Demand Google News transparency

Demand Google News transparency

: We’re demanding transparency of mainstream news.

Well, it’s high time we get transparency from GoogleNews.

Instapundit and LGF point to a nazi site – complete with “love your race” graphics — that is part of Google News, while mainstream sane blogs are not.

Enough.

Google: Release a complete list of your news sources now. And institute a means for questioning those choices and for suggesting other choices now.

Google: It’s bad enough that you won’t share information about ad revenue sharing. But not to share information about your means of selecting news sources is inexecusable… in this case, evil.

: UPDATE: Roger L Simon killed Google ads for two reasons.

  • http://www.lafn.org/~zeppenwolf zeppenwolf

    “Google: Release a complete list of your news sources now.”
    Or else what?
    I guess you could lead the charge by linking to other competing search engines, or something..?
    Other than that, I’m sceptical we have any real means to influence a household word. The ‘sphere is great, but where’s the staying power in this story?

  • GoodBuzz GreyTeeth

    Good catch by you, Glenn Reynolds, and LGF (I do trust LGF to find racists, it takes one to know one.)
    You may have a point about Google releasing their current list of news sources, but I am curious.
    Apart from Blogging THIS Oh So Importantly,
    Did you or Glenn or LGF so much as fill out Google News’ feedback page, which explicitly lists as one problem, a problem with the quality of a news source?
    I just did that, it three clicks and about 30 seconds.
    http://news.google.com/intl/en_us/about_google_news.html
    http://www.google.com/support/news/bin/request.py
    I want to report a problem with a news source listed in Google News
    “I have concerns about the quality of a source”
    Did you do report this to google? If you didn’t do that, can you tell me why you didn’t?

  • GoodBuzz GreyTeeth

    Regarding your demand:
    And institute a means for questioning those choices and for suggesting other choices now.
    Uh, did you even read their FAQ?
    #
    What if I don’t see my favorite news source in Google News?
    We’re as shocked as you are! If we’re missing a publisher that we should be covering, please send us your ideas. While we can’t guarantee that we’ll heed your recommendation, but we do promise to review all the suggestions we receive without regard to political viewpoint or ideology.
    Contact Us
    Thank you for your interest in Google News. What’s on your mind?

    I want to recommend a news source
    I want to recommend a news source
    Thank you for your suggestion. Although we are not able to crawl all the news sources recommended for Google News, we appreciate your recommendation and will review it.

  • -asx-

    I must say I’m stunned at the newfound spirit of political correctness over at Instapundit and LGF. I guess they believe in a multi-cultural fascism!

  • http://michaelzimmer.blogspot.com/ Michael Zimmer

    “Nazi” vs “mainstream sane” news outlets…. So, who do we want making these distinctions? One person’s white supremacism is another person’s sane position.

  • Talern

    (I am a researcher for Google Answers, not that it matters, but please forgive my anonymity)I think Google News, when it was first started, had a list of sources. I’ve always wondered why they took it down. I’d be surprised if someone out in the ‘net hasn’t already made a giant source list of their own. If not, should be fairly easy to make one quickly and painlessly if Google doesn’t cooperate.

  • -asx-

    who do we want making these distinctions?
    We make them collectively. It’s called “civil society.” Look it up sometime. Start with Rousseau. It might help you understand a little something we call “democracy.”

  • http://www.syracuse.com/newslogs/newstracker/ Brian Cubbison

    Newsknife.com lists 2,166 news sources for Google.
    http://www.newsknife.com/online_news_review_3.html

  • http://jimtreacher.com Jim Treacher

    Puce and I tried to get listed on Google News a couple of times, with no luck. He really took it hard.

  • http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/ Yehudit

    LGF did go through the process you describe, GoodBuzz, and got a runaround. There were several posts on LGF about this last year some time.

  • http://www.mpturner.net/blogs Michael in MI

    Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has been covering this for months now. It is just ridiculous how far left wing and anti-America sites get listed on Google News:
    Google News High Standards

  • http://cellar.org/iotd.php Undertoad

    LGF is rather, um, “extreme”. Its comments section is particularly terrifying. But LGF can provide useful information.
    My neighbor has a mean, rotten, misbehaved dog. But I don’t ignore him when he barks, because that can be useful information.

  • http://americandigest.org vanderleun

    Historically, one of the easiest ways not to be seen, by and large as evil is simply to repeat, over and over, “We’re not evil.”

  • gregbash

    GoodBuzz GreyTeeth
    Reading your comment, the words “half-bright” and “nihilist” come to mind. I can see you jabbering, wild-eyed, late at night – poking your finger, savagely, at the mirror.
    Face it. We’re the Good Guys. If we were not here, the Earth would be much worse off.

  • http://tonypierce.com tony

    when will you demand that glenn quit bsing his readers that hes a libertarian?
    when will you demand that charles admit that most of his commentors are from the looniest fringes of dittoland?
    its not enough for them that their bros run the white house, the senate, the congress, tv, radio, and baseball, but now they want control of google news too?
    p.s. it’s still in beta for a reason.
    p.p.s. when will you demand that someone find osama?

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    i just put another troll on timeout. if he misses recess, maybe he’ll behave better in class. if not, we’ll send him home on the little bus.

  • http://www.serdarkaya.com Serdar Kaya

    I don’t see anything wrong in google’s linking to fascist sites.
    Just because you link somewhere, doesn’t mean that you support their ideas.
    On the other hand, I am aware of the fact that linking helps the site support its ideas; but then, why don’t we just cool down a bit and let people decide.

  • mezzrow

    “It is the single biggest lie ever told”
    Y’know, ordinarily I just ignore this moonbattery because it’s just here to spark another rant, but I think you’ve hit on something, Troll-Boy. Here are a few names that hint to me what you’re really looking for:
    Yitzhak Rabin
    John Kennedy
    Peter Stolypin
    Abraham Lincoln
    We can see what will make your little hateful troll-heart warm and fuzzy. Thank God, we can pray it won’t happen because there are hundreds of brave and intelligent men and women working hard everyday to see that it doesn’t. Just seethe, Troll-boy…

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Serdar, I think the problem is not so much that Google links to fascist sites — though it certainly does reduce the usefulness of the site — but that they make active editorial judgements that permit Vanguard News, but reject Little Green Footballs, in spite of the fact that the latter is far more factual and useful (and sane).
    (If they are bothered by the comments, they don’t have to index those. Plenty of “legitimate” news sites have comment functions — including Yahoo and MSNBC — and most of those are orders of magnitude more idiotic than anything you’d find on LGF. And LGF allows for reading its postings without the comments.)

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Love this part by Goodbuzz, incidentally:
    (I do trust LGF to find racists, it takes one to know one.)
    I could waste my time trying to defend LGF against yet another baseless and scurrilous libel.
    Instead, I’ll admit that, not being a racist, perhaps I am not qualified to “know one,” as Goodbuzz suggests. On the other hand, if we accept his premise, we can also read it as Goodbuzz’s own admission of being a racist.

  • richard mcenroe

    But… but… how can you criticize Google? Weren’t they just interviewed by Playboy?

  • Addison

    LGF often scares the beejeesus out of me.
    But not the comments, I usually don’t bother with them.
    The actual news items/photos that Johnson finds, and brings to light. The fact that by doing that, he finds himself persona non grata among his former liberal collegues is pretty damnning rebuttal to the concept that they’re “open-minded”, “reality-based”, etc. etc. etc.

  • http://michaelzimmer.blogspot.com/ Michael Zimmer

    Demanding transparency in GoogleNews assumes that they are a public good. Google is a for-profit corporation, with no implicit responsibility to the public, only to its shareholders.
    This demand speaks to the fact that Google has become considered a neutral source for information, which it clearly is not.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    Michael: Sorry, but I’m filing that in the crock file. Just because you make money it doesn’t mean you’re evil. And if GoogleNews doesn’t serve the public, its public, it won’t make money. If it becomes known as a place for thinkspam, it will shrink. Neutral? Well, they don’t write anything. So we judge them by their links. But we also judge them by their tansparency: They should be telling us their sources and their means for selecting them.

  • http://michaelzimmer.blogspot.com/ Michael Zimmer

    “Just because you make money it doesn’t mean you’re evil”
    I didn’t said that. I agree that Google needs to provie a valuable service in order to meet the demands of its shareholders.
    All I’m suggesting is that you can’t hope for neutrality, nor expect full transparency, from Google. If you want full transparency, you should find an open-source news aggregator. Google will never fully reveal its code, and as we all know, code is law.

  • http://www.buzzmachine.com Jeff Jarvis

    “Evil” obviously in the Google context.
    No, I do think we can demand that they reveal a list of their sources and disclosure of the standards upon which they select them.

  • http://michaelzimmer.blogspot.com/ Michael Zimmer

    Don’t get me wrong, I fully support your desire for transparency on this. I think we should ask for the list and their standards. I just doubt whether we’ll get “full” transparency. And, more to my interests, I find this discussion fascinating because in the way Google has culturally become such an important gatekeeper of news and information.

  • Big Gay Al

    Pray tell, does LGF constitute the “sane” blogosphere?
    National Vanguard and LGF are the same. Just substitute blacks/Jew/Mexican/non-white on National Vanguard for Muslim/liberal/democrat on LGF.
    i.e.:
    NV constantly puts the qualifier “organized-crime linked” before referring to the ADL
    LGF constantly puts the qualifier “Radical Islamic front group” in front of CAIR.
    NV thinks that Jews control the media; LGF thinks liberals control the media.
    NV thinks all non-whites are genetically inferior; LGF thinks all Muslims are genetically pre-disposed to blowing themselves up.

  • Matt

    Why would Google News include LGF as a news source? (Or Vanguard – which I’m sure they’ll drop soon).
    LGF is just a cut-n-past hate site. Other than being third to expose the CBS forgeries when have they ever made news? It’s really just a vanity site for far-right extremist and racist Charles Johnson to continue his insane propaganda against Muslims. (Wonder who’s footing the bill for that?)
    Johnson is a slimy opportunist, a fear-mongerer and chickenhawk of the worst kind. Google is wise to ignore him and his fetid ‘Lizards’ as they post their daily bile.

  • goldsmith

    Big Gay Al: Hey, I’m big and gay too! And I also consider myself a liberal (at least in the humanist sense)! And I love non-extremist middle easterners (I even dated one for years). And they still haven’t strung me up over there at big, bad ol’ LGF even though I am quite open about these things!
    And since when did muslim become a race? So it’s not ok to criticize, to whatever degree one sees necessary, a religious ideology? Wow, tell that to the liberals!
    Do I agree with all the comments posted at LGF? Of course not! Do you agree with all the comments posted here? Do you agree with Jeff 100%? Somehow I would doubt it. But I understand it’s easier to just sling accusations and be all nice and equivalent between real, actual, self-described racists like the Vanguard sump-brains and Charles Johnson.

  • goldsmith

    And another strange assertion that Islam is somehow a race by Matt! Odd!
    Bonus “oh brother, scroll over this comment” points for the use of the term “chicken hawk”, one of the most brainless logical fallacies to emerge from the so-called left in some time.
    Anyway, I’m with Jeff on this. I like the services Google provides and, overall, I like the company. They need to rethink their policies about GoogleNews and develop a more condified and transparent process for what gets indexed and what doesn’t.

  • Pablo

    Big Gay Al, I’ve got a news flash for you. Muslim isn’t genetic.
    Matt, I’ve got one for you too. Muslim isn’t a race.

  • Pablo

    Certainly it’s not true that the penalty for converting away from Islam is death. It also isn’t true that the penalty for criticizing Mohammed or the Koran is death. Obviously, sharia law is a lovely, life affirming spiritual playground and not a mysoginistic, barbaric system of ruling by fear.
    Surely, Charles Johnson made all that up, right?

  • pst314

    “LGF thinks all Muslims are genetically pre-disposed…”
    Does Big Troll Al really believe such easily-disproved garbage, or is he a conscious liar?
    Back to the matter at hand: Why does Google News thing that a neo-Nazi website is a worthwhile news source, but the diligent and anti-fascist Charles Johnson is not? Perhaps that tells us something about the “progressive” employees at Google.

  • Big Gay Al

    “Muslim isn’t genetic”
    What’s your point? It’s fine and dandy to slag off on all Muslims, because, technically, they’re not a race? Well, “Jew” isn’t genetic either. I guess that makes anti-Semitism okay. Women aren’t a “race” so that makes misogyny okay. Gays aren’t a race either, so homophobia is a-okay in Pablo’s book.

  • Kris

    If the left was as concerned with the anti-Semites in their midst as is Charles Johnson, the content of LGF wouldn’t be so damning to them.
    I occasionally lurk at LGF to find stories that the MSM missed or rejected because of editorial bias. Anti-Semitism seems to be their primary concern. All news in the mideast, university classrooms and elsewhere are filtered through the lens of anti-semitism. Reading LGF has certainly raised my consciousness about this issue, one that I previously thought was overblown or exaggerated. For this reason alone, and the fact that my lefty sensibilities are challenged, I visit LGF with an open mind.
    I see no bigotry or racism. I do see a lot of anger, some justified. Sometimes the rhetoric is heated, but the typical commenter on this site is an average American … that is, one with both open eyes and mind.
    Oh, as an aside, I also think that LGF is one of the wittiest sites in the blogosphere.

  • Pablo

    “Well, “Jew” isn’t genetic either.”
    Yes it is. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
    BTW, neither femininity nor homosexuality is driving it’s adherents to fly planes into skyscrapers or behead people. I know, it’s just a pesky little distinction. I’m picky about that sort of thing though.

  • Matt

    It is profoundly dishonest to read LGF even just a few times and not see that Johnson is a racist and a bigot. His commentators are far worse, but Johnson leads the charge. His bigotry and racism exist in parallel; his campaign against Islam is not evidence of his racism but his bigotry, but his campaign against the Palestinians certainly is. He is both. Every day.
    Johnson provides an invaluable service to the enemies of our country who can falsely point to his droppings as reasons to hate us all.

  • Big Gay Al

    Pablo, just come out and say it: you hate Muslims. You believe the Islamic religion is a “death cult.” You believe that only with the complete destruction of a religion that has 1.2 billion followers will the West be able to win the “War on Terror”
    Nothing wrong in coming out and saying it. It’ll make you feel better.

  • http://jrnev.blogspot.com/ John

    Hey Matt,
    If it’s so obivious LGF is racist, can you give an example?

  • http://www.rogerlsimon.com Roger L. Simon

    I just removed Google Ads from my blog for this and other reasons. Call on other bloggers to do the same.

  • Pablo

    Matt, perhaps you’d like to link us to something racist Charles has said. In the meantime, perhaps you’d like to stop here, here and here and then tell us again what race Charles hates.

  • Pablo

    Sorry, Al. No can do. In fact, one of my personal heroes right now is Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She has my complete respect and admiration.
    Take your time working that out, ok?

  • goldsmith

    “Well, “Jew” isn’t genetic either.”

    Tell that one to Hitler, or to the neo-nazis who see red when they see a hooked nose. Whether it’s a good thing or not, Jewishness has been considered an ethnicity as well as a religion for many thousands of years, partly because Judaism is tribalist and matrilinear, not simply a religious philosophy. Islam and Christianity, at their core, are “conversion” religions, not inherited ones. I have no problem with criticizing Judaism the religion, though one does have to be careful to make the religion/ethnicity difference clear.
    As for the “homophobia” thing, I don’t accept the term “homophobia” in the first place because I think it’s a misnomer. It suggests fear where there is often simply disapproval, and I don’t generally like to use psuedo-psychoanalytic terminology in social discourse. Of course there are people who hate homosexuals, but I call that hate, not a phobia. I also have no problem with people criticizing homosexuality as a practice or a culture (even though I am gay, I often criticize the latter) as long as those people accept that I will certainly argue with them when I disagree.
    As to the reference to women, though I do have a problem with misogynists who advocate hatred of the fairer sex for nothing more than their sex, I have no problem with criticizing anyone who presumes to speak for “women” as an aggregate, whether they be feminists or “pro-choice/pro-life” people. Unfortunately this is often conflated with misogyny.
    You painted yourself into a corner, Al. I’d be frightened to live in a world where free speech (and the freedom to critize the speech, beliefs and actions of others) is not considered a universal, creator-given right. Oh wait, judging by some of the comments above, I do live in such a world.
    I’m scared.

