I do not hold, refrained from expressing an opinion which I wanted to express -- all because Markos directed or requested that I do so. Anyone who believes that is willing to believe accusations based on nothing, and is thus, by definition, someone who is not amenable to rational persuasion.
David Shaughnessy is not amenable to rational persuasion.
This is David’s idiotic fantasy – and he’s sticking to it. You don’t get it, because it is not rational. Good for you.
John S Costello said...
ReplyDeleteWhen I read John's comment and the follow up explanations I had a very different re-action than Glenn did. I assumed that maybe John had simply not read that follow-up statement. That could be a wrong assessment on my part about John's posts, but it certainly seems to be a possibility so I cannot understand the "how can anyone with a straight face" type of comment being directed at him.
I am sincere (although I admit I didn't follow the story)and my initial re-action to those two statements that John addressed was the same as his.
Anonymous said...
I think Glenn has responded to and dispatched this entire episode quite well. All kudos to you.
But (having been away) I'm confused as to what really started this. Am I right in saying that it began with Chris Suellentrop's article, fed to him by New Jersey mortgage broker and investigator of penny-stock scams Floyd Schneider, about Internet strategist Jerome Armstrong's run in with the SEC in the late 1990s over, among other things, stock touting charges and from there balloned into an apparent Left-Wing-Kos-Blog-Conspircy to take over the Blogosphere?
I guess we're going to have to be satisfied with everyone skipping over what I and an isolated few others, apparently, think is the real story.
So for the record, I will just come right out and say that I suspect the Zengerle/TNR debacle (and I am not saying Glenn would have any knowledge about it, just as I admit I too do not and am merely going on a visceral "hunch" here) is just another one of those manufactured "distractions" to keep peoples' eyes off the ball: i.e., welcome to hoaxville.
David Shaughnessy
There are legitmate questions as to independence and integrity raised by these developments. If you don't care to know the answers that's up to you.
Let's start with you. Whose payroll are you on? Why does it matter a whit whether Jerome Armstrong is a nutjob, or that Kos wrote a book with him? If you say you're not on anyone's payroll, what would make me believe you? You obviously have an agenda. What aren't you telling us Shaughnessy, if that is your real name?
Me, I just think you're a paranoid desperate for attention -- but, then really, whatever you say or write this is the assumption I'll continue to employ.
See how this game works?
David Shaughnessy has stated that he doesn't encourage or solicit others to support him and that is a position I truly respect. Once you throw your lot in with some "other", you often get that person's whole ideology thrown back at you and the person may be someone you yourself have little in common with intellectually.
Nevertheless, I cannot resist pointing out once again to this "anon" whose mission in life seems to be attacking David Shaugnessy that he would have more success at coming up with a formula to tri-sect the angle than in understanding someone so much more intelligent than he is. David doesn't have to give his credentials. His words speak eloquently for themselves. Everything you need to know about him is contained in his posts. In that respect, he is almost unique on this blog. Idiots will never be able to keep up with the ideas of extremely intelligent and logical people who use reason to assess facts and discern reality.
Sunny, good posts. But I feel certain that if you thought about it, you would rephrase some of your comments and would be the first to admit that the "left" aren't the only people who care about election fraud.
That is a view that leads to fuzzy thinking in itself. Are you so partisan that you think there are no people of integrity among groups who hold different policitcal views than you do?
I'd rather see an honest person whose policies I rejected win than a person whose policies I endorse win in a stolen election.
That's precisely because of the issues people like David Shaughnessy raise about how large a factor it is to trust a person. If you cannot trust the person's basic integrity, why waste any time on him in the first place?
Maybe the "left" wouldn't be too happy if elections were cleaned up and as a result some wingnut got in who otherwise would not have. It works both ways.
This one point speaks to me of the very core of a Consitutional Republic and why I believe so firmly in a system of codified laws.
Before the laws get enforced, all sides can debate their relative merits. Once they are enacted, the laws (other than clearly immoral ones which no person of good conscience could obey) must apply to everyone equally.
Neither the left nor the right has cornered the "truth" market.
Principled independents who vote solely on the issues would seem to be the people with the most integrity.
I really cannot think of a famous person I respect (one involved somehow in the political scene, directly or tangentially) who has not supported both Democratic and Republican positions depending on the issue involved, and who has not been as quick to criticize one party as the other over actions or policies with which he disagrees.
Interestingly those who have acted in what, to me, is the most "non-partisan" manner (meaning caring only about the issues) have mostly seemed to be libertarians, paleoconservative old school Republicans, and people who were always independent and didn't gravitate to one party or the other.
If there are Democrats I have missed, I would love to be educated about that and have an open mind. I just can't think of any off hand.
Those are among the many reasons I have no respect for people like Kos and Jerome (and others) who, to me, are the intellectual offspring of a Carville-Matalin marriage: genetics gone astray in pursuit of $$$$, power and personal gain.
I didn't follow this whole Zengerle story because it didn't get my interest. I am glad Glenn feels happy that he was vindicated. It certainly seems he came in for some very vicious and misguided personal attacks which were entirely lacking in factual merit and a person must defend himself from those types of baseless allegations if he has any self-respect.
But can we not skip right to the NY Times Story and spend a few minutes on the story that in my opinion this whole engineered (yes, that's my view and I'm sticking with it until convinced otherwise) Zengerle story was meant to deflect attention from?
What does the left have to say if a rising lefty blogosphere personality is revealed to be a crook?
How will the "left blogosphere" deal with that? Will it re-direct its attention away from projects associated with a discredited person?
Those issues interest me because of the wider implications and because blogs have been the venue through which my own political awareness this past year has mushroomed, including the links on blogs that direct one to sites which are not blogs (like antiwar.com and counterpunch and dissident voice, etc.). Many of these sites have regular writers with whom I have profound disagreements about some very basic issues.
Yet if I hadn't been exposed to those sites I would still pretty much be in the dark about what was going on in this country, as the real and often complex sets of facts on both sides of any important issue are usually not to be found in a cursory daily exposure to the MSM.
