You guys make this WAY too easy for me.

Posted by: Allan at May 19, 2004 10:58 AM

It's nice and right to defend your friends, but there's still the issue of Stewart's assertions. Did the Times sit on the story and wait to do the most damage, or did they not. Just because Carroll doesn't mention Stewart's name does not settle that issue. It just goes off-topic.

Posted by: david at May 19, 2004 11:46 AM

At 9:30 "The Real Story: L.A. Bloggers Take On Politics and the Media" will feature Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, Slate's Mickey Kaus, Matt Welch, Roger L. Simon and the blogger known as Moxie.

Nope, no Kerry votes in there...

Posted by: joseph at May 19, 2004 12:09 PM

I get tired of the LA Times bashing.

Posted by: ben at May 19, 2004 12:10 PM

As numerous people pointed out here, jill really did nothing to back up what she claimed. Anonymous quotes are easy. Providing undisputable details from those sources (details that help show they were in the room when the alleged acts were said or done, but not enough to get them outed) is the hard part. Obviously, she couldn't handle the hard part.

Posted by: philippe shepnick at May 19, 2004 01:03 PM

I like Jill Stewart but wonder what kind of career she might have had if she'd directed all the energy devoted to her Times animus to something more important.

Posted by: Mr. Ricey at May 19, 2004 02:01 PM

Actually, re Joseph's comment above, Matt Welch and Mickey Kaus were planning to vote for Kerry last time I talked to them, which was recently. But naturally I wanted the biggest political L.A. bloggers. (Eugene Volokh is out of town that weekend.) If Talking Points or Daily Kos were in L.A. I probably would have invited them, but they're not.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at May 19, 2004 03:34 PM

I really am disappointed that you invited Charles Johnson. I'm sure you know the reasons why, no need to get into the endless debate here... but I just wanted to say that I will not attend any event featuring him in any capacity.

Posted by: Ted at May 19, 2004 04:42 PM

Well, the NRO piece is vintage Seipp -- there is, as usual, much less than meets the eye. In Cathy-speak, Carroll "slams" his critics and "attacks his attackers." He "chews over [Jill Stewart] secretively, like a dog hoarding a bone..." He's even likened to hapless Officer Krupke from "West Side Story" with a rather forced play on words.

But in the end we learn that "Carroll makes a good point that the Times broke Troopergate" and that Seipp is "less outraged that Jill Stewart about the Times's Arnold coverage." She ends up attributing the timing of the groping stories to the paper's "poky" ways instead of the editorial malfeasance Stewart asserted.

So, although we're treated to a number of irrelevant meanderings -- digressions about Juanita Broaddrick and George Will and "editors vs. reporters" and "liberal" bloggers -- Seipp's column, read literally, leaves Carroll's "attack" on his attackers essentially untouched.

Of course, a casual reader, dazzled by Seipp's artful verbiage, might come away with a different impression. That seems to be how the lady works.

Posted by: Tim McGarry at May 19, 2004 06:03 PM

I'm disappointed that neither David Poland nor Jeff Wells are on the Hollywood panel -- though they probably don't call themselves bloggers, both post regular first-person columns online about the movie industry (Poland daily, Wells twice weekly),and both regularly attend press club parties. I would submit that they may be better known by the public at large too.

I also think Roger Simon, as a member of the Academy, would be better on the Hollywood panel. Since he and Johnson seem to write about the same things politically, I wouldn't think both are needed on the political one.

I agree that there could be more lefties, but at the same time, offer this hypothetical -- given what gets posted around the blogosphere, it seems entirely possible to me that many lefty bloggers would turn down any invitation from Cathy or the L.A. Press club no matter what it was for.

Posted by: LYT at May 19, 2004 06:36 PM

I would rather see Seipp as a panelist on one of the panels, and more of a moderator type doing the moderating.

Posted by: ben at May 19, 2004 07:27 PM

Seipp's column includes:

The pseudonymous blogger Armed Liberal, a business consultant who hides his identity for fear of angering Spring Street, compiled a useful rundown of eight Times staff columnists and 42 columns they wrote about the recall. Final score: 30 anti-Arnold or anti-recall columns; 11 that considered both sides; a single anti-Bustamante one; and zero pro-Arnold or pro-recall columns.

"The clear tilt of the paper couldn't be more transparent," Armed Liberal (who, remember, is a liberal) noted on the group blog WindsofChange.net.

You know why I don't trust people like Carroll, etc (not even dealing with their perceptions that Gray Davis deserved benefit of the doubt)? Because so many of them are so ideologically deluded they can't even admit their industry is full of liberalism, and that such biases do affect the way journalists see the world, do affect the way they cover the news. Similarly, if conservatives at the Wall St Journal or Fox, etc, also aren't willing to admit their right-leaning biases affect them (and certainly if they dominated the media the way libs do), they're full of it too. It's just that libs are more likely, in more instances, to deny the obvious than righties are, and to be more in denial about many of the fundamentals of human nature.

Posted by: David at May 19, 2004 07:29 PM

"...It's just that libs are more likely, in more instances, to deny the obvious than righties are, and to be more in denial about many of the fundamentals of human nature."

Whoa..Whoa. A BIG beg to differ on that, David. Funny , I feel the opposite.

Posted by: shane at May 19, 2004 09:01 PM

joseph -- Your omniscience is matched only by your inaccuracy, as usual. As a matter of fact, I have a $50 bet with La Seipp saying Kerry beats her girlfriend Bush, and (in this case at least) I'm not about to vote against my enlightened self-interest.

Posted by: Matt Welch at May 20, 2004 01:58 PM

My only point via synecdoche, Matt--a figure I hope you have heard of by now--was that there weren't any enthusiastic straight Democrats on that list. "Kerry votes"--I know it's a stretch for you to think of these as "Democrats", but that's what I think anyone else could read in the comment, pretty easily.

Posted by: joseph at May 20, 2004 04:26 PM

joseph -- "No Kerry votes" now = "no enthusiastic straight Democrats"? And "anyone else" but me can understand this? You really are a funny one....

Posted by: Matt Welch at May 20, 2004 05:01 PM

So are Matt and Mickey gay Democrats?

Geez, Joseph, you were wrong; why not redeem yourself by admitting it? As the late, lamented Tony Randall said in "The Odd Couple," "When you assume, you make an ass of u and me." Well, actually, in this case, just of u.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at May 20, 2004 11:18 PM

He's only wrong in substance on one count, right? (Maybe two if Johnson is somehow a Kerry supporter) Kausfiles has been devoted to picking apart Kerry for months now, that's mostly all Moxie writes about anymore, Simon wants to vote for Bush, and Seipp runs the Blogs for Bush blogroll prominently on her site. So in essence he was wrong on only Welch. A representative panel it is not -- which was his point.

Posted by: A Fly in the Ointment at May 21, 2004 01:17 AM

Though he may be registered as such, to the degree I've read Matt Welch, I think of him not so much as a Democrat but as a libertarian not interested to identify himself as onesuch by party affiliation. Though he may call himself a "Democrat" (the way I call myself a "Catholic"), I don't think of him as much of a Democrat at all (and nor do I think of myself as much of a Catholic, as there is always some bishop telling me I'm not). I don't see him as someone who is compassionate towards the plight of the poor in America. I've never seen him say a kind word about organized labor. I've never seen him say much in favor of supporting the indigent. I do see him writing for doctrinaire free-market publications such as Reason, and conservative publications like the National Post. I think as far as doctrine goes he is far closer to a Libertarian POV than a Democratic one.

So correct me yet again if I'm "wrong"--but on your panel, Miss Siepp, where are the unflinching, unrepentantly democratic Democrats?

Posted by: joseph at May 21, 2004 09:59 AM

Wrong on one count is enough to make an ass of yourself in this case, but (as is clear from the post a few comments above) Joseph is wrong on two counts: both Mickey Kaus and Matt Welch are voting for Kerry.

Posted by: Venus Flytrap at May 21, 2004 12:14 PM

Mickey may vote for him, but he's been (famously) more publicly disparaging of Kerry than all the other panelists combined. If y'all are counting Kaus in the Kerry camp, then maybe Joseph and Fly are right, something is fishy. On the other hand, getting a panel together over Memorial Day weekend couldn't have been easy. They are all troopers for agreeing to do it, far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Kevin Roderick at May 21, 2004 12:38 PM

It was actually very easy. Only Eugene is out of town.

Nothing here is "fishy." Mickey is voting his party. Saying that someone who criticizes Kerry is not a real Democrat is like saying someone who criticizes the President is not a real American.

The ACF supports liberal democracy around the world, and although the panelists I chose don't always agree with each other, they are all quite liberal in this classic sense of the word.

I realize that those who think this way are considered on the right these days. And although the panels do have two or three left-of-center types, the evening does indeed lean right according to the contemporary definition.

Some people may not approve of this, but it should be clear by now that I don't care, although I will correct mistaken assumptions.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at May 21, 2004 01:21 PM

Cathy Seipp may be a bit militaristic for some tastes, but I don't think she actually filled her Memorial Day weekend panels with troopers, Kevin. The word you want is "troupers" -- and, yes, thank you, I suppose we are.

Once an editor...

Posted by: Allan Mayer at May 21, 2004 01:58 PM

None of it matters to me, but just so I understand: notwithstanding the real Democrat/classic liberal nonsense, you are counting Mickey Kaus as a pro-Kerry voice on your panel?

Posted by: Kevin Roderick at May 21, 2004 02:00 PM

Indeed troupers is the word I wanted. Thanks Allan :)

Posted by: Kevin Roderick at May 21, 2004 02:03 PM

joseph -- You're on to something, finally, with the phrases "I think of him" and "I don't see him." Since your thoughts and visions of me are routinely inaccurate and delusional, they might be preambles worth revisiting.

For what little it's worth, I am not and probably never have been a Democrat, nor a member of any other political party (there was a time when non-partisanship was not an uncommon condition among journalists). On balance my votes have gone mostly to Dems, then 3rd party candidates, then Republicans. As for the publications I've worked for, the National Post is not "conservative" -- there's a reason why conservatives such as David Frum and Mark Steyn resigned after the founding right-of-center management was deposed a year or two back, in the wake of Conrad Black's firesale -- and the majority of stuff I've written has been for left-of-center publications (such as, for instance, WorkingForChange.com). All of this secret information, along with columns that -- perish the thought! -- compliment organized labor and rail about the plight of the poor, are all hidden in plain sight on my freely accessible website.

But, you know, keep on guessing & all that.

Posted by: Matt Welch at May 21, 2004 02:12 PM

This debate is kind of interesting, I would have to say that after reading the post here I do think that while Joseph may be mistaken about Welch, he is onto the idea that this 'debate' is rigged in favor of the anti-Kerry (notice I didn't say Pro-Bush) position.

That's a shame.

As for this:

there was a time when non-partisanship was not an uncommon condition among journalists

When was that exactly? :) I took a few 'history of journo' classes in college, and I was surprised by just how partisan the roots of American journalism are!

