website statistics

Archive for the 'Comment Sections' Category

Blog Traffic As A Reverse Bell Curve (Kind Of)

The comments to the Hotline On Call post that started the McCain/Mele Melee (feel free to borrow this phrase!) calls to mind, though doesn’t perfectly illustrate, a truism not just of politics but of the blogosphere in particular: Centrists are loved by no one, not even fellow centrists.

Originally, the post mistakenly identified Reynolds as “center-left.” Verbatim down to the formatting, reader Kathleen complained:

  Glenn Reynolds as a center left blogger?! you have got to be freaking joking.

And so it was corrected — but a few hours later Not Marc (possibly referring to post co-author Marc Ambinder, perhaps even a handle of the Not Larry Sabato variety) disagreed with the updated descriptor:

  Instapundit is not ‘center-right’. He’s hard right. Do the research: his front page regularly links to sites containing the most rabid, racist crap imaginable.

Here at Blog P.I., we have cast aspersions on the oft-proctored renounce-your-allies tests employed by the left and right, and this is a typical case; Reynolds points readers to Little Green Footballs, but that shouldn’t constitute an endorsement of LGF’s commenters. This kind of guilt-by-association has unfairly dinged the man behind Big Orange, and Reynolds has said before this is one reason why he doesn’t have a comment section of his own — and singled out the Lizardoids as a specific example. For what it’s worth, he doesn’t even self-identify as conservative, but in much of the blogosphere, it really doesn’t matter what you call yourself. (Many of Reynolds’ own fans even dispute his non-conservatism.) And if you do describe yourself as “center” anything, you’re more likely to get burned at both ends.

I’d also wager that even moderates are more likely to criticize fellow moderates, because their independence in part defines them, and their particular issues are also different. Centrist is not a definite category like Left or Right; it’s a None of the Above or Other. And overall, there are fewer moderates driving big traffic compared to their more ideological (or more easily-pegged) peers.

If you lined up a sample of blogs according to ideology along a left-right axis, I predict you’d find something resembling an inverse bell curve — though traffic would drop off again as one approaches either fringe. On the other hand: While the high traffic sites are found closer to the edges, if the center of this curve describes an amalgam of different philosophies, a long-tail effect would flatten the curve, maybe a little, maybe a lot. So it could be a fat upside-down bell, if that makes any sense.

All of which presumes, of course, that one could even agree on how to classify individual blogs as lefterer and righterer (these should be real words) compared to their peers. Which raises too many questions for this post, and cries out for the sort of levity provided by Fred, also in the Hotline’s comments:

  Who’s Glenn Reynolds and what’s Instapundit?

L’Affaire GoldFrisch III: We All Knew This Was Coming

This post was co-written with Tim Dreier of The One-Handed Economist; both of us are graduates of the University of Oregon in Eugene, where Deb Frisch once taught and now lives. As a matter of full disclosure, we’ve had a few scrapes with Frisch of our own, she having trolled the blog of a student magazine we both once edited. That’s covered below. For previous Blog P.I. coverage, see here and here.

The saga of Deborah Frisch, longtime comment troll and all-around kook, took another troubling, if not exactly unforeseeable turn in the last 48 hours. As far as we know, she is now the first troll of the political blogosphere to face criminal charges relating to such activity. On August 21 she was arraigned in an Oregon courtroom on charges of stalking and telephone harassment (PDF). The docket can be found at the link preceding, but is captured below for your viewing pleasure:

Deb Frisch's Lane County Docket

According to Don’t Hire Deb, a blog devoted to documenting Frisch’s outrageous behavior while depriving her own site of traffic, Frisch posted either $4,000 bail or $400 to a bondsman, and must reappear in court on September 25th. As is speculated in DHD comments and elsewhere, this likely stems not from Frisch’s well-publicized Jeff Goldstein-related misadventures (to the best of our knowledge she’s never called him) but rather similar interactions with former colleagues at University of Oregon (where she was denied tenure in 1994 and served as an adjunct until July 2001) including calling, emailing, and a quickly-removed post to her blog. 