Finally, Jerome doesn't have to address the consent decree for a person to be able to assess the probability he is a crook. Instead, a person can bone up for a few days on the SEC and how it has operated historically and that would give one enough information to know that although it's not written in stone, there is almost no chance that Jerome was being accused of fraudulent practices in which he did not participate.
That's not the story about the SEC. The story is about all the crooks who never get caught or charged with stealing and indulging in market practices which are, for the most part these days, corrupt in themselves. Wall Street has become a club for the "in crowd" and it operates on its own set of rules.
I happen to believe this is the way it should be as I believe in laissez-faire. Nobody forces anyone else to buy stock and anyone who buys stock who thinks the market is not "rigged" in a large measure is simply foolish. There are other ways to make money than playing someone else's three card monte game.
So the story isn't that the SEC conducts witch hunts. It lets almost all the players do what they want but every once in a while certain individuals or practices get so out of hand that to maintain their own image they are finally forced to lower the boom and make an example of someone to try to at least lessen the amount of shennanigans. They usually do this when "little people" start to get hurt by these never-ending new schemes operators come up with to put their hands in others' pockets.
Link that bit of information to everything else about Kos and Jermoe that you can see with your own eyes and I am failing to see why anyone serious about issues as opposed to wanting to see a species called "Democrat" get elected would ever even open that site.
Those who write about the "circle of links" and are then promptly attacked on this site appear to come under those attacks from members of that "circle of links" so that to me makes that a story in itself.
My advice to the world is what it always has been: never affiliate yourself with any group. It never leads to anything good. (e.g., even the ACLU appears to be well on the road to moral decay.)
Remain an individual and think for yourself. It's true you will come in for more attacks than anyone else, but it's a small price to pay for maintaining one's integrity.
As I said, SOP in many of the lefty blogs concerning anything considered tin-foil hatty (nevermind it might be true)Ridicule, denounce, and run off the people trying to sound the alarm.
ReplyDeleteWhen '06 is stolen, don't say you weren't warned. How will you then feel about your favorite blogs who refused to rally activists to get something done?
Are you really saying Kos et al are marshalling support to stop the thievery? Because a few dozen diaries are allowed to exist? If you are, then consider yourself ridiculed.
ewo:Sunny, good posts. But I feel certain that if you thought about it, you would rephrase some of your comments and would be the first to admit that the "left" aren't the only people who care about election fraud.
ReplyDeleteThat is a view that leads to fuzzy thinking in itself. Are you so partisan that you think there are no people of integrity among groups who hold different policitcal views than you do?
In fact, I am not a partisan. I have voted for Republicans in the past (Gov. Riley here in Alabama, for one-better than the corrupt Siegelman)In fact, what I have been complaining about is the lack of attention to the issue by the left who are falling for the prevalent conservative/msm tactic of ridiculing anyone who brings up election theft. I am a true progressive in every sense of the word, (and that ain't easy around here.) and I want bloggers who purport to speak for me and people like me to live up to the tradition of speaking truth to power, tho the heavens may fall.
D.S... Fine. I'm an idiot. But what is TalkBox and what does it do? Or is it impertinent to even ask such questions?
ReplyDeleteGlenn didn't call you an idiot. You did.
The real pearl in all this is how these "bastions," of the right continually fail in their attempts to be, well, right.
ReplyDeleteI pooted.
ReplyDeleteSunny... Again, I defer to Mark Crispin Miller, who thinks it is fear of a terrifying truth:
ReplyDeleteNo Sunny, I don't agree. In fact, I think most Americans are pretty sure there was something very fishy going on, and a recent poll bore this out, with the glaring exception of one group. Fox News viewers.
The problem is that there is no legal mechanism to right a fixed or stolen election. It's not something the founders considered, although if David Byron were here, he would claim they planned it that way. I'll see if I can track down the link to that poll. I'm not surprised you hadn't seen it, but I wouldn't blame Kos.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI pooted.
7:40 PM
Did Kos give you permission to do that here?
Fine. I'm an idiot. But what is TalkBox and what does it do? Or is it impertinent to even ask such questions?
ReplyDeleteI’m on a Yahoo group which consists of members who share similar musical interests, but also enjoy talking politics and current events. When you e-mail to the group, everyone gets it, and everyone in the group knows who e-mailed what to the group because it’s in the archives. Those not members of the group don’t have access to it.
I never found anything conspiratorial about this group, or the way it operates. And I don’t see any reason why the Townhouse list would be any different. It’s a way to send one e-mail rather than dozens.
I also don’t think that Roger Simon controls what every member of Pajamas Media writes either – that’s just silly. It’s an organizational tool for advertising on conservative blogs.
How is the “circle of links” different? Oh, because it’s liberal. Hmmmmm. Sounds ominous, sounds conspiratorial. Scary, scary stuff.
When conservatives do it, it’s a smart business decision. When liberals do it – it’s a conspiracy!
Dear Glenn;
ReplyDeleteThe truth *always* comes out, sooner or later.
As it did in this specific case.
The lesson here is what you did with your steadfast stand against the passing storm, and what you continue encouraging doing by keep on chasing it until the stormbringers are returned under the rocks from whence they came.
In other words: never give up the facts, the truth and reality.
Good show, Glenn! Good show indeed! ;-)
Sunny,
ReplyDeleteDone in May of this year in conjunction with Zogby. Most Americans know something ain't right. But there isn't anything that can be done about it except prevent it from happening again. The best way to prevent that from happening, given who is in power now, is a landslide of votes tossing the bums out. They can only steal close elections. If it ain't close, it's too obvious. Once the adults regain power, we can work to fix the system.
Stolen Legitimate
ABC 56% 32%
CBS 64% 31%
CNN 70% 24%
FOX .5% 99%
MSNBC 65% 24%
NBC 49% 43%
Other 56% 28%
More here
kurt: This whole thing is so Rovian.
