damnum absque injuria

July 15, 2006

Weekend Doucheblogging

Others wiser than I have often said, Never wrestle with a douche, it wastes your time, annoys the douche, and leaves you feeling disturbingly “fresh.” Being less wise than them, by definition, I’m going to go against my better judgment and take on the Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere one last time before I MoveOn. Why, you might ask? One reason, and one reason only: far too many on the left side of the blogosphere actually seem to admire the guy, and quote him as though he were a credible source. His widely quoted attack on right wing bloggers for attacking that psycho Deb Frisch is as good a post as any to establish that he is not.

I should warn you upfront that this post is going to be an extremely tedious read. If, after reading Patterico’s rebuttal you are already convinced that Glenn is a douche, then it may not be worth your while reading this post to examine just how many different angles of douchitude he has exhibited in the post. If, on the other hand, you’re like Greenwald’s fawn, Q&O commenter Mona, who insists that apart from one itsy bitsy boo-boo about Patterico, Greenwald’s crap is ice cream, then it behooves you to read it. Mona writes:

My view is that Greenwald’s post is correct, but contains one example that is not. And that is my view whether folks here announce him decimated, or folks there crown him Pope.

Did I say “apart from one itsy bitsy boo-boo?” Actually, later in that same thread she attempted to wish even that error away, arguing that a 2 1/2 year old link by a then-obscure blogger makes Greenwald’s identified boner fake but accurate:

But a commenter at Greenwald’s just posted some items from your blog that cause me to question whether I was a tad quick in assuming you’d been wronged. You are familiar with Misha; you welcomed him to your own place, and described his blog as great.

Yeah, and the same frickin’ post also describes yours truly as “a luminary,” so take that for whatever it’s worth. Mona continues:

You did that while referencing — with no criticism and a hearty welcome — Misha’s eliminationist rhetoric about judges stated in your own comments section.

Apparently, subtlety is lost on Mona, who took Patterico’s reference to “the always controversial Emperor Misha I” as … what, exactly? A backhanded compliment? Memo to Mona: when people respond to your brilliant insights by rolling their eyes and saying “O……kay,” that doesn’t really mean they are “okay” with what you just said. It means they are being polite. Patterico the power-blogger probably wouldn’t be that polite nowadays, but as a then-obscure blogger who was barely cutting his teeth, he was a bit of a wimp toward other, already established bloggers like Misha. So what? Even if he hadn’t distanced himself from Misha’s goofy rhetoric at all, WTF has any of that to do with his more recent criticism of Frisch’s psychotic ramblings?

Adding a final dose of irony, Mona topped off her rant with this:

In light of the foregoing, I’m not so sure you are in a good position to be leveling charges of “dishonesty” at Greenwald.

O-kay. Er… I mean … that’s the word, coming from the always controversial Mona.

Of course, if Mona were just one random commenter, pointing out that Greenwald’ post is garbage from top to bottom might not be a worthwhile endeavor. Unfortunately, she’s far from his only sycophant. TGirsch, a normally sensible if left-wing blogger quoted him on this very blog, as a supposed rebuttal to a post of mine that said nothing about Frisch’s politics at all, apart from my use of the category “Liberal Morons” to file it. Even Jon Henke, no moonbat he, offers this pig a healthy dose of lipstick. So all in all, Greenwald gets a hell of a lot more traction than your average douche does, even after his most obvious error – attacking Patterico for not criticizing the likes of Ann Coulter – had been exposed. Thus, it’s worth wading through his entire post just to see how much of his ramblings hold up. Short answer: not much. Longer answer: some right-wingers support the death penalty, at least one right-winger has Misha on his blogroll but failed to condemn his hyperbolic rhetoric within the permissible 10 hour timeframe, and most (but not all) of Greenwald’s links actually point to other web sites.

Proceed at your own risk.

Prominent right-wing blogger today calls for the murder of Supreme Court Justices – the Right fails to condemn it

That sounds pretty damning, until you consider that (1) no one called for the murder of Supreme Court Justices, (2) “the right” is not a religion, political party or any other entity worthy of being capitalized, (3) no one had any duty to reply to Misha’s rhetoric, and therefore cannot be reasonably said to have “failed” to condemn it if they haven’t discussed it at all, and (4) numerous right-wing bloggers have in fact condemned it. Apart from those four minor details, however, the title is spot-on.

If your only source for news was [sic, doesn't anybody use the friggin' subjunctive anymore?!] reading right-wing blogs, you would have thought that the most significant world event in the last few days was that some crazy woman who nobody ever heard of before (someone by the name of “Deb Frisch”)

Actually, a number of prominent right wing bloggers had heard of her before, as she’s been a career troll for years now. I’ll take Glenn’s word that she never commented on his site, but question the logic of “I’ve never heard of X, therefore, no one has ever heard of X.”

left some vile comments on Jeff Goldstein’s blog, a venue which itself is devoted to some of the most vile, deranged and psychosexually disturbed commentary that can be found on the Internet.

Really! Then how come not one of those three links point to the site in question? Wouldn’t ya think that if his venue were truly deranged and/or disturbed, this could be proven by linking to him directly rather than to a site that is sadly, obsessed with Goldstein himself? In any event, anyone who can argue with a straight face that Xrlq Goldstein’s site is as deranged or psychosexually disturbed as Frisch’s vile comments, let alone the other crap that can be found elsewhere on the Internet, is either an uncommonly bad liar, or a newbie who has never actually used Al Gore’s Internets.

Virtually every right-wing blogger spent the weekend focused on this solemn and grave matter, milking it for all it was worth.

Virtually every one? Really! Let’s try testing that theory. Tracking down “virtually every right-wing blogger” is a tall order, so let’s try limiting ourselves to the Old Dominion Blogger Alliance, right-wing bloggers all, in the order in which they appear on my sidebar. Commonwealth Conservative? Nothing on Frisch. One Man’s Trash? Nada. SW Virginia Law Blog? Nope. Rich Sincere? Not as such. Reason and Revolution? “Frisch” out of that, sorry. Q&O? Wowee, two hits this time. No, wait – both entries are responses to Greenwald’s post. How many were there at the time Greenwald weighed in? None.

OK, this is getting ridiculous. Seeing as virtually every right-wing blogger was obsessed with Deb Frisch last weekend, somebody in this right-wing alliance has got to have said something. I’ll bet The Not So Daily Me weighed in, eh? No, sorry. Cat House Chat? Surely anyone with a name so “catty” as that would be on Deb Frisch like white on rice. What sayeth the kitty? Meeee–no, though she does have a thing or two to say about Misha, whose rhetoric Greenwald will next accuse conservatives of ignoring. More on that later.

OK, screw Virginia. No, not really; I love Virginia, and am grateful to the ODBA for welcoming me into their club, but c’mon, people, get with the program. Didn’t y’all know that all real right wing bloggers are supposed to obsess about Deb Frisch? Did Rove’s memo to the dextrosphere manage to bypass this commonwealth completely? I suppose I could continue down the blogroll but I’m getting bored, so instead let’s head ewst to check with the granddaddy of them all non-liberal bloggers, Glenn Non-Greenwald. His Frisch posts consisted of (1) a note about the denial of service attacks on Goldstein’s blog (which, for those who obtain all their news from Greenland, never happened), (2) a link to a lame article about the controversy itself, and (3) a brief quote from Jeff Goldstein to alert everyone that the site was back up. Search the Puppy Blender’s archives for “Frisch,” and those three entries are all you’ll find. Search it for “Greenwald,” and you’ll get 11.