  • Kris

    Matt,
    I’m sure you can come up with an out-of-context example that sounds racist on the surface of things, but the general tone of LGF’s blog is anything but racist. Its possible to cherry-pick text from any popular, well-commented site, that prove just about anything … racism included. Left sites as well as right ones seem to have a few commenters out of the mainstream. But it is the mainstream of comments, not the oddballs, that define a blogsite, and by that criterion LGF is not racist.
    In fact, I see LGF as a place where struggling- and ex-lefties seem to congregate. Johnson himself claims he never voted for a Republican until the last election. Same with many commenters. I’ve noticed that many commenters changed their political worldview after 9-11. Jarvis’ is another example of a blogsite that takes a so-called “realistic view” of terrorism and the changed world we are now in.
    Please don’t be so quick to charge racism. Its one of the ugliest attributes of the hard left, and a huge turn-off to the moderate, middle American.

  • AG in Houston

    Calling Charles Johnson a racist for linking to factual news stories is a far cry from some of the hateful posters in the comments section.
    I take offense to the labeling of Charles Johnson as a racist.
    My personal opinion of some of LGF’s posters notwithstanding, Little Green Footballs is a must-read-blog several times a day.
    And those who label Charles Johnson as a racist are purely dishonest.

  • BK

    Since 9-11-01 it has been increasingly difficult for me to see beyond the hatred that has embedded itself in Islam. I try not to think or say bigoted things against Islam as a whole but to chastise only the radical elements of the Muslim faith. After all, every religion has its undesirable faction which rears its ugly head from time to time. Unfortunately, I do not see the positive aspects of Islam being portrayed either by the MSM or by Muslim groups. It seems that either the voice of true Islam is being strangled or we have already heard and have already seen true Islam.

  • http://www.purplefury.com Purple Fury

    All of the race-baiting, etc. of LGF and Charles Johnson is simply envy and frustration on the part of the leftward-leaning side of the blogosphere. Charles’ posts at LGF are factual, and if problems are later discovered, he’s very disciplined about making updates and corrections. It must be enormously frustrating for his critics to be on the wrong side of the facts so often, not to mention how infuriating it must be to observe LGF’s skyrocketing page view statistics. So I guess it’s really not surprising that the LGF-haters fall back on the only tool they have: baseless ad-hominem attacks.

  • Big Gay Al

    Goldsmith:
    Where in my comments have I suggested LGF be muzzled? I don’t think NV should be muzzled either: let them both stew in their hate for the world to see.
    I’ve had this argument with other LGFers: when they get called on their “racism,” their first response is “Muslims are not a race.” Does that make it okay, then, to slag off on all Muslims? Maybe I should just call it bigotry: believing a person in inferior because of race, creed or sex.
    I just think it is rich for Jarvis here to point to LGF as “sane” when it is simply an arena where bigots can make jokes like “nuke Mecca” or “those Koranimals” or something else (see this urban dictionary link for some vile comments just a day after the tsunami: http://little-green-footballs.urbanup.com/991633)
    The second point here is: is Charles Johnson racist? Well, Johnson is very careful: he never allows any of his own thoughts on the site. For that reason alone, LGF should not be considered for Google News; he just cuts and pastes stories from other outlets.
    So, is Johnson racist? I’ll paraphrase Dave Chappelle: “He may not be a racist, but he certainly has a racist’s uniform.”

  • http://www.justbarkingmad.com Quilly Mammoth

    I don’t hate Islam. I hate the 10% that want to either kill us or force us into servitude. Quickly on the chopping block or kneeling between the goalposts would be Liberals and homosexuals. But first will be the Jews.
    Stopping anti-Semitism, fighting to prevent another Holocaust, is but one step in stopping the spread of pure evil: Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.
    The old line ìFirst, they came for the Jewsî has never been truer. Does that make me a racist? Odd how opposing a philosophy (Radical Islamic Fundamentalism) that is misogynist, patriarchal, anti-democratic and dedicated to violence makes one a racist to the Left.
    However, even if LGF is what some say it is, how can they not be picked up and National Vanguard is? No matter how you look at it this decision by Google says a whole lot about them, and not very much about LGF.

  • Pablo

    “Well, Johnson is very careful: he never allows any of his own thoughts on the site.”
    Al, that’s just brilliant. He never says anything about it…but I just know…
    I’m beginning to think you’re heteronormaphobic. Somehow, I just know.

  • http://ambientirony.mu.nu Pixy Misa

    LGF is not a hate site. It is not a racist site. It is primarily a news aggregator (with a comments function). It excerpts articles on a certain group of topics to bring them to a wider audience. Charles Johnson often doesn’t even comment on the articles, just presenting the excerpts. It doesn’t attempt to distort or colour the issues, it serves up the facts as best it can. Sometimes an error is made, but when this happens it is promptly and prominantly corrected.
    There is a lot of anger in the comments at LGF, but it is anger directed at specific, factual, verifiable incidents.
    LGF is selective in the news it reports. But that’s the whole point. And it is definitely not selective to the point of exclusion. Recent good news from Palestine has been reported – with a certain touch of skepticism, but reported nonetheless.
    (In the time it took me to write and preview this, at least three other people made the same points. Oh well.)

  • Big Gay Al

    Goldsmith:
    Missed this in your comment:
    [Homophobia] suggests fear where there is often simply disapproval
    Why do you think this “disapproval” exists? I’d argue that fear is the basis for all bigotry: fear of “unnatural” practices, fear of the swarthy other, fear of Jews. So, in fact, homophobia is not a misnomer: Matthew Sheppard wasn’t killed because his murderers “disapproved” of his lifestyle; he was killed because they feared his lifestyle. I can’t get married in this state for fear of what gay marriage will do to the institution of marriage (for one, based on the gay couples I know, it would improve our nation’s divorce rate).

  • http://oyster.journalspace.com Oyster

    Big Gay Al, you have jumped on your high horse putting words in people’s mouths and demonizing one site (because apparently it appeals to your sense of righteousness, indignation or hatred) and are displaying the very attitude that you are condemning.
    Instead of attacking LGF why haven’t you addressed the actual issue? Google’s obvious bias in permitting an extremely hate-filled site like National Vanguard but not permitting, by your definition, another hate-filled site like LGF. Not to mention that Wonkette is in their “list of news sources” when it is clearly indicated as “satire”.
    Way to skirt around the issue, man. You don’t have an argument. Give up before I have to site a dozen more instances of Google’s bias.

  • http://www.purplefury.com Purple Fury

    Why do you think this “disapproval” exists?
    If you don’t honestly know the answer to that question, Al, it is quite frankly a waste of bandwidth to attempt to answer you.
    A word of advice: stop transferring your distrust and hatred of homophobics onto LGF. In case you can’t see it yourself, you are conflating bigotry towards gays with legitimate outrage directed at the actions of Islamo-fascists.
    Put another way, you might want to keep Dennis Miller’s credo in mind, as it is as close to the LGF ethic as anything else: “I don’t have a problem with two guys wanting to get married. I DO have a problem with a fanatical Islamist nutjob who wants to blow up their wedding.”

  • BK

    So now disapproval is a phobia? Well, I disapprove of 12 year old girls getting knocked up by their 40 year old uncles so I guess I just fear pedophiles then? It is quite pathetic your attempts to link disapproval to fear and bigotry.

  • Big Gay Al

    Google’s bias, towards what?
    Are you suggesting Google is left-wing when
    vdare.com (also an anti-semitic site that LGF has ignored since it is also right-wing)
    worldnetdaily
    news max.com
    wizbang
    are also liste as news sources.
    Is Google anti-Semitic?
    Globes Online, Israel
    Jerusalem Post, Israel
    Arutz Sheva, Israel
    Haaretz, Israel
    So where exactly is Google’s bias?

  • goldsmith

    “I’ve had this argument with other LGFers: when they get called on their “racism,” their first response is “Muslims are not a race.” Does that make it okay, then, to slag off on all Muslims?”

    Did I slag off on all Muslims? Does everyone at LGF do so? Unfortunately for Islam and for us as well, the Wahhabist/extremist philosophy has come to dominate Islam in many parts of the world, and certainly that arm of Islam dominates the attention of the media, both theirs and ours. Because of this, it does sometimes become easy to aggregate all of Islam and its followers into this majority, and many commenters at LGF do so, sometimes for no other reason than it’s easier to make generalizations about a group, religious or otherwise, on the basis of the actions (or inaction) of its majority. Islam, being considerably younger than the other major religious philosophies of the world, has not yet had its “Renaissance” nor its Martin Luther (or Martin Luther King, Jr for that matter). It retains the aggressive expansionist tendencies and the brutal suppression of reform and dissent that Christianity, for the most part, lost long ago. On the basis of this, it’s fair to talk about the generally negative impact that Islam is currently having on its adherents and on anyone who stands in the way of its radicals. This has nothing to do with hating a hypothetically moderate muslim, and I would join you in decrying such hatred, and admit that there are at times such comments made at LGF. But if you actually read the site, you would find that such statements are quickly decried and rebutted by many of the other commenters. There is a diversity of opinion at LGF, just as there probably is on most fora; LGF’s critics just fail to see it or acknowledge it.

    “The second point here is: is Charles Johnson racist? Well, Johnson is very careful: he never allows any of his own thoughts on the site.”

    That’s patently untrue; Johnson almost always adds editorial comments to each entry he posts. He makes his opinions and thoughts quite clear.

    “For that reason alone, LGF should not be considered for Google News; he just cuts and pastes stories from other outlets.

    Well then Google needs to be consistent about that if that’s indeed the policy. They index plenty of sites, such as Daily Kos, that often do nothing more than provide what LGF does, links and short commentary to such stories. They can certainly choose not to index such sites. What Jeff and I and others want is some concrete explanation of their policy. This is also to say nothing of the fact that plenty of mainstream commercial news outlets do nothing but post wire service stories and images (take a look at how many of the dozens of links for each Google news story are to the same wire article at different sites). How is that any different than what Kos or Johnson does?

    So, is Johnson racist? I’ll paraphrase Dave Chappelle: “He may not be a racist, but he certainly has a racist’s uniform.”

    So, on this basis you choose to make the quite serious accusation of racism? Scary.

  • http://confederateyankee.blogspot.com Confederate Yankee

    Roger L. Simon, you can add me to the list of bloggers dropping Adsense. To include Nazi sites and a message board like Democratic Underground while ignoring real journalists and established old media commentators like Michelle Malkin reeks of political partisanship within Google News.

  • Matt

    “This has nothing to do with hating a hypothetically moderate muslim, and I would join you in decrying such hatred, and admit that there are at times such comments made at LGF. But if you actually read the site, you would find that such statements are quickly decried and rebutted by many of the other commenters.”
    Not true. Extreme comments are almost never challenged. Once in a blue moon someone will say ‘better not say that because it makes us look bad.’ And that’s about it. Extreme vile comments are made daily. If even mildly challenged, the response is usually, ‘well, they blow up buses, kids, etc etc’. IE Outrageous acts by terrorists justify open season on all Muslims. That’s the real problem. Yes, Johnson is careful what he says, and that’s the most nauseating thing about him, how he hates by willing proxy.

  • KenF

    I’m not sure how important google news is – what is their ranking in terms of hits? Are they a major news source for people? Personally, I have never been to their news area once, but use their search engine/image search dozens of times per day. While I see their news site (based upon stories I’ve read here and other outlets) as particularly ridiculous, given both what they include and what they choose to exclude, I’m not sure of a viable alternative to not using their site in its entirety.
    As to the argument over LGF, it is hands down one of the most important and best blogs on the Internet. Whether you read, or even approve of, the comment section is immaterial to both the quality and quantity of stories that Charles links to daily. If you choose not to read Charles’ blog because you disagree with a minority of the commenters (as I do as well), then you are willfully ignoring quite a lot of stories that expose the underbelly of our world that the media is giving free passes to. I’ve never heard of not going to a baseball game because a few in the stands hate the umpire and fling hateful things at him. Attend the game, respect the game, and block out the assinine, idiotic comments that sometimes appear. Your eyes will truly be opened.

  • Bill

    You have to remember this is the same Google that caved in to Scientology (they were threatened by a lawsuit to “remove” a site that was critical of Scientology from appearing the first 10 or so sites of their search list).
    If they’re spineless to a weirdo cult- they certainly would be spineless to those with certain leftward political beliefs (just as F**ckd- up in my opinion)
    just my 2 cents

  • Big Gay Al

    I am no Islamic scholar. I’ve read things in the Koran that are vile, just as I’ve read things in the Bible that are vile.
    Radical Islam is a problem the world is facing, but it is not America’s number one problem. Every day spreading fear about some hypothetical terrorist attack is another day that we ignore children shooting children in high schools, where little girls are murdered by their neighbors, where the financial pillars of social security and medicaid are being torn apart piece by piece.
    [Anti-Islam comments]are quickly decried and rebutted by many of the other commenters.
    Bullshit. On those threads after the tsunami, no one decried anything, and no one rebutted that the tsumani was “God’s punishment on Inodnesia for having the largest Muslim population.”
    On this thread, several commenters say that they will “shoot Muslims on sight” if another attack happens:
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15051
    No one, except for a liberal who was instantly branded a troll, took umbrage.
    Why is this important? After all, we’re talking about comments, right.
    Well, I would argure that 99% of any value LGF has is in the comments: it’s the only place where there is any originality. As already discussed, Johnson is simply a cut and paste master (probably using Google searches to find articles that put Islam in its worst possible light). So, if the comments are where LGF’s value lies, then what is in the comments reflects overwhelmingly what LGF is about. And it;s not a pretty sight (or site).

  • Pablo

    “Not true. Extreme comments are almost never challenged.”
    This is also patently false. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about. furthermore, you came in here talking about Charles Johnson being a racist.
    Matt, perhaps instead of repeating the same baseless accusations, you’d like to respond to the challenges John offered at 1:26 and I offered at 1:30. Quite simply, please provide some facts to support your claims.

  • http://oyster.journalspace.com Oyster

    BGA, do a Google search for chimpanzee. You’d think that by naming a well known wild animal you’d get nothing but thousands of hits on sites related to just that – animals. Instead, you get an anti-Bush site as the second result even though many, many after that are of, guess what? Animals! Particularly, chimpanzees.
    Someone on your despised LGF site, had an interesting one. Do a search for borg. Right off the bat you get three images of guess who? Bush as a borg.
    Do a search for Bush gear. Out of eight site results, 6 are Anti-Bush and 2 are for Australian bush gear.
    Now do a search for Kerry gear. You’ll get 2 anti-Kerry, but 3 pro-Kerry results.
    Okay, now do a search for ….
    Oh, never mind. I could go on for days with this.

  • Big Gay Al

    They index plenty of sites, such as Daily Kos
    Wrong again, Daily Kos is also not a Goole news source.

  • MoonbatBane

    “It is profoundly dishonest to read LGF even just a few times and not see that Johnson is a racist and a bigot.”
    Oh, so now it’s dishonest to READ something? If LGF was a book, you’d probably want to burn it. Then you call us Nazis. /spit

  • goldsmith

    Why do you think this “disapproval” exists? I’d argue that fear is the basis for all bigotry: fear of “unnatural” practices, fear of the swarthy other, fear of Jews. So, in fact, homophobia is not a misnomer

    It’s certainly valid argument to say that the fear could be the basis for all bigotry, and I didn’t mean to imply that fear is never a motive in disapproval, hate or bigotry. I don’t, however, believe that fear is the basis for these things in even a majority of cases, I think it’s much more complicated than that. I don’t generally feel comfortable making such distillations of complex and basic human emotions. I also believe there are, while I don’t agree with them, legitimate arguments against homosexuality and attendant issues that cannot be dismissed by simply calling them fear-based. Islam, for instance, has very clear proscriptions against homosexual practices (much clearer proscriptions than does Christianity). Is an observant believer who condemns homosexual practices doing so out of fear or fealty to their beliefs.

    Matthew Sheppard wasn’t killed because his murderers “disapproved” of his lifestyle; he was killed because they feared his lifestyle.

    Is there evidence of this, such as psychological testimony or statements by the murderers? You could be right, though again I believe it’s not so simple. In any case, I don’t much care. Whatever the reason, or lack of reason, they murdered a person and, to borrow a phrase of Charles I, the rest is mere trifles

    I can’t get married in this state for fear of what gay marriage will do to the institution of marriage (for one, based on the gay couples I know, it would improve our nation’s divorce rate).