ReplyDeleteIsn't there a bigger picture to this discussion? It's reflected in the Brooks attack on Kos and his supposed hitlerian mesmerization of the Left.
This is a typical strawman attack--and the Left falls for it. How pitiful is that?
Brooks takes the Left to task for the hordes of leftist web surfers who attack conservative blogs--all at the behests of Commandante Markos! You have to love the irony of this,. given the hordes of trolls who visit Glenn's site and make a nusiance of themselves.
What you do have to admire about this Brooks article, though, is how the Right always seems out in front of the curve or creating controversy that the MSM is willing to eat up and blare across TV screens.
Whether this shows how much they are geniuses or how unscrupoulous the Right is, I am sure some sun-Tzu afficionado can come up with an appropriate saying for this tactic.
I'll echo one anonymice and add a chuckle at the hapless faux Left trying to weather the conservative storm while the neocon revolution goes on--televised and wall-to-wall,
anonymous @ 7:41:
ReplyDeleteNo Sunny, I don't agree. In fact, I think most Americans are pretty sure there was something very fishy going on, and a recent poll bore this out, with the glaring exception of one group. Fox News viewers.
Absolutely, most Americans are sure something went wrong, of that I have no doubt. In the above quote, I, or rather MCM, was referring to national dem politicians and bloggers like Kos, not the people. And I do blame Kos et al for not making it a prominent issue, when so many citizens, alot of his diarists included, are so alarmed.
mentarch: In other words: never give up the facts, the truth and reality.
ReplyDelete"The truth" is what the man with the gun says it is. And IT doesn't happen until the media says it does. So, my question is: who has the guns and the media?
The Right owns the truth.
Sunny,
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that some on the left may be overly cautious of is attempts to discredit a blog or a group by introduction of "conspiracy theories" that originate from groups like the LaRouchies or anti-semitic holocaust deniers, like The Barnes Review. Some people do cut that crap off at the knees, and rightly so. It only gives the right ammunition and some folks think that it's done with intent because an agent provocateur infiltrates a group and brings this stuff to an anti-war rally. It happened last year. Talk about conspiracy theories. I see you are in Law. If you think it's bad now, you should have seen it in the 60s. Where do you think David Horowitz learned all his dirty tricks from? The FBI and COINTELPRO.
DS - "But only someone involved with it -- Glenn Greenwald, for example -- can actually say what it is and what it does."
ReplyDeleteThe problem, David is that everything you are saying that Glen should address, he already has. He explained clearly that Markos cannot and does not exert leverage over a single word he writes or doesn't write, and already explained what Townhouse is:
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.
I cant speak for him, but I wouldnt answer you either, you keep ignoring the answers he gave, which suggest that youre interested in accusing, not in learning.
Finally, you want a negative proven. What evidence could exist to show this conspiracy doesnt exist?
anon @ 8:05:
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that some on the left may be overly cautious of is attempts to discredit a blog or a group by introduction of "conspiracy theories" that originate from groups like the LaRouchies or anti-semitic holocaust deniers, like The Barnes Review.
Oh, God yes, I understand that perfectly. But we are talking about Mark Crispen Miller, RFK, and a few other respectable writers, not LaRouchies. Why does the credibility of these writers not give them an excuse to pursue the issue? There are reams of data out there- why not avail themselves of it and do some original reporting? What is the excuse?
Where do you think David Horowitz learned all his dirty tricks from? The FBI and COINTELPRO.
COINTELPRO-always a danger, imo, when movements gain momentum. All we can do is learn from the past.
They shouldn't be so alarmed, Sunny. They are only 3 states where Bush is still popular. He doesn't even carry one southern state. That kind of unpopularity makes it very difficult for elections to be fudged without being incredibly obvious. That would lead to very serious consequences this time. Most of them would end up going to the wall and being shot. I wish they'd try it again. I really hope they do.
ReplyDeletehttp://billmon.org/archives/002451.html
anon @ 8:16 PM:
ReplyDeleteThat kind of unpopularity makes it very difficult for elections to be fudged without being incredibly obvious.
They have never let the fear of being obvious stop them. MSM will cover for them and make excuses, and hide facts and evidence, and pundits will lie, newspapers will call us all conspiracy theorists, and we'll move on- to our appointed police state.
CL...Whether this shows how much they are geniuses or how unscrupoulous the Right is, I am sure some sun-Tzu afficionado can come up with an appropriate saying for this tactic.
ReplyDeleteI think it's Chomsky who had them and their methods all dialed in years ago, which is why he has been made invisible by them and labeled a "whacko". You'd be surprised how many people on the left have internalized this and believe it, which is bizarre when you consider...
Outside of academia, Chomsky is far more widely known for his political activism, and for his criticism of the foreign policy of the United States and other governments. Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW). He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of the United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar, and the eighth most cited scholar overall.
Sunny... They have never let the fear of being obvious stop them. MSM will cover for them and make excuses, and hide facts and evidence, and pundits will lie, newspapers will call us all conspiracy theorists, and we'll move on- to our appointed police state.
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit older than you. I've seen this all before. It'll be OK, but I wish we didn't have to go thru this over and over again. That's the way it is, tho. You could always leave Alabama. Subject yourself to less stress?
:-)
You could always leave Alabama. Subject yourself to less stress?
ReplyDeleteI would, but 99.9% of the people I love live here. Remove myself from them? Now, that would cause some stress!
(Besides, you always know where you stand around here-and let me tell you, you better stand or get knocked down)
For some reason this thread seems to have become (dare I say it) whinier than most. Without mentioning who I may think is being unreasonable here, I will mention that one of the right's most potent weapons is the caricature. If you are finding yourself in a situation where someone could come along and portray you as being loopy, paranoid or a moonbat, then you have backed yourself in a corner.
