Lie Left (and Right, and Sideways, and …)
First, this dishonest bitch claimed a blogger was harassed by the Secret Service for writing a post that was “critical of Bush,” when in fact the post in question had called for his death. Then, when Patterico called Jeralyn on it, she had the gall to edit out the part of his comment that pointed this out.
November 11th, 2004 at 10:44 pm
I wasn’t the only person to call her on it, and my hat’s off to the dude who got the screenshot — otherwise we wouldn’t have had any idea of what the nutcase blogger had actually said.
I suppose it’s possible that TalkLeft wasn’t being deliberately dishonest in her original post. She might simply have been overly trusting of the leftist blogger, and simultaneously overly paranoid about the Secret Service. All I know is that, when I read her post, I thought: “Come on! There’s gotta be more to that story.”
I certainly don’t appreciate the way she’s handled the revelation that the blogger actually advocated killing Bush. Editing out the truth — and attacking the people who pointed out the truth — don’t win her any points in my book.
November 12th, 2004 at 9:02 am
I definitely agree that Patterico’s comment warranted an update and agree that the post in question (praying for GW’s death) warranted a visit by the secret service under standard policy. BUT none of this makes Talkeft either “dishonest” or a “bitch”. Definitely not a bitch.
November 12th, 2004 at 9:07 am
I disagree. The original post may have been an honest mistake, but failing to update it when alerted to the details was not, and deleting the portions of the comments that expose it was about as dishonest as it gets. Adding a bitchy comment about “[n]ot so clever attempts by Right wing bloggers, including a prosecutor, to post words in the comments to this post that will result in this site being linked to unacceptable behavior” makes her a bitch.
November 12th, 2004 at 10:36 am
Could you get any more sexist than using the b word? Resorting to rank name-calling, typical of the right. Only you degrade not only the level of discourse on your site but more importantly yourself by stooping to such levels.
November 12th, 2004 at 10:47 am
This has nothing to do with sexism, and I think you know it. If a male blogger had posted the same half-truths you intially posted, and later attempted to cover them up with the same outright lies and heavy editing that you did, rest assured I’d have equally choice words for him. The only thing typically left/right here is your alacrity with which you attempt to turn your own dishonesty into a left/right issue, along with your hair-trigger charges of sexism, both of which do seem to be annoyingly common tactics of the left.
As to “self-degrading,” give me a break. Whatever mild degradation I may cause to the debate by throwing in the occasional swear word, at least I don’t lie and cover my tracks. Note in particular that even though I am 100% certain your comment is 100% crap, I still haven’t edited it, and won’t. So with all due respect, asshole (how’s that for nice, non-sexist abuse?), you are in no position to lecture me or anyone else about lowering the level of discourse. As your fellow leftist Don Henley might put it, you’re already standing on the ground.
November 12th, 2004 at 12:42 pm
I believe that the Secret Service should investigate threats against the president. I don’t think calling for the death of an elected official is free speech and it isn’t a joke under any circumstance.
November 13th, 2004 at 7:03 pm
How essentially right-nut this line of thought becomes: it is somehow a THREAT to pray (publicly, no less!) to *GOD* that some useless creature be put out of our misery; but there is no threat, nor intimidation, in visitation at your home, by a couple of formidable agents? In the announcement that you now have a file started? No reason to suspect that one henceforth “will be watched”?
As to whether the posted prayer was a joke, even my 7-year old great niece caught that – and she is not exactly a reading machine. Indeed, what we have established irrefutably is that not only is the “prayer” a joke (albeit with a VERY sharp end), but so are most of the determinations that *GOD* represents a threat to even that malefactor ensconced in OUR White House; and that prayers should be investigated.
November 13th, 2004 at 10:51 pm
Oh, come on. “It was a prayer.” “No, it was a joke–a joke about a deity assassinating the President of the United States.” It was a joke-prayer, a prayer-joke.
It was a post in which the author appeared to state in no uncertain terms that she’d like the President to be dead, along with his entire administration. So, a very pious HA HA to that . . .