Just a few months ago, Frisch was an obscurity known only to the blogs she trolled, such as our own Oregon Commentator and Steve Verdon’s Deinonychus Antirrhopus. But at this point, she is undergoing the most severe public self-destruction we’ve seen yet. And when you consider that includes Jason Leopold and other, better-known individuals, that’s saying something. Academic John Lott and attorney Glenn Greenwald may be guilty of sock-puppetry, but that’s bush-league compared to Deb’s prolonged breakdown. Michael A. Bellesiles? A liar and a hack, but so far as we know he never ended up in jail for his antics. And no, having his Bancroft Prize revoked is not the same thing. Hell, Jayson Blair managed to spin his utter fecklessness into a book deal, as did “fabulist” Stephen Glass. Frisch, though, is in a class of her own: a vitriolic sociopath whose delusion knows almost no bounds.

For those of you just tuning in, Deb made a name for herself in the rightosphere by making altogether disturbing, one might say John Mark Karr-esque comments about Goldstein’s family. Within hours of Goldstein having publicized her identity being called out by Goldstein’s readers, Frisch resigned from a Univ. of Ariz. teaching job, thereby pre-empting a probable termination. The story got some press play in the Tucson Citizen, Eugene Register-Guard and Inside Higher Ed. Goldstein sought and obtained a restraining order against her, and that might have been the end of it.

Instead, her online behavior became even more erratic: Posting fake suicide notes, angering colleagues on an academic listserv, claiming to pursue legal action against Goldstein, Ace of Spades HQ and Matthew Heidt of Blackfive. And most strangely, attacking the folks at lefty satire blog Sadly, No!, well known for its disdain of Goldstein, and which had previously belittled the Frisch controversy. More recently she has gone so far as to heckle Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden (whom she had claimed an interest in working for) and, apparently, now managed to stalk and harass former colleagues in Oregon.

Commenters at DHD, Patterico’s Pontifications and Ace of Spades HQ have posited that the cyclical nature of Deb’s “teh crazy” implies a drinking problem. Whether a joke or conventional wisdom, the notion has has gotten so much play that after the first of Deb’s bizarre attacks, the S,N! regulars mentioned her drinking whilst tearing her a new one:

Sadly No Responds to Deb Frisch

Three days later, Frisch was in a Lane County courthouse.

Over the course of a few short weeks Frisch has gone from employed university adjunct to unemployable Internet sociopath with a rap sheet. It’s one thing to troll a few right-wing sites for fun and attention, but another matter entirely to make thinly veiled threats about a man’s child, imply that he’s a pedophile, and then proceed to alienate essentially everyone in the blogosphere and more than a few in what we might call “meatspace.”

If we didn’t know any better, we’d call the whole thing unbelievable. But having followed the unfolding Frisch fiasco, it’s more than believable. It was an inevitability.

Update: Kevin Hayden from The American Street, in the comments:

As a Eugene liberal, I’m not surprised at this latest development. While many in the blogofear postulated that she’s some hero of the left for her claims to represent us, she’s actually been pretty abusive to people all over the political spectrum, online and off. … The blog that seeks to keep people from hiring her is superfluous to the reality that her rep precedes her like the trail of a slug moving backwards. My sources indicate her long and continuing pattern of trashing professional associates, many of them highly esteemed scientists and scholars, makes it unlikely that she will attain any position of note.

This sounds right to us; far from being her only target, Goldstein was just the one with the biggest soapbox. We won’t join in the clinical depression/alcoholism debate, and we certainly hope we don’t give the impression of gleefully piling on. Fortunately, the only person likely to be hurt in all this is Frisch herself — alas, not so fortunate for her.

Update 2: An interesting possibility raised in a non-political message board, found via our referrer logs:

The phone law they cited her under may not mean she used a phone. In 2006 stalking laws were amended to include posting anonymously on the internet. We’ve had trolls here who could be cited under that same law.

The poster is based in Kentucky, while Frisch was charged under Oregon laws, so we’re not sure if this is applicable or not. We haven’t had a chance to look into Oregon’s cyber-stalking laws, so we don’t know whether this is the case in California’s Canada. If anybody knows the answer, please let us know.

Update 3: Having perused Oregon’s H.B. 2918, a cyberstalking law passed in 2001 and a (perhaps too) brief summary of S.B. 1067 relating to “telephonic harrassment,” it’s our guess that this charge actually does pertain to actual use of telephones. On the other hand, IANAL, and neither is Tim.

Update 4: John Dunshee, a self-described Poor Schmuck, offers a clarification of Oregon bail procedure in the comments:

Oregon does not have bail bondsmen. The State itself takes that role. You only need to provide 10% to the jail to be released, and the truth of the matter is that in Oregon even if you have a bail amount specified, the jail can still release you on a “matrix release” without you putting up a dime. It is not at all unusual for someone to be released on a “matrix” be given a court date, fail to appear and have a warrant issued for that, be arrested again and released again. It’s all a jobs program for cops, lawyers, and social workers.