ReplyDeleteWhile we are kept busy dissecting the ethical failures of some media wannabes Specter is working hard to give Bush all the legal cover he needs to keep the NSA busy with warrantless wiretaps and defense contractor Booz Allen and Hamilton up to their crafty necks "auditing" the CIA's SWIFT database access.Does anyone think that Cheney would agree to court review if it resulted in any impairment of his unitary powers?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it funny that as soon as Rove found himself a free man all kinds of "ethical" misfortunes seem to have befallen the blogging community. Coincidence ? I think not. I bet Rove and his cronies have declared open season on the blogging community and this is just the beginning. We should get psychologically ready for an onslaught of baseless accusations against top liberal bloggers to force them to keep an eye off the ball and to splinter the liberal / independent blogging community in advance of the elections. Bloggers have to start prepping their readers for this so they know what to expect. I bet Rove has focus groups working right now on what will cause disaffection among the blogging audience so your audience needs to realise that the republicans will engage in dirty tricks against bloggers as well not just politicians.
Finally, Glenn, I never doubted your honesty.
sunny said...
ReplyDeleteYou could always leave Alabama. Subject yourself to less stress?
I would, but 99.9% of the people I love live here. Remove myself from them? Now, that would cause some stress!
(Besides, you always know where you stand around here-and let me tell you, you better stand or get knocked down)
Someday soon, maybe ten or fifteen years tops, most of the good folks in Alabama will have more in common with good folks like you than they do with Judge Roy Moore. Be patient. It's bound to happen. Give it time, since you've already dug your heels in. :-)
I know this because Gus Hasford was an Alabaman. Hang tough.
If you are finding yourself in a situation where someone could come along and portray you as being loopy, paranoid or a moonbat, then you have backed yourself in a corner.
ReplyDeleteHa. I'll get in that corner with Glenn Greenwald any day of the week. If you worry about what the wingnuts will say about you, you should never say anything- twisting words is their specialty.
hey Glenn, you'll get fewer lice-eating chimps in here if you disable anonymous commenting.
ReplyDelete=D
Believe it or not, that's all I have to say on this topic.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don’t believe it. Just like I didn’t believe it when you went into your full Nixon pout about not having poor, pitiful me to kick around anymore. After all, you’ve pulled that about a half a dozen times, and your credibility regarding your repeated claims about leaving this blog is pretty well shot.
Once again, you are alleging a conspiracy and dark secret motives about an e-mail group which you know nothing about and can’t even get the name right.
You just know that Glenn is a member, and that he’s ignoring you. Glenn is not responding to your every comment, and the more he ignores you, the more obnoxious you become.
Tell us David, what other prominent bloggers respond to your each and every insult, your each and every comment? Would you demand that Glenn Reynolds respond to every e-mail you sent him? Why not?
Why are you entitled to view Glenn’s private e-mails, or the e-mails of each e-mail group Glenn belongs to, and why is he guilty until he provides you with those e-mails thereby disproving your conspiratorial fantasies?
David, Glenn is not your subordinate, this is his blog, not yours. Your repetitive demands that he provide the contents of a private e-mail group (and there are thousands of those) that he happens to belong to (thereby violating the rules of that group) are outrageous.
You have absolutely no evidence that this group has done anything illegal or unethical. Glenn has been vindicated of all the false accusations he’s endured over the weekend. It is the New Republic that has the ethical problems.
If you come upon some evidence that this e-mail group is corrupt, then I will be very interested, and I’ll go after Glenn with even more tenacity than I’ve been going after you recently.
I hold Glenn to very high standards, and if I thought he was in some little corrupt scheme for a few extra blog dollars, he can expect a lot worse than I’ve been giving you.
anon @ 8:48, you are a balm for a sore heart- thanks!
ReplyDeleteOh, and btw? My good friend Lynndie Maddox was the attorney who won the case that got "Roy's Rock" out of the Supreme Court. Now that's a Grand Guignol of a story if you've ever heard one.
Often times these entire episodes seem to turn into a giant circle jerk...
ReplyDeleteDavid Shaunessey,
ReplyDeleteThere are three rules for Townhall:
1) Dont Talk about Twonhall
2) Dont Talk about Townhall
3) If you do Talk aboout Townhall, Markos will take away your crappy blogadds.
Are you satisfied now?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteperhaps you might explain (if someone else were to ask you) what the TownHouse Group is, what the TownHouse Group does, how and why. Don't you think that people who frequent blogs have a right to know such things?
ReplyDeleteSweet baby Jesus, have mercy on me a sinner, and grant but this one request: send thy Holy Spirit verily unto the Unclaimed Territory martyr, David Shaughnessy, and wipe from his brow the sweating drops as of blood, remove from him the cup; convince him he need not drink of it, that it may pass from him. For my Lord, he understandeth not that a googlegroups email list is...an email list. Give unto him the peace that surpasseth understanding, to wit: people on group email lists email one another, about stuff. It is a common enough trespass against you, my Lord!
For, (falling heavily to my knees) I confess, my Lord and Savior, that I too have joined not one, but many, many Google and Yahoo email lists -- several of them private -- and on one we even discussed political strategy regarding an organization in which we opposed certain pending changes. My sins are as scarlet and the torments of hell are no less than I deserve, but the Lamb will wash away my sins, and I offer up all of my time in Purgatory for the horrendous, holy suffering of David Shaughnessy.
Since you appear to be quite knowledgeable about the TownHouse Group, perhaps you might explain (if someone else were to ask you) what the TownHouse Group is, what the TownHouse Group does, how and why
ReplyDeleteThe Townhouse group is a damn mailing list. A little knowlege of history would reveal that mailing lists were one of the innovations that helped propel the ARPANET into the mainstream thus giving birth to Internet as we know it. The cool thing about mailing lists was that you could send a message to ALL the members by just typing 1 address. It's so cool that even MS Outlook supports the idea!
I'm working from memory now but I beleive I saw that the said mailing list had ~300 members.
By my reckoning that's way too small to be considered a public forum but also way to big to have any expectation of secrecy.
If you have any more questions refer to my post above regarding "moonbats"!
Thank you Hypatia.
ReplyDeleteWhat I lack in clarity you more than make up for in snark!
Yes, I finally get it. You guys don't think bloggers have any ethical obligations.