    Again, is it fair to call opposition to gay marriage fear? Or perhaps it is possible to have clear reasons, whether practical or moral, for thinking that state sanctioned gay marriage is not a good idea. I happen to believe that the state shouldn’t be in the game of sanctioning marriages at all, but since that’s not going to change, I’m an advocate of giving legally registered domestic partners equal protections and rights as traditional marriage, but keeping the two separate. But whatever I think, it’s possible to have clear moral or rational objections or non-objections that have nothing to do with fear. Does Hillary Clinton fear gay people? Does John Kerry? I doubt it. But both of them oppose “gay marriage”, and have legitimate (whether you agree or disagree) grounds for doing so, just as you may have legitimate grounds for advocating gay marriage that aren’t necessarily based on purely emotional factors. It’s just as much of a fallacy when conservatives assume that advocates of gay rights believe what they do for purely prurient reasons.
    Anyway, this is totally off topic and I apologize. I won’t argue about this further, but I did want to answer your comment, Al.

  • Big Gay Al

    Oyster:
    1) I thought we were talking about Google News;
    2) Google uses an algorithm to compile search results. Unless you are of the opinion that algorithms are inherently liberal (didn’t K. Lo put forth that theory once at the Corner?);
    3) Do a google search for “google bomb.” That might help explain the results.
    National Vanguard (and vdare.com) are filthy sites and any public company should keep miles away from them. I don’t think it proves any bias at Google, however.

  • kl

    “when will you demand that glenn quit bsing his readers that hes a libertarian?
    “when will you demand that charles admit that most of his commentors are from the looniest fringes of dittoland?”
    when will you stop beating your camgirl?

  • Matt

    Thank you Big Gay Al for saving me the trouble. Really there are 1000s of examples.
    And just a few days ago, a bigot posted the most evil anti-gay slur, claiming that gays would bring the wrath of ‘god’ down on america by their ‘sin’.
    Seemed to go down just fine with the lizards.

  • Pablo

    You’re lying, Al.
    That said, the thread is a discussion of what the impact would be on the American psyche if and when we start seeing suicide bombers in malls or Beslan type actions in our schools, as has been threatened by Buddhists Norweigens Muslims. The threat from Zarqawi to do just those sorts of things is the topic of the thread. William, the poster who originally made the comment, explains it more fully here.
    Perhaps you can tell us what part of his thesis you disagree with.
    Then, you can explain why you’ve changed the subject from Charles Johnson being a racist to commenters on his blog.

  • goldsmith

    Al, you’re right about that, DailyKos was a Google News source but was mysteriously dropped in December. Markos Zuniga claimed that it was dropped at his request, but it is not clear if that is true. As the blog in the link summarizes at the end of that post:

    Google News needs to define what is and is not a “news source.” In the wake of this little brouhaha, some of the Kossacks wanted to start up a little campaign to deluge Google with requests that conservative blogs and news sources be removed from Google News. To properly deal with such a campaign, Google must first have a solid, logical definition of “news source” at this disposal.

    This is precisely what Jeff and I and others are asking for. If Kos was not removed because of Zuniga’s request, then why was it removed? We can’t answer these kinds of questions until Google makes clear their policies and methods.

  • MoonbatBane

    “Odd how opposing a philosophy (Radical Islamic Fundamentalism) that is misogynist, patriarchal, anti-democratic and dedicated to violence makes one a racist to the Left.”
    No, it’s not. They are simply in denial that a large portion of Islam is “misogynist, patriarchal, anti-democratic and dedicated to violence.” Overcoming that denial would be un-PC and also would require accepting that maybe just maybe they were wrong about something. It’s much easier to simply scream RACISM! And it feels better, too.
    If anyone wants to look at the radical side of Islam from the viewpoint of former practicioners, go here: http://www.faithfreedom.org Now I know those people just lived the religion for a good part of their lives, so they don’t know as much as uber-lib computer jockeys and peace activists who have never set foot in a mosque, but hey, why not listen to what they have to say before ignoring them or calling them racists?

  • goldsmith

    And just a few days ago, a bigot posted the most evil anti-gay slur, claiming that gays would bring the wrath of ‘god’ down on america by their ‘sin’.
    Seemed to go down just fine with the lizards.

    Where? I want a link to said comment. If you don’t produce one, you’re making it up.
    If, by some chance, you are not making this accusation up, I must have missed it, because if I had seen it I would have replied to it. But, of course, you’re playing the same game thay is being played with the comments about Islam: you’re assuming that, just because each commenter doesn’t specifically condemn and/or comment upon every comment with which they either partially or wholly disagree, they’re offering their tacit approval of such comments. That is a ridiculous assertion.

  • Pablo

    “And just a few days ago, a bigot posted the most evil anti-gay slur, claiming that gays would bring the wrath of ‘god’ down on america by their ‘sin’.”
    Link please. This is nonsense, as many regulars commenters at LGF are gay. Such a remark would result in an instant dogpile. Are you lying too, Matt? Why do you have to do that if the facts are on your side?

  • Pablo

    goldsmith, you’re absolutely right about kos. His claim is here.

  • Ariel

    Big Gay Al wrote:

    NV constantly puts the qualifier “organized-crime linked” before referring to the ADL
    LGF constantly puts the qualifier “Radical Islamic front group” in front of CAIR.

    Guess which one is actually true? If you don’t think that CAIR is a Radical Islamic front group, you haven’t been paying attention. Many leaders in CAIR have been arrested for donating to Hamas. In Emerson’s excellent American Jihad, numerous connections between CAIR and Hamas (especially) are unveiled. You can also see Emerson’s Congressional testimony on the subject by doing a simple Google search.

    NV thinks that Jews control the media; LGF thinks liberals control the media.

    Guess which one is actually true? If you don’t believe that liberals control the media, how can you explain that Fox News has about the same viewership as the other cable channels put together? If we posit that 50% of the people are conservative and 50% are liberal and we suppose that cable news viewers are equally likely to be either, we would expect about 50% of viewers to watch the (one supposedly) conservative channel and 50% to watch the (other) liberal channels. Otherwise, if all of the other cable channels are “mainstream”, the numbers don’t add up – unless you assume that liberals are less likely to watch cable news, which probably suggests being less informed. I doubt you would make that assumption.

    NV thinks all non-whites are genetically inferior; LGF thinks all Muslims are genetically pre-disposed to blowing themselves up.

    There is no discussion of the genetic pre-disposition at LGF. Instead, you will find many discussions of the fact that many Muslims are indoctrinated in an ideology of hatred which promises them 72 virgins for killing infidels. The problem, in short, is not the genetics but the indoctrination. If you want other similar examples, you can look at Japan, which once indoctrinated its people to become Kamikazes and fight to the last man. You might note that after the indoctrination ended, Japanese people turned out to be fairly similar (in terms of wanting to preserve their own existence) to other people. It is really quite basic, if you know the slightest bit of Biology, to know that the primary function of an organism is to preserve itself. To overcome that hardwired imperative, considerable indoctrination is needed. It is that indoctrination that LGF opposes, if I may be so bold as to speak for Charles.
    ***
    Since you are gay, I was just wondering if you knew about the debate in contemporaneous Muslim societies (e.g. Palestinians) about how best to treat gays: bury them in manure up to their neck and bash their heads in with a rock or drop a wall on top of them. But hey, I’m sure you won’t want to judge them for that, right? After all, we’re all equal, right?

  • Matt

    “Odd how opposing a philosophy (Radical Islamic Fundamentalism) that is misogynist, patriarchal, anti-democratic and dedicated to violence makes one a racist to the Left.”
    Probably has something to do with demonizing the other 1.9999 billion Muslims. Which would make it understandable, not odd.

  • BK

    Everyone is biased and to some degree bigoted. There is nothing wrong with that as long as you know that about yourself, understand why you feel that way, and donít break any laws. Where it gets you into trouble is if you are in an industry or profession that claims to be neutral.
    Judges are biased but a good judge will set that aside and listen to the merits of both sides. The news media is biased and always has been but in the past a journalist or editor would temper that biased with equal time and space devoted to information on the opposing view.
    If Google claims to be a neutral site (I donít know that they do) then there is some evidence that reflects a non neutral stance and they should be challenged. However, if Google doesnít claim to be neutral then they can do what they want and link to whoever they want.

  • Big Gay Al

    you’re assuming that, just because each commenter doesn’t specifically condemn and/or comment upon every comment with which they either partially or wholly disagree, they’re offering their tacit approval of such comments. That is a ridiculous assertion.
    Goldsmith, you said before:
    you would find that such statements are quickly decried and rebutted by many of the other commenters.
    Beased on my evidence, you have now switched to the above criteria (i.e., just because no one says anything doesn’t mean they support it).
    Further, I’ve read many times on LGF that (and you touched upon this with your “hypothetical” moderate Muslim) all Muslims are suspect because they do not actively condemn terrorism (as if civilized people need actively condemn the murder of innocents); they are part of the taqqiya or some such other nonsense.
    How this square with your criteria quoted above?

  • Pablo

    Matt, aren’t you supposed to be busy finding us that link? Repeating a baseless accusation doesn’t make the lie any more true than it was the first time you told it.

  • Heidi

    Michael Zimmer wrote:
    “One person’s white supremacism is another person’s sane position.”
    With logic like that, Zimmer would have fitted in well on the editorial staff of Der Sturmer.

  • http://www.haydur.com/ h2d2

    Oh, never mind. I could go on for days with this.
    Did you just start using the web like 5 minutes ago? Google does not quality control it’s search results, except in rare instances.
    Those site come up top because of their own efforts, not because Google put ‘em up there.
    May be Charles Johnson should hire one of those guys to get his troll-world listed on Google News.

  • http://robinroberts.blogspot.com/ Robin Roberts

    Jeff, great post. I notice that it attracted the usual trolls.

  • John
  • It is to laugh!

    If the NV site is listed as a news source, then I see no reason why LGF shouldn’t be as well, except for the fact that LGF doesn’t produce original news or commentary.
    NOTE: I didn’t say they WEREN’T newsworthy themselves, I said that they don’t produce original content (unless you count parasitized MSM stories accompanied by snarky comments and ironic captions , but if that made for journalistic content then FARK would be a “news” source) too.
    Why don’t the LGF posters actually WRITE STORIES instead, with bylines and the whole she-bang? It would take more effort than just posting the same pictures of Rachel Corrie over and over, but then at least they might have some chance of being taken seriously.
    Hell, if the dimwits at NV can actually produce columns using the who-what-where-when-why format this should be a piece of cake for the lizardoids, who are all brilliant and patriotic lawyers and scientists, etc, as they frequently remind outsiders.

  • Matt

    Pablo – here’s the post. No dogpile. Or even an objection.
    #31 paxnhymn 3/14/2005 12:34PM PST
    No Dave…what will happen is the gays will complete their cycle of societal degradation, and God will become disgusted with our own cowardice in the midst of blatant sin, and once and for all lift his blessed protection from the greatest nation in the history of the world….
    then pray for your children….

  • goldsmith

    h2d2:
    Google News does not operate in the same way that Google search does. For a site to be indexed on Google News, it has to be specifically added by a human at Google. Did you just start using the web like 5 minutes ago?
    Al:

    Further, I’ve read many times on LGF that (and you touched upon this with your “hypothetical” moderate Muslim) all Muslims are suspect because they do not actively condemn terrorism (as if civilized people need actively condemn the murder of innocents); they are part of the taqqiya or some such other nonsense.
    How this square with your criteria quoted above?

    Again, this “squares” perfectly well with what I’ve said. I never said that all Muslims are suspect because they don’t condemn things. I’m sure many have, on LGF and elsewhere, but this is not my view which, again, may differ even when I do not specifically rebut comments with which I disagree. That said, I do wish more Muslims would speak against fanaticism, even though I don’t blame them for remaining quiet given the often fatal retribution visited upon those that do speak. But I do hold leaders culpable for violence when they actively condone and incite it.

    …as if civilized people need actively condemn the murder of innocents…

    It is absolutely incumbent upon civilized people to actively condemn the murder of innocents, which is largely what LGF does day after day and what even groups with whom I disagree, such as certain (but by no means all) anti-war people, believe themselves to be doing. Unfortunately, many of the groups we are dealing with are not civilized in any sense of the word, from Sudan to the Sunni Triangle to Beslan, which puts the onus of condemnation (and action) upon those of us who are civilized enough to sit here and have this kind of argument, like you and I, without threatening to slit each other’s throat.

  • Big Gay Al

    Ariel:
    Guess which one is actually true?
    I’d expect someone defending National Vanguard to say the exact same thing. National Vanguard must have reams of evidence that “proves” Jews control the media or that blacks are inferior.
    Regarding CAIR: to my eyes, (and most Americans, I would suspect) they seem like your typical advocacy group (like the NAACP or the ADL). I think they protest too much sometimes for Muslims, but that’s their raison d’etre.
    For anyone to make the claim that they are a “Radical Isalmic front group” is disingenuous. So, some people related to the organization may have made donations to Hamas. Maybe someone related to the ADL also had links to organized crime. Does that make it fair to sully the reputations of entire organizations?
    Re liberal media. All of the major cable news networks are owned by transnational public corporations. Are corporations now “owned by liberals.” I wish.
    Further, it does not follow that liberals who do not watch Fox News watch CNN because CNN is liberal. It could just be that in a choice between a dead skunk and a skunk, some people prefer the skunk.
    I got all Dan Rather there.
    What I mean to say is, liberals watch MSNBC and CNN not because they are liberal but because they are the least conservative.
    Regarding Islam. I’m an American who does not plan to travel overseas to flaunt my sexuality, so I could give two shits what Islamic countries are doing. I do know, however, that there is an American Taliban that wishes it could do the same to gays here. I’ll fight my battles at home first.

  • Ariel

    Big Gay Al wrote:

    as if civilized people need actively condemn the murder of innocents

    Martin Luther King Jr. once said that all that needs to happen for evil to occur is for good men to do nothing. While perhaps civilized people don’t need to actively condemn (whatever that means) the murder of innocents, if they do nothing, then evil will happen.

  • Mike

    “It is absolutely incumbent upon civilized people to actively condemn the murder of innocents, which is largely what LGF does day after day…”
    I must have missed the LGFers condemning the murder of innocent Iraqis and Palestinians. Oh — wait a minute. That’s ‘collateral damage’. Not murder. If only those Iraqi or Palestinian families could see the difference!

  • http://www.purplefury.com Purple Fury

    John:
    Plenty more examples of right wing hatred
    How is pointing out (well-documented, factual) instances of Islamist savagery an example of right-wing hatred?
    Btw, thank you for that post. I don’t think I could’ve made a more effective argument for the importance, validity, and value of LGF if I’d tried.

  • Pablo

    Uh, Matt, that post is a little thing called sarcasm, right up to the point before “then pray for your children…”
    If you read the post that paxnhynm was responding to, and then the further response to that post you might catch on… But I notice you editited out the reference to a previous post. Why?
    Even if it were entirely serious, are you trying to suggest that you could take one person’s stated opinion and extrapolate it to the entire group? Because if so, you’d be doing exactly what you’re accusing Charles of doing.
    It sucks being a hypocrite, doesn’t it?

  • Pablo

    Mike, Ol’ Doctor Pablo is going to prescribe a trip to Iraq the Model. It will help cure what ails you.
    OMG, they’re *gasp* MUSLIMS! It will be ok, though. Trust me.

  • Frank

    Matt said:
    [quoting another poster: "Odd how opposing a philosophy (Radical Islamic Fundamentalism) that is misogynist, patriarchal, anti-democratic and dedicated to violence makes one a racist to the Left."]
    Probably has something to do with demonizing the other 1.9999 billion Muslims. Which would make it understandable, not odd.
    By the number you just wrote, you indicate that you believe that there are at most only .0001 billion Muslims, i.e., 100,000 persons in this world who hold Muslim beliefs, who also have serious issues with violence, mysognyny, and totalitarianism.
    That, my friend, is wildly, insanely optimistic.

  • Pablo

    “I do know, however, that there is an American Taliban that wishes it could do the same to gays here.”
    That’s right, Al. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has come right out and said that he wants to see an Islamic Government in America. So, do you want the wall dropped on you or would you rather be dispatched with sharp objects?

  • Big Gay Al

    I see Pablo, Matt missed the nuance in a thread declaring homosexuals to incur God’s wrath. The poor plebian.
    I know LGF is not anti-Gay (I guess people can only hold onto one hatred at a time), but some of the freepers who lurk there would make the good reverend Phelps proud.

  • Big Gay Al

    I see Pablo, Matt missed the nuance in a thread declaring homosexuals to incur God’s wrath. The poor plebian.
    I know LGF is not anti-Gay (I guess people can only hold onto one hatred at a time), but some of the freepers who lurk there would make the good reverend Phelps proud.

  • Frank IBC

    “Right-wing hatred”, as evil as it is, has only killed a few dozens America in the past decade, rather than thousands, as Islamic hatred has done.