This is news to me, having never been arrested and only going through Lane County’s court system after getting caught at a university neighborhood bar with a fake ID. But I can affirm that Oregon does like its jobs programs: For a whole summer during college, I pumped gas at a Portland-area Chevron. At most gas stations in Oregon and New Jersey and nowhere else, self-service is illegal.

Monday Medley: Joe Lieberman, JonBenet, Raw Story, Katherine Harris and The Apocalypse

Nothing really stands out today, so here’s a brief, likely unrepresentative trip around the political mediasphere:

  • If it hasn’t been said before, allow me to be the first: Raw Story’s comment boards are basically the mirror image of LGF’s.

  • In the bizarre case of semi-prominent libertarian blogger Jackie Mackie Paisley Passey, who drew much attention and much, much derision for an exceedingly arrogant post declaring just how desirable everyone must agree she is, one of the more eye-rolling aspects was her boast that one of her public photos had rated an 8.6 on Hot or Not. Yes, you read that correctly. Without an ounce of irony, she uploaded a photograph of herself to Hot or Not — and evaluated her self-worth based on the results.

    So… here I may be overstepping the bounds of good sense, if not propriety, but I took another public photo from her page and uploaded it to that very same shallow website. If you’re curious to know how she’s doing, well, have a look and rate it yourself.

    It may well be cruel to pile on at this point, and I don’t wish her ill, but it is still relevant, and my best defense is that I’m just holding her to her own standards.


  • The New York Times’ Kurt Eichenwald, who must have drawn the short straw to end up on the pedo beat, had another icky story ready to go today, just as John Mark Karr was en route to Los Angeles in a business class seat on Thai Airlines. This bit jumped out at me:

    In recent months, new concerns have emerged about whether the ubiquitous nature of broadband technology, instant message communications and digital imagery is presenting new and poorly understood risks to children.

    Um, do the last 120 months count as “recent”? Meanwhile at Hullabaloo, Digby asks:

    Considering this new awareness of the use of overly sexualized visual images of children by pedophiles, why has nobody taken the networks to task for repeatedly showing those Jon Benet beauty pageant videos ten years after the fact?

    Good question. I asked a similar question following Jane Hamsher’s deployment of that inflammatory Lieberman-in-blackface picture. If it was wrong for her to post it, what about everyone else who used it afterward? Is context really everything?


  • Josh Marshall is taking flak from readers and more than one fellow blogger for not being anti-Lieberman enough. As are others of his readers.

    The WSJ’s James Taranto has an amusing take:

    They said they would be greeted as liberators for toppling the old regime. Instead, they find themselves caught in a quagmire — a vicious, unwinnable civil war with incalculable costs in both resources and prestige. We refer, of course, to the Democrats in Connecticut.

    His proposed solution keeps the analogy going, but doesn’t make any sense:

    It looks as though Lieberman is in the race to stay — but there is an answer to the Democrats’ quandary. For the good of the party, Lamont could throw his support to Lieberman. This would leave the incumbent running essentially unopposed … allowing the Democrats to concentrate on beating Republicans. Lamont could declare that he made his point by winning the primary, but his own ambitions are less important than the party. He could then redeploy, going on the road with Lieberman, campaigning for Democratic House challengers in Connecticut and for Democratic Senate candidates elsewhere. Rather than stay in a race he is likely to lose, Lamont could prove he understands his own dictum: ”Stay the course’ is not a winning strategy.’

    Taranto frequently turns to jokes when he doesn’t actually have anything to add, and though he is undoubtely behind Lieberman in this race, this is probably one of those all-too-frequent circumstances. With the primary decided, the only candidate who has any business thinking about abandoning the race is Joe Lieberman. That said, it probably would work.


  • More or less along the same lines: I’m not one to praise recent Firedoglake addition Pachacutec — he’s Jane Hamsher without the Hollywood background — but his call for Stephen Colbert to have Conn. Senate Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger on the show is inspired.

  • The connoisseur of schadenfreude in me really hopes Katherine Harris runs for office again soon. What else is left of me declines to comment.

  • If Blog P.I. isn’t updated tomorrow, here’s maybe one reason why.