November 14th, 2004 at 12:05 am
I, too, would like to see his miserable existence terminated by Divine retribution; that does nothing to impair the point that a joke is a joke, a prayer is a prayer, and taking the form of a prayer to make a point sharper is not unheard of. Moreover, when we begin censoring either prayer OR jokes, we become less than we are (were?) and less than we should be.
November 15th, 2004 at 12:40 am
Except that it’s dishonest and silly to use both “joke” and “prayer” as shields simultaneously, unless the joke is directed at the Almighty, rather than at the readers of the blog.
It was not a real prayer. And it might have been a joke, though if so it was one of those humor-free ones.
November 15th, 2004 at 8:49 am
LMA: I think it’s pretty clear it meant as a joke, but that’s beside the point. Joke publicly about how nice it would be for the President to die, and you will get a visit from the Secret Service, and the FBI will keep a file on you. Even joking about the President’s death in a context that does not come off as a wish can draw some attention. Conservative L.A. Times cartoonist Michael Ramirez got a visit of his own over a cartoon that depicted President Bush being killed by “politics.” It was as unambiguously pro-Bush as it gets, but that didn’t keep the Secret Service from paying him a visit to make sure.
Conley: since you can’t/won’t see the difference between “censorship” and government doing its job, maybe you should volunteer to become the next crappy joke martyr. Schedule a flight for April Fool’s Day. When you arrive to check in, tell the lady at the ticket counter a real knee-slapper about how akbar it would be if Allahu would smite your plane and make it blow up mid-flight so you could hang out with a 72-year-old Virginian. Then tell her you are sending out positive vibes in hopes that somebody, anybody, will smuggle on a Semtex bomb just to make that dream a reality. Don’t threaten to do it yourself, of course; just talk about how much you hope Allah will allow it to be. Then, when they start to haul you away, say “Ha! April Fool! I’m not even Muslim! I can still board the plane, right? Right?!”
November 15th, 2004 at 1:33 pm
TL,
Why so hostile? It’s not like he called you a shrew, hag or cunt. I admire Xrlq for digesting your criticism and revising his remarks by calling you an asshole, which I think is a very “PC” term.
November 15th, 2004 at 9:32 pm
XLRQ: Let us instead picture the Government DOING it’s job, as opposed to trying to control either my thinking, or my preference in humor. Neither is within Government domain, nor even power: thus, the pretense that either may be controlled is merely intimidation of those so bovine as to be terrified. If, in fact the Government WERE doing it’s job, perhaps neither Osama nor Omar would still be loose in Afghanistan, al Zarquai in Iraq; perhaps we wouldn’t be forcing back into the Army any 50-year-old medically unfit civilians 6 years past the end of their reserve commitment, to replace the cannon fodder that our “all-volunteer” army cannot recruit; perhaps we wouldn’t be already in the position of having in four years, created a vaster deficit than had previously ever existed in the history of this nation, perhaps we in fact woould have been able to discuss issues in the election cycled passed rather than listening to Bungle et alia, lie and monger fear. But, it is the failing of the mind that typically afflicts those who would be tyrants, to substitute tyranny for negligent nationalism, to replace threat-checking with censorship of thought and deed, to terrify those who are fearful, to imprison without even excuse, those whom one thinks might oppose; and obviously you been infected.
Meanwhile, I will indeed volunteer, but not in service of any (labored) inanity such as you propose; rather, I would prefer to replace your ilk with thinking, sentient beings, whether that require that you be cured of your fear of thinking (obvious that your shrewish tongue bespeaks some intellect) or that you be taken to visit the great wizard in Oz, to have installed some substitute for a heart.
As to excusing ONE violation of common sense by citing yet another, that asks that we suspend our own common sense, and I have much use for mine, in reining in the looser uses of our Constitution and traditions by those worthy of neither.