  • OhBoy

    Maybe someone related to the ADL also had links to organized crime. Does that make it fair to sully the reputations of entire organizations?

    Of course not. But you have to ask yourself what CAIR has stood for.
    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/195
    I think you should probably go to Daniel Pipes’ site and do a little search on CAIR. Read it all. It is not disingenous (as you say it is) to claim that a Saudi funded institution whose personnel have been tied to terrorism, which hosts anti-semitic bigots and has ties to WAMY (do you want links to them too?) is a radical Islamic front group. If they are not radical, and are mainstream, that should really worry you. What you have cited is an opinion, and not an intentionally deceptive or misleading one (as you…uh…disingenuously suggest) but an opinion which, even if not true, is certainly supportable by the facts, and not contradicted by them.

  • Frank IBC

    Oh, geez, did someone mention Rev. Phelps again?
    That’s got to be the gay equivalent of Godwin’s Law.

  • Matt

    Pablo. Ah… it was sarcasm? I must have missed it. I suppose this followup post is more evidence of that?
    **********************************************
    #47 paxnhymn 3/14/2005 12:52PM PST
    45 Dave
    I wasn’t “attacking” either…Just telling the truth. I know some nice gay folk. They know my stand. You can love the sinner and still hate the sin! Homosexuality is wrong, and history shows that sexual deviance ALWAYS is a predisposition for the decay of a society…
    *************************************************
    Hahahahahahaha… Now I get it.
    Uh, no I don’t.
    Keep flailing away, Pablo. You’re just wrong.

  • Big Gay Al

    Frank IBC:
    Where have you been hanging out that Phelps is mentioned so much it’s as banal as calling someone a Nazi???
    On second though, maybe I don’t want to know…

  • Ariel

    Big Gay Al wrote:

    Regarding CAIR: to my eyes, (and most Americans, I would suspect) they seem like your typical advocacy group (like the NAACP or the ADL). I think they protest too much sometimes for Muslims, but that’s their raison d’etre.

    That’s exactly what they are trying to seem like. But it has nothing to do with what they are. A recent CAIR statement included that they wouldn’t be opposed to seeing the Constitution being replaced with Shari’a law. I’m sure that the NAACP has never made comparable statements, let alone the ADL.

    For anyone to make the claim that they are a “Radical Isalmic front group” is disingenuous. So, some people related to the organization may have made donations to Hamas. Maybe someone related to the ADL also had links to organized crime. Does that make it fair to sully the reputations of entire organizations?

    There is big difference between one person being linked to criminality and numerous leaders in that organization being convicted for funding terrorism. What’s more, if you read Emerson’s work, you would understand that CAIR was actually conceived of as a front group by the Islamic Brotherhood (the ultimate power behind Hamas as well). Thus, while you may think it is disingenuous to call CAIR a “radical Islamic front group”, that is simply because you haven’t read about the origins (“front group”) or the beliefs (“radical Islamic”) espoused by CAIR.

    Re liberal media. All of the major cable news networks are owned by transnational public corporations. Are corporations now “owned by liberals.” I wish.

    Corporations are owned by neither liberals nor conservatives. They are owned by shareholders who want them to earn profit. Ideology is of considerably lower import to shareholders than profit, when all investors are considered.
    That said, senior management in many media organizations are decidedly of a liberal slant. Ted Turner (former owner of CNN, current board member of TWX, IIRC) is certainly liberal. (Ted Turner is not a current member of senior management, but he was until his company was bought by TWX.)

    Further, it does not follow that liberals who do not watch Fox News watch CNN because CNN is liberal. It could just be that in a choice between a dead skunk and a skunk, some people prefer the skunk.

    By this you mean to argue that CNN (etc.) are more liberal, while still being conservative, if I understand correctly. If this is true, then the math does not follow. If 70% of the people are relatively liberal compared to CNN (etc.), then 70% of the people would probably watch CNN. Since the number is closer to 50% and we have empirical data (the vote) to suggest that there is roughly a 50-50 split between conservatives and liberals, your explanation does not account for reality.

    Regarding Islam. I’m an American who does not plan to travel overseas to flaunt my sexuality, so I could give two shits what Islamic countries are doing. I do know, however, that there is an American Taliban that wishes it could do the same to gays here. I’ll fight my battles at home first.

    What happened to supposed liberal cry that “and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee”? I thought that we were all supposed to care about discrimination, even when it happens outside of the borders of this country? What happened to the idealism of liberals, who once believed that evil should be stopped, even if it occurs outside of this country?
    I think you’re providing a good case study for why many of us are no longer liberals. There is no idealism there any more.

  • goldsmith

    John: What is the word at the beginning of each of those posts? Religion, you say? Not “Dirty Arab” or some other actual racial epithet? No?
    So who perpetrated the violent acts in each of those LGF entries? Lutherans? Buddhists? No, darling. And in each case, it wasn’t just that the perpetrators happened to be radical Islamists, they were actually carrying out those acts in the service of their religious ideology. So, then, it’s bigotry to question why this is, or to suggest that there might be a reason to criticize a philosophical system which many adherents interpret violently? If so, then I’m afraid that the word racism, which describes a very real thing, has ceased to mean anything at all other than “someone I disagree with”.
    Matt: thank you for finding the post you referenced. I can see how some might indeed find that an offensive and hateful statement. I don’t happen to agree with it myself. But how do you, then, explain the next exchange:

    #45 Dave the…: I wasn’t attacking gays. I was condemning a judge over turning a law.
    #47 paxnhymn: I wasn’t “attacking” either…Just telling the truth. I know some nice gay folk. They know my stand. You can love the sinner and still hate the sin! Homosexuality is wrong, and history shows that sexual deviance ALWAYS is a predisposition for the decay of a society…

    So what we have here is someone stating their belief, clearly identifying it as his “stand”, all the while saying he knows nice gay people but has religious objections to their lifestyles. Again, I completely disagree with this, both in principle and as an interpretation of Scripture, but how exactly is this “a bigot post(ing) the most evil anti-gay slur”?
    You also may notice that the thread’s subject had nothing at all to do with gays, and that there were several simultaneous arguments taking place about the UAW union. Perhaps, as often happens, people were busy with an on-topic discussion and didn’t feel the need to reply to paxnhymn, given that his statement hardly qualified as an “evil anti-gay slur”.
    Try this thread for a more representative example of the diversity of viewpoints at LGF, and how someone espousing a far more extreme viewpoint is dealt with by the regulars, including me. Also note how, prior to the comment I link, I was criticized by two of LGFs resident gays for complaining in the first place (one of whom changes their mind when Albertadude returns). There are plenty of other examples in that thread that LGF is mischaracterized as a hate site or even a conservative site.

  • Frank IBC

    Mike -
    The millions of Iraqis who joyfully and proudly went to vote several weeks ago, for the first time in their lives, do indeed understand the difference between the deliberate, viscious, sadistic murder of their a million of their countrymen, by Saddam and then by his allies (Michael Moore’s so-called “Minutemen”), and the collateral damage that happened when they were freed.
    It’s a pity that YOU can’t tell the difference.
    Admit it – you’re the racist. You don’t think “brown people” deserve the same freedoms as you do.

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    OK, I just couldn’t pass up on this comment from Matt:

    “Odd how opposing a philosophy (Radical Islamic Fundamentalism) that is misogynist, patriarchal, anti-democratic and dedicated to violence makes one a racist to the Left.”

    Probably has something to do with demonizing the other 1.9999 billion Muslims.

    “Demonizing,” eh? So, you claim that of the 1.2 billion Muslims, “1.9999 billion” are not mysogynist, patriarchal, anti-democratic, and dedicated to violence”? Let’s ignore the mathematical absurdity of this — obviously we all know what you meant. So here’s a question: how do you know the outlook of the majority of Muslims, anyway? Are you ascribing to them your own viewpoints, because they are so “obviously” progressive and correct? Isn’t that just a smidgen presumptuous — and patronizing?
    I can’t know with certainty what most of the individual Muslims are thinking. But I do have clues, known in the context of an intelligent argument as “evidence.” One clue is how Muslims tend to arrange their societies. And — lo and behold! — terror support, dictatorship, arbitrary killings, and mysogyny are if not the rule, certainly not the exception. From Iran to Indonesia to Saudi Arabia, there are admonitions to the murder of Jews and Christians, prohibitions on women wearing make-up, calls for “holy war,” bans on women driving, leaving the country, being in public without a male relative, for Pete’s sake! — all taking place at the highest echelons of government. Ok, fine, so maybe that’s a “small number of extremists,” but for a small number, they sure seem to have outsized power. Then there’s the response to outrages like honor killings, which barely rate a few months in jail even in “progressive” nations like Jordan — while, at the same time, petty theft is punishable by mutilation, and the profession of Christianity can result in the death penalty, even without the “apostasy” of conversion. So, when I look at a society that winks at the murder of women, but severely punishes religious dissent, is it unreasonable to conclude that it is both misogynist and religiously intolerant? Is it really “bigotry,” or are you just throwing around semantic grenades because you can’t deal with ideas that contradict your own views?
    OK, so maybe it’s not even fair to judge Muslim societies by their civil arrangements, their laws, their cherished values, and the way they are governed. A tenuous claim, but even if granted, Muslim society doesn’t come out looking too good. Supposedly, “most Muslims” are peaceful and against violence. If true, what’s the evidence of this? Every time the U.S., Israel, Russia — whoever — attacked any part of the Ummah, Muslims everywhere seethe, riot, and protest. (Isn’t it odd, really, that Indonesians get all hot and bothered over the Palestinians? What’s the big deal to them, anyway?) But someone carries out an unspeakable act in the name of Islam, and …silence. Where are all the protests at Beslan? Where is the Arab outrage over Hamas’s bombings of Israeli buses, at the 9/11 attacks? Hell, where’s the Arab outrage at al-Qaeda’s bombing of Arab Muslims in Iraq? “Yeah, that’s bad, but the big problem is that American infidels are there.” Right.
    So, Matt, I fail to see any proof that the vast majority (“1.9999 billion”) of Muslims are diametrically opposed to the al-Qaeda worldview. There’s just no evidence of that. And even if true, that in itself does not nullify the reams of evidence that Muslim societies in general are mysoginistic, aggressively expansionist, tribalist, anti-democratic, and prone to violence. (Unless you care to argue that those societies are operating against their own principles, which would certainly be a novel idea.) Yes, there are plenty of good, decent, peace-loving, progressive people within those societies, but that’s beside the point. The Muslim world has a problem, the problem is internal, it is making billions of people suffer — Muslims and infidels — and its expansionism is a threat to others.
    To point this out, as LGF is doing, is neither bigotry nor malice. By contrast, pretending to the contrary as you do when you claim that Muslims are being “demonized,” is a patronizing disservice that smacks of colonial arrogance and a very limited worldview.

  • http://www.justbarkingmad.com quilly_mammoth

    Matt said,

    “Odd how opposing a philosophy (Radical Islamic Fundamentalism) that is misogynist, patriarchal, anti-democratic and dedicated to violence makes one a racist to the Left.”
    Probably has something to do with demonizing the other 1.9999 billion Muslims. Which would make it understandable, not odd.

    How exactly does that demonize all of Islam?
    That is the most ignorant thing you have said yet. Are you telling me that because I think Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church’s version of Christianity is hatefilled, homophobic and prone to violence that I am racist to the remaining 99.99% of Christianity? What a positively irrational stance you are taking, Matt.
    You call people that are opposed to Islamo-fascism, “racists”, because _you_ think they are minions of Chimpy the “BusHitler”. “Neo-Cons” oppose Islamo-fascism ergo anyone else who also opposes that is a racist?
    How absurd.

  • Big Gay Al

    What happened to supposed liberal cry that “and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee”? I thought that we were all supposed to care about discrimination, even when it happens outside of the borders of this country? What happened to the idealism of liberals, who once believed that evil should be stopped, even if it occurs outside of this country?
    Oh, don’t give me that bullshit. Next you’ll say that Radical Islam and liberals have the same goals.
    In the 80s, when the your ilk was arming and creating the Taliban, it was liberal organizations like NOW that drew attention to the plight of women in Islamic countries. In the 90s when Republicans fought tooth and nail against the air strikes in Kosovo aimed at stopping genocide, where was the conservative ‘idealism?’ Today, when conservatives are hell-bent on destroying the U.N., which has its mission to spread human rights around the world, whence idealism.
    Now, all of asudden, you’ve discovered idealism?
    The difference between conservatives and liberals is you have compassion for people you’ve bombed. We don’t need to bomb them first.

  • Steve G

    i’m CERTAINLY going to be blogging about this tonight!!!!
    i’m totally outraged.

  • Matt

    QM: Are you telling me that because I think Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church’s version of Christianity is hatefilled, homophobic and prone to violence that I am racist to the remaining 99.99% of Christianity?
    Yes, if you cut-n-pasted US news stories and headlined them:
    Christian Rapes Child
    Christian Robs Bank
    Christian Kills Puppy
    Christians Riot at Game
    You’d be just that.

  • Steve G

    question:
    is it true that most bloggers, whether liberal or conservative, are overweight, bearded loudmouths with poor vision or stupid women who love cats?
    can’t you all just get along.

  • Athos

    Gee, Matt – must be nice to cherry pick a comment out of the couple of million that are on the LGF site – then blame Charles and LGF knowing full well there is a disclaimer regarding the comments and that they don’t always represent the viewpoints of Charles. In the example you use, the entire site is guilty because on a thread of 123 comments, 2 were made by the same person that you found offensive – and no one jumped to counter it.
    Your bile should really be directed at paxnhym who made the comment you don’t like – but instead it’s more important to take an gratutitous slap at LGF because it threatens you and your agenda.
    Frankly, the history of sites like Daily Kos, DU, and others sites of the ‘progressive left’ and the rhetoric that they use pales in comparison to the comments raised on LGF. But you wouldn’t see or admit that.
    You’re a hypocrite – like the others who proclaim tolerance – but fail to understand its definiton, or those who rail against those who make generalizations and then go on the attack using the same tactics.

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Well, it didn’t take long for Al to explode in a Big Fireball of Self-righteousness:

    In the 80s, when the your ilk was arming and creating the Taliban, it was liberal organizations like NOW that drew attention to the plight of women in Islamic countries.

    It’s probably worth mentioning that the Islamic resistance to Soviet occupation was first armed by Jimmy Carter. Like most Carter efforts, it was a half-assed screwup, so it’s true that Reagan et al. armed the mujahedeen to a much greater degree. This was to check Soviet expansionism, which, at the time, was a greater threat than radical Islam, and certainly wasn’t any cuddlier, the apologies of Left-wingers (presumably BGA’s “ilk”) notwithstanding.
    It’s also worth pointing out that the Reagan administration didn’t just arm the Taliban, but multiple factions of Afghanistan, including those that became the Northern Alliance and fought alongside the Americans after 9/11. The Taliban just happened to consolidate control over Afghanistan in the 1990s, after American support was withdrawn. Nice try at a smear, but perhaps BGA’s reading list could be expanded beyond titles by Noam Chomsky.

    In the 90s when Republicans fought tooth and nail against the air strikes in Kosovo aimed at stopping genocide, where was the conservative ‘idealism?’

    Tooth and nail? Really? Got evidence of this? And when did Republicans claim to be the torch-bearers of progressive idealism, anyway? Isn’t that the Left’s shtick? That’s what makes their new isolationism ironic, after all.
    (Incidentally, the Balkan campaign involved bombing Serb cities, necessarily causing the deaths of civilians. Loathesome as Milosevic was, no one ever said he threatened the U.S. in any way. So, umm, why was the war in the Balkans halal, so to speak?)
    But this just made me laugh out loud:

    Today, when conservatives are hell-bent on destroying the U.N., which has its mission to spread human rights around the world…

    You gotta love it! The UN, whose civil rights board has included such luminaries as Libya, Syria, Cuba, and the Sudan — yes, that will “spread human rights around the world”! Forget the corruption, murder, child rape — look at the mission statement! Because we all know, what’s important is the slogan.

    The difference between conservatives and liberals is you have compassion for people you’ve bombed. We don’t need to bomb them first.

    I’m no conservative, but I think the big difference here is, people like BGA think their compassion is actually worth something.