Good Bye Cruel World: The Suicide Bloggers

Warning: This post contains “language.”

There are perhaps as many ways to read Daily Kos as there are registered users (over 100K as of last week). I bet casual readers stick to the front page. Regular community members might dig into the diaries first. Righty bloggers looking for outlandish statements probably stick with the most-recommended diaries along the left-hand side.

But my favorite point of entry is the page collecting all diaries tagged GBCW, an initialism meaning “Good Bye, Cruel World.” dKosopedia, the dKos community’s answer to Wikipedia, defines the tag thusly:

The “Good Bye Cruel World” diary is when a Kossack decides that DailyKos has become too (fill in the blank) or isn’t nearly (fill in the blank) enough for him or her to continue visiting the site. General chaos ensues in the Comments as other Kossacks agree, disagree, wish the diarist good luck or good riddance.

Some of these are amicable splits; just the other day, Mike Stark from the right-wing talk radio-baiting blog Calling All Wingnuts announced he is taking some time away from the blogosphere. Like almost all bloggers who quit, he’ll be coming back, but unlike most bloggers who quit, he actually says so. At his own site,  in fact, he has posted eight times since the initial announcement.

But primarily, the GBCW category is where the rejected and the dejected, the angriest of the so-called Angry Left, can be found posting one last screed before they walk away for good (or so they promise). Most have been rated trolls one too many times and have finally given up. Their suicide notes, if you will, are often widely-noticed and tend to attract hundreds of replies.

It would be foolish to actually compare them to suicide bombers, save for how “suicide bloggers” rolls off the tongue, but you could at least say they drag a lot of other people into a really bad scene on the way out. For example, here’s wintersmute signing off with the artfully-titled “FUCK DAILY KOS!”:

Ok so it’s Monday. After a long weekend of research on the Democratic Party, I’ve decided to no longer support the party. My choice right? Damn right. So I’m heated. I need to vent. Where do I decide to vent?.. on a thread backing Democratic elections. What do I get? Turned into a troll.

Imagine that. And so it also happens to the more traditional trolls:

Seriously, sooner rather than later, you guys are all going to beg for forgiveness for being so f_cking wrong.  9/11 was an inside job and it’s coming out. … This site is totally bogus.  Sorry to say, but it’s grown to be apart of the 9/11 cover up whether you know it or not. Thanks for the helping hand in making the world a terrible place.

Some ”suicide bloggers” have sought to end their time at Daily Kos peacefully. Take jmgotham, who in late June requested an assisted suicide. To his mortal frustration, most respectfully declined:

“If you really wanted to be troll-rated … you’ve got to be a lot more vitriolic, and spell a lot of things wrong, and really make up a whole lot more shit. You were too nice. You could also just leave.”

Others understand this intuitively. Take for instance a GBCW post from just this month. Short-term community member ErrinF fought not just with the community for supporting Democrats above progressive values, but also with the blogware Scoop, which doesn’t allow users to delete their accounts. Hence the  infamous title: “Delete my fucking account, Kos” (the word seems to come up a lot in GBCW diaries). One memorable passage goes:

The amount of blind conformity that goes on in America is what fuels the corrupt two party system. DailyKos exemplifies blind conformity, and I regret any and all association I have had with it. I should be allowed to delete my account and go; Why should I be forced to stay amid this pathetic cult of personality? The herd mentality that goes on here sickens me now, AND I WANT OUT. Regardless of my personal experience here, EVERYBODY WHO SIGNED UP TO THIS WEBSITE SHOULD BE FREE TO DELETE THEIR ACCOUNTS IF THEY SO WISH TO. For Kos to deny us this is downright fascist.

The post picked up some 1800 comments, a large number even by Daily Kos’ standards. dKosopedia called it one of the “most famous GBCW diaries in the history of Daily Kos.” Veteran Kossack YetiMonk recently summarized the flare-up and subsequent fallout well. The diary inspired several parodies, the best of which is probably “Paint my fucking house, Kos”:

I want out of this farce of a website. I thought this was on open forum for painters to discuss their brushes. Instead, it is little more than the internet wing of the Housepaint Duopoly machine. Now that I want out, a fair minded and liberal website would let me paint my house and go.

Sometimes the suiciders complain about “censorship,” sometimes they complain about the advertising, and sometimes they just seem like they want to cause trouble. The vast majority who grow disillusioned probably just fade away, never to be heard from again. But what’s the fun in that?