In other words, when Greenwald said “virtually every right-wing blogger,” he meant “a few right-wing bloggers here and there.” Apparently, this guy’s big on hyperbole, at least when it’s his own hyperbole, and not that of some right-winger facetiously calling for mass executions of judges. Other people’s shit stinks, don’t you know.

Many implied that this unknown commenter was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals, and exploited the drama to argue that the “Left” must approve of these comments because they didn’t denounce the comments enough times or with enough vigor.

Seeing as Greenwald linked to 0 bloggers who implied that Deborah Frisch was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals, I can only assume that by “many” he meant “none.” Or perhaps by “implied that this unknown commenter was some sort of towering figure of great significance among liberals” he meant “didn’t actually come out and say this unknown-to-our-Douche-In-Chief commenter was not a towering figure of great significance among liberals,” in which case “many” could mean one – Confederate Yankee. And even he improved his argument as he went along; while starting off on the wrong foot with the inapt reference to crickets chirping, he later acknowledged the appropriate condemnations from NewsHog and Jeralyn Merritt, while regretting that “they and other smaller liberal bloggers with similar sentiments made up 50% or less of those commenting from their side,” which is hardly the same thing as complaining about the fact that countless liberal bloggers declined to weigh in on the matter at all. Unfortunately, Greenwald’s updates and subsequent posts betray no analogous learning curve.

The blogger Misha of the blog Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is one of the most linked-to and popular bloggers in the right-wing blogosphere. He’s the 42nd most linked-to blogger on the Internet, and he is in the blogroll of scores of right-wing bloggers, such as Michelle Malkin and Captian’s Quarters Blog [bad link in Greenwald's original].

Yeah, and so what? For a while there, Bill Quick and I weren’t exactly on speaking terms, but we were still on each other’s blogrolls. Even the ultimate cupid stunt, Debbie Schlussel, remains on mine, albeit identified as such. Judging by his own blogroll, which he prefaces with the phrase “Blogs I Read” (a representation very few bloggers would ever make about their blogrolls) does Greenwald really agree to be held personally responsible for condemning every arguably offensive statement ever made by Andrea Harris, Andrew Sullivan, Atrios, “Reason,” National Review, John Cole, or any of Kevin Drum’s commenters, to name just a few of the most obvious examples?

He wrote a post today discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan and here is what he said:

“Of course, this is the same Supreme Court that earlier decided in Kelo that private property rights only matter as long as a private company doesn’t offer a better deal, above or below the table, to local authorities, so one shouldn’t really be surprised. The unelected, black-robed tyrants have a long history of not giving a fig about the Constitution if they don’t like what it says, not to mention a long tradition of usurping the powers of the legislative and executive branch by ruling by judicial fiat. . . .

Try doing anything to those mutilating darlings of the Supremes in order to extract life-saving intel from them, and then wait for the Supreme Whores to decide that you were “humiliating” them in doing so.

Five ropes, five robes, five trees.
Some assembly required.
[Emphasis added by Greenwald, who declined to acknowledge as much.]

OK, so this unemployed (unemployable? – h/t Dan Riehl) lawyer who once represented scum of the earth Matthew Hale on quasi-First Amendment grounds now objects to people using overheated rhetoric. OK, fine. Criticize the Rottweiler, then, that’s fine, but let’s try to be remotely consistent, mmkay?

He’s advocating that the five Supreme Court Justices in the Hamdan majority be hanged from the neck until they’re dead.

Like hell he is. First, he never said anything about them dying; Greenwald simply made that part up. For all we know, maybe the Rottweiler just wants to hang them from the neck until they say uncle, then let them go if they promise to be good boys and girls from now on. Second, and more importantly, has anyone friggin’ heard of hyperbole?! Oh yes, some then-employed attorney named Glenn Greenwald did, while writing of one of his most infamous clients, white supremacist / would-be lawyer / convicted solicitor of murder Matthew Hale:

“They are probably trying to take things he said along the lines of political advocacy and turn it into a crime,” Mr. Greenwald said. “The F.B.I. may have interpreted this protected speech as a threat against a federal judge, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric.”

In other words, when Greenwald’s white supremacist client solicits the murder of an individual judge who had ruled against him, that was just heated rhetoric. When Misha lobs obviously overblown rhetoric at a group of appellate judges he dislikes politically, that’s “calling for the murder of Supreme Court Justices. One possibility is that like the ACLU, Greenwald has more respect for whacko fringe white supremacists than he has for conservatives. Another is that he’ll give you a fair shake, but only if you pay him. I don’t know which is worse.

In any event, this is all about Misha, right? Surely the Doucheman isn’t crass enough to use Misha’s intemperate comments to smear the entire right wing of the blogosphere … is he?! Um… yes.

His homicidal formulation is a play on the more standard call of the Right for American journalists to be hanged — “Journalists. Rope. Tree. Some assembly required” — another death call which, it just so happens, Misha also issued just a few days ago.

OK, so if Misha makes a bad joke once, it’s just Misha talking, but if he makes it a second time and sells (or attempts to sell – we don’t know what kind of response he’s gotten) a T-shirt repeating it a third time, suddenly it’s no longer just Misha talking, but a “more standard call of the Right [sic].” How is it that one solitary man can become a spokesman for The Right solely by twice repeating himself? Can I do that, too? It’s worth a try, so here goes:

  1. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere.
  2. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere.
  3. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere.

OK, I think we have a consensus now.

Misha’s deranged pleas that journalists and Supreme Court Justices be murdered extends to his comment section, where one finds things such as this:

By commenter Robert Huntingdon, whoever the hell that is.

“I said shortly after 9/11, NCLivingBrit, that the only way we would win this war was to turn the entirety of the islamic territories into a radioactive glass parking lot. I’d just as soon not see us do that, however. I just can’t sanguinely write off a few billion people that way, even if the world would be a better place afterwards. But unless the traitors within are eliminated, they will eventually bring us down. [Emphasis added by Herr Douche, again without so noting.]

Now that Greenwald has stooped to trolling through comments sections, do we really need to go further? After all, just imagine what kind of a field day right-wing bloggers would have if Kevin Drum’s comment section – or anyone else’s – were fair game.

Greenwald goes on to quote another random commenter, this time some choad named juandos:

And this:

“Why has Bush been such a mighty disappointment (at least to me) in regards to this sort of action by the terrorist towel heads? . . . I think we could help the terrorist towel heads shed a few excess pounds via head removal system instead of Jenny Craig…”

This time, the überdouche actually managed to remove emphasis markings that had been in the original. Whatever. Greenwald then goes on to quote a somewhat better-known commenter who calls himself “twolaneflash.” You might have seen this guy commenting on FoxNews. Or maybe not:

And this:
“Winning the hearts and minds of muslims to democracy and capitalism is like separating the stink from shit. Good luck with that.”

OK, time to recap. On the one hand, we have a psych(o) professor leveling threats against somebody’s toddler. On the other, we have one blogger prone to overheated rhetoric, plus three commenters on that same blog whose combined notoriety pales in comparison to Frisch’s. From this, we’re supposed to infer some sort of pattern, I guess.