Posted by: Ted at May 21, 2004 02:48 PM

Ted -- My memory might well be skewed, but I recall when I started working for my college daily that it was pretty common to hear of reporters and even entire newsrooms deciding not to register for political parties, to avoid the appearance of bias. I'd guess the high-water mark for that kind of behavior would be post-monopolization, pre-cable competition/Internet, so something like between 1965 and 1994. I wouldn't recommend it as a newsroom policy, but it suits me fine.

Posted by: Matt Welch at May 21, 2004 03:26 PM

Trooper is also acceptable, and may even be preferred for one exhibiting enthusiasm.

~~~

As for the other stuff, I think it's sufficiently outted by now. Simon is a relentless disher of neocon agitprop (just today, he's "embarrassed" by people on the left); Johnson is an out-and-out Arab-basher who says today that the moderately Democratic "New York Times has been "absolutely despicable lately, doing everything they can to undermine and destroy US efforts in Iraq...", just like any old pensioned rightwing crank; Moxie is a garden-variety manger de la brioche Republican, who routinely confesses to not giving a fig about Iraqi prisoner abuse; Kaus is a Kerry-basher who on any given morning goes stride-for-stride with Limbaugh; and Welch as per his own comments in this thread cannot even recall whether or not he was ever a Democrat or even has belonged to any political party. Hosted by Cathy Siepp, who thinks we here in LA must not merely be pro-Israel, but also anti-Palestinian to boot.

I don't begrudge these people any of their individual points of view, but collectively, really--if that's a balanced panel, I'm a rightwing trooper.

Posted by: joseph at May 21, 2004 03:40 PM

Judging from his blog, Matt Welch is an independent thinker who resists easy categorization. His views on the significance of Abu Ghraib, for instance, seem markedly different from those of Roger Simon or Charles Johnson.

All the same, the panel seems poorly balanced. There will be fewer divergent opinions clashing than if a better balance had been achieved. This may make the experience less rewarding for the audience than it might have been.

Maybe the Press Club should try a little harder.

Posted by: Tim McGarry at May 21, 2004 04:58 PM

The repeated claims that Kaus is for Kerry remind me of nothing so much as Eichmann's repeated claims at trial that he was really trying to help the Jews.

Before anyone gets his/her panties in a bunch, I'm not, repeat not equating Kaus to the Obersturmbannfuehrer nor being anti-Kerry to National Socialism, though supporting the PNAC neo-fascisti in the E ring certainly might lend itself to the latter comparison.

My only point is the deeds don't match the words.

Posted by: Alex at May 21, 2004 06:20 PM

I will weigh in on the people who think it's a biased panel. But then again, the panel isn't a Kerry vs. Bush debate. It's "The Real Story: L.A. Bloggers Take On Politics and the Media".

Despite the presence of the odious Charles Johnson, it's a great group of thinkers, writers and journalists. Sure it skews right-wing in today's definition of what is "right wing" but it's not billed as a balanced affair, it's billed as an interesting discussion with interesting bloggers. And, with the noted exception of Johnson, that's exactly what it is.

So quit whining about there not being enough Kerry supporters on the panel, it's not about that. It's about some good minds (with one MAJOR exception!) having a lively conversation.

Posted by: Alejo Martz at May 21, 2004 09:51 PM

Joseph should be on the panel next time one of these things happen. Agree with him or not, he's done a good job of stirring up discussion here.

Though I don't know if he'd accept the invitation.

Posted by: LYT at May 22, 2004 01:31 AM

Are you freaking kidding? Not one of these people can even bear merely to link to me at their blogs. Like they'd invite me to a panel.

Posted by: joseph at May 22, 2004 10:19 AM

I've always thought of Matt Welch as occupying the Trotskyite wing of the Republican Party, whose political views are located somewhere between David Horowitz and Noam Chomsky. But that's just me. Hopefully, the festivities will be well-catered.

In any event, isn't this whole thing going to be moot, since Game 5 of the Lakers-TWolves series (if necessary) takes place the same night?

Posted by: Steve Smith at May 22, 2004 10:27 AM

Hey, Alex...refreshing to see someone backoff and point out the obvious. But you're wasting your keystrokes, bud. These folks are commenters or wannabe commenters. Their career, hobby, or affliction is made up of all this wordplay and takes, sarcasm and sincerity. Just sit back and enjoy the show. Most of these good people are very intelligent with rapier wit. This is like a good boxing card. You gotcha yer lights and yer mids and cruisers, some on their way to the bigs, some on the way to nowhere. Fun stuff for a net break. See if you can figure out which ones are toying with the true believers versus the ones who are being laughed at by the pros.

Posted by: allanevans at May 22, 2004 10:53 AM

Alejo makes a good point: the question of whether the panel is loaded against Kerry is kind of off-topic. It was never billed as an election debate or a balanced anything. It's advertised as a sampling of some of the more familiar local political bloggers, and it certainly qualifies as that.

Posted by: Kevin Roderick at May 22, 2004 10:54 AM

That's a sweet idea, LYT, and typical of your generous nature. Plus, I think you've (perhaps inadvertently) touched upon the heart of the seething resentment we often see tacitly displayed in these comments strings by Joseph...and not so tacitly in the comment I see he just left above.

Now here is the harsh, free-market reality:

As I said near the top of this comments thread, I was naturally looking for the biggest political blogs in L.A. Because of LYT's suggestion, I took another look at Joseph's blog. He's obviously intelligent, well-read, and not a bad writer. But a series of 0 comments, 0 comments, 1 comment, 0 comments, 0 comments, 0 comments, etc, after his posts means he hasn't managed to engage an audience, however he may stir up discussion here.

A Technorati search shows that Joseph has just 18 links. Also not a good sign.

Compare this to the bloggers on my panel:

Little Green Footballs: 3080 links, plus 500 comments per post isn't unusual. His counter said 50k hits per day last time I checked.

Roger L. Simon: 745 links.

Mickey Kaus: 657 links, more than 20k hits per day last time I asked him about it, not to mention the name recognition and the Slate connection.

Moxie: 536 links.

Matt Welch: 497 links for his own blog, plus Reason's Hit & Run blog (to which Matt often posts) has 908 links.

To put this in perspective, L.A. Observed, which obviously is a highly popular site (at least with all of us) has 302 links.

Someone commented here they'd like to see me on the panel rather than as a moderator. But with just 163 links, I am not in the same league as the bloggers on my panel. And neither is any left-of-center L.A. political blogger I know about. Maybe next year things will be different.

Of course people of all political persuasions are, as always, welcome to attend the panel and ask questions from the audience, if they RSVP in time (space is limited: the room seats just 138).

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at May 22, 2004 11:01 AM

Calpundit (Kevin Drum), 2764 links at #47 on the current Technorati Top 100, and another 1768 links at #86. And he hasn't posted as Calpundit since switching to Political Animal in March. (Which illustrates the limitations of Technorati's link-based stats...)

I assume Kevin's still So Cal based, though maybe he has moved. I know he used to attend LA blogger events.

Posted by: Kevin Roderick at May 22, 2004 11:45 AM

We see things differently. By stalking webstats, what's your broader point, Kevin/Cathy? At any given hour, more people are watching Lucy reruns than reading Homer or Proust, too.

That said, there are those of us who have been hosting message boards on the Internet a long time (in my case, six years) who think that linking numbers are pretty meaningless; in fact, they often turn out to be a mere measure of Internet ab-use, an indication of detachment from reality, of being on the Internet 16/7, which is certainly not a healthy life.

I'm not trying to put down anyone's hard-earned stats here, I'm just saying that blog stats are in no way commensurate to blog quality or even stature, and often, especially among healthy Internet users, they are merely the tip of the iceberg of someone's overall Internet presence.

As for comments, most of mine take place on a private message board, which I encourage after a reader leaves a few posts at the blog. Again, it's a style thing; I don't believe in anonymity, but I do believe in relative privacy; there are those of us who think we optimize our use of the medium more by taking the interaction offline. When somebody hits the blog a few times, and I have their email address in hand and a good idea of who the person is, I may (or may not) invite them to the message board, which is easier for me to police, and where the quality of our interaction is quite high, but not especially public.

None of this, I hope, diminishes I or any like minds as "bloggers". Not that this is an epithet I especially want to be known by. Believe me, if on my obit the first thing they list is "blogger", I'll drop dead twice.

Posted by: joseph at May 22, 2004 12:34 PM

Joseph, did you ever ask any of them to link to you? (I think Luke Ford does, btw) The impression I get from your posts here, and at your own site, is that you purposely avoid all these individuals and any events they might attend -- not the way to garner favor.

Hope you're right about blog stats being meaningless though. Technorati shows up absolutely nothing for my site. Not that I'm under any illusions that it would, but hey, one can dream.

And Cathy, if you were looking for the biggest -- David Poland and Jeff Wells are still glaring ommissions from the Hollywood panel.

Posted by: LYT at May 22, 2004 01:38 PM

"Statistics are just like a nice bikini. What is revealed is suggestive, but what is concealed vital." -- or something like that, said by someone. I heard bowtied Irving R Levine formerly of NBC News use that in a talk once when asked about stats.

To me, fairness in moderation and diversity in a panel is more important than any of the stats mentioned. As a non blogger, but a frequent reader of blogs, I pay little attention to all the incestuous links you have to each other, but to original and provoking commentary and a comments section with interesting discussion that is a substantial contribution to the discourse and not attacks. Volume o ften can be just noise. Too often, if I may add, the intelligence of the audience is left out of many public events like this, so it would be nice if through out the presentation, Cathy might take periodic informal polls from those in attendance, and perhaps even entartain a question or two of the panels solicited from those not included on the panels but mentioned in this string of comments.

Maybe I should start blogging.

Nah.

Posted by: ben at May 22, 2004 04:02 PM

No one has anything to say about the L.A. Press Club inviting Charles Johnson, who calls the American media "the enemy" in the war on terror?

Posted by: A Fly in the Ointment at May 22, 2004 04:21 PM

If you read my comment above, I say there is one major, glaring exception to the list of bloggers above, which is the brain-dead neanderthal Charles Johnson. He has nothing of value to say, only sneering, retreads of other people's quasi-racist opinions ... sadly in today's climate, I doubt Kaus or Welch will have the temerity to stand up to him and ask him exactly why he allows/encourages his site to be a giant hate fest. Of course he has lots of defenders, but most of them you wouldn't want to be in the same room with, especially if you're not a white conservative.

He and his gang make my skin crawl, and it's a big mistake to invite him to this panel. If there was someone on the panel with the background and guts to go after him, that would be great, but there isn't so I suspect it will be a collegial affair where Johnson is allowed to pretend that he's just a seeker of truth with a rowdy comments section. Feh.

Posted by: Alejo at May 23, 2004 11:59 AM

Joseph, did you ever ask any of them to link to you? (I think Luke Ford does, btw) The impression I get from your posts here, and at your own site, is that you purposely avoid all these individuals and any events they might attend -- not the way to garner favor.

Right. I don't ask people to link me. Nobody at all. That's the way I am. The do it out of either charity or shame, on their own volition. And no, of course, I don't have much use for the LA Press Club, as it seems only interested in journalists of a certain stripe. For a long time I didn't link to anybody but Kevin here and close personal friends. I expanded to ten links recently because I did a piece on the "Ten Best Blogs in LA"--both Kaus and Simon were included, BTW, as was Cobb, who's lib-right, and Luke Ford, who's Tanakh-right. The list was highly subjective and fretfully idiosyncratic. That's what my blog is, that's who I am.

