« It's Going To Be A Very Bad Year For Saturday Night Live | Main | T.O. a No Go Vs N.O. »

Littler Green Footballs

(Author's note: As a preemptive response to any potential vengeful Lizardoids, let's get a few things out of the way:

This blog's owner, Kevin Aylward, had nothing to do with this article. Our agreement is a very simple one: I write whatever the hell I like, whenever I choose to, and try to avoid getting him in too much trouble. (This one might violate that last part a bit.) Likewise, I hereby disavow formally any responsibility for any statements made by any of my co-authors, past and present, commenters, or any other aspect of the site besides my own articles, including the other blogs included in the sidebar. Any attacks on me based on those grounds may be mocked and their authors possibly banned, but only under the most extreme circumstances will comments be deleted.

In general, that is a fair summation of my policy towards comments, and the one I enforced when I was the main page editor of this site (a position I no longer hold and don't really miss). I have always been a staunch believer of the "moving hand has writ" philosophy, and don't believe in "unwriting history" by removing comments except in the most extreme circumstances. When a commenter who goes batshit and slops their filth all over the place, I will cheerfully ban them and, if necessary, remove the worst of it, but I prefer to operate more transparently than some -- I will announce that the person has been banned and leave the evidence of what prompted my actions available for public scrutiny. Let their chosen identity be forever linked to their words; I will not be complicit in helping them escape their statements.

So, if anyone feels like trying a Killgore Trout-type of "experiment" by posting exceptionally offensive remarks and seeing how long they will stay up, don't bother. (If you don't get that reference, read on -- I'll give the full details below.) Your posting privileges will last precisely as long as it takes me to discover your efforts, and your remarks will most likely remain up for as long as the site last. However, I will be tempted to edit them to add "Proud Member of the Little Green Footballs community in good standing" to your comment, and add a link to LGF.

Damn, I hate having to write that kind of thing. It ought to be just plain common sense, but in the world I'm about to dive into, that seems to have gone extinct a long, long time ago.)

There's been a tremendous amount of buzz around the blogosphere of late regarding the ongoing evolution of Little Green Footballs. The tremendously successful site has seemed to have turned in a very different direction, and a lot of people who used to sing it's (and its author, Charles Johnson's) praises have either turned away or been turned upon, and a lot of people have slaughtered a lot of pixels in discussing the whole matter.

Well, I'm going to add to that body count and offer my (highly overpriced) two cents.

LGF was one of the first blogs I discovered (after and thanks to Meryl Yourish), and it was a tremendous influence on me. I never commented there much (I knew I'd get lost in the crowd, so didn't bother), but I read it faithfully. Charles did some tremendous work on terrorism, the overwhelming intertwining of Islam and terrorism, and the dangers of militant Islam. He also did literally historic work on the whole Rathergate mess (of which our humble site also played a sizable role, but that was my co-authors at the time, Kevin and Paul -- I just kept pumping out articles to keep the site fresh while they did the heavy lifting) and exposing the mainstream media (in particular, Reuters) for faking photos in various Mideast contexts.

I lost count of how many times I used LGF as a resource for my own work (not always credited, to my shame), but I know that I've cited Charles' "Palestinian Child Abuse" meme on at least a dozen occasions. For the uninitiated, that's the title he gives pieces that feature Palestinian children being inculcated in the culture of terrorism and death -- giving them weapons (real or fake), dressing them up in terrorist outfits, airing "children's shows" that celebrate martyrdom and dying while killing Jews, and the like.

"Little Green Footballs" isn't the same site it was then, however. Now, there are a new set of foes that take the most prominence in being exposed and denounced. And the damnedest thing is, I agree, basically, with most of those opinions -- but I don't have the same vehemence.

For example, the anti-evolutionists. I think they're just plain wrong. I think that Darwin's theory is pretty much on, and in a scientific context deserves far, far more attention than the "intelligent design" thesis. That argument, no matter how you reshape it or recast it or gussy it up in scientific lingo, is rooted in theology -- and should be argued in a theological context, by those trained in theology. Not in public schools, by teachers who ought to keep their opinions on religious matters out of the classroom.