But what’s so very confounding is that of all the countless right-wing bloggers who spent the weekend so very horrified

Actually, Ace, Insty and LGF’s entries don’t sound all that “horrified” after all. Of course, you weren’t actually supposed to follow those links, just to “ooh” and “ahh” over how many of them there were, and take Greenwald’s word that all those links actually say what he claims they say. You certainly weren’t meant to notice that the words “spent” and “very” both link to the same post, thereby making one example look to the naked eye as if it were two. Once you subtract the duplicate link and the two anything-but-horrified entries, you’re left with a whopping 3 supposed examples – which, you may recall, add up to virtually every right-wing blogger.

about the comments of that influential political leader of liberalism, Deb Frisch, or who lamented that she wasn’t condemned aggressively enough for her idiotic comments to Jeff Goldstein, none of them has condemned these calls by their fellow prominent right-wing blogger for American journalists and Supreme Court justices to be hung by trees until their neck snaps (indeed, one of the right-wing bloggers joining in the weekend sermons against this mean Deb Frisch rhetoric was that Beacon of Right-wing propriety, Misha himself).

What happened?

Gee, I wonder. Could it have anything to do with the fact that Misha’s overheated rhetoric has nothing to do with Frisch’s psychotic threats against a toddler, a level none of the referenced bloggers, Misha included, would stoop to even rhetorically? Or with the fact that none of the bloggers in question read Misha’s blog on a regular basis? Of the five “countless” right-wing bloggers cited by Greenwald, only two – Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin – even list Misha on their blogrolls. Does anyone seriously believe that those two read Misha even on a weekly basis, let alone on the twice-daily basis they would have needed in order to catch him during the 10-hour window between Misha’s 3:05 a.m. CDT post and Douchie’s 2:18 p.m. EDT rejoinder.

They all seemed to find such disturbing rhetoric so upsetting, such cause for great alarm this weekend, when it came from an obscure person in some comment section,

Unlike those really famous guys from Misha’s comment section, Robert Huntingdon, juandos and twolaneflash, whose names appear on the front page of the New York Times every day.

but they have not said a word of condemnation about these death calls from a prominent blogger on the Right. Nor have any of them condemned the calls by Misha’s readers for Islamic countries to be turned into radioactive parking lots or for the death of the towel heads by other means. Why not?

Well gee whiz, if they don’t read Misha’s frickin’ blog, they must read each and every comment to it, right?!

Nor did they condemn another prominent right-wing blogger, Dean Esmay, when he presciently called for the hanging of NYT reporters way back in December, long before the johnny-came-lately noose advocates like Misha did so.

Like just about every other word in Greenwald’s post, this claim is a bald-faced lie. If you followed the link – as usual, he’s betting that you didn’t – you’ll know that what he actually called for was criminal trials against government leakers, followed by their lawful execution for treason upon conviction. He didn’t call for any action at all to be taken against the NYT reporters who printed the leaks; Greenwald simply made that up.

Nor did they condemn right-wing radio host (and guest host for Sean Hannity) Michael Reagan’s call for Howard Dean to be hanged.

Media Matters -where have I heard that name before? Would that be the pet project of David Brock, who now admits to lying in the early 1990s but expects us all to accept him as a credible source of news today? Why yes, that is Brock’s outfit, isn’t it. IF Reagan actually said what Greenwald claims he said, why can’t he come up with a credible source to corroborate it? Assuming arguendo that Reagan did indeed say what Glenn “I am not a douche!” Greenwald and David “Trust Me” Brock claim he said, WTF does that have to do with any right-wing bloggers? Are bloggers under some duty to scour not only the Internet but other media as well in search of stuff to condemn? And if so, then “why the silence” on Greenwald’s part in failing to condemn PETA, Greenpeace, Ward Churchill, Dan Rather and every jerk who’s faked a hate crime against himself/herself?

Nor, for that matter, have any of them condemned the calls

Let’s have a show of hands. Which of the following is the least credible thing a blogger – presumably, one who does not covet the title “Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere” – can do?

  1. Link to original sources, while lying about what those sources say, hoping you’ll never take the time to check after allowing the mouse to hover over the links.
  2. Link to secondary sources of dubious credibility, such as SadlyNo! or MediaMatters, and hope you won’t notice the difference if you do follow the links.
  3. Link to his own goddamned site, hoping you’re too stupid or too lazy even to place the mouse over a link to see WTF it is.

by David Horowitz for the names, home addresses and security systems of NYT editors and reporters to be published on the Internet,

Yet another lie; the article focuses on why it is wrong for the NYT to do the same to top government officials for no good reason. The closest thing Horowitz does to calling for anything is to link to an unrelated post by someone else Greenwald knows you haven’t heard of, and therefore doesn’t bother to name.

nor have any of them condemned publication by right-wing blogger Dan Riehl of the satellite photographs of the home of the NYT Publisher

What’s to condemn? Riehl’s post was in response to the same indviduals having done the same to Karl Rove and other Washington operatives who, unlike NYT staff, might actually pose some interest to terrorists. Goose, gander, etc. Besides, it’s not as though the bloggers Greenwald called out are afraid to attack Riehl when they feel it is warranted. For better or for owrse, it’s been known to happen before.

(unsurprisingly, Riehl himself, along with Misha, was among the right-wing bloggers sermonizing this weekend about the terrible comments made to Goldstein).

And that was bad because …. remind me why, exactly?

Nor have they condemned comments from the Grand Victim himself, Jeff Goldstein, that are reprehensible and revolting by any measure.

Lessee … at this point can we trust any links from Glenn Greenwald or to that Goldstein-obsessed site that is Sadly, No!? Sadly, no. Nor would it be relevant even if we could, as one person’s bad behavior is no excuse for another’s.

Let us stipulate that there are crazed, insane lunatics and repugnant individuals on both the Right and the Left. Any honest person would readily acknowledge that.

I would, but it’s worth noting that while this statement is almost certainly true, Greenwald hasn’t done a f’ing thing to show that it is.

But while right-wing bloggers have to dig under rocks to find obscure commenters making reprehensible comments,

Note the shifting definition of “rock,” whereby a well known, frequently abusive troll cannot be mentioned out loud without digging under a rock, while Misha’s three world-famous commenters are not hiding under any rocks at all.

many of the most prominent bloggers and opinion leaders on the Right routinely and blithely call for people’s deaths,

Translated: one prominent right-wing blogger uses overheated rhetoric on the level of “I could just kill that so-and-so,” and at least one other right-winger supports the death penalty. Did you really need to wade through three tons of Greenwald’s bullshit to figure that out?

and some even post their home addresses on the Internet for anyone who wants help making those recommendations turn into a reality.

Yeah, it sure is a good thing we don’t have any left wing newspapers printing home or vacation addresses of prominent government figures — oh wait, that’s exactly what the right-wingers were responding to. Oh, nevermind.

The most popular right-wing authors sell millions of books by attacking their political opponents as treasonous and mentally ill.

While left-wing authors sell their millions by doing what, exactly? Showering their political opponents with praise?

Nobody needs to wade through the depths of comment sections to find this rhetoric on the Right,

Nobody, of course, except Glenn Greenwald, who did exactly that when harping on Misha’s commenters – not to mention a T-shirt he conveniently neglected to mention was sold by Misha himself.

nor does anyone need to seize on totally obscure individuals and — a la Ward Churchill or Deb Frisch —

University lecturers, both. That’s not a job just anybody can get. Try applying for a job like that someday.

absurdly try to transform them into some sort of political leader

This is one of those wild claims that Greenwald usually accompanies with misleading links. This time there are no links, suggesting even he knows he’s full of shit.

in order to impose responsibility for their moronic statements on people who never even heard of them before.

Which would be really bad, if anyone except Moran and Confederate Yankee had done such a thing. Seeing as those two are the only known offenders, why not argue with them rather than attempting to make everyone else guilty by association?