  • BK

    The problem with liberals is they have no moral backbone. In fact, the very word moral is hate speech to a liberal. A liberal will gladly argue that to kill a 17 year old for the murder of four people is cruel and unusual punishment but letting someone die of dehydration is perfectly fine.
    A liberal will argue for gay rights but as soon as you voice a moral opposition you are racists.
    Thatís a liberals favorite word; racist. When confronted with valid points and facts to counter their points and fact a liberal will almost always go to the race or hate card.
    The fact that Muslim extremists have been responsible for some of the most violent and deadliest acts in the last 20 years does not in and of itself get the hairs on the backs of liberals to stand up but itís the fact that conservatives are pointing this out and are taking a stand against it that pisses them off.
    Now because a liberal has no sound ideology to stand by they look to conservatives and do the exact opposite. Liberals will fight, yell, scream, vandalize, fund, and support all that is wrong with this country because they are void of a moral code.
    A liberal will stand behind abortion on demand applaud the European model that kills babies because of cleft pallets and hair lips. They scream for womanís rights but uphold a religion like Islam that treat women with less compassion and respect than I treat my dog.
    A liberal doesnít believe in right and wrong, good and evil but instead wants everyone treated the same as long as no one is offended or gets their feelings hurt. But never ever point any of this out to a liberal or you might get labels a racists or bigot.

  • Big Gay Al

    One clue is how Muslims tend to arrange their societies. And — lo and behold! — terror support, dictatorship, arbitrary killings, and mysogyny are if not the rule
    Propped up, as you no doubt know, by American administrations since Ike was in office. Saddam, for example, was a great freind of ours in the 80s as he warred with Iran. Mubarak in Egypt receives the most foreign aid (other than Israel) of any country. Most of Saudi’s oil exports come to America.
    The point here is that, yes, Islamic countries (not Indonesia, by the way, they are fairly modern for the region) are backwards, but they have been so for decades, with our explicit and implicit backing. I guess you’ve also recently discovered Ariel’s idealism, once the the Towers fell. Well, bully for you. But it is a complicated world (one might even say, a world filled with nuance), and the ills of said world cannot be laid at the doorstep of one person, ideology or religion.

  • http://www.justbarkingmad.com Quilly Mammoth

    Matt, I can certainly see your point. If the majority of Islam decried the violent and despicable acts the headlines you mention above it would carry some weight. Students at _ORU_ came out to Protest Freaky Freddie the last time he blew through Tulsa. Thatís the difference.
    Let’s look at some recent headlines:
    _Holy Warriors Murder Women_
    Extremists killing women
    _Iraq Merchants, Residents Kill Terrorists_
    Shop Keepers defend themselves from Terrs.
    _Mideast Islamic Authorities Enraged, Seething_
    African-American professor of Islamic studies Amina Wadud led a mixed-gender prayer service in New York last Friday, and now a whole lot of Muslims want her dead.
    By and large the emphasis is on the Extremists in Islam. You’re mad because he doesn’t put qualifiers in the headlines? There are 3,000 plus posts a day there and you pick out a handful over a one month range. A handful out of some 90,000 posts!
    I think your argument is strained. I think you are wanting this to be so because, perhaps, Charles did the unthinkable last year and voted for BUSH!
    BDS-PEST, it’s real.

  • Matt

    B.K. Congratulations on your many many years of listening to pillboy Limbaugh. You’ve got the ‘liberal’ schtick down pat. Dittos for you!!!

  • Ariel

    Big Gay Al,
    This really isn’t your day.

    In the 80s, when the your ilk was arming and creating the Taliban,

    For what it’s worth, my ilk at the time was Democrats. I suppose I was not clear enough previously, but I was a liberal until quite recently. (This is true of many LGF posters as well, BTW.) This makes your claims about idealism hard to fathom.

    it was liberal organizations like NOW that drew attention to the plight of women in Islamic countries.

    It is interesting that NOW was unhappy with the plight of women in Afghanistan but had precious little to say about their rescue from said plight. It almost might make one think that they were less interested in solutions than problems.

    In the 90s when Republicans fought tooth and nail against the air strikes in Kosovo aimed at stopping genocide, where was the conservative ‘idealism?’

    Granted. Conservatives (as a group) are not perfect – nor would I claim otherwise. When I was discussing the bell tolling quote, it was to counter your statement that people’s suffering outside of the US did not concern you. Instead of saying that you are concerned with their suffering, you’ve now said that conservatives are also unconcerned with some people’s suffering. To sum up your argument, conservatives are unconcerned with some people’s suffering while you (and if you represent liberals, liberals as well) are unconcerned with anyone’s suffering outside of the US. Besides the inherent isolationism of this point, coming right before you cite the UN as a beneficent organization with no apparent irony, which is more idealistic – to care about the suffering of some or none?

    Today, when conservatives are hell-bent on destroying the U.N., which has its mission to spread human rights around the world, whence idealism.

    Just because you invoke human rights doesn’t mean that you are furthering said rights. About 1/3 of UN resolutions discuss Israel, which, whatever you may think of it, is not the cause of 1/3 of the human rights problems in the world. Half of all UN special emergency sessions have had to do with Israel – it is not more than half since the last one “extended” the tenth session, in contravention of both procedure and custom. Ignoring Israel, you have the Oil-for-Food scandal, in which, by all appearances, the UN profited handsomely, at the expense of the Iraqi people – whose lack of food and medicine apparently does not constitute violations of human rights. Meanwhile, UN peacekeepers in Congo and Indonesia have been found to be trading sex for food with locals who they were supposed to be protecting. Paragons of human rights such as Cuba and Libya have been in the Human Rights Commission lately. The UN has refused to declare the situation in Darfur genocide, since if it did so, action would be compelled. The UN has not been able to define terrorism despite decades of trying.
    While you can try to make a case that the UN exists to further human rights, you would have to disregard their resolutions, their emergency sessions, their scandals, the composition of their agencies, and their ineffectuality at basic definitions (genocide and terrorism) let alone action.

  • http://www.2alone.com/ h2d2

    Goldsmithstein:
    I am perfectly aware of how Google and Google News work. I consult listings for that matter.
    If you can pick CJ’s scarcasm so quickly, why can’t you pick sarcasm here. I meant that Charles doesn’t know how to fill the damn form to get listed on Google News.
    And I just got some breaking news:
    Due to a recent boycott of Google Adsense by a bunch of right-wing bloggers, Google’s stock (GOOG) has plummeted to 178.60. Talk about making an impact!

  • http://www.swerdloff.com/blog/ Swerdloff

    We are talking about the same Google whose second search result for Jew is “Jew Watch,” an anti-semetic site described as an “Archive of essays, articles and online books about a perceived international Jewish conspiracy.”
    That’s quite a set of algorithms they use over there.
    And yes, they have an explanation in their google ad on the top of the page, for what it’s worth.

  • http://www.2alone.com/ h2d2

    Yes Ariel, Israel is the cause of most of what’s happening in the world. I’m not saying “responsible” , so please make note. Responsible are extremist Muslims who fuel their fire to spread hatred based on what Israel is doing with the Palestinians.
    If only all religions would stuck their differences up their *****, and then may be we’ll have peace.
    But don’t hate the messenger (U.N.)…

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Oh Brother, Al:

    Saddam, for example, was a great freind of ours in the 80s as he warred with Iran.

    He wasn’t “a great friend,” he was a tactically convenient ally. We propped him up to a very small degree — most of his dealings were with the French and the Russians, which is why Osirak was based on the Osiris reactor, and why even in the latest war, the planes were MiGs and the tanks T-74s and T-80s. (As opposed to, you know, F-16s and Abrams.)
    Nor do you have much of a point: the Iranian mullahs were the first to turn a country into an open Islamic theocracy, and they were certainly no friends of either the U.S. or the Russians. Radical Islam is actually quite self-sufficient, thank you.

    The point here is that, yes, Islamic countries (not Indonesia, by the way, they are fairly modern for the region)…

    Excuse me? For what region? Indonesia is near Thailand, India, Vietnam, the Philippines, not to mention Singapore and Australia. None are “backwards,” and Indonesia doesn’t shine in that pack.
    Indonesia is slightly better than, say, Egypt or Malaysia, but that yardstick is short a foot or two.

    are backwards, but they have been so for decades, with our explicit and implicit backing.

    Never mind that it was the Russians that initially backed most Arab nations; let’s just accept your untrue premise. So? Are they now no longer responsible for the development of their own societies? Yes, we backed some of their loathesome governments — but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the Americans who made Saudi Arabia a backwards theocracy, or Iran into an Islamic “Republic.” The world is a big place, and we had the USSR to contend with in the 20th century — but how does this excuse honor killings from Jordan to Turkey? To even vaguely imply that the vices of Muslim societies are really the fault of the U.S. is to belittle and patronize them more blatantly than a British Colonial governor would dare circa 1920.

    But it is a complicated world (one might even say, a world filled with nuance), and the ills of said world cannot be laid at the doorstep of one person, ideology or religion.

    Golly, would you care to back up this lofty statement, or am I supposed to just take it on faith, and stand in awe of your grand insight?
    Still, if it makes you feel better, I am not trying to lay all the ills of the world “at the feet of… one religion.” Plenty of problems on this planet have nothing to do with Muslims — but that doesn’t change the fact that plenty do, directly, and there is nothing noble in decrying those who point it out.
    And as for me, I haven’t “discovered idealism.” I’m just not willing to make blanket condescending statements that of course most people think like I do, and any evidence to the contrary is just the work of “a few extremists.” There’s a word for that: delusion.

  • Ariel

    Big Gay Al,

    Propped up, as you no doubt know, by American administrations since Ike was in office. Saddam, for example, was a great freind of ours in the 80s as he warred with Iran.

    Well, who would you rather back, Iran in the 80s or Iraq in the 80s? Recall that the Cold War was ongoing and backing neither was not an option. (Backing both was closer to the truth.)

    Mubarak in Egypt receives the most foreign aid (other than Israel) of any country.

    This is, indeed, a problem. But I thought you weren’t concerned by those outside of the US?

    Most of Saudi’s oil exports come to America.

    While I wouldn’t doubt that a plurality comes to the US, do you have a source for most coming to the US? In any case, as you may know, oil is a commodity; economics suggests that boycotts against commodities from a country are not particularly effective, thanks, in part, to arbitrage or shifts in consumption patterns, since aggregate demand is relatively constant, despite the boycott.

    The point here is that, yes, Islamic countries (not Indonesia, by the way, they are fairly modern for the region) are backwards, but they have been so for decades, with our explicit and implicit backing.

    So since we give them money, they have absolute license to treat their people in e.g. mysogynistic ways? Didn’t you just point out that NOW argued against this? Shouldn’t they have just said, oh well, we support them, no big deal – by your logic, that is?

    I guess you’ve also recently discovered Ariel’s idealism, once the the Towers fell. Well, bully for you. But it is a complicated world (one might even say, a world filled with nuance), and the ills of said world cannot be laid at the doorstep of one person, ideology or religion.

    I did not claim to speak for all conservatives (or for E. Nough, regardless of him not being a conservative) nor that I was a conservative – I claimed to not be liberal. I also did not claim that conservatives were idealists. I claimed that liberals did not have idealism any more.
    Please read my posts before replying to them.

  • BK

    Matt siad:, “B.K. Congratulations on your many many years of listening to pillboy Limbaugh. You’ve got the ‘liberal’ schtick down pat. Dittos for you!!!”
    Actually Matt, I find Limbaugh to be loudmouthed and obnoxious. I have formed my opinions based on what I know to be true. I have read the Federalist papers, the US Constitution, the biographies of our Founding Fathers. I understand the great experiment that was undertaken so many years ago by the colonists and what their vision was for this country. All of the men who founded this great nation had strong moral back grounds rooted in fundamentally Christian values. I read and study the Bible and understand what is right and what is wrong. I know that there is no middle ground, no grey area and no hedging bets when it comes to what is good and what is evil as taught from the scriptures. There are no gay rights or abortion rights. Homosexuality is a sin and an abomination. Abortion is murder. Islam is a cult that shields murders. And liberals support all of them.

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Well, who would you rather back, Iran in the 80s or Iraq in the 80s? Recall that the Cold War was ongoing and backing neither was not an option. (Backing both was closer to the truth.)

    Careful, Ariel. Iraq was originally a Soviet client state during the Cold War. After 1979, both the U.S. and the USSR backed Iraq’s war with Iran, because both considered Iran a threat to their interests. With the large Shiite population in Iraq, there was a real danger of unification — or at least cooperation — between Iraq and Iran, which would have drastically shifted the global balance of power. So the U.S. pursued its own interests, which happened to coincide with those of the Russians, and pushed Iraq to attack Iran, weakening both countries and preventing any cooperation between them. This greatly slowed down the expansion of Radical Islam, and was a thoroughly sound strategy. But one can’t really say that it was motivated by the Cold War, not with Hussein remaining a largely Soviet client.

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    h2d2 demonstrates his wisdom for us:

    Yes Ariel, Israel is the cause of most of what’s happening in the world. I’m not saying “responsible” , so please make note. Responsible are extremist Muslims who fuel their fire to spread hatred based on what Israel is doing with the Palestinians.

    So extremist Muslims use Israel as a scapegoat for all their problems, and Israel is the “cause”? Because, y’know, scapegoats are so difficult to find. You gotta wonder how the Wahabbis took over Arabia, what with Israel not being available for several decades on…

    If only all religions would stuck their differences up their *****, and then may be we’ll have peace.

    Truly, h2d2, you have found it. No two countries of the same religious views have ever breached peace. Iraq never warred with Iran, Egypt never gassed Yemen, Vietnam never invaded Cambodia, the Russians never fought with China, France never fought Italy, British colonists have never fought against the Crown, and surely no country has ever had a civil war!

    But don’t hate the messenger (U.N.)…

    Messenger? I think you misspelled mouthpiece.

  • cat dancing

    Just one small point on an earlier post, Matt:
    Typical of a liberal, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
    “Dittos” was begun as shorthand for callers to use instead of taking up time saying “thanks for what you do, I like your program, etc, etc”. If you had ever actually listened to Limbaugh instead of getting your information by the usual liberal method of repeating rumor, gossip and misrepresentation until it becomes accepted dogma, you’d hear him say “thank you” when told “dittos, Rush”.
    If “Dittos” meant what liberals want to believe, “thank you” would be a puzzling response to “I’m a carbon copy of you”.

  • Ariel

    h2d2,

    Yes Ariel, Israel is the cause of most of what’s happening in the world. I’m not saying “responsible” , so please make note.

    So, the genocide is Darfur is caused by Israel? How about Tianemen Square? The Pakistani drive toward nuclear weapons? 9/11? The French invading Cote D’Ivoire? Chechnya? The fatwa against Salman Rushdie?
    What exactly is Israel the cause of? Without specifics, it’s hard to answer this sort of statement.

    Responsible are extremist Muslims who fuel their fire to spread hatred based on what Israel is doing with the Palestinians.

    This is simply not true. Why do you think Israel is called the Little Satan while the US is the Great Satan by extremist Muslims? It’s not because Israel is doing something to the Palestinians – otherwise Israel would be the Great Satan. OBL listed Israel third on his list of grievances, where #1 was expelling Spain from Al-Andalus.
    In any case, the fact that many Muslims feel strongly about Israel while Israel is clearly not the cause of their problems is more symbolic of the pathologies of an indoctrinated society than a cause of said pathologies.

    If only all religions would stuck their differences up their *****, and then may be we’ll have peace.

    We’d only have war about different issues, IMO. But this will never happen anyway.

    But don’t hate the messenger (U.N.)…

    By this, I take it to mean that you do believe that Israel causes all of those other problems in the world? Please clarify this point, since it would make it useless to continue this discussion if that is correct.

  • http://www.2alone.com/ h2d2

    Scapegoat? Why don’t you read the whole thing, including the word “Palestinians”. Just because I think extremist Muslims are responsible, doesn’t mean I approve of Israel’s actions against “those people”.
    It’s “your type” that promotes the “fact” that Muslims are responsible for almost all wars. How convenient of you to switch sides when I said that religion is the cause of wars. But I’ll take that, religion is one of the major causes of conflict in world history. Agree?
    And surely Israel has a bigger more powerful mouthpiece… don’t we all know that one.

  • Ariel

    Hi E.,
    Can’t say I completely agree, though I stand corrected on some parts.

    Iraq was originally a Soviet client state during the Cold War.

    True enough. Ironically, all of the Arab states were, though of course, since the US now supports while the USSR once did, it means that the US is evil. Wonder what the USSR was to Big Gay Al.

    After 1979, both the U.S. and the USSR backed Iraq’s war with Iran, because both considered Iran a threat to their interests.

    While this is true, given the Iran-Contra affair, it’s not as clear to me that we specifically backed Iraq as opposed to backing both in the hopes that it would eliminate the revolutionary zeal of the Iranians. (A similar point to what you’re making, but slightly distinct.) Of course, the Iran-Contra affair came later than the initial funding of Iraqis or impetus to start the war – there you are absolutely right.