ReplyDeleteYes, David, that’s absolutely right.
Now since we’ve made that clear, and Glenn’s made it abundantly clear that he has no integrity either, there’s simply no reason for you to hang around here to try to recruit for your imaginary third party.
Why would you want any of us to join it anyway? We don’t believe in ethics, we don’t believe in integrity. We are mindless robots taking orders from Glenn, who takes orders from King Markos the Blogofascist.
Surely, you don’t want such scum ruining your pristine party, right?
Run along, now.
And good luck organizing that third party - and for gosh sakes, don’t start an e-mail group to organize it, because you know what that means – it’s absolute proof that you’ve comprised your integrity and ethical standards.
David Shaughnessy:
ReplyDeleteI can't resist throwing my 2 cents in here although my thoughts aren't necessarily original - although that is kind of my point, I guess.
I come here to read Glenn's blog - not because Glenn owes me some intellectual fodder, but because he is saying things I am interested in, and gives me the opportunity to respond to them when so inspired. Thanks, Glenn!!
If one of the mechanisms he uses to do that is a semi-private e-mail list, where he can be inspired, or amused, or whatever, out of the sight of us "madding crowds," than God bless him. Basically, we are fodder, until you start your own blog and people come to visit it to hear what you have to say. If you don't believe that, go check out the Dog's blog sometime.
I am not someone who has generated a lot of web traffic - I don't find this demeaning or diminishing, but a fact of life. If Glenn wanted me to know what was going on in his "personal" or "more personal" or " quasi-personal" life, he could tell me, I suppose. But your statement that ...people who frequent blogs have a right to know such things? is like a phrase from Stalking 101.
The fact that you read blogs does not, in any way give you the right to do anything other than ... read the damn blog.
Your suggestion that somehow a lack of specific explanation (or maybe invitation?) is proof that ...You guys don't think bloggers have any ethical obligations makes no sense whatsoever.
I don't have any specific idea of what goes on at the TownHouse, or TalkBox or BlackBox or any of the other names you have called that damn e-mail list (one of the pretty amusing by-products of this conversation today, BTW), but I don't need to. I am not a part of it. If anyone thinks that I might be interested in what does go out to that list, maybe they will ask me. But there are clubs which will not have me as a member, and thank friggin god for that.
Anyway, my two cents. Stop with the victim thing, and maybe try e-mailing someone in private if you have questions.
PS - Hypatia - that was friggin hilarious.
David in Wonderland writes:
ReplyDeleteI get it. Yes, I finally get it. You guys don't think bloggers have any ethical obligations. Fine with me. Just so that's clear to everyone. Buyer beware. Of course, when the buyers don't give a damn about integrity as long as they hear what they like, well, it doesn't really matter. Does it? Hey, come to think of it, that's sort of like FOX-News, isn't it?
Somehow Glenn -who has only been a truth teller and moved the truth forward in this instance is now somehow damaged in all this? He is less than ethical now because he wont respond to your inquisition. Vainglory is thy name David . Have fun in that third party!
PhD9, you are a moron.
ReplyDeleteThank you for noticing.
Now I can rest assured that I've left the world a better place.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteLast week, I went so several liberal blogs to drop in on the comments sections of open threads and essentially asked this question: "What is your response to the Kosola story going around, and why would it be in your interest to follow Kos's directives so obediently?" I expressed no hostility or profanity; I simply asked a straghtforward question.
The response I received from each blog was to have my IP banned, instantly. Now, that can easily be construed as the bloggers dutifully following Kos' "request" to the letter, or maybe there's an alternate explanation. Either way, it's oddly punitive, and shows an adherence to loyalties the likes of which I've never seen in conservative blogs.
So, yes, I believe there's something to this story - that Kos requests and receives absolute loyalty from liberal blogs on the BlogAds group. But there are other questions having to do with Armstrong and Kos' relationship to him as pertains to the touting of causes and candidates, that remain unanswered. Your self-righteous indignation doesn't distract from this fact.
David Shaughnessy,
ReplyDeleteAre you really that dense? How in the hell did you get from several people telling you what the Townhouse group was to saying that we don't care about ethic.
Jesus Christ on a cracker, talk about someone who is as thick as a brick. For the love of God, type the URL groups.google.com and go to town.
These are friggin' email lists where you can email everyone at the same time without going into your address book or sending out individual emails. These things have been around forever.
You seem like a fairly intelligent person, so I am not sure which of the big words like "email" and "group" and "facillitate" and "discussion" and "blogs" confuse you so.
I belong to half a dozen email groups ranging from a group of my friends planning a night out this Friday to deep thoughts on the nature of the universe. I also converse with people who have blogs similar to mine. We talk about the topics of the day and offer insight to each other and share thoughts before putting them on our blogs.
Why is that so scary or odd or dangerous or evil or conspiratorial?
Long before the invention of the blogs, I would do that a lot with a group of friends. We would gather ideas and bounce them off of each other and then write missives. These clandestine meetings were called "study groups" and we did them in college.
Why you are having a tough time with this concept is beyond me.
He should of course reveal his "source." That one isn't even close. Not to do so raises suspicions.
ReplyDeleteRemember Kant's Catagorical Imperative? But if a madman breaks into your house and asks you where your child is because he wants to kill him, it's okay to tell a lie. Protecting sources is a good thing. But when you damage the reputation of someone else by relying on a dishonest source, you must rectify your mistake by disclosing the source.
Believe it or not, that's all I have to say on this topic. GG plainly ignores me, and no one else seems to care enough to ask him to explain. . . . Life goes on.
ReplyDeleteHold on. I am a fan of Glenn's from the beginning, I rarely disagree with anything Phd9 writes, and hypatia is one of my favorite posters although her religious parody sure left me cold.
But I too admit to a curiosity about Townhouse. I realize Glenn addressed the issue as much as he felt comfortable with doing, but that doesn't mean anyone with any lingering curiousity about Townhouse is honor bound to say, "Oh, I see. Next case."