One need only peruse the routine hate-mongering

Liberalspeak for “dissenting from liberal orthodoxy.”

of the Right’s opinion leaders and their prominent bloggers — the Malkins and the Mishas and the David Horowitzs and the Ann Coulters —

This is another example of links missing because Greenwald can’t evne bulllshit his way out of this one. Malkin is a prominent blogger now because she was a prominent journalist then, and remains so to this day. Horowitz writes semi-bloggish commentaries here and there, but can scarcely be called a prominent blogger, and to the best of my knowledge, Coulter does not blog at all.

and one will find more hateful and deranged rhetoric than one can stomach. And it is almost never condemned, including by those who self-righteously parade themselves around as Defenders of Civility and have the audacity to demand that others condemn such rhetoric when it comes from far less significant and influential corners.

This lie has been pretty thoroughly debunked by Patterico already, but he’s hardly the only person who has called out any of the right-wing bloggers or journalists who Greenwald dishonestly accuses of being hateful, but who can be reasonably be criticized for having a rhetorical style that is over the top. Captain Ed has done so as well, I’m sure there are other examples of Greenwald had even looked for them before spouting off about how they supposedly don’t exist.

Based on the grieving rituals we had to endure this weekend over Jeff Goldstein’s sensibilities, I presume it’s fair to infer that the silence from right-wing bloggers over Misha’s calls for the deaths of journalists and Supreme Court Justices means — as one of the most-cited sermons put it — that “one might be tempted to think that this absolute lack of condemnation was a tacit acceptance of these tactics.”

That would indeed be a fair inference in the case of Confederate Yankee, or maybe Rick Moran. It’s a completely idiotic inference to make about anyone else.

One might be particularly tempted to think that given that such rhetoric flows not merely from obscure commenters on right-wing blogs, but also from the Right’s leading bloggers and pundits, with virtually no condemnation of any kind.

Yup, Greenwald has indeed “given” himself that, all right, despite only being able to name one prominent blogger who had engaged in over the top rhetoric, and none at all who said anything remotely comparable to what the not-so-obscure Deborah Frisch said.

Glenn has repatedly refused to apologize to Patterico or any of the other people he libeled, and instead whines about Patty calling him a douche. I agree. Calling an überdouche like Greenwald a mere “douche” is a bit like calling Bill Gates just another businessman or Babe Ruth just another baseball player. Greenwald is not just a garden variety douche; he’s the Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere, the John Edward of blogdom. Any bloggers who continue to link him as an information source rather than as something to be mocked should henceforth be called the doucheosphere. When that happens, please remember that I’m the guy who named the doucheosphere (though admittedly not the first to use that word in any context).

UPDATE: Welcome, readers of Patterico, AIR and Glenn Non-Douche.

82 Responses to “Weekend Doucheblogging”

  1. Patterico’s Pontifications » Xrlq’s Grand Fisking Says:

    [...] Xrlq has a grand fisking of Greenwald’s “failure to condemn” post, here. [...]

  2. CraigC Says:

    If your only source for news was [sic, doesn’t anybody use the friggin’ subjunctive anymore?!]

    I hate to be a pedant, but the subjunctive doesn’t always follow the use of “if.” In this case, “was” is correct.

  3. CraigC Says:

    Oh yeah, nice fisking. :D

  4. Patterico Says:

    CraigC,

    I don’t want the thread to get off on a whole grammatical tangent, but I think “was” is wrong. Greenwald believes he is *not* talking to an audience whose sole source of news is right-wing blogs. (Instead, their source of news and information, like Greenwald’s, is left-wing commentary and blogs written by guys with names like “Retardo” — but I digress.) But if right-wing blogs *were* his audience’s sole news source, then they *would have* thought blah blah blah.

    By the way, if “was” is right, then “would have” is incorrect later in the sentence. He should have said “must have thought” instead of “would have thought”:

    If your only source for news was reading right-wing blogs, you must have thought that [yada yada].

    Agreed?

  5. CraigC Says:

    I’m not sure about that. You’re pointing out the conditional, which is what I was talking about. My understanding is that it depends on the condition that’s being referred to, but i don’t remember the exact rule. I’ll look it up.

    As far as “would have thought,” after re-reading that, it looks to me like it would have been incorrect in either case, but who knows, I could be wrong about both things.

  6. CraigC Says:

    I believe that it hangs on whether the condition is or can be true. For example, “If I were as clever as the other commenters, I’d be posting more often.” Since I’m clearly not as clever as most of the other commenters, the verb “were” is used.

    Since it’s entirely possible that a person’s only news comes from “right wing blogs,” “was” is the correct tense.

  7. Xrlq Says:

    Craig, see Patterico’s prior comment about “would have thought.” To me, that indicates that he’s treating the possibility of “you” (his own readers) getting all their news from right wing blogs as a counterfactual scenario, not something he was entertaining as a realistic possibility.

  8. CraigC Says:

    Ok, last comment on this, I can hear the sound of mouses clicking all over the internet. The way the rule reads, it doesn’t matter what he thinks. Whether the condition is or can be true is all that matters, and I don’t read it that way, anyway. It’s clear to me that he is treating it as a possibility, otherwise his conclusion makes no sense.

  9. Patterico Says:

    I don’t think he really treats it as a possibility that his perspicacious readers might really rely on such a weak source as right-wing blogs. The “reality-based” community demands something more: posts by guys called “Retardo.”

    If it’s not a counterfactual scenario, I think “is” would be less jarring than “was.” (Also, take out the word “reading,” which doesn’t fit. That makes it: “If your only source for news is right-wing blogs, you must have thought that [yada yada].” Of course, better to reverse the order so it’s: “If right-wing blogs are your only source for news, you must have thought that [yada yada].”)

    But I don’t really have time or inclination to be the guy’s editor.

  10. Mark Says:

    This is highly amusing. Greeny has no clothes! And he doesn’t care in the slightest. What a Douchebag!

  11. gail Says:

    I think Craig is correct about the use of the subjunctive. See American Heritage Book of English Usage at
    http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/061.html#SUBJUNCTIVE1

  12. Xrlq Says:

    I don’t think there’s any real disagreement over when the subjunctive should be used; the question is whether Greenwald did or did not intend “if your only source for news [be] reading right-wing blogs” to be counterfactual. If he did (as I believe he did), he should have used the subjunctive. If he didn’t (as Craig believes), he was right to use the indicative, but wrong to follow it up with “you would have thought” rather than simply “you thought.”

  13. Patterico Says:

    Thank goodness we didn’t get bogged down on the grammar.

  14. jr Says:

    It’s been an interesting debate

  15. Xrlq Says:

    No it hasn’t.

    [ducking]

  16. BumperStickerist Says:

    I don’t think there’s any real disagreement over when the subjunctive should be used

    Would that that were true.

    ~ cough ~

    anyway, back to the fisking.

    Nicely done, though

    One aspect to keep in mind as these types of things are the blogosphere’s equivalent of genital herpes – always under the surface, prone to break out in times of stress, and non-cureable – is that Deb actually took action designed to cause harm to Jeff’s wife and his kid.

    In the redacted comment at Villianous Company (and elsewhere, iirc) Deb mentioned that she wanted Jeff’s wife to google her son’s name to {paraphrased} ‘show her what Jeff was doing with Satchel while he was at home’.

    Deb further expressed hope that Jeff’s son would see the same thing if/when he googled his own name in Kindergarten. So the middle-aged professor of psychology *took an action* against the future five year old of a person she doesn’t like.

    That’s not debatable, by the way. It’s what she said she did.

    Which, you know, crosses about a half-dozen lines past a generic ‘nasty blogfight’ like those found in most comment sections or between bloggers in my book.

    Yet, so far as I can tell, not a peep from Greenwald denouncing the actions of a person whom he supports designed to cause emotional distress to a preschooler.