~~~

This thread was only derailed by some kind of discussion on blogstats. But FWIW fere's more specifically what I worry about with Cathy's panel, and I only partially voiced it by calling the panelists "no Kerry voters" (Matt still can't figure out how that's synecdoche for a certain kind of political thinking, but at this point that's his problem): It's a panel about "taking on the media"--and every one of those panelists, maybe excepting Welch (I'm not sure), bash the New York Times regularly with the fervor Seipp herself bashes the LA Times.

To me, politics aside, the chief problem with all of media, print or broadcast, is not the New York Times. To me, the problem with all of media is the reluctance to engage politics with any degree of complexity whatsoever. That's a problem that the New York Times is not particularly guilty of, but it's a big problem, from Fox News to the wires to Newsweek, because, quite simply, we live in a complex world, and one that is getting more complex all the time, and we understand less and less of it when we fail to present it in all its true complexity. (Simon and Kaus have expended considerable pixels trivializing Hersch and the New Yorker lately too--anoth publication which makes quite admirable efforts to subject issues to the level of complexity they merit).

Myself, I did this article recently, for a news service. The decree was, try to keep your paragraphs under 25 words. You can't even tell a four-year-old how to tie their shoes if you use twenty-five word paragraphs.

I understand why wires and front pages don't like complexity, and we were always told in the late seventies to write at about an eighth-grade reader level; but America is a far more complex place now than it was in the late seventies, demanding a higher level of rhetoric and reporting than it ever did before. Yet in this time, our media expectations have not gone for a higher threshold of complexity, but a lower one. The media have failed, completely, to bring the reader along with the complexity of the times. This in a country that has purportedly been over 95% literate for over 225 years.

Yet the few publications that have not failed entirely have been the very two that these people routinely bash as "biased" and even "anti-American."

No, it's not a good panel for a media discussion; in fact, if you go by what these bloggers say about media, it stinks to hell.

Will the real issues get raised by this panel? I really doubt it. All I can expect from them is what I've read them say as bloggers--something along the line of "the New York Times sucks and Hersch is a liar and 60 Minutes 2 commits treason and compromises our troops abroad"--and what they've said as bloggers about the media is among the most utterly useless and even sinister points (to me, and I would guess to most purebred liberals) that these blogger/panelists ever make.

Posted by: joseph at May 23, 2004 02:27 PM

Seipp has heard the cries and invited Kevin Drum, formerly the Calpundit, now the Political Animal, to join the panel. He accepted.

Posted by: Kevin Roderick at May 25, 2004 04:21 PM

As an LGF fan, I have to say these anti-Charles Johnson comments are hilarious. I can smell the scent of sour grapes halfway across the country.

If everything is okay-dokey with the mainstream media and liberal bias is a lie, I don't understand what the point of political blogging is anyway. We have the ever-so-wise observations of the sainted Maureen Dowd,Seymour Hersh and Paul Krugman so what else do we need?

Posted by: Donna at May 25, 2004 09:11 PM

LA Times deserves all the criticism it gets. It is pretty much ahead of the pack in distortions, selective reporting, bias, and outright falsehoods all in the name of hating George Bush.

I want GWB to lose too, but the LA Times demonstrates the worst journalism has to offer.

Posted by: PJ at May 25, 2004 09:18 PM

I don't want to start up another argument on Charles Johnson (who doesn't need me to defend him, in any case), but I can't let Alejo's infantile smears ("neanderthal"?) go unchallenged.

Maybe Alejo doesn't find value in Little Green Footballs, but as Cathy points out above, thousands of others do. Johnson doesn't provide much original commentary, true -- but neither does Instapundit. Johnson's site acts as an invaluable filter to the looming ugly and murderous side of the Islamic world, as represented by people in the Middle East, Europe, and right in our own back yards. His is the first site I think of when needing references to dispute cliche-riven rhetoric about "the religion of peace" -- and he has no shortage of legit material, most of it from major news sources or directly from Islamist sites.

I don't know whether Johnson is a "quasi-racist," mostly because it's a meaningless term that Alejo concocted. (Great tactic: sounds scary, but beyond dispute, since there's no real meaning to the word!) I do know he's no bigot, not least because he goes out of his way to showcase the rare, feeble voices of sanity when they come from Muslims or Arabs. Alejo & Co. only refer to Johnson as "racist," etc. because he refuses to toe the PC line that every Semtex-wielding Islamic nutcase is just misunderstood or legitimately aggrieved, and because he has literally thousands of links to solid evidence of this. When you can't dispute, smear -- it's an old tactic, probably going back to the Neanderthals that Alejo seems so familiar with. I'm glad that in this case, it has failed.

Finally, let me just say that Johnson has inspired several people to start their own blogs, including me. His site also provides reference material not only to other well-known blogs, but to columnists and commentators in many well-known newspapers and broadcast outlets. Whether Alejo likes it or not, his is one of the premier sites in the blogosphere, as it certainly deserves to be.

Posted by: E. Nough at May 25, 2004 09:24 PM

154 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War, Compiled by Yoel Natan
www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm

Posted by: Will Smythe at May 25, 2004 09:25 PM

You know, I consider it hate speech to call Charles Johnson a hater, or to call LGF a "hate fest", or racist, or whatever. I'm the type of person who hates to dismiss people with easy one-liners. Everyone I know on LGF feels the same way. The intellectual laziness of the left knows no bounds -- in fact it more closely resembles fascism than any other "side" it chooses to smear. Look at a typical lefty protest -- Bush is Hitler, Israelis are Nazis, Intifada in America, New York looks better without the trade centers, boobs not bombs, no blood for oil -- in short, every kind of easy, totally incorrect, morally bankrupt, hate-filled slur of which the left accuses the right (and which the "right" never has endorsed).

LGF is not a "right-wing" blog. It is an anti-idiotarian blog. There are many. LGF looks at terrorism and those who perpetrate it with clear eyes. It posts links to news articles and editorials from around the web.

Feh, indeed.

Posted by: Globular Cluster at May 25, 2004 09:33 PM

The composition of the panel looks positive to me. The addition of Kevin Drum spices it up as well. His character following through the Washington Monthly may just coax those media bandwagons to head east providing potential talking points.

Joseph: The New York Times, The New Yorker, 60 Minutes, Fox News all have one thing in common. They all claim to be objective, neutral or non-partisan. They are uniquely different from the likes of the Washington Monthly or National Review or Reason for these publications make it pretty clear where the editors stand and how the articles reflect those politics. However, you didn't name any media source - print, radio, television, internet - that does fulfill the devotion to complex engagement you seek; maybe the New Yorker.

I'd hate to see what your weather reports look like.

Posted by: Brennan Stout at May 25, 2004 09:52 PM

BTW, I appreciate that none of the invited bloggers use their sites as a bulletin board for political parties, candidates, etc. Only Moxie's site, assuming I have the right one, has a link supporting Bush/Cheney 2004. Others such as Josh Marshall, Markus Zuniga and Atrios have blogs littered with political panhandling. Josh is the lesser offender, but he still runs ads for congressional races. But they aren't invited. Good!

Posted by: Brennan Stout at May 25, 2004 10:02 PM

Seems to me that Joseph is hiding behind what may or may not be a cloak of invisibility -- sort of like all the Peacenik protestors in the streets who assure us that we are really looking at 100,000 people marching when counting pictures you can see 30. Everyone else is happy -- why should Joseph be allowed to derail the train. I'm gonna stick up for Charles, too. His site may not be Politically Correct (and that's what I value about it) but unless you are a newborn tender lefty of the most radical type, I don't see how you could call it "racist"...although maybe you're French and think being called a "cheese-eating surrender monkey" is racist, too.

I would love to see Bill Whittle invited to something like this, although I'm not sure what he does is strictly blogging. Or den Beste. Prolly neither of them are Kerry voters, though, if that's a deciding factor.

Posted by: NahnCee at May 25, 2004 10:16 PM

Yes, Charles goes off the deep end sometimes. And some of his regular thread posters are probably certified loons, based upon their statements. But the site is not racist - it represents a point of view and a valuable one at that. It puts the light on some things and gives them a framework the standard media doesn't. And the number of posters is pretty phenomenal. Charles belongs on any panel such as this one.

Posted by: Gordon at May 25, 2004 10:29 PM

Anybody who would call Charles Johnson a "racist" is sadly deluded. The beloved Little Green Footballs maestro needs no defense from the canards posted here. As others have indicated, Charles simply has the great moral courage, energy, and clarity to let genocidal Islamofascism and its "progressive" enablers speak for themselves. The results are horrifying, illuminating, and conducive to robust awareness. Little Green Footballs is a lit candle in an ocean of biased media ignorance. He's doing America and the truly civilized world a heartfelt service.

Posted by: Mickey Disend at May 25, 2004 10:31 PM

Wow... I was looking forward to this panel. Lot of anger out there. Well, I'll wear a helmet. Can't be worse than 1971 when, after he publication of my novel "The Mama Tass Manifesto," someone phoned my house at two in the morning calling me a "Dirty Commie!" and threatening to kill me. I knew what to do. I double-bolted the door and... the next morning... went unlisted. Have been ever since. It comes with the job description.

Posted by: Roger L. Simon at May 25, 2004 10:53 PM

Charles Johnson has a great site that exposes the hate and flth that is Islam and the misogynist that are muslims.

Posted by: Justin at May 25, 2004 11:24 PM

O God, why have these lefty twits and their disgusting crack-whore city not fallen into the Pacific yet?

Please? For me?

Posted by: mojo at May 25, 2004 11:34 PM

Justin: Charles exposes Islamofascists and the fanatic branch of Islam. Lets paint with a brush less broad, eh?

Gotta stick up for Charles here; Alejo is way out of line, and it's easy to insult someone in a message innit? In this case it says a hell of alot more about Alejo than it does Charles.

The panel should be very interesting, Charles included. Hey, he doesn't write those hateful sermons coming out of Riyadh and Sanaa, he only reports them. Verbatim.

Posted by: Jason Rubenstein at May 25, 2004 11:39 PM

Gee Wally, you think the LGFers suddenly coming here is organized or somethin?

Posted by: the beav at May 26, 2004 12:35 AM

Reference:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11161_LGF_Bashers_at_LAObserved.com

Hey, Charles Johnson, Zorkmidden Um noodle kugel with raisins,
Globular Cluster, del, Spiny Norman and Rayra.
I saw your comments and laughed. Hey, I’m just
trying to get the word out about the Jihad verses.
And I might add I’m doing a good job. Look at
the public counter for the Jihad page (the counter
is on the bottom):

http://extremetracking.com/open;unique?login=yoelinf2

154 Jihad Verses in the Koran -- Passages in the Quran about Islamic Holy War, Compiled by Yoel Natan
www.angelfire.com/moon/yoelnatan/koranwarpassages.htm

Posted by: Will Smythe at May 26, 2004 01:00 AM

Gee Beav, I bet you're right! It must be a vast conspiracy.
Gilligan and Skipper think so too.