Glenn brought up the whole Townhouse thing himself. I admit I am now a lot more interested in Townhouse (they of course can do whatever they want---laissez faire) than I am in the Zengerle matter.
I accuse them of nothing. I merely state I too am interested in knowing a little more about them. They tickle my curiosity at least for the moment.
I would also like to know does Glenn participate in any right, libertarian, or other "mailing lists"?
I ask because my initial attraction to Glenn was because he strikes me as a non-partisan thinker who is interested in issues and ideas.
So knowing if the ideas which interest him most these days are only expressed in the "left" blogosphere would be enlightening.
Consider this, then, a second request along with David's for a little more information, if you have time to address that, Glenn.
As to the "anon" who keeps attacking David Shaughnessy, I have run out of words and, not being as refined as some on this blog, allow me to say:
FUCK YOU.
I don't know anything about RedState or about HuSi.
ReplyDeleteI saw this post on the latter:
Followed wiredog's links to the Great Kos Scandal (yadda yadda yadda yadda). This Townhouse mailing list thing does explain a lot: I thought they just all talked about the same things at the same time because they were unimaginative, but it seems it's all organized. Thought one of the RedState comments was interesting:
"As someone else pointed out, this explains their paranoia in thinking people on the right are somehow coordinated by Rove. I nave noticed in my own life experience that when someone accuses you of doing something you would never consider doing it is often because A: they would do the same thing if they were you or B: they already ARE doing the same thing or have done so in the past."
Without commenting on the "right" or Rove (and I have observed the "right blogosphere" seems pretty much in lockstep themselves and out of touch with reality), I merely point out that the observation of the Red State poster is one I have often noticed myself.
As "lockstep" as the "right" blogosphere is, the "left" blogosphere seems just as lockstep lately, and being less hysterical and more cunning, it appears, it is probably equally worthwhile, as in Not. Very.
Eyes Wide Shut,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you should Join David in Wonderland's Third Party. We are glad to hear that you dont care about the Zengerle matter. Who cares about purported journalists using false information anyways? You dont. It is much more important and interesting to you to harangue Glen with loaded questions about what email lists he is on and what sinister purpose can be associated to them. Do you find it ironic that your moniker references a work of art that is concerned with a secretive, poweful cult that works behind the scenes to control everything? Odd coincidence or personal tick?
dogtown:
ReplyDeleteLast week, I went so several liberal blogs to drop in on the comments sections of open threads and essentially asked this question: "What is your response to the Kosola story going around, and why would it be in your interest to follow Kos's directives so obediently?" I expressed no hostility or profanity; I simply asked a straghtforward question.
The response I received from each blog was to have my IP banned, instantly. Now, that can easily be construed as the bloggers dutifully following Kos' "request" to the letter, or maybe there's an alternate explanation.
Maybe they didn't think your nom de plume "F*ckface" was appropriate for PG blogs. Or maybe you're just a liar. You're right, there are alternative explanations.
Cheers,
Arne,
ReplyDeleteYour response is charming, and expected.
Remain in your little circle-jerk for as long as you wish, where your sarcasm and assertions are a bar against reason. But it must suck being you.
That aside, my comment was addressed to Glenn, not to you or any of your fellow simpletons in Greenwald's commentariat.
The evidence that the e-mail was fabricated is that there is no evidence -- period -- that the email even existed. Where did it come from? The stork? A DIFFERENT Steve Gilliard?
ReplyDeleteIt is a FABRICATED e-mail, you fucking lunatic. As in, made up. Gilliard didn't write it. Someone said he did. That's a fabrication. Is it really that complicated?
SHILL: One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the available SEC documents, Jerome is a confessed stock shill.
I have read the phrase repeatedly that Jerome is barred from talking about his confession. This is incorrect. Jerome could go on tour, publicly warning people about stock shills and contritely explaining the mistakes he has made. What he is prohibited from doing is denying that he committed the acts he has confessed to.
From the agreement:
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.
From Kos' email to the Townhouse list:
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.
A simple reading of the SEC documents shows parts of this paragraph to be simply wrong and others flirt with violating the consent decree.
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).
If Kos made this statement based upon information that Jerome gave him then this is a violation of the consent decree.
Jerome can't talk about it now since the case is not fully closed.
Jerome is perfectly free to talk about this, he just cant deny it.
But once it is, he'll go on the offensive.
Is Kos giving the impression that the complaint is without factual basis? Is Kos shilling for Jerome here? Is Kos trying to induce others to shill for Jerome?
The Townhouse list.
I am a big proponent of open and participatory communication, but I am also a big proponent of private and anonymous speech. There is nothing wrong with a closed discussion group. A closed group is exactly the same as an open group, except that someone gets to decide who participates and who doesn't.
I can see no possible reason why Glenn or any other member of the Townhouse list would have a problem answering this question:
Whose list is it? Is it Glenn's list? Kos' list?
There is nothing inherently wrong with private communication. A communication is right or wrong depending on its content, not its mode of communication. A private list to discuss meta issues of blogging? --Sure. A private list to horse trade links and acknowledgments? --No thanks. A private list to discuss issue swarming to influence other publications? --No thanks.
A private list to coordinate shilling for "independent" bloggers and other interests, including conspiracy to violate an SEC consent decree? --No thanks!
I want more information about the list.
----
eyes wide open,
Good post at 7:15.
So for the record, I will just come right out and say that I suspect the Zengerle/TNR debacle (and I am not saying Glenn would have any knowledge about it, just as I admit I too do not and am merely going on a visceral "hunch" here) is just another one of those manufactured "distractions" to keep peoples' eyes off the ball: i.e., welcome to hoaxville.
I have thought the same thing myself.
By the way, as I have discussed with David, the check has cleared so we need to discuss strategy. Also, in accordance with our agreement you now need to complement and excerpt from my post.
PhD9, you didn't leave the world a better place, just a less informed one.