    Nice work, Glenn G.

    You douche.

  17. BumperStickerist Says:

    or, framed as a question, Is it okay to google-bomb the wife and kids of people you don’t like?

  18. bnm Says:

    Greenwald simply cannot be embarrassed, but since his strawman arguments are so silly I don’t get too exercised about this clown.

  19. nk Says:

    If I were inclined to leave non-constructive compliments, I would say “Great post, Xrlq”. If I thought Glenn Greenwald was inclined to accept constructive criticism, I would e-mail this post to him. Whether or not “[or not" is pedantically incorrect since "whether" implies "or not"] I was entirely grammatically correct, I would be off subject if I were to ask Xrlq to give me an “A” for this comment. (Just wait till I find my Strunck & White. And I don’t know whether Mr. Perschbacher, my Junior High School English teacher, is still alive after 32 years or I would invite him into this discussion, too.)

  20. Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler » Blog Archive » Ever Found Yourself Wondering… Says:

    [...] Wonder no more. Posted by Emperor Darth Misha I @ 10:39 pm | [...]

  21. Sadly, No! Research Labs Says:

    So wait. Does such a long post mean that you’re ‘obsessed with Greenwald’ in the same way that you say we’re obsessed with Goldstein?

    [grinning, kicking a pebble]

  22. CraigC Says:

    No.

  23. Pablo Says:

    First, he never said anything about them dying; Greenwald simply made that part up. For all we know, maybe the Rottweiler just wants to hang them from the neck until they say uncle…

    Or perhaps he wants to tie them to the trees and smack them with his c***. I’m surprised Greenwald didn’t consider that possibility after having spent so much time with Retardo.

    And in response to Retardo’s question above, you’ve spent more time than anyone, including Goldstein himself, talking about his penis on the internets. That should tell you something.

    You’d think the guy was Bill Clinton or something. It’s pretty creepy.

  24. LeatherPenguin » Fisking? More Like a Shit Kicking Says:

    [...] damnum absque injuria » Weekend Doucheblogging [...]

  25. S. Weasel Says:

    Nice job. And confirms my personal advice: when arguing on the Internet, always follow the other guy’s links. They don’t say what he says they say an astonishing percentage of the time.

    Why do people do that? And who would ever do it more than once? It’s an automatic Game Over.

  26. LC Guido Cabrone Says:

    Just a note, and further correction to Gospodin Greenwald’s post.

    long before the johnny-came-lately noose advocates like Misha did so.

    Some two years ago, (in a post concerning a female gene donor, (I refuse to call this particular waste of oxygen a “mother”), who had traded her 14 year old daughter for a car), Misha ended a post with “Rope, Tree, C_nt, Some Assembly Required.”

    Johnnie come lately? I think not.

    Just sayin’, is all.

  27. justbarkingmad.com » Blog Archive » The Glenn Greenwald Postmortum Says:

    [...] As Xlrq takes the beat down Glen Greenwald has been getting all week and puts Grand Finale on it. [...]

  28. Daryl Herbert Says:

    Like hell he is. First, he never said anything about them dying; Greenwald simply made that part up. For all we know, maybe the Rottweiler just wants to hang them from the neck until they say uncle, then let them go if they promise to be good boys and girls from now on.

    Because that’s what the iconic rope and tree are associated with.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket.

    I don’t know of anyone else in the blogosphere who has been so dishonest as to make that argument, xlrq.

  29. Empress Sofia Says:

    Why do people do that? And who would ever do it more than once? It’s an automatic Game Over.

    An IDIOT??? Nuff said.

  30. Robin Roberts Says:

    Good job, Xrlq.

  31. bnm Says:

    Though Greenwald is indeed a joke, as Xlrq ably demonstrates, I think Daryl Herbert makes a good point: the rope and trees reference is clearly referring to hanging (until death).

  32. Patterico Says:

    Perhaps Xrlq’s point was irony. Isn’t that what Greenwald says when you show a serious complaint of his to be absurd?

  33. Warren Bonesteel Says:

    Dang. You have to a liberal arts grammarian with a PhD in order to be able to post in the comments section on a blog?

    Who knew…

    (Give me a minute and I’ll figger out how to make that sentence, as well as this one, an even worse sentence…)

  34. bnm Says:

    Patterico, perhaps it was intended to be irony, but I didn’t read it that way, and as my first comment above indicates (#18), I’m entirely sympathetic to Xlrq’s larger point.

  35. Patterico Says:

    I don’t know whether it was irony or not. Xrlq will have to answer that. I’m just pointing out that Greenwald’s defense, when I showed his “failure to condemn” point to be absurd on a number of levels, was to say: “It was irony!”

    It’s like the guy in the Monty Python Parrot Shop sketch who is caught in an obvious lie and responds: “It was a pun!”

  36. Chester White Says:

    Jaysus.

    I agree with your point about the douche.

    But don’t you have a job or something? How can you devote this much time to something?

  37. Horst Graben Says:

    It seems that this pissing match is just a festival of douches. Lets get real folks, no one cares. I read the first page or two and that makes me a douche. Then I bother to comment and my douche-bag runnith over.

    Everyone knows that Misha and his LC suckup are the biggest bunch of wannabe douches in the history of Blogistan. I love the false macho bravado and death threats. No need to condemn AIR, the blog itself is a condemnation. No blog of any note or stature links to that kkkook anymore.

    They are the DU of the right.

    You forgot to mention that when a bunch of douches get together for a flushing, everyone is left with a faint au de Tuna.

  38. Xrlq Says:

    NK: the problem with giving constructive criticism to this guy is not just that he’s too arrogant to take it, but that he’s too dishonest to make productive use of the advice if he did. An error here, a broken or duplicate link there, or a sloppy link to a page that doesn’t quite bear out what you’re saying; that happens to the best of us. But a post consisting almost entirely of half-truths, quarter-truths and outright lies doesn’t happen by accident. It happens because the guy is dishonest. Do you really want to help a dishonest person lie more effectively in the future?

    SN: Not even close. Feel free to search my archives for the name “Greenwald” to see how many times I’ve mentioned the guy at all. Then search your own for Goldstein, and we’ll compare notes then.

    Daryl, BNM, Patterico: of course it was intended to be ironic. Greenwald started by quoting a passage which, if taken as anything beyond the obvious hyperbole that it was, would be a clear reference to hanging. At least, that’s how a normal person would describe it while speaking ordinary in English. Instead, Greenwald went on to belabor the obvious, stating “[h]e’s advocating that the five Supreme Court Justices in the Hamdan majority be hanged from the neck until they’re dead.” Does Greenwald actually think his readers are too stupid to understand that hanging someone means hanging them from the neck (as opposed to, say, the ankles) until they’re dead (as opposed to really, really pissed)? It’s as if Misha had said “kill the fuckers,” and Greenwald had replied with “oooh, did you hear that? Misha wants you to kill them, until they die, after which their lives will be over for good since Misha just killed them to death.” To which my smartass response would have been “oh, no, he never said to kill them until they died; maybe he just wanted to kill them until they were really really scared? Then, dimbulbs like Daryl would have called me dishonest, while anyone with any sense of irony whatsoever would roll his eyes, curse me under his breath as a smartass, and move on to point “second, and more importantly” – as I suspect the vast majority of readers did.

    Chester: indeed I do, but not on the weekend. Usually, I wouldn’t have this much time on the weekend, either, but my wife and son are on the Left Coast for the week so things are pretty dead around here.

    Horst: O-kay.

  39. Patterico Says:

    The difference between Xrlq’s irony and Greenwald’s alleged irony is: 1) I could recognize the possibility that Xrlq’s is irony, and 2) I believe him when he confirms it was.