If there’s as many points of entry at Daily Kos as there are registered users, there’s certainly as many points of exit as there are abandoned accounts.

Not Black Like I’m Not Either

Note: Post updated below.

Today James Taranto and Michelle Malkin caught Jane Hamsher attaching to her Huffington Post column a Photoshop job of Bill Clinton standing a Joe Lieberman in blackface. Taranto: “Are there no limits to the racism of the ‘progressive’ left?” Malkin: “I am so sure the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP and the civil rights brigade will be protesting this disgusting use of blackface in political discourse.” Mark Coffey has an open letter to Arianna.

So then: The picture disappeared from the site within hours, and the comments — many, but not all sent by Mr. Taranto and Ms. Malkin — filled up with comments critical, sarcastic, but you wouldn’t say abusive. And yet, every single comment was flagged abusive, even: “Good post—and right on target. But the picture isn’t helpful, though God knows Holy Joe would put on blackface if it pleased Bush.” Not to mention: “There should be a feature that would let us flag this article as abusive.”

Tonight, if you go to Firedoglake right now, the top post, “About That Graphic…” begins:

I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. It’s also important to note that I do not, nor have I ever worked for Ned Lamont’s campaign. However, at their request, I removed the image earlier today. Unfortunately, Senator Lieberman’s campaign has used this in attempt to hurt Ned and score political points, mustering their own faux indignation in attempt to further distract from the issues important to the voters of Connecticut.”

She rejects “absurd charges of racism,” but then she also concedes: “I regret it and I invite them to take it up with the person who did it, namely me.” It’s not quite a Mel Gibson apology, but at least she didn’t call on Malkin and the Lieberdems to meet with her and help her to heal. I digress.

It’s unfortunate, inasmuch as the actual bloggers in Connecticut have been helping make this race the most exciting of the year. And not just their blogging, but also their extensive use of YouTube.

A couple days ago I explained how foolhardy was the NRSC’s attempt to tarnish Jon Tester by association with a troll at Daily Kos. It’s not always fair to use bloggers in campaigns, but Hamsher is not a nobody, even if she sometimes sounds like a troll.

If nothing else, the artwork sure was a non sequitur: Yes, the column is about old Joementum, but the point of contention was Wal-Mart, not race. The only hint that is still available on the site is the credit to somone named Darkblack who appears to be a regular contributor of artwork to Firedoglake; one of FDL’s distinctive features is the submitted artwork, including plenty of Photoshop work. (Plus, this HuffPo column also appears to largely be a quotation from Digby, but that might just be the sponsored ad mucking up the layout.)

I’m no fan of Ms. Hamsher’s Coulter-left (or Malkin-left) style, but I think at least this time she realizes her HuffPo photo was the kind of thing she herself would have seized on and flogged mercilessely if the blackface was on the other site*.

Update: The Courant gives it a few column inches; Dan Balz gives it a few more.

TPM Muckraker’s headline — “Lieberman Attacks Blogger Over Blackface Pic” — gets it exactly backward. Matt Stoller thinks the best term for Hamsher’s graphical selection is “edgy.”

Filling in for Reynolds, Ann Althouse pegs it as a “sorry if you were offended form of apology with the extra oomph of implying that a lot of the offense was bogus and an immediate descent into justification for giving offense.” TPM and Stoller are just glad to help.

The pro-Lamont bloggers actually based in Connecticut are sticking to the program, at least on the page. Yet independent Genghis Conn, on the other hand, catches Lamont going from “I’m very appreciative of the blogs.” to “I don’t know anything about the blogs.” Ouch. One Jane Hamsher comes along, and this is the thanks you get?

[Update: Jump removed to accomodate updates.]

*Actually, the one place where it is still up is Malkin’s blog.

Update: Only now, Slate is using it to accompany Dickerson’s take on the “bizarre Lieberman blackface scandal,” quoth the editors. Actually, so is Football Fans For Truth. Malkin has not just the blackface picture, but Steve Gilliard’s “Sambo” photo, a Tim Kaine had to extricate himself from late in the 2005 VA GOV campaign. So I’m just asking here, when is it considered outrage, and when is it evidence? So I understand it that Hamsher and Huffington are not allowed to post it — so what rules apply to others? Is it robbed of its power because it’s already been held out for criticism?

Nothing out there about Slate’s usage just yet. Will there be an email campaign to Jacob Weisberg?