ReplyDeleteOh, and love your anonymous handle - it makes you so superior, like the stupid things you say are so much more important.
glenn, you proved yourself to be a tiny hypocritical man today - sure, the regular circle-jerks will link to you and you will sell a lot of books.
ReplyDeleteBut you have not done anything good for your integrity -- the good news is that democrats can win without the likes of you, kos, and the usual gang of fake experts.
Jeebus! Look at all the creepy crawlies that slithered into this thread. For the "made guys" the Capo and the soldiers and button men of the Don Greenwald family, go check out Billmon's response to this imbroglio over Capo de Tutti Capi, Don Kos. It's hilarious, and as per Billmon, the inside baseball is on target and he's firing for effect.
ReplyDeletehttp://billmon.org/archives/002482.html
The response I received from each blog was to have my IP banned, instantly. Now, that can easily be construed as the bloggers dutifully following Kos' "request" to the letter, or maybe there's an alternate explanation. Either way, it's oddly punitive, and shows an adherence to loyalties the likes of which I've never seen in conservative blogs.
ReplyDeleteThat last sentence is really hilarious. I wish all the trolls would use your material. Damn! Come to think of it, maybe they do.
{The following e-mail was posted to the super-secret “TownHall” list of conservative Republican activists in association with the Heritage Foundation. Headers and footers have been removed for reasons of “national security.”}
ReplyDeleteDear David Shaughnessy,
I wanted to publicly congratulate you here in our forum for the wonderful job you’ve done over at Glenn Greewald’s blog in helping to undermine his reputation and planting doubts among his readers regarding his veracity and integrity.
Not only have you succeeded in planting such doubts, but you’ve completely drowned out any speculation as to who gave the fake e-mail to the New Republic and my involvement in this matter has not even been hinted it. Well done.
Our plan to plant David on this list as an ally of Glenn’s who had no choice but to turn against him and challenge him has worked far beyond what we had hoped for. And we will continue to undermine the “circle of links” as a mysterious and sinister force throughout left-wing wing blogs, always hinting at unknown corruption and compliance to a larger conspiracy.
We will also work with David in his continued efforts to form a “third party” and foster disillusionment with the Democratic Party. Remember, every vote for a third party is a vote taken away from the Democrats, which is like a vote for a Republican!
If we can grow this third party idea, it will shift enough votes away from the Democrats to keep the Republican Party in power in permanently, regardless of how low we may be in the polls, since our base will keep us in power with the Democrats divided.
Again, David, congratulations on a job well done, and a job well worth doing.
Sincerely,
Karl Rove
Does anyone have any information on this mysterious conservative Townhall list? Just what does it do? Who are its members?
David Shaughnessy said:
ReplyDeleteSince you appear to be quite knowledgeable about the TownHouse Group, perhaps you might explain (if someone else were to ask you) what the TownHouse Group is, what the TownHouse Group does, how and why. Don't you think that people who frequent blogs have a right to know such things?
The Townhouse Group is a Google group, David. It's essentially a group emailing list. If you want a more in-depth explanation of what a Google group is, go to Google.
As to what they say to each other on those emails and how they "operate", that's private. No, we don't have a "right" to know what they say. It's private and not for public consumption.
You are free to be suspicious, and you are free to truly believe you have a "right" to know what some Google group is talking about, and all of their names, etc. I dare say that's out of the mainstream, though, and you need to accept that reality.
Okay, this is getting ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteWill *someone* here, preferablly someone who with a degree of emotional maturity, please explain to me precisely what the objections against Glenn's post here are?
Gilliard has stated the email isn't his, correct? Zengerle has admitted the email didn't come from Gilliard, correct?
Precisely what is the controversy over now?
Gilliard disagrees with you, Shaughnessy. Imagine that.
ReplyDeletePrecisely what is the controversy over now?
ReplyDeleteGlenn didn’t join David’s imaginary third party, and David is behaving like a jealous lover – it is unseemly.
Ever since, David has been working to try to destroy Glenn, even siding with Bart on legal issues. He has lost it completely.
Hypatia’s “Catholic” retort was the funniest post that most of us have ever read on this blog.
It is only anti-Catholic bigotry if you feel that all Catholics are humorless, intolerant assholes of the William Donahue variety. But Catholics in particular found Hypatia’s post hilarious.
David has lost it completely now and is just lashing out hysterically at anyone and everyone who disagrees with him.
It’s getting ugly.
Precisely what is the controversy over now?
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I never saw what the controversy was to begin with. It seemed quite obvious, as it should have to any sentient being, that the "Gilliard" email was a fake. More importantly it seemed an incredible stretch to me, even assuming that the email was real, that it somehow suggested what Zengerle proposed tht it did - that the expressed opinions of bloggers like Glenn were somehow being controlled by Kos. Again, I think most reasonable people would agree that this is a pretty far fetched and obviously unsupported claim, so no real controversy there either.
To the extent that there seems to be any controversy left at all, as far as I can tell, the poster David Shaughnessy seems convinced that there is some ethical problem or at least something questionable about this whole affair. Maybe it is that Kos felt comfortable making the request at all or maybe that he made the request on a private email list or maybe that such a thing as a private email list between bloggers exists in the first place. I don't really see his point and he doesn't seem to spell out just what exactly he thinks the ethical problem might be here but, to get back to your question, yankeependragon, that does seem to be the crux of the remaining discussion. I don't know that you can rightly call it a controversy however.
the faux advertise liberal group limits dialog and does not represent liberal causes - glenn is a major benefactor of this circle-jerk set of links, therefor, may have commented on this.
ReplyDeleteyou can proclaim it is over - the larger issue is how some create their own little "echo-chamber" and use it to hijack the democratic party will banning discussion of liberal issues.
Outstanding post. More restrained than I would have been!!
ReplyDeleteWrite it in Yiddish, direct it at Glenn, and see how funny it is.
ReplyDeleteWow. Just wow.
I’ll leave David alone now. There’s really no need to ridicule his views anymore.