They are not the real enemy today.

Charles also has no truck with the "President Obama wasn't born in the United States" crowd. The "Nirthers," as he calls them (based on a typo from a scathing e-mail he got from one of their leaders), are, to me, just a bit nutty. There is enough circumstantial evidence on the record that Obama was born in Hawaii, and none that he was born elsewhere. This stupid insistence on continuing to push the issue only allows all Obama critics (such as myself) to be painted with the broad brush and dismissed.

Further, they are fundamentally stupid. They haven't thought this all the way through. If they succeed in getting Obama removed from office, what have they achieved? They've given us President Biden.
They are not the real enemy today.

Charles has also gone on a tear about global warming, mocking and deriding those who have not fully pledged their loyalty to the anthropomorphic global warming argument. I disagree with him on this one, and think that there simply is not enough evidence that 1) the climate has changed significantly, B) that actions by man have been a major factor in any changes, and III) the proposed solutions will actually have any positive effect to counterbalance the tremendous cost of implementing them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and "our way of life is going to destroy the world" is one of the most extraordinary claims available.
They are not the real enemy today.

Charles has also been tremendously contemptuous of the "tea party" movement. He has found numerous protesters at these events with some truly nutty and whacko signs, and has given them tremendous play.

Well, I attended one, and I saw a few of those myself. But I just sighed and shook my head. These events are open to the public, with no screening, and if nuts show up, there's not a hell of a lot that can be done about them. To use them as the "face" of the movement -- millions and millions of Americans fed up with government's increased taxes and control over more and more of the lives of the citizenry -- is just wrong.

They are not the real enemy today.

And then there's the big one, Charles' newest bete noir: white supremacists, and those who apparently sympathize with them because they don't douse them with gasoline and set them on fire whenever they suspect they're around one. That seems to be the standard these days over at LGF.

Here's a place I find myself nodding along with Charles. I have a deep, personal, abiding loathing of the white supremacist movement, and it comes from a rather odd source.

Ethnically and genetically speaking, I'm a pretty solid member of what those idiots consider "the Master Race." I'm of Scandanavian and English stock (with a bit of French that I don't like to discuss), and these assholes are claiming to be acting in my name and my interests. And I deeply resent that.

Because, among other reasons, that heritage has done far more to fuck me over than help me.

I once made a list of genetic ailments that have occurred just within two steps of me. I had at least one entry for every letter of the alphabet through "g," and quite a few more down the alphabet. And the big one is the one I don't discuss -- genetic, incurable condition that I have that complicates my life already and will make my live virtually unlivable before it eventually kills me. My "pure" heritage has already sentenced me to a very unpleasant death (following an unpleasant life) unless something else gets me first or a medical miracle occurs -- and my money's on the former. (And that is as specific as I'm going to get here.)

So anyone who tries to tell me about the innate, genetic superiority of the white race can expect a few earfuls on the subject from me. And, eventually, I'll likely have a cane or two to beat them with.

They are not the real enemy today.

And just who are "they," anyway? Charles' definition of "white supremacist" is proving tremendously elastic. His latest target of the epithet is the blogger and longtime journalist Robert Stacy McCain, who apparently has known several openly supremacist assholes and belonged to or said nice things about groups that have, on occasion, said something vaguely intemperate.

I never really read "the other McCain" before of late, but he's been getting a lot of attention (good and bad) of late, so I started poking through his stuff. And I came to this conclusion:

The guy is a good blogger. Quite frankly, he's a hell of a better blogger than Charles.

Setting aside politics and issues, McCain is just a better writer. His articles are insightful, his language colorful and entertaining,his anecdotes amusing, and his style a pleasure to read. Charles, on the other hand, is a minimalist writer. He tends to write very brief bits of his own, with variants on inappropriate emphasis -- either deliberate understatement or over-the-top screeds. He's more of a "linker" than a "thinker," usually lets the material he's quoting do his "speaking" for him. There's nothing wrong with that approach (Glenn Reynolds has made a whole blogging career out of it, and Matt Drudge built an empire on it), but it's just not as fun for me to read.