Posted by: Wally at May 26, 2004 01:33 AM

Charles Johnson may or may not be racist - it's hard to tell when he has a site so widely participative, with broad & diverse views.

By moderating so lightly the frequently racist views of his commenters, Charles has to take some responsibility for providing the space - analagous to a village hall used to foment anti-semitic hate by some fascists. Whether you see Charles as the main speaker/ the hirer of the hall/ the landlord of that space, but the audience returns day after day to demand the extermination of whole groups of people, and he does not ban, delete or otherwise censure comments like this:
#20 Sol Roth 5/25/2004 07:03PM PST They can write all the chickenscratch pamplets they want. Here's what's going to happen in my neighborhood: Allahu AkBLAMBLAM
Don't let 'em make it to the bar.
And then there will be tossing of sweets and much rejoicing.

#69 transferthem 5/25/2004 09:41PM PST 4. ACt of Terror. Response. As 3, but start deporting muslim bacteria back to their countries of origin until western democracies are bacteria free. Start in Israel.

#73 transferthem 5/23/2004 06:38PM PST

I assume CAIR represents 'moderate' muslims in America, thus proving that there aren't any.

End of debate on whether islam is anti American, start of debate on how to purge country of same.

#53 bigel 5/22/2004 12:55PM PST
All of Europe is a degenerate, hopeless, filthy Nazi shithole.

#43 bigel 5/22/2004 10:43AM PST

Israel simply should expel, or even imprison foreign journalists, and try them for war crimes against the Jewish people.

It might also behoove them to reinstate the death penalty.

Personally, they should start by trying and executing the Nazis at the BBC.

(Bigel is Charles' researcher on his book.#67 NY Nana 5/23/2004 06:20PM PST)

he personally may not be a racist: he does not combat the racism on his site. As has been stated on his board, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Is Charles that good man?

Posted by: oxford boy at May 26, 2004 04:32 AM

oxford boy,

It is really easy to come up with a handful of examples from the flood of posts on LGF.

Your examples span a 4 day peroid which typically could consist of well over 7,000 posts (average articles by Charles (6) * average posts per (300) * 4 days) and 200,000 hits.

I hope you are never accused of anything based on .0007% of things said around you that you didn't refute.

Posted by: madmark at May 26, 2004 05:41 AM

So, show me one example of Charles smacking down a racist comment on LGF.

More, if you can find 'em.

Or are there none to challenge?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 05:48 AM

What you have with Charlse Johnson is a director who does not direct. I visited the suppossed pro-Isreal, pro-Jew site and most of his bloggers turned out to be anti-semetic! I am half-jewish and when that was found out I was slammed by Leah, Ploome,& kingofalljews, etc.... The quotes were "self-hating Jew" by Leah; I was asked if my father was Arafat by kotJs'; and told to stfu by Ploome...how enlightening to know Charles will not censor his gang of idiot regulars, but ALLOWS a Jew to be slandered with the most vile remarks! Oh, and one of the most favorite names for Jews that I saw was "joooos", which is the same as calling a person of color a n......, I will not say that slur, but I think you get what I am saying. The information is adequate at the very most, (I had to tell him that the pics of Rafah were actually from the Oslo war of 2000). His site has posted THIS link, and his "fan club" of regulars has poured out the sympathy as if a funeral durge had been played over him....LGF bloggers are looney, and God forbid if you have some insight and facts, they don't want to hear it...Charles is their god and, as a Jew, I really wish his bloggers would shut up because they aren't accomplishing anything worthwhile, it is only causing more trouble for Isrealis..LGF is no different than a clique, and a LOT meaningless chatter. I BTW, go to LGF and read the comments, about this article, by his "followers." I am proud to say have been banned from posting at LGF because I gave back facts and they couldn't handle it.Read the comments in the, "Media Doesn't Want To Hear The Truth", on his website, and you may see what I mean. Yes, I got angry, which I apologized to Charles about in my email to him, and on his site. I truely think his weblog is just to drum up business for his graphic designs company...period! If that site is supposed to be helping Isreal they ALL need to work OFFLINE!

Posted by: Kathleen at May 26, 2004 06:10 AM

Oh, I did start out pro-LGF and by the end of my ten hour stint on that website, and the verbal venom that went unchecked by Charles, I changing my mind. Then, I was banned. Just went back and checked on the letters on that particular thread I mentioned and Charles has deleted some very telling letters. What LGF is missing is that there Israel has peaceful arabs who just want to live in peace and the Israelis aren't oppossed to that.THAT was one of my comments and it was totally passed over. It is a tragedy when any website that could help tell the truth doesn't bother to investigate the facts..try the freedom of information act sometime, Charles..you may learn some things. I looked up his members and their credentials...so should all of you..surprises await.

Posted by: Kathleen at May 26, 2004 06:55 AM

So, show me one example of Charles smacking down a racist comment on LGF.

Segway to Kathleen's comments, where she claims to have been banned. You only get banned from Charles' site when you are guilty of the above.

Kathleen - what did you say to get yourself banned?

Unless, of course, Kathleen really didn't get banned. It's a common tactic that some posters use - complain to other sites that the mean old Charles Johnson banned them. When Charles calls them on it, they don't give one shred of evidence that they were ever banned.

Pardon me Kathleen, if I take your complaining with a grain of salt.

TV (Harry)

Posted by: Inspector Callahan at May 26, 2004 07:04 AM

Inspector Callahan: I looked her up. I saw no racism. A problem with the caps lock maybe...And no public comment from Charles indicating a ban.

So, did you find any anti-racist smackdowns by Charles? One, maybe? Or is there no racism there?

Calls for genocidal revenge on Palis', 'Sandniggers' and other terms are commonplace.I am no PC militant - I worry a lot about Islamic terrorism, as many do in the west - but I am sure that blanket calls for mass murder are beyond the pale. LGF'ers fail to do the old golden rule - they don't want Americans or jews to be targetted en masse, but do target muslims and arabs as a group.

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 07:22 AM

I'm on the East Coast so I have no dog in this fight, but I have to say that this thread is hilarious.

Do joseph et al go around arguing about how to create the most fair and balanced guest lists at other people's dinner parties?

Do they suggest that they be invited even if they don't know the host or any of the other guests?

Do they demand that guests who espouse points of view different than theirs not be invited to parties that they're not going to anyway?

Is this just some LA thing I don't get?

I love the the comments policy here, "show some guts and use your real name". Very cool. I'd like to see more of that btw

Posted by: Eric Deamer at May 26, 2004 07:43 AM

oxfordboy

The "sn" word is never used there by any regular. If it is used, the poster is banned. In fact, the only people who use that word is people such as yourself accusing LGF of using that word in the first place. It's obvious that you know very little about what is "common place" there.

Kathleen was banned because she insanely accused some very pro-Israel Jews of being anti-Semitic. Clearly, she did not have a clue or comprehension of any of their posts. She even went so far as to attack one of them for "stalking" her. Even though that poster has never been to Alabama and had never heard of Ms. Hunter.

The comment that was deleted was full of vulgarity and paranoid delusions about particular posters. In fact, I wish it was still there so you can see what a psychotic this woman came across as.

Posted by: Ms. Andi at May 26, 2004 07:50 AM

Charles Johnson is, in no uncertain terms, one of the greatest living treasures of the blogsphere.

The fact that he is so reviled is a testament to just how effective he is.

Posted by: Gerard Van der Leun at May 26, 2004 08:03 AM

Calls for genocidal revenge on Palis', 'Sandniggers' and other terms are commonplace.

I take the 'sn' phrase back.

Any comment on the calls to wipe out all muslims?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 08:07 AM

Oxford,

Ms Andi backed me up on this (Thanx, Ms Andi), so there's not much for me to add, except the following.

The Sandn****r word is not used, and if it is, that poster gets banned. When you were doing your search of Kathleen's posts, did you search the above word as well? (This is not to say Kathleen used this word - I don't mean that at all).

But since you're making accusations about LGF posters, why not give us examples of the use of that word, where the user did not get banned? Or do you expect me to just believe your statements as if they were fact?

I noticed that there was a deleted post on that thread. Is it Kathleen's? If so, what did she say that got her banned?

Once again, Oxford, before you make an argument, maybe you had better arm yourself with all the facts, and not just the ones that suit your views.

TV (Harry)

Posted by: Inspector Callahan at May 26, 2004 08:10 AM

In the interest of fair discussion, I take back my comments of my last post - Ms Andi and Oxford pretty much covered my points.

TV (Harry)

Posted by: Inspector Callahan at May 26, 2004 08:13 AM

oxfordboy:

When Al Qaeda, Hamas et al stop calling to wipe out all non-muslims, then I'll get exercised over some guy in a comment box "calling to wipe out all muslims".

It's personally not my preferred form of political analysis or rhetoric, but it's so bizarre that anyone would be up in arms over a tiny subset of comments on some web-geek's blog in California with the non-stop hate spew coming out of the middle east and other places, which often includes specific incitement to terrorism, encouragement to become a suicide bomber etc.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at May 26, 2004 08:16 AM

I wonder if "oxford boy" is the same person that was posting as Marshall on LGF. He left a few unsavory comments himself, got himself banned.

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 08:36 AM

"When Al Qaeda, Hamas et al stop calling to wipe out all non-muslims, then I'll get exercised over some guy in a comment box "calling to wipe out all muslims".
That sounds suspiciously like the moral equivalency that is so often roundly condemned on LGF, and other places.

Arent westerners supposed to be above all that stuff which they lambast Islamists for? Believe me, I have confronted militants - in real life, and on the web - their murderous incitements prolong and extend the conflict. So does anti-arab, anti-Muslim hatred.

Do you think that Al-Quiada/Hamas/et al speak for all muslims? All muslims in the US, UK, wherever? Do they get tarred with the same brush?

Excerpts from one thread:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10280_Getty_Photos_of_Yassin
#28 Tasty Beverage 3/22/2004 11:33AM PST

#16 HULUGU

they could have an orgy in that keppala playing find the medulla oblongata with their arab needle dicks

#38 trigger girlie 3/22/2004 11:40AM PST

These monkeys must have went through tons of garbage bags to collect poor old bastard yASSin.

#90 aaron's rantblog 3/22/2004 10:19PM PST

This is the ONLY way to change an Arab mind.

I only hope that where ever this fucker is buried, vandals come and pour buckets pig fat and bacon grease on his grave, and drive those fucking Palestinians even more insane than they already.

Hopefully, this will lead to their destruction, just like the Imperial Japanese ensured their destruction by suprise attack at Pearl Harbor.

#97 HULUGU 3/23/2004 01:20PM PST

the only way to change an arab's mind is to remove his brain---comme ici, nest pas--is hannibal lector an idf pilot now?

Are those comments racist? Genocidal? Condemned by the host?

BTW - all for free speech, like Charles, are you? Do you think this discussion could take place at LGF?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 08:45 AM

Zulubaby: Do you know me at all? Have I made any unsavoury comments here? Why compare me to someone who got a ban for something I am unaware of?