November 15th, 2004 at 9:51 pm
Attila Girl: Dear, your immaturity is apparent: one of the finest sources of prayer/joke, and many times just as pointed as this example, may be found in New York Jewish humor throughout the forties and fifties, although I have fallen out of touch of late. Passing as “prayer” some lament about the trials imposed by someone close, and therefore not directly to be chastised, is a staple of that time and place; but often a longer dagger might also be so clothed, that could gut the incautious. One of my favorites is often cited as a curse from some other culture (most often Chinese), “May you live in interesting times.” Perhaps that only acquired the form of “prayer” on the NY comedy circuit, but such was MY first acquaintence with that irony. Many other notable examples of such “joke/prayer” are extant, if you wish to look for them.
Yes, that means that I am old enough to remember the great “Red” scare (oh, yes, the one BEFORE Bungle) and the Hoover FBI; that cured me of any delusions that Government needed to have a “file” on any substantial number of “suspects”, or that any of those “files” truly bore upon causes of suspicion, as opposed to merely an accrual of “dirt” for more practical purposes. I even remember McCarthy. THAT is what all this crap is really about, a means of reinforcing power by plying power, and diligently gathering “assets” to use against those marked or marking themselves, as opponents.
November 15th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
Let this be a lesson. Never try to reason with a guy who boasts of Mensa credentials.
November 15th, 2004 at 11:09 pm
http://patterico.com/archives/002966.php#6140
My guess is that plenty of bloggers could pass the Mensa entrance test. I think I could at age 12. But — with all due respect to Conley T. Gwinn — who wants to hang around a room full of Conley W. Gwinns?
November 15th, 2004 at 11:10 pm
Or T. Gwinns for that matter, dammit.
November 15th, 2004 at 11:10 pm
Get a damn preview button already.
November 15th, 2004 at 11:17 pm
Mensa, gotta be kidding. Did he just say TalkLeft was bovine? Vaster deficit? What a financial genius, don’t borrow when rates are cheap.
Neglient nationalism, terrify the fearful, imprison without cause, bar the door Katie or Conley will get in!
November 15th, 2004 at 11:26 pm
Mensa, eh? That explains a lot. No wonder he’s having so much trouble telling “disagrees with Conley” apart from “fear of thinking.”
November 16th, 2004 at 12:05 am
XRLQ: I will skip, for now, those who confuse ad hominen with reason. Instead I address your fear of thinking: I note, first, that neither you, NOR any of your fellow thinkers, address ANY of the factual recitation, nor any of the issues raised therein, as to whether my thought or preference in humor is within purview or control of the government: is that what you disagree with? Or is the numerous examples of government failing to even acknowledge it’s duty? Is it the question of whether this administration has used constantly, every resource, including outright, knowing lies, then lies about those lies, to terrify those prone to paralysis through terror? (By the way, TalkLeft was neither the object of my reference to terrifying the bovine, nor demonstrably so much terrified as outraged -unless “andy” has information beyond the ken of the little war between TalkLeft and Patterico?) Is it a question of the inevitable consequences of borrowing having a long-term deleterious impact upon our economy, and sticking our children with more debt per capita than the average cost of a home (even adjusted for inflation; AND recognising that more than one person inhabits the average house, yet EACH of them will owe more on the national debt than ANY of them will owe for the house? Of having eventually to repay at least some of that debt, at interest rates and gross costs that may exceed the Carter/Reagan rates? Is it the citation of recall of so-called “Ready Reserve”, regardless of whether they have in fact completed their after-active-service obligations, and have receive discharges so stating? Is it embarrassment that despite available military strength augmented by pledges of full support from NATO, that we have accomplished little in the legitimate (although still undeclared) war in Afghanistan? Is it sensitivity about the failure in Afghanistan being almost totally a matter of choice by this callous and cynical administration, by diverting those resources into the extraneous (and ALSO undeclared) conflict in Iraq? Is it factual, then, at all, this disagreement you maintain?
Or is it simply that you have so long refused to think about so many of these issues, that you have fallen into a mentally atrophied state with regard to our heroic Bungle, and CANNOT think of things that betray/portray his base motives and evil tactics?