  40. Xrlq Says:

    I think a third, more crucial difference (albeit one not completely unrelated to #2) is that my irony makes sense in context (he really did beat up that “hanging them … by the neck .. until they’re dead” bit on the part I was responding to), while Greenwald’s alleged irony does not (his “why the silence” post was directed at just about everyone but the few righties who had made that argument in the first place).

  41. Patterico Says:

    Also, your irony was authored by a non-douchebag.

    I mean, the differences go on and on.

  42. actus Says:

    “First, he never said anything about them dying; Greenwald simply made that part up. For all we know, maybe the Rottweiler just wants to hang them from the neck until they say uncle, then let them go if they promise to be good boys and girls from now on. ”

    cute.

  43. Kirk Parker Says:

    Xrlq,

    One minor nit. You quote “Ward Churchill or Deb Frisch” and then say “University lecturers, both.” Actually, no–and it would be far better, for CU at least if not for Churchill himself, if here were a mere lecturer. But this unqualified doof was a department chair and tenured (full) professor.

  44. Thresherman Says:

    Greenwald neglects to mention that Frisch crossed a line that the others he cited did not. The Supreme Court, the Jersey Girls, politicians and bloggers, all have entered in the public political fray of their own free will and as such are legitimate targets for criticism, rhetoric and invective. Goldstein’s toddler, on the other hand, is not in the public or politiical realm, he has voiced no opinions and I’m sure has not blogged any. Frisch drug him into the public arena, against the child’s parents wishes and most likey against those of the child himself. She did so for no higher or nobler purpose than to cause pain, hurt and anguish for the Goldsteins.

    Unless Greenwald can cite a simular circumstance of an innocent forced against his or her will into the public domain by the right, he would be best served but shutting the hell up. What he has presented is not a defense, because what Frisch has done is indefensable.

    I doubt if he is wise enough to do so though, the left seems to have an absolute thing about not admitting that one of their own has done something reprehensible. In fact that was the purpose of his screed, to try justify Frisch’s actions by making it appear that the right is equally worthy of blame. But it just won’t wash this time.

  45. Sister Toldjah Says:

    That one should be in the top five posts of the year, Xrlq. Great job!

    BTW, since you have me on your blogroll, you do know that means you condone everything I say on my blog, right? At least according to GiGi logic ;)

  46. Pablo Says:

    Oh, great. Now we’re supposed to condemn inferences? And we’re supposed to condemn people for misinterpreting inferences? (Take that, Thersites!)

    Screw that, Daryl. I prefer to condemn liars.

    Damn you, Glenn Greenwald!

  47. BumperStickerist Says:

    Greenwald’s post today is a continuation of the post fisked by XRLQ. The Rightwing blogosphere is a snarling confab of eliminationist rhetoriticians. Or something.

    And his posts exhibits the exact same pattern of douchebaggery, including linking back to his own blog. Greenwald also misintrepted Reynold’s comment about the NYT’s screwup of the ‘Sandinista/Contra’ distinction, but you’d have had (subjunctive) to click the link to know that.

    Maybe Greenwald has vinegar and water flowing through his veins.

    If GiGi doesn’t stick as Glenn’s nickname, maybe ‘Vinnie’ for ‘Vinegar’ would work.

  48. nk Says:

    Hell, Xrlq, I know Glenn Greenwald is a disingenuous disgrace. I would not tell him “Good morning” for fear that he would turn it into a diatribe on my hypocrisy for supporting the Iraq War and the President’s refusal to sign Kyoto.

  49. Patterico Says:

    I’m not going to suggest that anyone “forcibly assault and murder” Glenn Greenwald, but it does seem that the right is in a “state of war” with Mr. Greenwald.

    (I certainly hope nobody tries to take things I just said along the lines of political advocacy and turn it into a crime. Sure, the F.B.I. may interpret this protected speech as a threat against a blogger, but it’s probably nothing more than some heated rhetoric.)

    What am I talking about? Well, Xrlq mentioned it in his post, but if you’re still confused, click here.

  50. Sadly, No! Internal Affairs Commission Says:

    Shockingly, we didn’t write that previous comment. [The offending comment has been deleted. -X]

    SN: Not even close. Feel free to search my archives for the name “Greenwald” to see how many times I’ve mentioned the guy at all. Then search your own for Goldstein, and we’ll compare notes then.

    Goldstein probably ranks about 12th or so. He’s a lot of fun sometimes, but he doesn’t produce over the long haul like Pastor Swank or Kaye Grogan do.

  51. Xrlq Says:

    I didn’t ask for a ranking; I asked for how many times he’d come up on your blog, vs. how many times Grand Master Douchebag has come up here. Right now I have a total of 2,823 posts, only two of which (including this one) say anything about Glenn Greenwald. Can you say the same of your blog vis a vis Xrlq Goldstein?

  52. Sadly, No! Research Labs Says:

    Not at all; we have a good number of Goldstein-related posts. But this meme of our being ‘obsessed’ with someone (Josh Trevino thinks it’s him that we’re obsessed with, and so on) rests on a more banal truth: that we tend to be fairly lazy and to go to the same old candy machines every day, knowing what we’ll find there.

    We tend to stay away from here, for instance, because you’re too deft and funny. Whereas with Goldstein, there’s a near-100% chance that he’ll find us on Technorati and start jumping up and down waving his arms and yelling about penises. If we were better people, I guess we wouldn’t do that so much.

  53. Sadly, No! » Shorter Anti-Greenwald Irregulars Says:

    [...] Shorter Xrlq: “Greenwald asserts that ‘five ropes, five robes, five trees — some assembly required’ is a reference to lynching. Yet another example of the dishonesty of the Left!” [...]

  54. Pablo Says:

    Shorter Retardo (Now with Finger Wagging!):

    “I did not have obsessive compulsive relations with that blogger.”

  55. SayUncle » Xrlq smack down Says:

    [...] Failing to comment on something isn’t an endorsement so it’s a pretty lame accusation. Xrlq says: That sounds pretty damning, until you consider that (1) no one called for the murder of Supreme Court Justices, (2)

  56. Patterico Says:

    Heh. This is good. Sadly, No! missed the irony we discussed above, and based a post on their misunderstanding, claiming that Xrlq is defending Misha’s statement as not advocating lynching. OK, that’s fine. They missed a subtlety. It happens. But here’s the really good part: Tim Lambert comes over into their comments and piles on, saying: “Wow, you weren’t kidding about the “shorter xrlq” part. 5000 words denying that the quote implied lynching. Is it any surprise that Xrlq is a big fan of John Lott?”

    Heh. Lambert can’t possibly have read Xrlq’s post and said something so inaccurate. After all, even if you miss the irony, it’s an offhand comment in the middle of a fisking that primarily makes other points about Greenwald’s dishonesty.

    Evidently, Lambert trusted Sadly, No! to accurately summarize the content of the post (whoops!), and then simply ran the post through a word processor to get a word count. Voila! the aforementioned completely false and misleading comment.

    [Said in a goading tone:] Xrlq, you can’t possibly allow this to stand. Here’s what I suggest, Xrlq: go into their comments and set them, and Lambert, straight. I understand that they appreciate rationality over there. When someone makes an irrefutable point like that, you can’t help but obtain an immediate retraction — or at least some respectful debate to counter your position.

    Me? I’m staying on the sidelines and making some popcorn — and, in an abundance of caution, reaching for my poo shield.