The weird thing is, I read LGF a lot. I like the links which give me an idea of what is going on - but it is far from the whole picture. What I abhor - and I see as being the ideological cousin to Islamic antisemitism - is the hatred of muslims, arabs, europeans, democrats, journalists and anyone who is not a full-blooded Israeli or american Zionist.

The quotes above are culled from one thread. It would be a simple matter to find the like in almost any other LGF thread.

Why is that?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 08:59 AM

oxfordboy, why don't you got to LGF and ask those posters about it?

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 09:03 AM

ob:

"Moral Equivalency" is usually a term invoked to decry an inapt comparison of one evil (or sometimes simply a mistake) committed by the US or Israel or Western Society in general with a much greater evil commited by the enemies of the US/Israel/Western Society in General.

For example: The constant trope of "critics" of Israel which holds that the Israeli military's inadvertant killing of civilians in operations designed to kill terrorists is exactly morally equivalent to Palestinian terrorists' deliberate targeting of civilians, including children and rescue workers.

Another example would be Ted Kennedy's comment which implied that whatever happened at Abu Ghraib (I don't know definitively, do you?) was exactly equivalent to Saddam Hussein's state policy of mass torture, rape, and murder.

My point is to say that the hate pouring out of Saudi mosques, for instance, which is translated by MEMRI and posted regularly on LGF, is something which is far more vitriolic and has a higher degree of seriousness and real world consequences than a comment on LGF, a comment which you have not provided a link for once, btw.

You could say that my argument is a weak one, that is to say, that all "hate speech" (for lack of a better term) should be equally condemned, and the fact that there is worse out there is not a defense. However, I don't think it's really a "moral equivalence" problem. Really, what I'm trying to do is show total moral unequivolance between two different things.

Anyway, generally, the fact that there are people who are saying far worse about all non-Muslims, and backing up their pronouncements with a whole totalitarian ideology and the tactic of massive suicide terrorism, is a problem on a whole different level of seriousness than intemperate, arguably bigotted comments on a website. At least these comments are on the side of the civilization that I live in and don't want to see destoryed. Call me selfish.

Posted by: Eric Deamer at May 26, 2004 09:11 AM

Zulubaby: BTW - all for free speech, like Charles, are you? Do you think this discussion could take place at LGF?
Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 08:45 AM

- I'd say that would be a) provocative and deemed trolling, b) they can follow the link and read this here, c) thats just asking to be ambushed. :)

You are very polite here, but are prone to the old STFU when presented with differing POVs at LGF.

Why would

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 09:17 AM

oxford boy & alejo seem the sort of whinging twonks that bang on about things of no moment, in transparent attempts to besmirch the name of their chosen prey. I am a frequenter (both in lurk and post mode) of LGF. More importantly, I am of Yemenite origin. What never ceases to amaze me is the level of willing blindness exhibited by Westerners in relation to moslem terrorists & their enablers. Being Hafez il-qur'an, well versed in all of the major schools of hadith and sunna (ja'afari, hanafi, bukhari, muslim...etc...) as well as having listened to khutbas in a plethora of mosques, I can assert without fear of intelligent contradiction, that islam as practised today, both shi'a & sunni (not druzi or ahmadiya) is an existential threat to any society, civilisation, organisation, or person branded as either kufaar, munafiq, or morted (infidel, hypocrite, or apostate). That Mr. Johnson exposes some of the abundant evidence of this mindset on his blog, is commendable, yet time and again pampered children of a free society indulge in vile name-calling and outright lies in an attempt to villify & censure him. Thankfully he seems to take it all in stride, & continues to provide a much needed public service.

Posted by: Ali Al-Beheshti at May 26, 2004 09:17 AM

Oxfordboy and others,

I will not defend or glorify Charles in the way that some do. The fundamental point here is that free speech is valuable, even if you don't agree with it. Some people who agree with oxfordboy decry that they do not have the right to voice their views about Bush without being audited by the IRS, but they have no problem calling for some sort of censure on others they do not agree with (Charles). Such hypocrisy is amazing to me.

Charles is a guy who probably would have voted for Kerry if 9/11 hadn't happened. He's pissed about 9/11 still - aren't you? Charles, like many of us, wanted to know "why they hate us". But unlike some of his haters - he actually found out... and he didn't like what he learned.

In that regard, the information that he links to does make people angry. It makes people angry in two ways:

1) those who catch a glimpse of "why they hate us" and are sickened and disheartened by what they see - and get mad about it (a few make heated and racist comments)

2) those who want desperately for the hatred to be "fixable" (aka America's fault), which is very understandable in a psychological context (ignoring reality helps all of us cope)... so they see only vial lies or racism or whatever they need to call it in order to not accept that the hatred exhibited on 9/11 may be about more than us "deserving it". these people are then equally angered by the angry comments from #1 above, because they don't understand their anger... because after all - we deserved it.

Some of the thousands of visitors, who are angered by what they see, make comments that are over the top. But, it's free speech, and Charles has the right to let stuff stand or take it down.

Some defend Charles by saying that he doesn't have time to weed through thousands of comments. I don't even think that's the issue. If Charles lets something stand consciously, maybe he is allowing an angry person to say their piece, which is their right. If Charles has decided that his site is a place where people can read about "why they hate us" and react to it - IN WHATEVER WAY THEY SEE FIT - which is their right and his right - then what is it to you? Don't go there.

That's his right. I don't agree with some of the stuff that is allowed to stand. But, I also allow him and his visitors to have their own opinion... that's what makes America and other free nations great. I also very much value the opinions of those who disagree, like oxfordboy - because at the end of the day, I will sit next to oxfordboy with a beer in my hand, and shake his hand, and thank goodness that we are allowed to disagree.

I don't believe that oxfordboy actually wants Charles Johnson and anyone who reads his site to be punished by the Thought Police... I think he just disagrees with some of the comments on the site, or believes that Charles should not allow comments because a few bad apples spoiled the bushel. That's cool, man.

But, who's the nazi? The one who provides a public forum for opinion, and doesn't take the time to remove some foul posts, or maybe even allows them to consciously stand? Or the one who wants to somehow censure the opinions on that site that they don't agree with and label people as this or that?

Even if you need desperately to call Charles a racist because it makes you feel better about your opinions, then remember that the ACLU used to defend the rights of the KKK to march. That's America for you. Love it or leave it.

In America, your right is to go "march" in opposition to Charles - by starting your own blog which links to information which refutes Charles' site. Or start a blog that uses facts and links to put forth your own views about "why they hate us". Or, what the hell, just start a blog that just rants and raves about how Charles is a racist. It's your right, and some would read it. Some wouldn't.

Posted by: Nick at May 26, 2004 09:20 AM

I visit LGF and find many of the posters to be intelligent and well spoken.

On the dark side there are a few lunatics that should have been banned long ago. I was, and still am, disgusted that one of the worst who actually called for a full out genocide of the Palestinians, including targeting pregnant woman and children, was not banned.

Posted by: Mar at May 26, 2004 09:23 AM

You are very polite here, but are prone to the old STFU ...

No, I don't use STFU, I'm not one for acronyms.

If you find a certain poster's comment offensive, go argue your case with that poster. It's okay for you to whine about it here but you won't confront those posters on LGF? Why?

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 09:23 AM

"Calls for genocidal revenge on Palis', 'Sandniggers' and other terms are commonplace.

I take the 'sn' phrase back."

Oxford Boy, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

If you have to take the "sandnigger" charge back, then you also need to step back and figure out how you came up with it in the first place.

Hint: It wasn't from any objective analysis of LGF.

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 09:28 AM

Oxford,

Your comment about needing to be "...a full-blooded Israeli or american Zionist..." says a lot about you, I'm afraid.

You are labeling thousands of people you don't know in order to make your point about the racism of others.

You just lost all credibility. Thanks for coming.

Signed,
A WASP, Independant, former Democrat, who sometimes disagrees with Israel, who might vote for Kerry if he would get things straight, who's married to a black woman, and likes to read LGF like you claim to, and is NO racist.

Posted by: Nick at May 26, 2004 09:31 AM

Oxfordboy: I frequently attack the racism and Islamo-hatred of many LGF posters. Zulubaby and I have gotten into it big time over the Hebron settlers - her method of argument of calling anyone who doesn't agree with the Hebron settlers' agenda as a "Jew-hater" is pretty ad-hominem.

But argue with facts and invective like I do, and you won't get banned from LGF. I never have. Even when I accused Charles of smearing John Kerry via his wife with various Heinz 57 varieties when he attacked her donations to the Tides Foundation.

Take on the bigots. Try it. It's not that hard. And when they return with ad hominem insults like "jew-hater," you'll know you've won the argument.

Posted by: Gordon at May 26, 2004 09:33 AM

Gordon, whatever. Everyone knows what a liar you are.

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 09:40 AM

So, two different posters disagree with my views.

1)what is it to you? Don't go there.
2)oxfordboy, why don't you got to LGF and ask those posters about it?

Hmm, which fork in the road?

Of course, there are some dissenters who get pummelled over there, I don't feel like that - youre recent comment {#181 zulubaby 5/26/2004 08:38AM PST

I bet "oxford boy" is this genius. } ......didnt feel like I'd gets that the commenters at LGF are demeaning and undermining the whole 'lets expose the Islamic ideology honestly' project. This is because all muslims, europeans, dissenters, et al are deemed the enemy.

Genocide is frequently called for. Is that not contaminating the western values which LGF claims to defend?

Is there no off-limits?

Ali Al-Beheshti: clearly your reference to name callers does not refer to me. I refrain from ad hominems - a policy I commend to all posters on the net.

Nick: Again, no 'nazi' call from me. I don't want to police Charles, but I would love for him and the lizardoid minions to see that calls for genocide from one side look exactly like calls for genocide on the other side. Then, to apply his own censure to those who do that on his site.

Charles would ban instantly a commenter who said "the only way to change an jew's mind is to remove his brain".

Why is that not even remarkable on LGF?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 09:47 AM

Oxfordboy: See Zulubaby's response above for an example of a losing ad hominem insult. She's an expert at them.

I should clarify that many, a majority of the posters at LGF are interested in honest debate and discussion about the issues presented on the thread. SoCalJustice is a good example of this. There are many others. They more than balance out the bigots like bigel and transferthem and the loons like Ploome.

Posted by: Gordon at May 26, 2004 09:47 AM

oxfordboy, I still think you should go to LGF and take on the posters that you disagree with.

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 09:50 AM

Powderfinger, Nick, zulubaby: What of the genocidal comments which Mar refers to above?

Any comment? Would you like there to be a different policy like Post a comment: Show some guts and use your real name. Abusive or off-topic comments may be deleted, but L.A. Observed claims no responsibility for the comments made here.

Standard sort of policy across the internet. Not on LGF, though, where Before you post, remember the LGF prayer:

Lord, grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference is deemed sufficient advisory.

That omission is why genocidal comments are allowed through - because they do not contradict Charles policy. He is partially responsible.

Fair enough.

It makes it incumbent on those committed to ensuring that we never have a genocide again (something which supporters of religious freedom like myself have always worked for and spoken out on) to challenge it where we see it.