P.S. Dales is right to point out the blackface photo is still up on Firedoglake, insofar as it’s still in a public folder. Of course, what’s important to remember is that it was there in the first place.

Defending The Kossacks

Tonight at NRO’s The Corner, Byron York reports that the NRSC is sending out a press release holding MT SEN Dem nominee Jon Tester responsible for a truly crazed Daily Kos diary offering such incoherent gems as: “‘SCREW YOU, ISRAEL’!!!!!!!”

This is not the first NRSC release publicizing the netroots’ strong and early support for Tester, but it is the first one conceivably worth getting worked up about. And worked up they are, or pretend to be:

Jon Tester’s campaign website links to ‘Daily Kos,’ a radical left-wing web site. The editor of ‘Daily Kos’ has consistently praised Tester and even contributed to his campaign. The hateful rhetoric on ‘Daily Kos’ isn’t fit for a campaign for U.S. Senate, but sadly, Jon Tester has refrained from condemning it.

Yes, Tester’s site links to Daily Kos, as do untold thousands of blogs. And Daily Kos has untold thousands of pages, probably hundreds of new ones each day. And this is one post I’m sure Greenwald and Patterico (let alone Moulitsas and Tester) could agree to condemn, if they even knew it was there.

But it so happens that the Kossacks themselves did care to denounce this post. In fact, all but one of the 50 commenters did, and that was a digression about church and state. Other users appropriately tagged it a “Troll Diary,” with some responding angrily and others just making fun of it. Did the NRSC read this far? Would it have stopped them from sending out the release if they had?

And just how vital a member of the Daily Kos community is White on Black, the alleged troll in question? First of all, the account was registered only in the last week or so; we know this because the telltale user ID number is in the mid-94,000s. In that time he has posted 16 comments, all but two of which link to his four diaries. And here’s a brief rundown on them:

  • His first post, dated two Sundays ago, asserting that “Sadaam [sic] in 1990 needed the ports of kuwait.” No troll rating, but only 8 comments and no support.
  • Another spittle-flecked diatribe claiming the U.S. “betrayed Sadaam” [sic (again)], subsequently troll-rated.
  • A rant giving “credit to Syria and Iran for staying out of this fight,” which rated one comment and a “Troll Diary” tag.
  • The diary the NRSC apparently holds up as representative of dKos as a whole.

And here is a typical example of White on Black’s comment section contributions:

I’ve said this before! I am handicapped from an unfortunate accident in 2001 and have only one good hand and one finger to type with. It is hard and not the easiest thing for me to do,-typing. Is that all you kmow how to do is pick on people. I feel very sorry for you. You sound more handicapped in so many more ways than I am.

It’s impossible to tell what White on Black’s motivations really are, or if he is really a he, but I’d wager that he prefers Conrad Burns be returned to Washington this fall, and not Jon Tester. If nothing else, the NRSC has fallen for a prank.

To be sure, there are certainly posts to be found at Daily Kos that are highly unrepresentative, to say the least, of the average American or of the Democratic party’s desired image — and by actual members of the community. Linking the Bush family to Hitler? Check. Republicans-hate-democracy conspiracy theories? Check. Committed non-support of Israel? Check.

The upshot is that there probably is enough borderline anti-Americanism on the site to be a political problem, even if those are minority views. It’s hard to believe any reporter working for a daily paper would bother picking up this offering from the NRSC, but as more these releases go out, they’re going to have an impact.

York is right when he advises: “Look for more of this,” meaning more GOP groups tying Dem candidates to the unsavory views found on liberal blogs. Lord knows there are times when a candidate really should distance themselves from a particular blog. But this isn’t one of them.

“All Politics is National”

Good line. Wish I’d said it first, but Google tells me I’m at least 115 results too late. Bill Clinton might’ve said it, too. However, only a few seem to have intended it as I did. One is the now abandoned godofthemachine.com, which put it succinctly:

In life all politics is local: on blogs all politics is national.

I didn’t invent it, but maybe I can still popularize it. I’ll try to remember to use that where it applies — a lot of places, I’d think. Consider your help solicited.

The line comes from a post dated 7/16/03, titled “The Immutable Laws of Blog Comments.” It holds up well enough that I’ve included the full text, after the jump.

Continue reading ‘“All Politics is National”’

But Can They Agree To Agree?

Jeff Goldstein is absolutely right about this appalling post at BooMan Tribune.