  57. Cold Fury » Blog Archive » To the last bite Says:

    [...] With him, it’s ALL worse. That’s only the merest taste of XLRQ’s hearty and delicious deconstruction of Lefty douchebag Glenn Greenwald’s dishonest hypocrisy. It’s a long and a good ‘un, a veritable feast of fisking; enjoy. [...]

  58. Sadly, No! Research Labs Says:

    Heh. This is good. Sadly, No! missed the irony we discussed above, and based a post on their misunderstanding, claiming that Xrlq is defending Misha’s statement as not advocating lynching.

    “Has anyone friggin’ heard of hyperbole?” is pretty much the salient passage there.

    Unless you’re citing the landmark precedent established in Rubber v. Glue, in which things bounce off the party of the first part, and stick to the party of the second.

  59. MuscleDaddy Says:

    “UPDATE: Welcome, readers of Patterico, AIR and Glenn Non-Douche. ”

    Well, I’m here from Misha’s site – and I’m staying even if I’m not welcome! [Err... A.I.R. stands for "Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler," so unless you came here from a different Misha's site, you're welcome here. Actually, I don't give a rat's patoot where you're from. Enjoy.]

    (not entirely unlike the smell of 5 Supreme Court Justices hanging from a tree in your back yard, wafting in through the kitchen window)

    – MuscleDaddy

    P.S. – Most excellent fisking!

    P.P.S. – Note to Horst Graben: “…that kkkook ” congratulations, you’ve achieved 1:1! (I accept the Klan in fulfillment of the “eventually referencing Hitler” theory)

  60. MuscleDaddy Says:

    Ah! Of course!

    Not used to seeing it referred to that way.

    Glad to be welcome!

    – MuscleDaddy

  61. Chris Says:

    The folks at Sadly, No! keep falling deeper and deeper into parody. It’s telling that 1) in this “5000 word post” they focus on a relatively small part of the essay, Misha’s opinion, rather than address the argument as a whole, and 2) fail to point out that Misha (and Malkin, and Goldstein, and Coulter, ad nauseum of their right-wing bugaboos)never threatened a two-year-old child with sexual molestation, so the attempts at equivalency are irrelevant.

    They are arguing from a position of weakness using poor logic, and are either too stubborn or too dishonest to understand that they have no leg to stand on, from either a legal or rhetorical standpoint.

  62. Neil Ferguson Says:

    Dear Mr. XRLQ,

    What happens when you say your name backward?

    Cordially,
    Neil Ferguson
    Yuma, AZ

  63. Geoffrey Says:

    There are far too many nutjobs in this world.

  64. KM Says:

    You’re right. That was tedious.

  65. Dean's World Says:

    Glenn Greenwald, Illiterate? Or Just A Liar?…

    My dear wife thinks that Glenn Greenwald may just be an illiterature moron.

    That would be the charitable interpretation. The less charitable interpretation is that ……

  66. The Poor Man Institute » Keep it up, Glenn Says:

    [...] Xrlq (via Instapundit) Glenn Greenwald is injecting a new form of McCarthyism into political discourse […] Any inflammatory rhetoric appears to exist only in Greenwald’s befuddled and / or deliberately manipulative mind. […] One is left to wonder if there isn’t more than a bit of the fascist in Greenwald […] Not only is Greenwald a liar, from a human perspective, the man is intellectually and morally bankrupt – an absolute disgrace. […] The poor boy, it seems not even his pillow talk was private. [link fixed - points out Jeff Goldstein comment thread claiming Greenwald is gay - ed.] Perhaps that’s ultimately what drove him so seemingly insane. […] Greenwald appears to have thrown off any rules for honest political discourse. [...]

  67. Patterico’s Pontifications » Leftist Blogger Notes Comparisons of Glenn Greenwald to a “Douche” Says:

    [...] The Poorman looks at Xrlq’s fisking of Glenn Greenwald, and pulls out the following quotes for our condemnation: Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere […] Glenn is a douche […] Greenwald gets a hell of a lot more traction than your average douche does […] 1. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere. 2. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere. 3. Glenn Greenwald is the biggest douche in the blogosphere. […] the überdouche […] Calling an überdouche like Greenwald a mere “douche” is a bit like calling Bill Gates just another businessman or Babe Ruth just another baseball player. Greenwald is not just a garden variety douche; he’s the Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere, the John Edward of blogdom. [...]

  68. Confederate Yankee Says:

    The Deploravity Must Stop…

    I’ve simply had enough of the deplorable personal attacks… the depravity, the blogosphere brawl war profiteering… have simply gone along too far, and I must speciously condemn, forthwith, this deploravity that has taken hold. I condemn it all. Upd…

  69. MplsDog Says:

    I like Glenn Greenwald, in fact his blog is one of my favorites. I’ve been surfing around lately checking out the anti-Greenwald sites and I cant help being stunned by the ignorance of his detractors.

    There are all these people out there calling Glenn Greenwald all kinds of vile names. The thing that is absent is any clear or relevent argument that Glenn is wrong.

    Glenn Greenwald is not just a lawyer, but a constitutional litigator. To me, this qualifies him to comment on his opinion of constitutional law.

    “Douche, Douchebag, Douchy Douche”: Beyond childish.

    Can we debate the issues as adults, please?!

  70. Patterico Says:

    Did you read the post? Greenwald is as dishonest as they come.

    You got an issue you want to debate, raise it.

    Come on over to my blog if you like. Pick your issue. I gotta go to bed now, but I like talking issues. Leave me a comment and I’ll look at it tomorrow sometime.

    I just get annoyed when the debate gets hijacked by dishonest people like Greenwald.

  71. Pablo Says:

    The thing that is absent is any clear or relevent argument that Glenn is wrong.

    Scroll up to the top of the page and read xrlq’s post.

    Glenn Greenwald is not just a lawyer, but a constitutional litigator. To me, this qualifies him to comment on his opinion of constitutional law.

    What is a Constitutional litigator, how is that different from every other litigator, and how did Greenwald earn the classification?

  72. Xrlq Says:

    I think that “constitutional litigator” is douchespeak for “guy who agrees with me, and who is therefore entitled to lie, make crap up, libel other bloggers, and generally behave like a douche without being called a douche.” At least, that’s the only definition I can think of that makes “But he’s a constitutional litigator!” a valid counter-argument to any of the points I raised in the original post.

  73. BumperStickerist Says:

    Glenn Greenwald is not just a lawyer, but a constitutional litigator. To me, this qualifies him to comment on his opinion of constitutional law.

    This would be from a Greenwald’s apparent reply to a Douchist. Apparently this is FROM GREENWALD regarding his early legal days:

    — “Thanks for sending that. {note: a cut-and-paste of my assertion that the timelines for Greenwald’s Prestigious Law Firm bio don’t parse very well.}

    I worked at Wachtell, Lipton as a Summer Associate after my second year at NYU, as a pre-Bar Associate during my entire third year at NYU and once I graduated, and then as a practicing Litigation Associate once I was admitted to the New York Bar.

    Anyone who says that I did not practice law there after I passed the bar is lying — and deliberately so, I would think, since nobody who says such a thing could possibly have any basis for knowing that.

    In any event, I can’t imagine what point anyone thinks they’re making. Wachtell is known to be the most selective law firm in the country. What point do they think they’re making, exactly?” ————–

    http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/07/the_new_mccarth.html – the poster claims that as Glenn’s response to a question. I have no way of verifying the accuracy, but – what the hell? – it’s a blog comment section and the response has a waft of vinegar to it.

    That’s all well and good, going to claim to have worked at a law firm ‘for years’ including the year and a half you spent as an intern is a stretch.