Thats what I am doing here - and in the past have done to posters on LGF.

on preview: zb- why go to LGF, just to be called names? I am no liar, nor a troll, nor anti-jew, nor racist, nor idiotarian. I simply want a civilised debate.

That is not offered to dissenters at LGF, as any visitor can tell. That is sad, as in discussion I could learn. We all could.. As it is, we both know I would get shoted down and abused with what my mom would probably all 'dirty talk'.

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 10:05 AM

oxfordboy, I still think you should go to LGF and take on the posters that you disagree with.

Right. And be called a liar for disagreeing? No thanks.

What do you say to Mar?

I visit LGF and find many of the posters to be intelligent and well spoken.

On the dark side there are a few lunatics that should have been banned long ago. I was, and still am, disgusted that one of the worst who actually called for a full out genocide of the Palestinians, including targeting pregnant woman and children, was not banned.

Maybe you missed that one. What about the genocidal comments I reposted above?

You say that I should take on the 'genociders'.Do you? If not, why not? Is it because you don't want to be shouted down yourslf?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 10:14 AM

oxfordboy:

I am no liar, nor a troll, nor anti-jew, nor racist, nor idiotarian. I simply want a civilised debate.

Then why don't you go to LGF and debate in a civilized manner and see what happens? You're not prepared to even try. I don't understand what you're afraid of and it seems pointless to be here, whining about it, when you're not willing to challenge the posters whose comments offend you. Have the courage of your convictions.

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 10:17 AM

Right. And be called a liar for disagreeing? No thanks.

Oh well, I tried. Stay here and complain about it if it makes you feel better.

What about the genocidal comments I reposted above?

I will not argue on someone else's behalf especially since those aren't my views. I think it's unfair to pick out comments that offend you, post them here, and then expect others to argue those points when you yourself aren't prepared to take on those posters. Sorry, it's not going to happen.

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 10:21 AM

Please note: contrary to the claim made by "oxfordboy," there is a disclaimer at the top of every page of comments at LGF, that reads:

Comments are open and unmoderated, although obscene or abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.

Posted by: Charles Johnson at May 26, 2004 10:23 AM

I should have clarified the ban and when it happened. I went to post a last comment and when I clicked on "post", a page came up that said, "You are not allowed to post." That's how it happened...Ms. Andi what all of you took for rantings was a Jew, "half-breed" or not that was truely looking for an honest website to talk rationally about the Israeli war and such...NOT a fight like now, and then, too. I don't know where the term "sn" came up..I left to talk with a friend of mine who is in that war in Gaza. Why is it so very important for a fight to breakout instead of going to the true sources; the freedom of information act and using it to prove what I said is wrong! You will not be able to do it. I have that entire blog of insults downloaded on my computer if you feel the need for me to post it fine, I will. But, I will not fight anymore about this. Charles is NOT in charge...of his little regulars beating their drums and waiving there fists in the air..it's useless to try and talk any sense into you; and, just so you know, I privately emailed Charlse @ his addy not the LGF blog site. You know, everything I said was true. I did not get upset until I read Ploomes useless attempt at a ?joke?, that's the problem LGF regulars can say what they want but newcomers cannot..I believe that is biased and something LGF says it dosen't participate in. WRONG! You people at LGF think you can run over here and tell these people how to run their business and never talk about the issues...same on LGF. As I told Charles in the email, I don't really think he meant for it to be the runaway train it is but! he is responsible for the content and context of his website. If you want to see the deleted letters I will be happy to forward them to anyone who cares...I for one no longer care...I recorded it because I know to CMA.
I hate to see all of you argueing over this. Why don't you discuss the casino that's going to be built in Southern Gaza, or the Egyptian intelligence that's going to come over, @ PM Sharons' invite,into Gaza, or even the fact that Duhlan is going to take over Gaza when the Israeli army pulls out? He is responsible for more than 200 deaths! Sharon backs him...I'm not surprised...they'll probably sit at the same craps table together in the new casino. It is a waste of time to argue as we did the other day...what is important is that the truth isn't as important to LGF'rs as gossip and trying to find fault and nit picking. Plomme needs to get over herself imposed royal status @ LGF and the rest of you Charles fans need to go do some homework about what the news really is..instead of coming here and stirring up another fight. Go fight on your own turf amongst yourselves. I saw nothing that day but slams on people that you don't even know anything about. I WILL say this again; when I get the full length tapes of the contractors killings, and the Nicholas Berg beheading and what they did to him arfterwards, I will post it, if given permission. BUT! NOT on LGF...these are serious matters and not for raising the hate level. There ARE Arabs who want to live in peace with the Jews, or "joooos" as so many of you put it.(I posted on several threads on LGF) Not all are terrorists..yet, the idea at LGF is to kill them all! Very ignorant and terrorist-like talk yourselves.
What none of you know is that there are arabs, who don't like Jews, ON THESE BLOGS all over the world..blogs are a great way to get intelligence reports but I guess you knew that already.It gives them a sense of what the pulse of the people is and how to stir things up some more. Don't enable them, please. Israel is a lot closer in distance to be hit by them than the U.S. Also, last subject to discuss, the Philippines is set to take the reigns of the U.N. in 2005...a Muslim country and major player in this terrorism that's going on now. Talk about that and find answers instead of fighting..you never know, there is still hope that common ground could be reached in these matters. There is always hope. Shalom, Lila-tov,
Kathleen

Posted by: Kathleen at May 26, 2004 10:24 AM

Zulubaby,

There is a very small coterie on LGF who refuse to engage in reasonable debate.

Not to long ago a young 18 year old Muslim male was on LGF and tried hard to do so. This small collection of pea brains did nothing but insult him and call him a traitor for being a Muslim.

Gordon

I am with you on SoCalJustice. A good writer and debator who never stoops to insults.

Posted by: Mar at May 26, 2004 10:25 AM

Charles: I take your point. Why then do you not delete genocidal comments? Do they not come into the class 'abusive or obscene' if they are against arabs or muslims?

zb: I have actually taken on posters at LGF(though I had a different handle).

I take it that you are supportive of those who honestly dissent from the tone of posters that call for genocide, and don't personally attack them yourself?

I suspect that you would be alone. Why were you so keen to find out if I was that Marshal guy? So you could have a go at me? Isn't it irrelevant what my name is, my id too, if the ideas are persuasive?

As it is, I don't tend to chime in on the echo chamber, when I would only be repeating what others have said. We all condemn suiciders, mad mullahs, wahhabism, al-qaida.

The thing that distinguishes the west is tolerance of dissent, rule of law, free speech, democracy, markets, prosperity, freedom of religion.

Not all of the above are honoured at LGF. Not all of those who sincerely believe in plurality are respected. I bet you now that I could make a comment at LGF and be abused in the same thread.

Next, I'd be IP banned by his lord high lizardness.

Thereby excluding yet another dissenter. One who dearly believes in western values.

It's just shooting in the foot, really. i don't fancy that much.

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 10:38 AM

Charles, and his site, are the reason for Blogs.
The natural alternative to the mass media.
You might ask LGF to be more balanced... However, LGF IS the balance to the primary media.
We might agree that Charles cannot be responsible for every comment on his site, but we can agree that Reuters (for example) IS responsible for every word they distribute under their banner.
Print or say a lie that is anti-Israel, anti-semetic, or anti-american and you will be called on it.
They will FCYA. (Fact Check Your A**)

Posted by: Buck at May 26, 2004 10:43 AM

oxfordboy: and you know that I "don't delete genocidal comments" ... how, exactly?

You apparently didn't even notice a clearly marked disclaimer; you made an accusation that words like 'sandn*gger' are routinely used at LGF -- and they are not; you claim that simple dissent will cause people to be banned, despite testimonials from people like Gordon, who dissent constantly and have not been banned...

And yet you know enough about LGF to declare unequivocally that "genocidal comments" have never been deleted? Quite a feat of divination.

Posted by: Charles Johnson at May 26, 2004 11:02 AM

[Charles], show me one example of [you] smacking down a racist comment on LGF.

More, if you can find 'em.

Or are there none to challenge?
Posted by oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 05:48 AM

re:'sandn*gger' - my actual *point* was Calls for genocidal revenge on Palis', 'Sandniggers' and other terms are commonplace.

You havent challenged that, have you, Charles?

I took back the inaccurate comment on sand*iggers. I apologise for that.

Print or say a lie that is anti-Israel, anti-semetic, or anti-american and you will be called on it. - Posted by Buck at May 26, 2004 10:43 AM

But anything anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-European (does that include the Spanish, polish and british today?) is par for the course.

Do you not see? I'm saying that the principles which LGFers want to see develop around the world are shattered on LGF.

It's not rocket science.

I do respect what was said up thread by a poster that it's just letting off steam (to paraphrase). So the exercise of free speech in the mosques is ok then, too?

Why does free speech have to be abusive speech? or threatening? Why arent folk at LGF given guidelines which are enforced?

Charles, is e.g. hulugu

[drive those fucking Palestinians even more insane than they already. Hopefully, this will lead to their destruction, just like the Imperial Japanese ensured their destruction by suprise attack at Pearl Harbor. #97 HULUGU 3/23/2004 01:20PM PST ]

welcome to post the same everyday? Why? Does that not become abusive and obscene, per your posting guidelines? Why delete some and not others?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 11:16 AM

LGF, home of the greatest irony of our time, the phenomenon known as 'Jews for Genocide.'

Simple hate all over any number of blogs. But if you want to call for genocide, Charles' blog is the one for you.

Posted by: Richard Simon at May 26, 2004 11:22 AM

oxfordboy you quote me out of context.
If the LA Times/Reuters/NY Times (Berkeley Daily Planet ) etc. print a LIE, they will be fact checked. They are responsible for what they print/publish.

If a reader of the LA Times/Reuters/NY Times etc. says a lie, the will be ignored.

Posted by: Buck at May 26, 2004 11:24 AM

... the phenomenon known as 'Jews for Genocide.

Interesting. You just showed your own ugliness without realizing it. Most of the posters on LGF are not Jewish.

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 11:28 AM

Okay, I'll discount posts by that flaming fount of hate known as 'King of all the Jews' then?

I'll back off. It's just a little less ironic.

"Human Beings for Genocide."

Deny that. If you're against genocide, I challenge you to leave that board for another that actually filters calls for race-wide murder.

LGF: Only .007% of our posts call for genocide!!

Posted by: Richard Simon at May 26, 2004 11:44 AM

"King of All Jews" is banned, and a number of his posts were deleted.

Posted by: Charles Johnson at May 26, 2004 11:53 AM

Richard Simon, if you ever find a post whereby I advocate genocide, let me know.

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 11:54 AM

"Deny that. If you're against genocide, I challenge you to leave that board for another that actually filters calls for race-wide murder."

I'd like to see any post that calls for race-wide murder. I'd be even more surprised if one is found, and the rest of the commenters didn't jump into the author with both feet.

A link will suffice, Richard.

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 11:59 AM

Charles:
You must have banned King of all the Jews in the last two days, since his ugliest post was just Sunday. Window-dressing in advance of appearing in public is a nice trick.

And what about all the people who cheered him on?

How about: www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=7913

You have your work cut out. I have reams of these.