Whatever the nature and cause of your fear or failure, however, I am willing to work with you to seek a cure, if you wish to be whole once more.
November 16th, 2004 at 12:14 am
Patterico: since you brought the matter up on THIS blog, I will respond here: check your context! In addition to avoiding using the ad hominen, I do not “brag” of my Mensa credentials – I responded on your blog to an attack sarcastically accusing me of being, if I recall, a Mensa nerd.
Next issue: who was reasoning with me on this issue? I looked and looked, and found only a rather indirect and very awkward scenario proposed, perhaps intended to reduce to absurdity, my position – but since it did not address any of the germaine OF my position, I shrugged it off. Is that wrong of me?
November 16th, 2004 at 1:49 am
Patterico: while I was entirely accurate in that I cited Mensa as a retort to another poster using Mensa to berate me, I publicly confess that I probably HAD asked for it, in an earlier post of my own; and I had apparently confused that with one of the blogs (from which I am now banned, if that suits YOUR quest for revenge) wherein the “Mensa nerd” phrase had been fired at me. Thanks for posting the link, which I recognised only after I had presented my defense – at least I can NOW get my story straight.
November 16th, 2004 at 7:29 am
Mr. Gwinn:
This is a very, very simple matter. It is the job of the Secret Service to keep the President safe and in one piece. This is accomplished by a great many things, one of which is investigating any possible threats to the President. They cannot afford to let this job slide by dismissing anything as a joke. This would be similar to a 911 operator dismissing a call as a joke just because she heard background noise of people laughing, or the complaint sounded utterly ridiculous. I don’t know how the system in your city works, but we run on EVERYTHING that is called in to 911, no matter how silly or suspicious it sounds. Because there is always the chance that there is a seriously problem that needs to be taken care of.
I joke about killing people all the time. I’m allowed to do that, after all, with the lovely bit of free speech. But you know what? No matter what you say, you have to take responsibility for your words. Whether it’s pissing off a friend because you said something unkind about their beliefs or having a chat with the Secret Service because you joking threatened the life of the president, free speech is only a guarantee that you may say something, NOT that you can say something with no consequences.
From your responses, I can’t help but get the impression you mostly object to the Secret Service paying this girl a visit because you happen to not like the President. You are attempting to take the argument from the very simple, single issue that it is – someone joking about the President’s death – and make it into a lovely round of how much Bush sucks. The funny thing is, of course, the Secret Service doing *its* job has absolutely no influence on the rest of the departments in the government. That’s like complaining because the security guards at a company are doing their job while the rest of the corporation is hosing up. It’s not like the security guards have a damn bit of influence on the rest of it.
I can’t speak for any of the other gentlemen (and women?) who have commented, but I can tell you I couldn’t be less interested in why you dislike Bush. If that’s what you want to talk about, find a more appropriate forum that is actually concerned about the axe you want to grind.
Get back on topic, please.
PS – If someone offends you by accusing you to be a MENSA nerd, the mature option is to rise above the insult. Dick waving never does anything but make both sides of the bickering look like fucking idiots.
November 16th, 2004 at 11:15 am
The dishonesty is blatant.
If TL had to remove the words to “avoid her own Secret Service visit” (Which, as others have ably pointed out, hasn’t concerned her before now), then she understands what the Secret Service is looking for – and when they come.
Thus, leaving that tidbit out is deliberate, willful misdirection and dishonest.
She proves your point to justify her editing.
November 16th, 2004 at 1:45 pm
Addison: I guess that some small part of your posting is correct: I do NOT like Bungle. However, since you insist that we ignore the PATTERNS of mis-behavior throughout this administration, and deal with this SS incident as though there were no context (one in which the SS is simply another of Bungle’s malicious tools to undercut the liberties, and the access to means of redress for those abridged freedoms). So, ON TOPIC, I object to this mis-use of the dedicated personnel of the Secret Service, to have them running around the country crushing dissent by “starting files” on any who express vehement disagreement with the most unworthy being ever to aspire to humanity. I object to the lunacy with which this “prayer/joke” was believed, or claimed to have been believed, to represent any evidence of a potential threat. AND I believe it to be (ha ha) self-evident that such mis-use of the Secret Service will not serve to defend the indefensible, but rather to reveal to the apathetic, the real nature of the threat we face – the face in the White House.