But it also merits pointing out that a majority of the comments to that appalling post are absolutely right, as well.

P.S. Not all of them, of course.

Already In Progress

  • Welcome, Instapundit readers! Do check back in next week, as well, when Blog P.I. will be back under the control of its regular proprietor.

  • Wendy McElroy of iFeminists.com tackles the ballad of Deb Frisch for Fox News, as discussed here and here.

  • If you try to comment and it doesn’t seem to be showing up, rest assured that your comment has not been misappropriated, and will be approved as soon as we see it.

  • Speaking of which, the question of open comments versus registered comments or no comments at all is an interesting one. Personally, I tend to prefer open comment sections, if only because they pave the way for situations like this.

  • L’Affaire GoldFrisch: Part II

    So: Deb Frisch, crazy, said bad things about Jeff Goldstein’s child, pilloried, also used as rhetorical weapon by parts of the rightosphere against the leftosphere. I was thinking it would take a week for allegations of hypocrisy to start flying back the other way, but everything happens more quickly in this fast-paced modern world of ours.

    Glenn Greenwald is a relatively recent addition to the leftosphere’s A-list, and he got where he is today by writing posts like this reaction to the Deb Frisch/Jeff Goldstein controversy. By way of comparison, he makes an example of this post by the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler’s Misha. It’s not a hard post to make an example of.

    Greenwald makes some valid points: the post he cites is appalling, and its author is not a nobody. The author is no more likely to murder five Supreme Court justices than Deb Frisch was to fly to Colorado and abduct Jeff Goldstein’s son, but it’s still some ugly stuff. Meanwhile, the nut of Misha’s response to Greenwald is:

    1) Are you familiar with the term hyperbole? If not, look it up.

    It seems relatively unlikely that Misha would accept this justification from, say, Deb Frisch. And once the obviously ridiculous death-threat aspect is dismissed, it’s hard to tell what the “hyperbole” defense is supposed to signify. (Perhaps that if the author were not exaggerating for effect, he would have scaled the phrase “koranimal swine” back to the more moderate “koranimals.”)

    Greenwald’s main purpose, though, is to accuse his adversaries of enforcing double standards: if Misha — a “prominent blogger,” as he repeatedly points out — is calling for five justices of the SCOTUS to be hanged, where’s the condemnation? Isn’t this a bigger deal than some deranged adjunct saying something tasteless about someone’s family?

    There are a few problems here. Firstly, if we’re actually going to take all this nonsense seriously, a death threat from an “obscure person” made in regard to a member of another blogger’s family is actually more likely to be serious than the idea of a furious “prominent blogger” hanging five ninths of the SCOTUS from a tree. Also, accusing righty bloggers of “dig[ging] under rocks” to find Frisch disregards the fact that she came over to Goldstein’s own comment section, unbidden, to have her latest psychotic break. And, with the notable exception of this widely-linked Confederate Yankee post, righty bloggers tended not to require in so many words that their lefty counterparts disassociate themselves from Frisch’s burblings: Greenwald is engaging in his own bit of sneaky guilt-by-association here.

    Most important, though, is the argument Greenwald doesn’t make: namely, that the outrage over Frisch’s comments quickly became a cynical thing: another stick with which to whack the other side, and a convenient excuse for people to say whatever they wanted to to Frisch in a spirit of utter moral righteousness. The reason Greenwald can’t realistically advance this argument is that he’s in the same line of work himself:

    One need only peruse the routine hate-mongering of the Right’s opinion leaders and their prominent bloggers — the Malkins and the Mishas and the David Horowitzs and the Ann Coulters — 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 [ed: he's talking about Glenn Reynolds] and have the audacity to demand that others condemn such rhetoric when it comes from far less significant and influential corners.

    Right. It’s not clear whether Greenwald genuinely believes his rhetoric, but he can certainly mau-mau with the best of them — and it is, after all, the nature of the game. (Plus, it’s hard not to root for him when he’s going after the “koranimal swine” guy.) Meanwhile, as a bonus for the rest of us, the grudges fomented over the last few days will make things all the more fun the next time a partisan does something stupid.

    The Deb Frisch fallout is just the latest bout of a great wrestling match that plays out in comment sections all over the world: holds are tested, leverage is exploited, advantages are pursued, and both sides spend most of their time wearing ridiculous outfits and trying to get different sections of the crowd to go berserk. There’s never been a better time to be watching.