Zulubaby:
The challenge is to identify yourself against those who call for genocide. Best done by leaving the board.

For the record, 'King' was merely cheering the death of another Jew. Your milquetoast disavowal on Sunday was hardly heartening ('You're not my king.") I accuse you of being too afraid to speak more strongly for fear of being shouted down by others who agree with 'King.' At least you're better than those who were silent.

LGF: "Now Banning Foaming Hate-Mongers So We Can Smell Nice in Public!!"

Posted by: Richard Simon at May 26, 2004 12:13 PM

Buck, i took you post wrong. Sorry 'bout that.

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 12:15 PM

Richard Simon, you know nothing about my life or where I post or what I do. I don't take orders from you and I respond how I want. I don't read every post, not by a long shot (who has the time), and I didn't read most of King of All Jews (ugh) posts until after he was banned. I will take responsibility for myself and myself only. I am not responsible for every poster on LGF. If you have an issue with something someone posted, take it up with that poster.

Posted by: zulubaby at May 26, 2004 12:24 PM

>

oxfordboy, do you have a link for that quote? It doesn't appear in the place you noted it at, and a search for a couple of the phrases comes up empty as well.

A link, or an explanation are in order.

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 12:35 PM

About 2/3 of the comments on this post now refer, directly of indirectly, to Charles Johnson. Given that so many people have such strong feelings about Johnson, I would guess that he is one of, if the the single, most influential political blogger in the LA area. He certainly seems to be the most discussed blogger in the LA area. Furthermore, his blog has many observations concerning stories being carried and not being carried by the mainstream media. Given these observations, which this comment thread supports, I think that a general panel about political blogging and the media in LA really should include Charles Johnson, and would be irresponsible not to include him.

Posted by: Average Joe at May 26, 2004 12:36 PM

Powderfinger:

Okay, I accept your challenge.

Here's a call for race-murder and the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations from just a few minutes ago.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=11157#c0099

Before Charles can hurry and window-wash it so he doesn't look bad in public, here's what it said.

#99 US1
"If the media is so into sarin gas, maybe we should import some of ours to Iraq. Perhaps to Najaf."

The real question is, why do people go specifically to Charles' site to post their genocidal rants? He's not at fault by commission. I'm saying it's by omission.

Inviting Charles to a discussion on Bloggers is like inviting Chancre to a panel on Syphilis. Sure, people are talking about it, but do we really want it around?

LGF: "Have you checked lately? Calls for genocide being made as we speak!!"

or, alternatively

LGF: "Only .008% of our posts call for genocide!!"

Posted by: Richard Simon at May 26, 2004 01:06 PM

"Here's a call for race-murder and the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations from just a few minutes ago."

Did you mean to say "race murder or the use of..."

Where in that statement is there a call to eliminate a race of people? Let's look at the whole post:

"It's immaterial whether Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam WAS a WMD.

The WMD "controversy" is designed to prop up the dead-end liberal agenda. THEY promoted it, THEIR media broadcast it, now THEY criticize OUR troops for not finding the stockpiles.

If the media is so into sarin gas, maybe we should import some of ours to Iraq. Perhaps to Najaf."

Where does the writer even suggest using WMD? (though I grant you he might mean to infer that.)

Where is the genocide in that post? You do know what the word genocide means, don't you?

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 01:47 PM

So Richard, I guess that you believe that if someone posts on a blog, the owner of the blog spoke the words himself.

Johnson should be judged on what HE says, not on what other people say.

It's really a simple concept to logical individuals.

Posted by: Ali Mustafa at May 26, 2004 01:49 PM

I believe Richard Simon is selectively quoting from the comment made by "US1" at LGF. Here is the entire post.

It's immaterial whether Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. Saddam WAS a WMD.

The WMD "controversy" is designed to prop up the dead-end liberal agenda. THEY promoted it, THEIR media broadcast it, now THEY criticize OUR troops for not finding the stockpiles.

If the media is so into sarin gas, maybe we should import some of ours to Iraq. Perhaps to Najaf.

This comment is something I would have read at LGF and then just moved down the list. It comes off to me as something normal. While Richard Simon may not share the same opinion, I am an LGF regular and suppose that Mr. Simon is not, thus the presumed issue.

Posted by: Brennan Stout at May 26, 2004 01:50 PM

I will see your LGF comments Richard Simon and raise you words of the leaders of the Religion of Peace and Tolerance;

.........

In all five of the mosques covered in the cable — which was marked "sensitive, but unclassified" — the imams said the sort of things people would expect to hear in a normal house of worship. The imams alternatively spoke of "charity," following "advice" provided by religion, "mercy," and "justice." But the sermons also contained comments that definitely would not be found in normal faith services. Two of the five mosque services called for the "destruction" of Americans, and four of the five called for the "death" or "destruction" of "the Jews." On the latter count, the fifth sermon didn't not call for the death of "the Jews," but rather had a more generic prayer for God "to destroy . . . the enemies of Islam." Judging by the other four sermons, "the Jews" would be considered a subset of "the enemies of Islam."

At the Al-Hessy Mosque in Riyadh, for example, the imam talked of the pursuit of a "happy and peaceful life" and "asked God to maintain the dignity of Islam and Muslims." But he was not done. He then "asked for the destruction of the Jews and Americans," though as if to try and soften the summation somewhat, the cable calls this "something he does not call for on a regular basis." In any case, the imam's audience perked up: "The relatively inattentive congregation showed more interest when the Shaykh asked for the destruction of the Jews and Americans."

.............
http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray052903.asp

Posted by: Usamabinlazy at May 26, 2004 01:55 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10280#c0095

So, that quote should read:

Charles, is e.g. hulugu

[drive those fucking Palestinians even more insane than they already. Hopefully, this will lead to their destruction, just like the Imperial Japanese ensured their destruction by suprise attack at Pearl Harbor. Charles, is e.g. hulugu

[drive those fucking Palestinians even more insane than they already. Hopefully, this will lead to their destruction, just like the Imperial Japanese ensured their destruction by suprise attack at Pearl Harbor. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10280#c0095 ]

welcome to post the same everyday? Why? Does that not become abusive and obscene, per your posting guidelines? Why delete some and not others? ]

welcome to post the same everyday? Why? Does that not become abusive and obscene, per your posting guidelines? Why delete some and not others?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 02:21 PM

Another call for genocide on Little Green Footballs.

Powderfinger makes a distinction without a difference. Genocide is racial extermination. Was US1 calling for the gassing of Chaldeans? Who else is in Najaf except Muslims that US1 would know about? Was it embarrassing to find that at the very moment I was talking about genocidal rants on LGF, someone made a call on LGF for gassing a city? Well, hold onto that feeling, there's more.

_____________________
#1 The Law Student  4/30/2003 06:41PM PST
I've been fond of transfer of these subhuman sarcens for a while. Perhaps something more like targetted genocide at the religious muslims will become necesary.
_____________________
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=6438#c0001

Very straightforward, little hemming and hawing there. The post is nearly a month old, and it's still festering on Charles' site. In case you want to claim that Charles hasn't deleted it because he hasn't seen it, Charles himself chimes in a few posts later on that very thread, only to ask a technical question of another poster. NOBODY ON THE THREAD DISAVOWED THE STATEMENT, Powderfinger. Where were the people 'jumping into the author with both feet'?

Powderfinger, I have a simple question for you.
DO YOU DISAVOW THE SENTIMENT IN THESE POSTS?

Zulubaby,
DO YOU DISAVOW THE SENTIMENT IN THESE POSTS?

Amateur Joe:
DO YOU DISAVOW THE SENTIMENT IN THESE POSTS?

This is your chance in a non-Charles-moderated forum. Or are you still too afraid? Or will you parse the word 'targetted' [sic] as being not covered by the definition of 'genocide'?

Posted by: Richard Simon at May 26, 2004 02:21 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10280#c0095

oxfordboy, the quote in question is not at the link you provided. Care to try again?

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 02:32 PM

Hey, Oxfordboy! Wassamatta? Don't wanna play any more?

Posted by: The Dread Pirate Gryphon at May 26, 2004 02:33 PM

Richard Simon might have a future with Iran's Secret Religious Police.

DO YOU DISAVVOW THESE STATEMNTS!?

DO YOU DISAVOW THESE STATEMENTS!?

DO YOU DISAVOW THESE STATEMENTS!?

Sounds like something a Nazi interrogator would say in a bad movie.

Did you just get back from guard duty at Abu Ghraib richard?

Well, did you ? DID YOU? DID YOU!!!!!!!??????

Posted by: Eric Deamer at May 26, 2004 02:38 PM

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10280#c0095

#95 Slim Jim 3/23/2004 10:33AM PST

#1,

Those are great photos of the "IDF lobotomy".

Now is the time to watch all the Jew and American hatred run freely from those stinking Arabs mouths.

It's stuff we've known all the long, stuff they cover up and hide, but now we'll see the true colors come out in their rage over this latest killing.

I only hope that where ever this fucker is buried, vandals come and pour buckets pig fat and bacon grease on his grave, and drive those fucking Palestinians even more insane than they already.

Hopefully, this will lead to their destruction, just like the Imperial Japanese ensured their destruction by suprise attack at Pearl Harbor.

Palestinians we're overcome with joy Sept. 11 watching the WTC destruction.

So fuck 'em.

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 02:39 PM

Richard, if you'll check the date, it appears to be over a year old. Secondly, usage of a word according to it's definition, versus using it to mean something other than it's definition is not a "distinction without a difference".

Is every attack genocide, as long as the people in a given place are of a certain race? And what if that race is Caucasian, as most Arabs are? Was 9/11 genocide?

Sorry, no. But don't start letting facts get in your way now.

Lastly, I'll dry to drive home the point you've failed to glean from Zulubaby's repeated attempts to impart it upon you.

My purpose in life, and in visiting LGF isn't to support or disavow the comments of every other person that visits there. If you have an issue with a poster, take it up with them. When I find myself in that position, I either avail myself of the advice I'm giving you, or I scroll past.

So, unless you've been appointed to be a language policeman (and I'd recommend a dictionary if this is the case), or you've got something I've said that you'd like to discuss, I'm not sure what the point of your tirade is, other to throw stones at that which you don't understand.

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 02:45 PM

puhleeze--i am cornholio--i mean hulugu--and that quote from me wasn't to be interpreted as a call for genocide--but for the utter destuction of an enemy--ie imperial japan/nazi germany so that they know they are defeated and will not dream of picking up the cudgel agan--it is a call for decisive battle and unconditional surrender--its not original with me but comes from reading victor davis hanson/winston churchill among others--the alternative is what we are now seeing in fallujah--where the residents are now claiming victory over the marines and are seeking funds to set up a museum of honorable resistence--its war people--the jihadis have no qualms--blunt knife /berg's neck--decisive victory and destuction of the enemy is way to victory--hudna is an islamic strategic tactic until they get strong--ask the byzantines--your way and you'll be having these genteel discussions in your burqa and yellow starred clothes--my way --you extinguish and annihilate evil--this is not genocide--its the application of force until the enemy is demoralized and quits--ergo the end of the caliphate in 1924 after the turkish defeat--grow up or you won't grow old

Posted by: HULUGU at May 26, 2004 02:52 PM

Eric,
Your comparison is offensive in the extreme.