November 16th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
Addison: perhaps I am wrong: does Bungle even ASPIRE to humanity?
Moreover, as is evident in my postings, and Patterico’s link, I am, despite advanced years, not overly given to maturity.
Finally, is it then your contention that the purpose, the sole purpose, of this thread is to agree that TalkLeft is reprehensible, even though NOT a Repugnant? If so, then I have indeed spoken out of turn.
November 16th, 2004 at 2:22 pm
Sure, Conley. And when the Secret Service paid a visit to Michael Ramirez, that was really just an overhanded effort by President Bush to silence his non-critics, right?
November 16th, 2004 at 2:39 pm
XRLQ: thanks for clearing THAT up for me! If there is such a stringent limit on the arguments marshalled to illuminate one’s argument and POV, I guess I may get banned from many of the blogs, and the hosts who have banned me already my not be such paranoid perverts as I had assumed.
BTW, that would not in any way undermine my determination to afford you any assistance that I can, in reaching for mental wholeness, should you elect to undertake the effort.
The application of indiscriminate terrorisation to the entire populace is a time-tested means of “cowing” that populace; and Ramirez got his visit purely because he has substantial access to the public opinion, through his cartoons. Lash them lightly, but convincingly, in case they ever deem it necessary to disagree with the head Bungle. (The visit to Ramirez WAS out of line, the product of what reasonable purpose OTHER than to intimidate?)
November 16th, 2004 at 6:47 pm
This guy is a much funnier troll than Clod. Shall we give this one a pet name?
November 16th, 2004 at 6:48 pm
I’d call him the “Con Man,” but that would falsely imply that his silliness actually fools someone. How about “Mensa Man,” instead?
November 16th, 2004 at 8:15 pm
Mensa Man it is.
November 16th, 2004 at 8:21 pm
I notice that you have again retreated into ad hominen – if, ever, you find an issue that you can argue, or a fact that supports any of your posted arguments or positions, I suppose that you will post it.
In the meantime, I renew my offer to help XRLQ’s impairment, whether fear of thinking, or loss of the power to think. And, I apologise to Patterico, for my blind assumption that expression EQUALS thought, for now it is evident that I was srong about that; so, should you feel left out, Patterico, feel free to schedule with XLRQ, a joint session to relieve your impediment to thought, as well.
November 16th, 2004 at 9:08 pm
I don’t know. On second thought, “Mensa Man” sounds too respectful. How about “Mensa Boy”?
Don’t think of it as ad hominem, Mensa Boy. Think of it as hazing. If you successfully complete initiation, you can become one of us.
November 16th, 2004 at 9:09 pm
What does the “T” stand for, Mensa Boy? I have noticed that you have a lot of wit. Does it rhyme with wit?
November 16th, 2004 at 10:42 pm
Patterico: certainly, the “hazing” does little to deter me – I continue to answer equally attacks and arguments+facts. The only question that remains, is: Can you demonstrate equal versatility, or is your “wit” as limited as your argument? Oh, BTW, being a leftist, should I find offense in the possibly racist usage of “Boy”?
I take it that seeing you posting twice, your tag-team partner in the childish name-calling, is hors de combat? Take solace in the fact that we of the left fringe generally disdain the tactic common on the right, of summarily executing the disabled opponent – we sometimes even relish the potential of a future engagement, when you have recovered from the injuries we have inflicted.
November 17th, 2004 at 8:18 am
Conley:
Ashton, is that you? (Long story, previous online community).
If not, you’ve got a twin out there somewhere.
“Addison: I guess that some small part of your posting is correct: I do NOT like Bungle.”