It seems that my works of spiritual mercy have been ineffective at relieving the agonized David of the demons that oppress him (mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa). Well, as a Catholic girl hatched, matched and (for the sake of the believers in my klan) likely to be dispatched from the bosom of Holy Mother Church, I can only recommend to him serious spiritual guns like these. Now mind you, such endeavors never worked for me, but if the throes of hell's torment in which David finds himself due to Glenn's belonging to an email list cannot be assuaged through my puny efforts alone, clearly little is to be lost in imploring the BVM for her "favours."
ReplyDeleteFifty-four days, Dave, and then not only will Glenn reproduce the entire member roster of the defunct Townhouse list (I believe it is now defunct, since I've read it was Matt Stoller's and that it is now gone with the wind), but he will entirely change the focus of this blog to -- wait for it! -- UNITY '08!
P.S. David: I don't speak Yiddish. But Glenn has a mother, and if she speaks it, boy oh boy, I'll bet he's getting an earful about email lists and the manifest rightness of third parties! Oy vey, must be tough to be him right now.
David Shaughnessy... I am interested in the TownHouse Group and whether it impacts the independence of bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, and whether such things ought to be disclosed to readers.
ReplyDeleteLet me be blunt. I don't give a rat's ass or a gerbil's fart if any bloggers, liberal or conservative, work in concert to defeat real or even perceived threats to our liberties, our republic and our democratic form of government. Naturally there may be some disagreement about the immediate nature and source of those real and/or perceived threats.
Holy smoke, Anon @6:08, either you are seriously confused or just cannot read. You say "The charge, you clever, clever man, is that the emails were fabricated by Zengrele."
ReplyDeleteHowever, here is what Glenn wrote: "what appears to be a completely fabricated e-mail, which Zengerle falsely claimed was sent to the 'Townhouse' list by blogger Steve Gilliard."
Where does that say that Zengerle fabricated it? It is a possibility that Zengerle did it, I suppose, but the gist of all of Glenn's posts is that whoever sent Zengerle the e-mail is the fabricator.
I was going to end, "clever, clever" Anon poster, by begging you to learn to read. That's silly, of course. But ... can I beg you to learn to understand?
(Please: No need to define an e-mail group again.)
ReplyDeleteWhy not? You seem to not get the point that a private email list is... private. We are not entitled to know what is being said or why, unless you can point out something illegal, at which point I highly encourage you to contact your local police department.
does anyone else think it's ironic that the "echo-chamber" troll is, in essence, his/her own little echo-chamber?
ReplyDeletesad.
Shaughnessy is a troll. The types of different trolls here is only matched by the sheer number of them. As Billmon said, it's not only Rove and the GOP, it's the DLC Dems and The New Republic[ans] at the fortuitously named TNR that are out to get Kos and his "crew". This attests to the threats to their old order they both perceive in these upstarts. good. Let them dangle and sweat.
ReplyDeleteWrite it in Yiddish, direct it at Glenn, and see how funny it is.
ReplyDeleteYou mean to tell us Glenn's Jewish?
like demanding independence, openness and integrity on the blogs
ReplyDeleteThere you go demanding again.
Lets see if I can make this clear.
Glenn Greenwald owes nothing to anybody. He writes a blog because he chooses to. He may write anything he chooses to on his blog. You may read it or not as you choose. It is after all a free country and last time I checked, the point of the exercise was to keep it that way.
Shaughnessy....like demanding independence, openness and integrity on the blogs you frequent. Independence, openness, integrity. Isn't that what blogging used to be about? Oh, well. Times change, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem. Your priorities are all ass-backwards.
Let's demand these things of our elected representatives first. We can worry about blogs later. Idjit!
David in Wonderland wrote:
ReplyDeleteGilliard disagrees with you, Shaughnessy. Imagine that.
I don't disagree with a single thing Gilliard says. And if I were him, and someone falsely attributed an e-mail to me, I'd be upset too. That, however, is between Gilliard and Zengerle. I am interested in the TownHouse Group and whether it impacts the independence of bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, and whether such things ought to be disclosed to readers.
xxxxxx
Ahhm Davey Wavey, Gilliard is a member of the super secret cabal that is TownHouse too, is he not? Imagine a person raving like a madman about honor and integrity and purity, and then not holding a person (Gilliard in this case) to the same standard that you hold Glen. Tell us about hypocrisy again David, please?
"I am interested in the TownHouse Group and whether it impacts the independence of bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, and whether such things ought to be disclosed to readers."
ReplyDeleteA: It doesn't.
B: Why should they?
Blogs don't owe anyone anything beyond whatever motivates their authors to take up the keyboard. You don't like it, or you think their integrity is compromised.....don't read it. It's not costing you anything. If you insist on getting your panties in a bunch about the ads....switch to Firefox and block them. It's pretty simple.
You have no point, you just keep repeating the same meaningless argument over and over again.
Well, at least Zengerle isn't a full fledged "resolunatic", unlike some of the others you cited.
ReplyDeletevermontracoon:
ReplyDeleteAhhh, DS, but when Glenn has been wrong in the past he is always quick to admit it, apologize if need be and correct himself.....Bart on the other hand has Chimperor Syndrome; he can NEVER admit to being wrong, misinformed or mistaken.
In all fairness, HWSNBN has twice admitted that I caught him in obvious errors of fact (to his credit, to the extent that owning up to undeniable errors once pointed out is "creditable"). But the less obvious or more abstruse ones, he ignores, and hopes they'll disappear in the fluff.
As for me, I have admitted to being wrong (but not knowingly so) on DKos's blog censorship policies. I'm glad to have been set straight.
Cheers,
"(they wallowed in an orgy of incestuous links to one another, all of which were evidence-free and reasoning-free -- not to mention wrong -- as though the endless references to one another constituted "evidence" which justified their accusations)"
ReplyDeleteFor a moment there, Glenn, I couldn't tell whether you were deftly dissecting consumerist epistemology or dabbling in wingnut porn -- 'cause I guarantee you that sentence would make some of your critics hot, hot, hot.
--nashtbrutusandshort
Categorical Aperitif