I did go overboard with the all-caps. The question remains, however. I'm tired of LGFers' weaseling.

LGF: "Where scrolling past is the answer to calls for ethnic cleansing!!"

Posted by: Richard Simon at May 26, 2004 02:56 PM

I see it now. Of course, you attributed it to the wrong poster. That's not Hulugu. I was interested in the context, and what the "this" refers to. It is, of couse, the killing of Sheik Yassin.

Context: "Palestinians were overcome with joy Sept. 11 watching the WTC destruction. So fuck 'em."

Do you think Charles had some obligation to delete that comment, and/or ban the poster? Does this comment detract from the value of LGF? How, exactly? Is the poster calling for their destruction, or threatening to destroy them? What, exactly, is your problem with those words being in the comments section of some guy's blog?

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 03:07 PM

Well, I'd say the point was to show that Charles says abusive posts will be deleted. Then he allows genocide-promoters to stand. You don't have to answer for him, he knows where this thread is. He can say why it is acceptable himself, if he wants to.

Oh and thanks, cornholio/hugulu - that seems to confirm dual login names at LGF. As I thought.

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 03:10 PM

"LGF: "Where scrolling past is the answer to calls for ethnic cleansing!!"

No, at LGF the answer to ethnic cleansing is the IDF. They been fending it off for 60 years and counting.

Still waiting for you to find us a call for ethnic cleansing. You do know what that means don't you? If you need an example of what a call for ethnic cleansing looks like, try the PA charter.

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 03:13 PM

drive those fucking Jews even more insane than they already.

Hopefully, this will lead to their destruction, just like the Imperial Japanese ensured their destruction by suprise attack at Pearl Harbor.

So what for context? You know what he meant - he meant Palistinians, not terrorists.

How about

#1 The Law Student 4/30/2003 06:41PM PST
I've been fond of transfer of these subhuman sarcens for a while. Perhaps something more like targetted genocide at the religious muslims will become necesary.
_____________________
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=6438#c0001

>

Can you offer any explanation that that is not genocide (beware - he actually says 'genocide' in the post...)

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 03:20 PM

Oxfordboy,

Charles, is e.g. hulugu

drive those fucking Palestinians even more insane than they already. Hopefully, this will lead to their destruction, just like the Imperial Japanese ensured their destruction by suprise attack at Pearl Harbor. #97 HULUGU 3/23/2004 01:20PM PST

welcome to post the same everyday?

Umm...I realize Oxford is a hike from Japan, but given your accusations of advocating genocide, I feel it incumbent upon me to point out that...well...Japanese people still exist.

Richard Simon,

Here's a call for race-murder and the use of chemical weapons against civilian populations...

Perhaps you can be so good as to enlighten me. When exactly did scientists identify a Najafian race who's entire population resides in exactly one town?

Kathleen,

...of his little regulars beating their drums and waiving there fists in the air...it's useless to try and talk any sense into you...they'll probably sit at the same craps table together in the new casino... truth isn't as important to LGF'rs as gossip and trying to find fault and nit picking...the rest of you Charles fans need to go do some homework about what the news really is...

This may sound a little bit too much like invective for your delicate ears, but has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the reason so many of the LGF posters were hostile to you was that you come accross as a self-important twit who replaces second-rate innuendo and third rate ad hominem to replace factual, reasoned, arguments?

Posted by: Bill Dalasio at May 26, 2004 03:23 PM

The LGF/genocide connection came up last month with the publication of the LGF-Quiz (www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/).

See for yourself if you can tell the difference between an LGFer and Heinrich Himmler.

Posted by: Svejk at May 26, 2004 03:38 PM

Whatever you want to call what's in the posts, Powderfinger and all the rest of you LGFers, do you therefore agree with the sentiments of US1 and Lawstudent?

Do you want a targeted genocide?
Do you advocate a gas attack on Najaf?

I hate to pester, but they're simple questions.

This forum is hijacked too much as it is now. Just answer. I'm done for today.

Posted by: Richard Simon at May 26, 2004 03:45 PM

Charles, you are a busy man, but... no time to protect your rep? I mean, there's an explicit call for genocide. No quibbles.

Do you find that abusive or obscene? Or is it just obscene that none of the regulars picked up on it, so it was like regular fare for LGF?

And Bill Dalasio - I cant make sense of it, but then, I didnt write it. I'm quoting it, ok?

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 03:49 PM

Kathleen

You were telling people to "pull their heads out of Arab asses" even though they were clearly pro-Israel. Please.

We know what's going on in the Middle East. There are LGF regulars who have served in the IDF and plenty with friends in the IDF. There are even Arabs who post there regularly. Many of us read the translations at MEMRI and elsewhere. Many of us have read "Milestones" and Qu'ran. We know what the deal is.

People were unhappy with you because you lashed out without reading what the posters actually said. Furthermore, the use of the word "jooooos" is a sarcastic response to those in this world (which are many) who constantly blame Israel and the Jews for every problem in this world. Had you actually taken an effort to read, comprehend and get to know who you were talking to, you probably have not been so psychotic.

Posted by: Ms. Andi at May 26, 2004 03:52 PM

Oxfordboy: Why not remove the plank from your eye before you worry about the mote in your neighbor's? Coward. Liar.

Posted by: The Dread Pirate Gryphon at May 26, 2004 03:53 PM

Wha?

Coward? Liar?

You are on some other planet, mate.

Sort your priorities out.

Posted by: oxfordboy at May 26, 2004 04:01 PM

A number of us at the law firm where I work are following this discussion, and we're curious as to whether Powderfinger and the others from LGF will ever answer Richard Simon.

Where are you guys?

Your slipperiness with respect to the the hatred on LGF is cowardly. Richard, thank you for bringing the true nature of these insects to light.

Posted by: Rachel Levy at May 26, 2004 04:43 PM

Rachael, since you work at a law firm, you should be adept at scanning volumes of text. Scroll up to 2:45, and you'll find my response. If you're hoping for me to disavow an idiotic statement, I'd like to take this opportunity to disavow yours.

Just what do you mean by "insects" anyway? You're not by chance a racist, are you?

Posted by: Powderfinger at May 26, 2004 04:54 PM

oxfordboy/Richard Simon: Again, context matters. What Law Student says is something that I support. His comment is in response to an Indymedia article applauding the actions of the British-Muslim suicide bombers that blew up Mike's Pizza. Mike's is right near the US Embassy. It's a frequent stop for US Embassy travelers and is owned by an American and an Israeli. Perhaps the attack was somewhat personal to Law Student.

However, "the transfer of subhumans", people that would blow up a civilian restaurant, people that would use Indymedia to pronounce blatant anti-semitism, a post so vile that even Indymedia moved it to the hidden publishing section, is entirely within the realm of acceptable policy to me. You have a few people, perhaps many, that are willing to use their body - sacred and valued throughout democracies[except abortion] - as a weapon to dismember as many human beings merely because they are Israelis or Americans? Yes, let's handle such people with white gloves, with proper care, with all the treatments that any human being would deserve. But no, these are are not humans, thus they are identified as the subhumans that they are.

Law Student closes with a statement of something that MAY be required in the future. Could it be required? It's possible no? Is it beyond fathom that religous conviction could be a contributing, no the supporting, factor in the plight of the Palestinian Deathcult? Of course it is possible.

This is where I will end my participation on this website. You are welcome to contact me via email and we can coordinate a future discussion via LGF. Charles, i'm sure, would be more than happy to put these charges to rest as well as to extend the invitation formally for something that already exists without it.

I invite you to my blog if you like. Just shoot me an email and I'll post a the topic.

Posted by: Brennan Stout at May 26, 2004 05:08 PM

Powderfinger, your true colors show. You type a paragraph to slip away from using a single word. Agree or disagree. Pick one.

Brennan Stout, the morality of mass murder isn't situationally slippery. It's a universal crime, whether committed by Arabs, Hutus, Ottomans, Nazis, Khmer Rouge--anyone.

That you find LGF a comfortable place to express your incredible opinions confirms my own impression of the quality of discourse on the site.

Posted by: Richard Simon at May 26, 2004 05:55 PM

The simple fact is that Charles is OK with the existence of comments that accept the possibility of "targeted genocide" of "subhuman", "religious Muslims".

I've supported the President and the Iraq war from the beginning. But it's that kind of tolerance for indefensible and evil viewpoints that makes me not read or respect LGF, regardless of the other admittedly good material I used to read on the site.

Posted by: TTG at May 26, 2004 06:04 PM

Wow, I don't work for a law firm or anything cool like that, but after reading all the comments here I'm struck by the ability of some people to get bogged down in minute details and obscure points of rhetoric, and in their need to be "right".

I read LGF quite often. While some of his commenters are clearly knuckle-dragging morons, Charles Johnson provides a valuable service with his reporting. Some people here seem to think that he must religiously screen all posts and ban all the nutcases, etc. etc. Practically speaking, however, if you expect him to provide a forum that cannot be successfully cherry-picked, you are asking the impossible. The guy has a day job. The only alternative is to get rid of comments completely as some bloggers do. Personally, if I were Charles Johnson, I would save myself the headaches and drop comments. However, he feels that the positive commenters should be heard in spite of the wackos. That's his privelege, and it doesn't make him evil. Those who focus on the nuts are going to reject what he presents anyway; they're merely using these cases as an excuse to dismiss everything at LGF.

Posted by: Kurt at May 26, 2004 07:51 PM

to clear up a vain attempt at humour--"i am cornholio" was a bad iteration of beavis/butthead humor--i have one nic and am proud of it--hulugu--khan--son of tolui--grandson of ghengis--conquerer of bahgdad in 1258--annihilator of the worshippers/imperialists of the intolerant false god allah--who disrespected the true tolerant skygod tenegu--and therefore paid the price in pyramids of bones topped by skulls--do not fuck with the mongols boyo

Posted by: HULUGU at May 26, 2004 08:41 PM

btw--anybody have any salve?--my knuckles are absolutely raw from dragging on the floor

Posted by: HULUGU at May 26, 2004 08:44 PM

Kurt: I don't know why you focus on 'religiously screen all posts and ban all the nutcases'.

I asked for one instance - more, if possible - of Charles's condemning or banning one racist or genocide-promoter [for the purposes of this argument, let's assume that action against racists who are anti-semites is a given].

Are there no racist posters on LGF? Is this acceptable?

Where does Charles draw the line, when he refers to abusive or indecent comments being deleted? Is it ok for commenters to call for a genocide against any group, or only 'religious muslims'? The context - well, the global context is one where terrorist murderers provoke reactions from soldiers and the posters on internet boards. Is it then acceptable to call for the 'ethnic cleansing'
of a whole group?

Charles and the minions make a point that these posts are 0.0002% or similar, and that he has 3,000 posts per day, or so. How come the small number of anti-semitic posts are not allowed to stand? The small number is not a barrier to action there.

If I ran a site which allowed the same comments, but about jewish people - "I've been fond of transfer of these subhumans for a while. Perhaps something more like