    With the large Shiite population in Iraq, there was a real danger of unification — or at least cooperation — between Iraq and Iran, which would have drastically shifted the global balance of power. So the U.S. pursued its own interests, which happened to coincide with those of the Russians, and pushed Iraq to attack Iran, weakening both countries and preventing any cooperation between them. This greatly slowed down the expansion of Radical Islam, and was a thoroughly sound strategy.

    Here is where you are right and I was wrong. The USSR was not huge fans of Iran either once they had forsaken communism (which inspired many of the revolutionaries per the recent Atlantic Monthly article) for Islamism.

  • http://shareddaily.blogspot.com Ray

    Not only have I cancelled my blog adds, but my blog, email and support for Google.
    I’ll hopefully appear soon at another venue.
    Ray

  • http://www.2alone.com/ haydur

    The creation of Israel and displacement of Palestinians in the very heart of Arabia (where Islam started, as you know) doesn’t sit well with Muslims who pray towards that direction no matter where they are in the world. And since Muslims and Jews have not been on good terms since Islam’s beginnings, this scenario doesn’t sit well with a lot of orthodox and hardcore Muslims, even the non-extremists. And to top all that the continuous backing of Israel’s action by western nations, it all comes together a “cause” for towelheads to go postal. Especially those who are on the evil side of the war on terror right now. And since per a lot of lizards Muslims are responsible for most wars… you come back to the “cause”.
    And please do some more research on why they call America the great satan… and do let me know if you find Israel to be one of the causes there too.

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    I read the whole thing, h2d2. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me how alleged Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians is the “cause” of, say, Abu Sayyaf bombings in the Philippines, or the overwhelming majority of Islamic terrorism that has nothing at all to do with Israel. I don’t care whether you approve of Israeli methods or not — and trust me, neither does anyone else — but if you start calling them “the cause,” then maybe you should try to, like, prove causality.
    It’s valid to argue that Israel is the cause of problems between Israelis and Arabs in the region. (I disagree, but at least the argument is sane.) It’s moronic to argue, as you have, that Israel is the “cause” of a large number of the world’s problems.
    No idea who “my type” is, and while I’m reluctant to agree with anything you say (simply because much of it is vague or downright incoherent), I will say that yes, many wars have been fought with religion as their excuse, and a subset of those were genuinely motivated by religious zeal. But no, from that it does not follow that if people no longer had religious differences, “may be [sic] we’ll have peace.” Human beings don’t work that way, and your cheap shot at people with religious convictions was as lame as it was uncalled for.
    It’s not that I switched sides: it’s that your reading comprehension is lacking. Speaking of which, I’m curious as to just whether I presented as “fact” that Muslims were “responsible for almost all wars.” (Oh, wait, sorry, that’s my “type,” not to be confused with Ariel’s “ilk.” Must be more convenient to argue with arguments I haven’t made.)

  • Ray

    Back on topic:
    Not only have I cancelled my blog adds, but my blog, email and support for Google.
    I’ll hopefully appear soon at another venue.
    Ray

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    While we’re on the subject of LGF’s alleged anti-Islamic “racism,” it should also be noted that the first use of the term towelheads in this forum came from Haydur, who does not seem to have much favor towards the Israelis, either.
    (Also, his geography is a little lacking. Israel is not in “the heart of Arabia.” It’s rather well outside Arabia, which, to my knoweldge, never included the Levant.)

  • Ariel

    haydur,

    The creation of Israel and displacement of Palestinians

    At the time of Israel’s creation, the Palestinians were Jews while today’s Palestinians were called Arabs.

    in the very heart of Arabia (where Islam started, as you know)

    The heart of Arabia is quite a distance from Israel. Israel is not where Islam started.

    doesn’t sit well with Muslims who pray towards that direction no matter where they are in the world.

    They don’t pray toward Israel.

    And since Muslims and Jews have not been on good terms since Islam’s beginnings, this scenario doesn’t sit well with a lot of orthodox and hardcore Muslims, even the non-extremists.

    And I’m sure that the sermons by the extremists calling for the deaths of Jews have nothing to do with that.

    And to top all that the continuous backing of Israel’s action by western nations, it all comes together a “cause” for towelheads to go postal.

    When you say “nations”, which nations are you referring to? I can’t think of two. In any case, how did Israel cause Chechnya, Serbia, or Darfur? Do non-Jews ever have to take responsibility for their own actions or is it easier to just say that the Jews are the cause of all of the world’s problems, otherwise known as scapegoating?

    And please do some more research on why they call America the great satan… and do let me know if you find Israel to be one of the causes there too.

    You might want to do that research yourself. America is the Great Satan not because of support for Israel, which would make America merely a supporter of a Greater Satan, but because America is the heart of the “infidels”. Support for Israel is only one of the US’s “sins”.

  • Ray

    Excuse me, back on topic.
    Dump google’s adds, blogger and email.
    EOM
    Ray

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    I didn’t even notice the bold part at first:

    The creation of Israel and displacement of Palestinians in the very heart of Arabia… doesn’t sit well with Muslims who pray towards that direction no matter where they are in the world.

    A suggestion, Haydur: take a plane to Jordan. Bring a map and a compass. At prayer time, take note of which direction the Muslims face.
    Cheaper alternative: using your favorite atlas (paper or web-based), find Mecca. If it turns out to be in Israel, by all means let us know!

  • Donna V.

    And surely Israel has a bigger more powerful mouthpiece… don’t we all know that one.
    Right. All those great fans of Israel in the Western media who rushed to report on the thousands of bodies piled to the sky at Jenin,…,oops, there weren’t bodies piled to the sky at Jenin. Oh, well, nevermind.
    Or do you mean, h2d2, the well-known fact that the Israelis control Amerikkka? Don’t be coy, h2d2. Come out and say it: Ah, yes, Sharon, the evil puppetmaster, controlling the clueless Republicans, the media, the banks, Alan Greenspan ,…,just as it is written in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

  • Donna V.

    BTW, Charles just posted this one about the Left’s beloved Iraqi resistance, an Islamic militia group who attacked a students’ picnic:
    One brought a video camera to record the sinful spectacle of the picnic, footage of which was later released to the public as a warning to others. It showed images of one girl struggling as a gunman ripped her blouse off, leaving her half-naked. ìWe will send these pictures to your parents so they can see how you were dancing naked with men,î a gunman told her. Two students who went to her aid were shot ó one in the leg, the other twice in the stomach. The latter was said to have died of his injuries. Fellow students say that the girl later committed suicide. Another girl who was severely beaten around the head lost her sight.
    Far from disavowing the attack, senior al-Sadr loyalists said that they had a duty to stop the studentsí ìdancing, sexy dress and corruptionî.
    ìWe beat them because we are authorised by Allah to do so and that is our duty,î Sheik Ahmed al-Basri said after the attack. ìIt is we who should deal with such disobedience and not the police.î

    But Charles shouldn’t post this sort of stuff. Matt and Big Gay Al will call him a bigot.
    Because we all know the religious right in this country is just as bad. Opposing gay marriage is no different than gunning women down for dancing with men.

  • goldsmith

    h2d2 said:

    Goldsmithstein: I am perfectly aware of how Google and Google News work. I consult listings for that matter.

    Goldsmithstein? Hmmm…
    No, I’m probably misinterpreting what you mean. Maybe you’re comparing me to Frankenstein or something.
    Yeah, that’s it. I’m sure you didn’t mean anything else.
    I’m sure. Right?

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Hi Ariel,

    While this is true, given the Iran-Contra affair, it’s not as clear to me that we specifically backed Iraq as opposed to backing both in the hopes that it would eliminate the revolutionary zeal of the Iranians.

    Hmm. Good point. It certainly makes sense that we’d encourage Iraq and Iran to fight each other, if only to use up resources and sap morale on both sides. Neither was actually a friend to the U.S., BGA’s claims notwithstanding. The whole Iran-Iraq affair was certainly a testament to realpolitik’s effectiveness when done right. (Hey, someone had to clean up the mess left by Carter.)

  • John

    Purple Fury:

    How is pointing out (well-documented, factual) instances of Islamist savagery an example of right-wing hatred?

    Charles Johnson does not merely “point it out,” as in objectively stating “hey, some people were killed today by Fundamentalist crazies.” Those ridiculous headlines I quoted speak for themself. He consistently and sarcastically mocks an entire religion, an entire race of people (Arabs), their culture, their norms, and their very identity as inferior to Western standards or to Jewish accomplishments. This is the very core of what LGF does — nitpick at the minority negative elements within Islam and exaggerate them to represent the ideals of the many, while mocking any possibility of the existence of a silent moderate majority.
    Meanwhile, he casually sits back and allows the putrid filth of his comments board to run wild — an odd confluence of Jewish supremacy, pro-American/Christian nationalism, anti-Liberal, anti-activist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigotry unrestrained and uninhibited by standards, morality, or balance. He innocently claims to be completely absolved and disavows any knowledge, responsibility, or accountability for the disgusting nature of the comments that are posted – including those which call for nuking Mecca, eradicating the Palestinian race, eliminating Islam from the world, insulting the Spanish (for their election results), insulting anyone who disagrees with the right wing dogma of Bush and company, calling groups of Arabs together a “target rich environment,” ad nauseum.
    It is racist, belligerent, right wing malarkey and hatred maximized by some kind of personal jihad he has against the Arabs or whomever he deems to be Arab sympathizers (Democrats, Liberals, Academia, the media, etc.). Anyone who participates in peaceful protests against U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is automatically a ‘moonbat terrorist sympathizer’ and anyone who advocates a Palestinian state is automatically condoning the deaths of innocent Israelis.
    He aligns himself with Zionist/pro-Israel ‘minions’ because he believes it puts him on the moral high ground, despite he himself being totally ignorant on Judaism, Hebrew, Arabic, or being able to coherently formulate a sentence on his own without quoting Krauthhammer, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, or some other extremist wingnut. Any article he cut/pastes is deliberately posted not to educate the public on legitimate issues of terrorism but merely to instigate hatred for Muslims, humiliation of the Arabs, superiority of Israel, derision of the Democrats/progressives, suspicion of the MSM, etc.
    He is an intellectual dilettante masquerading as an authority on Middle East matters, when in fact he is nothing but a middle aged, washed up jazz player who (pre-9/11) did nothing but write about bicycling and other inane matters of close interest to him. Now that he sees there is profit in hate, he has peddled and pandered it to the widest possible audience for publicity (a la “Rathergate”) and fame.
    It is an uncreative way of formenting antipathy and hostility towards the Muslims or Arabs, usually by exploiting the same paranoid, right wing themes of Muslim integration, MSM bias, Islamic plans for global domination, “LLL’s,” “Islamofascism,” 9/11, and so forth and so on.

  • Donna V.

    Goldsmithstein? Hmmm…
    No, I’m probably misinterpreting what you mean. Maybe you’re comparing me to Frankenstein or something.

    Doesn’t take long for them to show their true colors, does it, goldsmith?

  • http://www.2alone.com/ haydur

    As you can see most sane people have left this discussion, and I’m the only one being engaged by IDF… ooops, I meant LGF types, this would be my last reply.
    First, Goldsmith, that was my bad. Thought it was Goldstein, and ended up with that.
    Direct towards Arabian peninsula (I said Arabia, read). Generalization. Use brain. Don’t be narrow. This is not LGF.
    Ariel:
    Please recall how and when Israel was created. And you will know what nations.
    ‘”America is heart of infidels” and that’s the basic reason extremists are plotting against it’, never heard that on any Al-Qaeda tape broadcasted on Fox News. May be you can find one. What I do remember is media reports and documentaries of the idealogy of extremist Islam, i.e. the Israel Palestinian issue as a root cause. But I guess that’s all MSM-made bullshit which renders it totally false. But Fox News is MSM too… But Charles says Fox News is cool. Cool… bullshit… my head is exploding… I can’t keep a direction.
    Donna (you have quite a typical lizard name):
    You really want me to scream out loud that “Jews control everything” right? Sorry, I’m not your monkey. And please read my response to Ariel and you will find your “mouthpiece”.
    And lastly, to get back to the original discussion: Neither sites belong on Google News. Hopefully NV will be removed and LGF will never get in.
    Enjoy looking at your page views and viewing Palestinian car swarms.

  • John

    Oh, and it looks like I was just banned from LGF for merely expressing my opinion on the matter here. Talk about rigidity and fear of criticism! That’s what I call paranoid…
    LOL!

  • Donna V.

    Donna (you have quite a typical lizard name):
    Really? I do? I thought typical lizard names were Perlestein, Levy, Cohen, Levine,…,you know, haydur,…,those kind of names,…,

  • goldsmith

    John, you better sit down and have a sip of herbal tea. This bout of the vapours you’ve got might get so intense that you’ll explode into a pink mist of extremely soggy, liberal pique.
    Meanwhile, the heroic secular humanists such as myself will continue to defend the light of the West because at this rate you and your hand-wringing, self-loathing ilk present more of a clear and present danger than a whole hordes of Muslim fundamentalists with pointy scimitars.
    Don’t bother arguing with John. He doesn’t care what you say, and his mouth will be fill of Red Zinger tea anyway.
    haydur: I’m assuming you’re the same as h2d2. I don’t know if I should trust you but for now I’ll accept your explanation for calling me that funny name.
    Anyway, I don’t really care if Google does or doesn’t choose to index LGF, DailyKos, Xinhua, the Intelligencer of Left Testicle, Kansas or any other news site. What I want, and what Mr Jarvis is calling for is some sort of codified, transparent process by which they make such decisions or, barring that, at least a general explanation that’s a little more thorough than “Oh dear, we’ll look into it!” Truth be told, I might agree that LGF doesn’t merit being called a news site, except that I have seen many sites indexed there that deserve it even less. As I have said, I generally like Google’s services, but this one requires a little more thought on their part if they wish anyone to trust it.

  • Ray

    John and Haydur are the obvious educated freaks of their class, party, borg and they can try explain away or redirect or stick up for the “rights” of others but you pass by the ugly, barbaric and unreported “truths” in the world only to drive home a point which is false and you know it.
    Hopeflly indymedia, commondreams, et al would be removed from google news also. Why? Because they are not news organizations they are hate spewing anti-American,anti-establishment,anti-globalisation, anti-everything groups who subversive ways are slowly being seen for what they are.
    Your comment “Busch Co” gave you away sunshine. So why don’t you pipe down and let real men and women do what you are afraid to do which is speak up and stand up for those of us who will go away quitely in the night.

  • http://www.purplefury.com Purple Fury

    John:
    I assume then, that you don’t take issue with the factual content of the posts you referenced.
    As to the rest of your reply, this bit right here –
    He is an intellectual dilettante masquerading as an authority on Middle East matters, when in fact he is nothing but a middle aged, washed up jazz player who (pre-9/11) did nothing but write about bicycling and other inane matters of close interest to him. Now that he sees there is profit in hate, he has peddled and pandered it to the widest possible audience for publicity (a la “Rathergate”) and fame.
    – is nothing but a vacuous ad-hominem attack (not to mention libelous), and says quite a bit more about you and your reasoning process (or lack thereof) than it does about Charles.

  • Pablo

    Big Gay Al wrote:
    “Next you’ll say that Radical Islam and liberals have the same goals.”
    Well Al, I won’t say that liberals have the same goals as Islamofascists, but they do have the uniform.
    /wondering if it sounds more or less foolish when I say it that it did when you said it…

  • Tired

    The No. 1 search engine on the web cites openly Neo-Nazi news sites and ‘liberals’ can only piss and moan about LGF being the one to point it out. I’m getting so exhausted of this bizarre political morality. I seem to recall a time when ideologues on the Left actually condemned extremism rather than personifying it. I can’t believe the people who share my political philosophy now defend violent religious oppression, that the writings of the Left sound indistinguishable from the rantings of David Duke, that they feel National Vanguard is worthy of their advocacy.

  • http://robinroberts.blogspot.com/ Robin Roberts

    E.Nough, yeoman work you are doing here.

  • Mike

    E. Nough: “The whole Iran-Iraq affair was certainly a testament to realpolitik’s effectiveness when done right.”
    What a low-life you are. What is sad is that you will never understand why.