    Also this is Glenn’s CV available from teh intertrons without using the SusanG level of detectitude.

    ::: Firm Size: 3

    Glenn Greenwald, (Member) born New York, N.Y., March 6, 1967; admitted to bar, 1995, New York, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; 1996, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York; 1998, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; 2002, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Education: George Washington University (B.A., 1990); New York University School of Law (J.D., 1994). Member, New York University Law Review, 1992-1993. Recipient, American Jurisprudence Awards, Civil Procedure, Contracts and Property. Associate, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 1994-1995. Languages: German. Practice Areas: General Litigation; Commercial Litigation; Intellectual Property; Civil Rights.::::

    So, Glenn worked at the Prestigious Law Firm as a pre-bar associate as a 2nd year law student, as a 3rd year law student, after graduating and he passed the bar in 1995, probably in the Summer cycle. At which point he became a practicing Litigation Associate.

    And he left the Prestigious Law Firm within, at most, 6 months. Which is fine.

    But any fan of Greenwald’s who cites Glenn’s ‘Years at a Prestigious Law Firm’ ought to be reminded that a year and a half of those two years were spent there while a law student.

    Also, Glenn has remarked on many an occassion (links not provided, if you read Glenn you’ll know that’s accurate) about the selectiveness of the firm. In his response from two days ago Glenn mentions that Wachtell is well known regarding their selectivity.

    Well, the obvious question is ‘Why’d Glenn leave within Wachtell a couple of months after passing the Bar?’ It’s a fair question, given the level of import Glenn’s placing on this.

    Giving him the benefit of the doubt, let’s say he worked there through 1995. That’s six months.

    Were I a betting man, I’d say that Glenn didn’t make it the firm’s probationary period. A prestigious law firm that’s very selective will very likely ruthlessly cut a new hire if they think they made a bad hiring decision. Swords, double edged, all that.

    A yes/no question for Glenn would be “Did Wachtell have an employee probationary period? If so, once you passed the bar and were an Associate, were you employed by Wachtell beyond the date of that probationary period?”

    Note – there could be any number of reasons for Glenn to leave – He might not have liked the hours, the law area he was slated for, a relative or friend might have made him another offer to join or start a firm (Mister Holland, Esq. would be the person to ask about that I think) and that’s all good.

    But it’s not like Glenn Greenwald *did* anything while at Wachtell other than *being* at Wachtell. Which was an accomplishment, but one along the lines of earning a spot on the US Olympic team, but then choosing to not go to the Olympics. Sure, you made it and very few did, but – ultimately – it doesn’t mean much.

    Also, note that Glenn doesn’t cite ConLaw as an area of practice. That part area of expertise seems to be a result of OJT involving the Hale case. Which Glenn lost, btw.

    Why does any of this matter? Well, mostly it doesn’t, but Glenn’s built up quite a lot of admirers and they tend to just take him at his word.

    As Glenn’s bio to his NYT Best Selling Book starts with the sentence: Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney, and author of the political blog, “Unclaimed Territory.”

    This leads to fawning
    ::::Glenn Greenwald answers the title of his own book with his book. … Because Greenwald is a specialist in Constitutional law, he knows of what he speaks:::
    ummm, sadly no! … to coin a phrase. Events have conspired to show that Glenn starts slow and tapers off with regard to the ConLaw issues of the day.

    :::: Glenn Greenwald was not a political man. Not liberal, not conservative :::

    Ummm, Glenn Greenwald while a law student at NYU spent ten weeks organizing a drive to prevent Colorado law firms from recruiting in NYU Law because of Proposition 2

    Google Groups, search “glenn greenwald” – it’s the first mention if you sort by date –

    Quote: ” I think an institution like a law school has a role to play in standing up to dangerous developments in the law. The boycott seems to be the most appropriate way to do so,” said NYU law student Glenn Greenwald, who worked for 10 weeks to force the vote. ”

    Y’ep … that’s some quality non-conservative/non-liberal apolitical work right there.

    He then sort of passed through Wachtell. Went into practice and picked up the Hale Case. Which doesn’t strike me as being ‘apolitical’ or not an issue involving liberal / conservative ideals.

    What’s lacking from Greenwald’s bona fides from what I can see as a ConLaw scholar of merit are publications other than in Mother Jones and American Conservative.

    If the Left is going to base their hopes and aspirations on the Legal Eagle that is Greenwald, perhaps the Left had better start asking themselves some basic questions liek: “Who the fuck is Glenn Greenwald?”
    and

    “why do we care what he says?”

    I understand the Left is entertained by him, Glenn tells them what they want to hear. The problem is when you start confusing entertainment with political strategy.

    Glenn Greenwald’s a great Lefty entertainer – lots of words so the reader gets to feel smart, a good ‘hefty’ post to chew on for a spell. Available in book form. More power to him.

    Glenn Greenwald, great ConLaw scholar/lawyer/strategist, notsomuch.

    .

  74. BumperStickerist Says:

    shorter BumperStickerist:

    It’s not stalking until you’ve posted 10,000 words about a person, and I’ve only written 9,925 about Greenwald.

  75. BumperStickerist Says:

    ip check on MPLSdog, aisle five.

  76. Cold Fury » Blog Archive » Busted! Uhh, again! Says:

    [...] A: if he’s a Lyin’ Lefty, why yes. Yes, he would. But really, he’s way more likely to do the impugning himself, and use a fake name to hide behind while doing it. The douchebag denies it, but as Patterico says…well, read the comments to his post. They’re hilarious. [...]

  77. FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog » Sock Puppet Watch: Glenn Greenwald Sock Puppets - The Worst? Says:

    [...] Flap does not know why the Los Angeles Times did not fire Michael Hiltzik and Greenwald = Patterico has yet to finish with this douche bag. [...]

  78. Sadly, No! » You Can’t Be Serious Says:

    [...] Patterico’s carping about “civility” is a completely fraudulent. His basic schtick goes like this: “The Left is uncivil. That means I get to call them pussies and douches. But look at how uncivil the Left is!” Essentially, Patterico expects the Left to treat people like Jeff Goldstein and Michelle Malkin with the fairness and civility that they routinely deny their opponents. In other words, Patterico wants the Left to reply politely when one of his friends implies that John Kerry shot himself to get out of Vietnam or says that they touched someone’s sister in her secret places lots. And if anyone on the Left veers from such desired rhetorical exchanges, he takes it as license to fly completely off the handle and call people pussies and douches. Which isn’t all bad, if you ask me. I’m not the most polite person in the world, and if one of your anonymous pals wanted to call me “an überdouche,” or “Biggest Douche in the Blogosphere,” I wouldn’t think to whine about their lack of civility, and I certainly wouldn’t go around making not-so-subtle threats about exposing their identity. So please, Patterico, spare me your very silly speeches about how you’re really a civilized and decent person, except when you act uncivilized because the Left has forced your hand when they called your friends mean names. [...]

  79. Patterico’s Pontifications » Rick Ellensburg: Kirsten Powers Is a “Right-Wing Pundit” Says:

    [...] Well, if Glenn Greenwald says it, it must be true. After all, he’s never misrepresented links before . . . [...]

  80. Mister Snitch! Says:

    Sadly, No! Is, sadly, on solid ground here.

  81. Lauren Says:

    “Oh yes it was” a very tedious one… it took me half an hour to read that Excluding the comments… I am not putting one here as all of them are sufficient to make it better :)

  82. A Second Hand Conjecture » Ann Coulter and Little Greenwald’s Footballs: Revised as a Carnival of Fisking Says:

    [...] Weekend Doucheblogging [...]

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge

Subscribe without commenting

 

Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.