Are you talking to the right person?
“However, since you insist that we ignore the PATTERNS of mis-behavior … and deal with this SS incident as though there were no context”
No, you’re the one trying to drop context. The context is, you threaten the President, the SS drops by for a visit. You appear to have threatened the President, the SS visits. This is hardly a “new” thing that you can blame Bush for. (But apparently, that fact won’t stop you).
November 17th, 2004 at 11:56 am
Addison:
The full context, if you please: Every instrument of suppression available to our government has been applied at every opportunity, to ensure that there is no dissent – and if there WERE dissent, it would have to be taken offshore. The SS in this instance is merely being used as a hammer, and we are all viewed as nails. Other administrations seem to have exercised a bit more disgression than Der Bungle’s; and one cannot blame the difference entirely upon 9/11: this rat was isolating himself from dissent during the 2000 campaign, although he lacked the power at that time to squash the dissenters. Now that he HAS that power, and a marvelous – albeit outside the chain of causation – excuse, he merely sneers at those who sould have dissented, and has the SS haul them away. The treatment by the SS, of harmless and inoffensive persons, for the crime of wearing the wrong t-shirt, has been unrelentingly harsh, sometimes even brutal. The SS has become a willing accomplice to this madman.
November 18th, 2004 at 9:59 am
Mr. Gwinn:
Oh, please. Let’s put this in perspective. There are plenty of ways in which the government can intimidate the populace. And it’s arguable whether they’re doing it at any given time. But the Secret Service has ALWAYS been in charge of investigating threats upon the President’s life since its inception. Whether the President is Republican, Democratic, pink, purple, white with yellow stripes, or from the planet Mars.
It is their sworn DUTY to do this, and they take their duty seriously, as they should. They would be damn stupid to automatically dismiss anything as a joke. Because if they did, then gee whiz, the best way to whack the president would be to disguise your intentions AS A JOKE.
Last time I checked, “I was only kidding” isn’t much of a defense.
Any line of work that involves the protection of people’s lives can’t afford to have a sense of humor about information. Just like the 911 system can’t ignore possible pranks, the Secret Service can’t ignore possible threats because there IS no way of knowing until it has been followed up on.
If the idiot that got herself a visit from the Secret Service had limited herself to just whining about the President (as you are doing) and not asking for his untimely demise, I can guaran-damn-tee you that she would have been of no interest to them. There are more than enough people whining about the President right now, and a hell of a lot of them are more influential and widely read then her – but they’re all smart enough to not be gazing heavenward and asking for someone’s death.
Not a difficult concept.
The voice of dissent is going strong in this country, and cannot (thank goodness) be stopped, thanks to the fact that we’re a country of opinionated bastards. If you somehow think that dissent has been squashed, I suggest you clean the wax out of your ears and listen around.
November 18th, 2004 at 11:30 am
Ah, but dissent has been repressed in this country. Didn’t you know El Niño Menso is posting his opinions from a prison cell? It’s only a matter of time before the guards discover the laptop his friends smuggled in for him, jam the WiFi signal he’s pilfering from guy across the street, and silence him completely.
November 18th, 2004 at 4:34 pm
In which prior administrations (in the US) did wearing t-shirts cause the SS to physically bear the wearer to the local police with orders to arrest the perpetrator? I which prior administrations (since Hoover) did voicing dissent or disagreement – let alone carrying a sign – both cause the SS to detain, and to generate that infamous “file”? Certainly none in my lengthy memory.
Which prior administrations publically labelled those who dissent as enemies of the state, traitors, giving aid and comfort, etc.? (Those statements are in the public record by both administration heads and members of Congress.)
At least, to date, we who differ are not automatically excommunicated, nor barred from employment.
November 18th, 2004 at 10:36 pm
BTW, for those who didn’t catch it, “But the Secret Service has ALWAYS been in charge of investigating threats upon the President’s life since its inception. ” is NOT TRUE. The Secret Service did not assume that duty until, if memory serves, McKinley was shot in 1901.