  • Pablo

    It is racist, belligerent, right wing malarkey and hatred maximized by some kind of personal jihad he has against the Arabs or whomever he deems to be Arab sympathizers (Democrats, Liberals, Academia, the media, etc.). Anyone who participates in peaceful protests against U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is automatically a ‘moonbat terrorist sympathizer’ and anyone who advocates a Palestinian state is automatically condoning the deaths of innocent Israelis.”
    It isn’t just Israelis, John. It’s Iraqis and Pakistanis and Lebanese and Qataris and the list goes on and on. It also includes Americans, in case you’ve forgotten.
    You might prefer to ignore that there is a very serious problem in the world that likes to express itself with suicide bombers and car bombs. You’re free to do that but it doesn’t make the problem go away, and it doesn’t make those who care to recognize it bigots, racists or any such foolishness.
    If you’re going to put your head in the sand, then you really shouldn’t be talking while your mouth is underground.
    The fact that you’re perfectly comfortable criticizing a large segment of Americans while decrying the criticism of a large segment of Islam is telling. What it tells me is that you’re a PC fool.

  • Frank IBC

    To the idiot who claimed that Muslims pray in the direction of Israel – the only Muslims who would face towards Israel while praying, are those who live exactly on the Great Circle which passes through both Israel and Makkah.
    I.e., Muslims living in west-central Turkey, western Romania, western Ukraine, eastern Poland, southern Sweden, and central Norway. In other words, hardly any.

  • cat dancing

    You write a bitter, vicious personal attack and then whine about being dumped from LGF?
    Pathetic, John, really pathetic.

  • Frank IBC

    “Mike” -
    So why don’t you tell us how YOU would have dealt with the Iranian threat in the early 1980s, Mr. Foreign Policy Genius?
    BTW, Saddam came to power during the Carter administration. As did Khomeini, Ortega, and Mugabe.
    Also BTW, did anyone notice that “Haydur” sounds a lot like “Hater”?

  • Pablo

    What a low-life you are. What is sad is that you will never understand why.
    What is sad is that you choose to disregard the political reality of the times and the context that caused the US to deal with (but not “prop up”, that’s just moronic) unpleasant regimes.
    I’m not going to explain the Cold War to you, because if I need to do that at this point in time, you’re not worth talking to.

  • Mike

    What you don’t understand, Pablo, is that we are living with the ‘blowback’ of years of unfair and immoral ‘realpolik’ bullshit. Chickens that came home to roost.

  • Frank IBC

    Wrong, Mike.
    We are dealing with the result of years of idiots like Carter and Clinton refusing to deal with clear threats to the safety of America and the rest of the free world.

  • Pablo

    Mike, it’s foolish to think that you can lay the entirety of the problem on the American doorstep. These societies are organic, and not a product of American influence. If anything, the Brits carved them up. Shall we blame them?
    Nah. That would be foolish too. How is it that you think we run these places and yet they hate us? And given that, why don’t the Iraqis hate us?

  • Frank IBC

    I will ask you again Mike -
    How would YOU have dealt with the threat that Iran posed to the United States, in the early 1980s?

  • Mike

    I consider my knowledge of the culture and history of the ME insufficient to know what would have been a better choice than proxy warmongering. This stuff always comes back and hits you in the face. And we’re cuddling up to the Saudis just like we did to the Shah. No moral high ground there. This (Iraqi) war isn’t about ‘spreading freedom’ it’s about ‘spreading huge military bases in an oil-rich region’.

  • Pablo

    I consider my knowledge of the culture and history of the ME insufficient to know what would have been a better choice than proxy warmongering.
    You can stop right there because what you’re telling us is that you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
    Proxy warmongering? Idiotic. The war wasn’t ours. And the problems we’re looking at now didn’t stem from it or from our actions regarding it.
    Thanks for spewing the War for Oil bullshit while admitting your ignorance. It explains everything.

  • Frank IBC

    It’s about ‘spreading huge military bases in an oil-rich region’
    So why did we pull our troops OUT of Saudi Arabia, the largest oil producer of all?

  • Pablo

    BTW, Mike, you should read this. When you’re done, please explain the racism or bigotry in it.

  • Nobody

    Mikey likes it:
    “his (Iraqi) war isn’t about ‘spreading freedom’ it’s about ‘spreading huge military bases in an oil-rich region’.”
    Ya well it’s about the prize Mikey. It’s all about the prize. You know what the prize is Mikey? You really want to know? It begins with an I and ends with an N. There someone said it for you, fine, you happy now. Will that make your day? Will this post lead the headlines all over DUerland, Indy-anything land.
    This still doesn’t change the fact that Google’s policy needs to change NOW. PERIOD. END OF STORY. There will be plenty more people who dump their adds, search engine and blog tool if they don’t wake up and HEAR what people are saying.
    Otherwise Mikey why don’t you just submit already and pick a side?

  • cat dancing

    Mike…
    Are you listening to yourself? “proxy warmongering”, “spreading huge military bases in an oil-rich region”, “no moral high ground”.
    You sound like a walking anti-war poster, even as you admit that you don’t have much knowledge of the ME. No offense, guy, but it’s hard to take that image seriously.

  • Al

    Interestingly, Mr. Johnson hasn’t seen fit to comment or clarify his positions. He’s certainly aware of this thread (I found it based on a link in his weblog).
    I see many of his ‘regulars’ posting here, but, as usual, Charles incites rather than converses and makes sure to leave himself a bit of deniability. This is like his comment section and his absurd contention that the owner of a weblog is not responsible for it’s contents. Johnson is the first person to remind his readers that LGF is his house and follows his rules — except when it comes to taking responsibility for the prejudiced vitriol he allows to be posted every day.
    One would think, considering the amount of energy he has expended on Google News, that a post on a weblog far more likely to be taken seriously than his by the powers that be at Google, might be worth a few minutes of his time.

  • Frank IBC

    Catdancing -
    Please don’t use the phrase “moral high ground”. It’s judgemental and altitudist, damaging to the self-esteem of peoples living in the lowlands.

  • goldsmith

    So, Al, are you the Big Gay Al from earlier in this thread or are you another Al? I mean, maybe you went to a Weight Watcher’s and Exodus meeting this afternoon, and now you’re Small Ex-gay Al or something…
    Sorry, it’s late.

  • Pablo

    Al, this is Jeff Jarvis’ blog, and he’s not really diving into the conversation. As long as you’re extrapolating, tell us what to infer from that.

  • cat dancing

    Frank IBC
    Not to mention the self esteem of those with no morals.

  • Pablo

    “This is like his comment section and his absurd contention that the owner of a weblog is not responsible for it’s content.”
    Speaking of Jeff, is he responsible for my comments or yours, or both or neither? Please grace us with your wisdom on this topic.

  • Pablo

    While we’re at it, is Jeff obligated to delete either my comments or yours, so that we know where he stands?
    I can’t wait for the answer…..

  • Frank IBC

    Goldsmith -
    I think he went on the Fred Phelps Diet.

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    John is outraged:

    Charles Johnson does not merely “point it out,” as in objectively stating “hey, some people were killed today by Fundamentalist crazies.” Those ridiculous headlines I quoted speak for themself. He consistently and sarcastically mocks an entire religion,

    Actually, he doesn’t. What he is mocking is the “religion of peace” trope that is in such popular currency about Islam. Hence the constant framing of the headlines as Religion of (Whatever).
    Is it wrong to refer to Islam as a “religion of peace”? Yes, absolutely. Besides the obvious evidence of bloody borders and suicide bombings, it stands to reason that a religion with over a billion adherents is too complex to be “of” any one thing. Yet CAIR, the various Islamist apologists, even George W. Bush have used the phrase. It’s a Big Lie, a propaganda tool, and mocking it is quite appropriate.

    an entire race of people (Arabs), their culture, their norms, and their very identity

    I’d like to see where exactly Johnson mocks the Arabs’ culture. He does mock some of the extremes, like the Shiite festivals that involve carrying large knives and self-mutilation. (In the context of ritual beheadings and suicide bombings, his point is all too valid.) I am not sure what you mean by “norms” — though certainly if Arab “norms” include parades with masked gunmen and children carrying AK-47s and displaying bloody hands, then I fully support Johnson in his mockery of same.
    Note the modern Left-wing “progressive” mind at work: nothing a group of people does is repulsive or worthy of mockery, if it’s a “cultural” “norm.”

    while mocking any possibility of the existence of a silent moderate majority.

    I think I’ve dealt with this putative “silent moderate majority” in one of my earlier comments. Regardless, considering just how silent and indifferent this majority is, its existence seems to be a question of the academic sort. How dare Johnson not genuflect to this “obvious” counterweight to all the available evidence of Islam’s societal breakdown!

    an odd confluence of Jewish supremacy, pro-American/Christian nationalism, anti-Liberal, anti-activist, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigotry

    Isn’t this what’s known as diversity?
    (Wait — “anti-activist” bigotry? That’s a new one. So, because I think people hold repulsive opinions and take loathsome actions, I am now a “bigot”? I mean, how dare I form my opinion of people based on what they say and do! Have I no decency?! Why, I may even be pro-American/Christian, and nationalist! The horror!)

    insulting the Spanish (for their election results)

    This is completely appropriate. Spain caved to terrorist bombings. Very mock-worthy.

    insulting anyone who disagrees with the right wing dogma of Bush and company

    Plenty of people at LGF (myself among them) disagree with Bush on some topics. Try again.

    calling groups of Arabs together a “target rich environment,”

    You know, of all the vacuous accusations you dish out, John, this is the most loathesome. I have never seen just any “group of Arabs” referred to as a target rich environment at LGF, not in the comments, and certainly not in Johnson’s posts. Those references are always directed towards either mobs of Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Fatah thugs, mobs mourning the passing of some suicide-jihadi-du-jour, or else one of those lovely assemblies that swarm a car of some freshly roasted terror kingpin, and try to take home body-part souvenirs of the “martyr.” Again, these mobs are full of loathesome people, and I can’t see myself getting all upset over them dying for their flea-ridden cause. At no point have I seen on LGF anyone refer to, say, groups of Arab schoolchildren as being a target-rich environment. That kind of thinking seems to be a jihadi thing.

    Anyone who participates in peaceful protests against U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is automatically a ‘moonbat terrorist sympathizer’ and anyone who advocates a Palestinian state is automatically condoning the deaths of innocent Israelis.

    False on both counts. Next!

    He aligns himself with Zionist/pro-Israel ‘minions’ because he believes it puts him on the moral high ground

    He is correct in that regard. One would think that being against people who think nothing of sending a suicide bomber into a pizzeria, or using a retarded 16-year-old as a bomb mule, would not be a difficult moral position to take. Clearly, Johnson lacks your moral sophistication.

    Any article he cut/pastes is deliberately posted not to educate the public on legitimate issues of terrorism

    Apparently, the religious hatred at the heart of the jihadi movement is not a “legitimate issue of terrorism.”

    but merely to instigate hatred for Muslims, humiliation of the Arabs

    I certainly hate the Muslims that plot terrorist attacks, as well as those that fund them and support them. Ditto for Arabs who do the same. My God, someone might “instigate hatred”! Jihad, jihad on negative human emotions!

    He is an intellectual dilettante masquerading as an authority on Middle East matters

    John, you’re in no position to call someone else an intellectual dilettante, especially if you are under the impression that Charles Johnson has ever pretended to be an “authority” on the Middle East. He simply links to the articles. The reader makes up his own mind. You’re just upset because Johnson refuses to go along with the “progressive” notions that we are all one big happy human family, the fellas with the masks and suicide belts included. Your problem, not his.

    Now that he sees there is profit in hate, he has peddled and pandered it to the widest possible audience for publicity (a la “Rathergate”) and fame.

    I don’t know if LGF is profitable — I doubt it — but Johnson had a successful business prior to LGF becoming a political blog, without having every Islamic nutball and “progressive” useful idiot baying for his blood. And while you may not like it, he performed a useful service in exposing the Rathergate forgeries, as he does in exposing the jihadi threat that those like you would rather we ignored or placated. Sorry that it makes you so upset. But again, the problem here is with you, not with Johnson.

  • Pablo

    Johnson is the first person to remind his readers that LGF is his house and follows his rules
    I must call bullshit on this. Charles is one of the most “hands off” web hosts I’ve ever seen.
    Why don’t you give us a link or two to support your contention? If you’re not lying, it should be fairly easy.

  • Pablo

    I don’t know if LGF is profitable — I doubt it
    I suspect that since the advent of Blogads, LGF is at the very least self supporting. Given the time that Charles commits to it, and its popularity I don’t see a problem with it.
    I’m certain that Charles isn’t making what kos is making from blogging, and kos is an admitted partisan shill on the DNC payroll.

  • LOL

    I must call bullshit on this. Charles is one of the most “hands off” web hosts I’ve ever seen.
    Why don’t you give us a link or two to support your contention? If you’re not lying, it should be fairly easy
    ———–
    This thread is actually a great case in point.
    Haven’t you ever wondered why every single time CJ links to a third party blog it instantly degenerates into a debate about LGF?
    There are thousands of people out here in the blogosphere who are about to puke over LGF’s maddening blend of ethnic chauvinism & self-righteous insularity.
    Because LGF is so heavily censored, however, anyone who wants to engage LGFers on a critical level has to do it in venues like this one, where the lizardoids can’t go crying to the admin everytime someone contradicts them.
    If Charles allowed open debate on his own site, these silly flamewars wouldn’t spread to sites like this one, or to Jerry Brown’s blog. I should think that would be fairly obvious.

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Haydur leaves us a parting comment:

    Direct towards Arabian peninsula (I said Arabia, read). Generalization. Use brain. Don’t be narrow. This is not LGF.

    What is it with these “progressive” types who write something, then tell us that we’re supposed to read something different from what they wrote?
    Haydur, you said that Israel is in the “heart of Arabia.” It isn’t. It’s not even in Arabia. It’s not on the Arabian Peninsula. It’s in the portion of the world that had been called Canaan, Palestine, the Levant — but never Arabia.
    Moreover, Muslims don’t pray towards the Arabian Peninsula. (Especially since so many of them are on the Arabian Peninsula!) They pray towards Mecca, their holiest city, which is, in fact, in the heart of Arabia. Mecca and Israel are very far apart. The Israelis do not control Mecca, nor have they ever done so.
    What you said was stupid, and demonstrated that you lacked even basic geographical knowledge about the region and the people that live there. You got called on it, and you tried some lame excuse that we’re too “narrow.” Sorry, but I’m not buying it. At least Mike had enough of a clue to admit he has no idea what he’s talking about.

  • http://triticale.mu.nu triticale

    I hate to disappoint Big Gay Al, but Matthew Sheppard was killed in the course of an armed robbery gone bad, by a methamphetamine abuser alleged by a reliable witness to swing both ways. The killer pleaded homophobia in hopes of avoiding the death penalty.
    Altho I have seen hate in the comments at LGF (one thread of 384 comments I surveyed recently had one vile anti-islamic comment and another dozen narrowly directed hostile remarks) I have never noticed any evidence of homophobia there.

  • Ariel

    haydur wrote:

    Please recall how and when Israel was created. And you will know what nations.

    Since you quit after this post, I guess we will never know the answer as to which nations backed Israel as it was forming. It certainly wasn’t the British, who were sure to hand over all of the Taggart forts they could to the Arabs, even in contravention of their agreements. It certainly wasn’t the continental Europeans, who were content to watch – except in the case of Czechoslakia where they sold a small amount of weapons to Israel in violation of the arms ban known to benefit the better-equipped Arabs. African and Latin countries were indifferent. Canada and Asian countries had no dog in the fight. I’m coming up pretty much empty – just Czechoslovakia and only partly (in the sense that they were getting paid for their “backing”). Other nations may have backed a UN resolution but in terms of backing the real creation of Israel, it’s hard to credit that to anyone other than the Palestinians of the time, whom became Israelis.

    ‘”America is heart of infidels” and that’s the basic reason extremists are plotting against it’, never heard that on any Al-Qaeda tape broadcasted on Fox News. May be you can find one.

    Read any news from Iran. Read OBL’s declaration of war in the 90s. Your ignorance is not an excuse.

    What I do remember is media reports and documentaries of the idealogy of extremist Islam, i.e. the Israel Palestinian issue as a root cause.

    Doesn’t it seem odd to you that the Arab war on Israel concerns, e.g., Persians? Indonesians? Malaysians? If you’re trying to think of “root causes”, how does the Arab war on Israel cause misery in Iran? Afghanistan? Sudan? I’d really like to see the linkage.

    But I guess that’s all MSM-made bullshit which renders it totally false. But Fox News is MSM too… But Charles says Fox News is cool. Cool… bullshit… my head is exploding… I can’t keep a direction.

    I doubt that your head is exploding because of this. It’s probably just those conniving goldsmithstein’s working on you.

  • John

    You write a bitter, vicious personal attack and then whine about being dumped from LGF?

    Pathetic, John, really pathetic.

    Vicious personal attack? Did you even bother to read what I wrote? :)
    Actually, I find it quite hilarious that Johnson is so absolutely threatened by my comments here (on a completely different board) that he’s chosen the easy route — ban the user rather than debate him. I’ve never even posted anything on LGF before.
    At any rate, rather than debate my points the ‘lizards’ seem to want to bypass the clear racist implications of their comments board and come to the defense of their fearless leader at any cost. Not exactly a well thought out response, but what else could one expect from a bunch of braindead, cult-like pinheads?
    Good day, sirs.

  • Pablo

    “the ‘lizards’ seem to want to bypass the clear racist implications of their comments board”
    Racist? What race, John?

  • Donna V.

    Pablo: he is probably referring to the LGF disclaimer:
    Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs. Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
    Jeff Jarvis also has “Rules of Engagement” which remind us that this is his house and we need to follow his rules:
    Any email sent to me can be quoted on the blog
    : No personal attacks, hate speech, bigotry, or seven dirty words in the comments or comments will be killed along with commenters

    Practically every blogger out there sets up the house rules for all to see.
    If you think Charles (or Jeff) is tough on dissenters, try posting an even mildly pro-Bush comment on DU. Your post will disappear in a matter of minutes and you will be persona non grata quicker than you can say “No blood for oil.”
    E. Nough: terrific post.

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Haven’t you ever wondered why every single time CJ links to a third party blog it instantly degenerates into a debate about LGF?

    Nope. It’s quite obvious: Charles has a bunch of stalkers who bounce around blogs and try to discredit him.
    Glenn Reynolds has more readers and no comments at all — not to mention a similar “linker” style of blogging — but I don’t see him discussed every time someone links to him. Johnson is not popular with the politically-correct crowd, who resent the fact that he doesn’t toe the “religion of peace” line on Islam. So they go around smearing him. Of course, he also has some good friends in the blogosphere, who don’t like the idea of a good man smeared by low-grade trolls — hence the debate. I’m sure the likes of you and John would be just thrilled to have the “debate” be one-sided. I suggest the Democratic Underground.

  • Pablo

    E. Nough, doesn’t it count for something that they feel what they’re saying is true?
    No?
    I didn’t think so.

  • DK

    LOL: If Charles allowed open debate on his own site, these silly flamewars wouldn’t spread to sites like this one, or to Jerry Brown’s blog. I should think that would be fairly obvious.
    What is also obvious, and Johnson’s MO, is that whenever he finds someone critical of LGF he bleats loudly about it on LGF and posts a link, directing his ‘Minions’ to swarm, which they obediently do.

  • Ariel

    DK wrote:

    What is also obvious, and Johnson’s MO, is that whenever he finds someone critical of LGF he bleats loudly about it on LGF and posts a link, directing his ‘Minions’ to swarm, which they obediently do.

    Yes, DK, you are absolutely right. None of us have any brains at all – we just obey what Charles says.
    Isn’t it kind of pathetic that you, of the supposedly enlightened, intelligent class, at least relative to us brainless dolts, can’t manage to swing an argument with any of the statements made, e.g. by E. Nough or myself, but instead have a maximum capability of making scurrilous comments about our obeisance?

  • http://thinkingmeat.blogspot.com/ E. Nough

    Pablo, Ariel, Donna, and everyone — it’s been fun, but now Charles has used my super-secret brain implant to tell me that it’s time to go do something else. I must, of course, obey at once, as I have been genetically engineered to do.
    It’s been fun. Good night, all!

  • Pablo

    DK, I don’t see Jeff complaining. Are you suggesting that Charles is somehow immoral by pointing out people who are attacking him?
    Maybe you are. So, just settle your head on the chopping block until you’re comfortable. And pay no mind to the guy with the axe…

  • cat dancing

    John wrote to cat dancing:
    “Vicious personal attack? Did you even bother to read what I wrote?”
    Of course I did, John…and it was an emotional, vicious, personal attack.
    E.Nough dissected your post beautifully, succeeding in exposing it, point by point, for the idealogical formula-driven exercise it was, but I’m pretty sure you won’t respond to his thoughtful effort.

  • Nobody

    Ya John, thanks for coping out and running away with the good day sirs smack.
    The only cult we are a part of John, is “living” in “freedom” John. I know that’s a hard concept. Get over it.
    DUers do the same thing over on their threads so don’t come off with this censorship crap. DUers don’t like to hear anything but the party line Bush CO/Bushitler/Halliburhitler crap.
    You’d be better off getting that house in order first sunshine than trying to come into here or LGF. Over at DU is the real problem but you won’t accept that because you are one of “them”.
    Back ON TOPIC again:
    I removed by blog adds and blog from Google. Join the fun.

  • John

    Hey DK
    “What is also obvious, and Johnson’s MO, is that whenever he finds someone critical of LGF he bleats loudly about it on LGF and posts a link, directing his ‘Minions’ to swarm, which they obediently do.”
    Sounds like CAIR, ACLU, DUers do the same thing huh?

  • goldsmith

    There are thousands of people out here in the blogosphere who are about to puke over LGF’s maddening blend of ethnic chauvinism & self-righteous insularity.

    Puke? Wow, that’s an awfully visceral reaction to a weblog. Maybe you should consider, I don’t know, stepping away from the blogosphere for a little while and try to get a little perspective. If you dislike LGF so much, ignore it. I ignore the sites I don’t like.
    Well, now that the 8th iteration of the same arguments against Charles Johnson and LGF have been posted by the evening shift of professional LGF haters, it’s time to say goodnight to this. Thank you, Mr Jarvis for allowing me to trade ripostes in your comment section. You’ve got a good site, I’ll try and visit more often.
    And thanks everyone who deserves my thanks, and for those of you that don’t, you’ll have to settle with a case of Gumout Carburetor cleaner and a copy of the Buzzmachine home game.

  • cat dancing

    I think I’ll add my good nights and thank yous to Mr Jarvis.
    LOL on the Gumout goldsmith

  • http://misterpundit.blogspot.com MisterPundit

    O Jeez, mention LGF and the moonbat patrol start seeping out of the festering cracks of humanity to label Charles Johnson a “racist”. What a total load of unmitigated bullshit. The comments at LGF can get rough, but it will take an awful lot of hate to match the stuff going on at Democratic Underground, for example.
    He (Charles) relentlessly exposes and questions Islamic extremism, while he gives great support to moderate Muslims. If you don’t appreciate that, then you’re the one with the problem.

  • Ben

    *yawn*
    The irony of er… LGF(?!?!) complaining about Nazi sites was diverting though…

  • Dom

    LGF is a forum about stuff like terrorism, the west, Israel and Islam. Coming from the perspective of promoting dialogue and honest analysis, I found that it was the most fulfilling place to sound off without being castigated for my zionist (or rather my not anti-zionist) agenda and Jewish heritage, and a great site for heated discussion.
    There certainly are among its core users people whose views are unacceptable to me. I can say so, and my view is welcomed or a debate entered into. Charles does not make offensive comment and is clearly committed to the discussion. I would not be willing to quit the discussion just because I sense bigotry from some users.
    There is no comparison whatsoever between a forum as open as LGF and the narrow bigotry of those who want to vilify the whole debate. That villification to me smacks of affiliation with the vilest sort of bigoted conspiracy theorists, and is not an effective or desirable response to disagreement. It’s a forum. If you’re open and can avoid the pitfalls of real bigotry I’m sure LGF has room for everyone.
    It makes perfect sense for Charles Johnson to protect his reputation by highlighting the poverty of arguments against him. I am sure it is possible, if the LGF bashing continues, both to propel LGF to notoriety and to induce total cynicism in the debates by warning off the well-meaning as extreme leftists sometimes do. I am sure Charles would not want that and so he sets the record straight when the opportunity arises.

  • Erwin

    It’s a beggers market, that’s why Google can afford not to disclose the (“their”) percentage they earn on every ad placed via adsense. This will change quickly though, as competitors come into the market place. He he…

  • Parvin

    “There certainly are among its core users people whose views are unacceptable to me. I can say so, and my view is welcomed or a debate entered into…”
    Oh, really? Well, the usual form of ‘debate’ on LGF is:
    FOAD ‘Fuck off and die’
    STFU ‘Shut the fuck up’
    and so on.
    Can you provide an example of something else?

  • foreign devil

    We’ve all heard the expression “The Truth Hurts!” LGF holds up to the spotlight the words and deeds of Islam and the radical left in North America. In doing so, many who have a reason to flinch go into knee-jerk mode and castigate the messenger. But the messenger (lgf) is only saying–”look here and see what Islam said or did”; “look here and see what the radical left is doing in America”. LGF takes these stories and says–what do you think of this? And because many of them are mind-boggling, the left cannot stand the reflection and castigates the lgf community for their own perversions.

  • Parvin

    Johnson today posts a childish cartoon (drawn by a belgian grad student) and an anti-american ‘essay’ by a palestinian activist (now living in Jordan) as a slam against the ‘leftists’ in US universities. This is a perfect example of his dishonesty. There is absolutely NO support for the ‘Thistle’ at MIT, as some of his posters explain. But hey, why let a little thing like FACTS get in the way of a slam against the ‘Leftists’.
    This is why Johnson makes people sick. His utter contempt for truth.

  • Ariel

    I’d venture that the quality of our arguments (vs. those of, e.g. Parvin) speak for themselves.

  • Ann

    I just saw this on LGFwatch. This is the same guy who regularly calls for ‘bottled sunshine’ (ie nukes) to be used in the middle east. (Today, Fallulah). Now, I don’t think this guy is any more represenative of LGF than the nutty Belgian post-grad student who drew that offensive cartoon. But using Johnson’s M.O., I could use the following as proof that LGFers were bloodthirsty idiots. I mean, what else do you make of this, discussing a trip to Oakland, CA? Yes, that’s a question: is this guy any more representative of LGF than the Belgian guy is of ‘The Left’?
    #278 Iron Fist 3/21/2005 07:37PM PST
    Yeah, the PRC has some nutcase laws on knives. Blade has to be less than 2″ long, but it can be a switch. Go figure.
    That actually makes it more dangerous, not less. If I have a big fighter, I’ll try and cut off some fingers or something. Hell, they can generally sew ‘em back on. A little blade means femorals, kidneys, brachials, and carotids. I have to go for the kill-shot because the blade can’t perform the disabling strike.
    Not to mention the fact that most people are going to wilt if I pull out an 8″ fighter.
    A 2″ blade doesn’t look lethal. Go in just above the pubic bone 1″ to the left of the naval, yank it 1″ to the right of it. 100% dead. No chance of survival.
    The target is the aorta just before it bifurcates into the femoral arteries. If you miss and just get a femoral, oh well.
    Personally, I hope they stay home.”

  • http://misterpundit.blogspot.com MisterPundit

    Hillarious. Quoting fom the COMMENTS section at LGF is really scraping the bottom of the barrel for ammo against Charles Johnson. The comments at DailyKos (not to mention the deranged fascists at Democratic Underground) is at least as bad. No wonder so many blogs have their comments turned off.
    This is why Johnson makes people sick. His utter contempt for truth.
    What BS. If there is anything wrong with a story other than some idiot claiming it’s “not the truth” because they disagree with it, then Johnson will correct it.

  • Parvin

    Well, I agree that this Iron Fist character is ‘the bottom of the barrel’, but the fact is that Charles *regularly* quotes commentators from Kos and DU, featuring them as posts. Or perhaps you never noticed? And no, he doesn’t just highlight the posters, he uses looney posts to characterize the site and Kos himself.
    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.
    As for ‘truth correction’, my guess is we’ll be waiting a long time for Johnson to point out the true authors of the ‘Thistle’ piece he posted so prominently.
    (Hint: they are anything but current MIT students or faculty, but hey, who cares about FACTS?)

  • cat dancing

    Speaking of playing loose with the the facts, Parvin, you do an admirable job of doing just that.
    Describing the cartoon, Johnson wrote “…From the Massachusetts Institute of Technologyís Thistle, self-described as ìan alternative news collective,î hereís a cartoon showing how much the far left ìsupports our troops:î Victory to the Iraqi Resistance…”
    Would you care to point out exactly what Johnson wrote that is incorrect? It seems to me that what you REALLY don’t like is that Johnson exposed an ugly anti-American work that is linked to the MIT.edu domain.

  • Parvin

    cat dancing: they’re not the ‘far left’, they’re a couple of loonies that having nothing to do with MIT other than access to a web server. If you read the comments, you’ll see that his crafty misrepresentation got the desired effect (I hate lefties, blah blah blah). Then a couple of real MIT types set the record straight.
    On another topic: you LGFers really ought to be concerned about the psychopathic ravings of ‘Iron Fist’. If there’s one sad lesson from the MN shootings, its that nutcases often rant and rave about violent things they are going to do in advance of the crime. Fist seems to fall exactly into that catagory. One day you people will wake up and find that your buddy ‘Fist’ has knifed a ‘moonbat’. And all the people who’ve encouraged and joked along with Fist will have had a hand in it. Read his posts, and understand that what he talks of he longs to do. He is a very ill man and enabling him is stupid beyond belief.

  • Parvin

    He also regularly (today for example) posts about how much he like ‘gasoline as a weapon’ and how much his enemies ‘fear’ it. ‘Even wild animals’. He also boasts about being cruel.
    I’d say there is an excellent chance that your ‘Iron Fist’ has set some animals on fire and enjoyed the result. He’s practically said so.

  • http://robinroberts.blogspot.com/ Robin Roberts

    Parvin, Charles links directly to the Thistle website. The URL shows that its hosted by MIT and the website itself calls itself an “alternative news collective”. So far, you’ve failed to show that Charles is lying about anything, no matter how much you pound the table.

  • Parvin

    I didn’t say he was lying. I said he was dishonest. The fact is, before someone sent this to Charles, it had been seen by about two people (the two people involved). He dishonestly used it to smear MIT. I’m sure that MIT has absolutely no control (or should have) over the Thistle website, short of it posting illegal material.
    Now, back to Iron Fist for a moment. I think regular posters at LGF need to take a careful look at his postings, where he discusses his fondness for cruelty, how he’s killed people and so on. Perhaps his friends there could encourage him to get some help before someone gets hurt. It would be much wiser than encouraging him, a dangerous thing to do, validating his fantasies about harming ‘moonbats’ and ‘leftists’. Remember, when crazy people do bad things, they frequently discuss it in advanced. Fist has described killing people with knives, guns and gasoline, in pleasureable terms “it would be fun“, he often says. The other posters on LGF have been validating him for a while. I believe something very bad could come of this.

  • http://robinroberts.blogspot.com/ Robin Roberts

    No, Parvin, there is nothing dishonest at all. You’ve identified nothing dishonest about Charles posting. He’s made no false statement. You fail to back up your own claims. Repetition isn’t argument.

  • cat dancing

    Parvin:
    One
    So you believe that calling someone dishonest is somehow not the same as calling them a liar. That’s a pretty fine edge you walk.
    Two
    You claim there’s a difference between the “far left” and the “loonie left”. Please educate us.
    Three
    If MIT.edu allows the long-term, ongoing use of their domain, but it doesn’t make them partly responsible for the garbage in Thistle, then by using your logic, how could posters on LGF be the responsibility of Charles Johnson?
    Whew! That’s a pretty good balancing act you’ve got going there, Parvin, and it seems to run throughout your arguments. Oh, wait. The positions are “nuanced”, right? Gotta be a lib to grasp the concept…

  • Mike

    Hahah.. I see “Iron Fist” has made lgfwatch!
    You’d think he’d learnt something from his humilating takedown by the Discarded Lies people, but no. Flapping his psycho mouth again.

  • cat dancing

    Hi Mike
    Hmmm. I’d have thought that you “learnt something” yourself. You should be the last person to laugh, after your own “humiliating takedown” right here on this thread.

  • Dom

    Parvin,
    I have been told to FOAD and I have been acknowledged for my contributions. I don’t care. Could I provide you with examples of comment other than FOAD? Sure. I suggest you go back and take a look at all the other comments. I don’t get why you’re hung up on villifying that website by admonishing it’s commentators here, and not there. Maybe you can’t stand acronyms.

  • Ted Struhl

    well we do know that AFP (Agence France Presse) gave them the boot over copyright issues.
    re: this thread
    Jeff is absolutely correct – transparency is called for….see:
    http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Nazism_in_the_News.asp

  • http://www.thegroundunder.com todd baker

    underground artists , mp3s , underground writers and poets , uncsensored forums , every thing you want , all for FREE.

  • Karen
  • Mark
  • http://www.google.com search engine