Is McCain a racist and closet white supremacist? Charles says he is, and offers his proof. McCain says he isn't, offers some proof, but mainly mocks the whole concept.

My conclusion? I don't know, but if McCain is, he's one of the worst ones ever. I've read a bunch of his articles, and if anything I have a slightly diminished opinion of my fellow white people. If the white supremacist movement is counting on McCain to push their agenda, they oughta demand their money back.

So, in complete disinterest in the minutiae of the fighting going on between Johnson and McCain, I've pretty much stopped reading Little Green Footballs -- and started reading The Other McCain semi-regularly. I'll still use LGF's archives when appropriate, as Charles hasn't started scrubbing his own articles yet, and they're still tremendously valuable.

And then there's the aforementioned "Killgore Trout" incident.

Trout (his chosen pseudonym) was appalled by comments over at Hot Air that he saw as racist attacks on Michelle Obama, and the site's moderators failure to delete them and chastise the commenters. So he decided to push the boundaries a bit and see what would trigger the response he thought was appropriate.

Between 1:19 a.m. and 2:01 a.m. on September 18, Trout posted 14 separate comments on a Hot Air thread, including seven uses of the word "niggers."

When Ed Morrissey woke up and discovered it, he was more publicly furious than I've ever seen him -- and Ed is normally a very calm fellow. In a flurry of action, he deleted Trout's comments and banned him, amid several very intemperate and uncharacteristic cuss words.

So, what does this have to do with LGF? Well, Trout is a trusted moderator over there. He's one of the readers Charles has empowered to moderate his comment threads, removing those that violate the rules (both written and unwritten).

Charles knew about what Trout was doing almost instantly. (He denies knowing about it beforehand, and there is no proof to show otherwise.) But he did comment on it:

I can't really applaud for doing this -- I wouldn't have done it, and didn't advise him to do it, by the way, to head off the inevitable accusations that I was behind this -- but his point is absolutely valid. They're accepting a disgusting amount of racism and extremism at Hot Air.

...

I said I don't applaud KT for this, and didn't advise him to do it.

At the same time, I'm finding it a little hard to condemn him for it either, because there's a very real, very serious problem highlighted by what he did.

(Note to self: if I ever see Charles' car or bike parked on the street, be sure to let all the air out of the tires. This petty act will not cause any real damage, but highlight the real security problem he has with his vehicles.)

Long ago, I had registered with LGF. I don't think I'd ever used it before, but I did that night. I railed against Trout, denouncing his act of vandalism and asking why he was still a trusted member of the LGF community. I was also very, very careful to abide by the posted rules -- I'd learned my lesson from my misadventures at Democratic Underground and the late, unlamented Wizbang Blue.

But as in both those cases, I ran acropper of the unpublished rules. First, I was attacked because our site includes McCain on the blogroll. Then, I was "called out" because a commenter used the word "nigger" in response to an article of Kevin's a year before I joined Wizbang, and I didn't delete it.

Finally, Charles came around to the thread, deleted my comments and most of the responses, and banned me. After all, I had politely but firmly disagreed with the Powers That Be, was affiliated by less then seven steps from those Charles has declared The Enemy, and refused to apologize or cave in to their attacks. So I had to go.

My position on Trout's conduct is simple: it is completely and utterly unacceptable. Had someone affiliated with Wizbang had done something even remotely as deliberately offensive as what he did, I'd have been on the phone to Kevin in a heartbeat, informing him of it and telling him in no uncertain terms "he goes or I go." (I speak from experience -- I've done that exactly once, but he talked me down to a removal of the offensive bit and a serious talking-to to the offender.)

Charles, on the other hand, has separate standards for his trusted minions. Trout remains to this day a trusted and valued member of the LGF administration.

Charles, it seems, is reveling in his newfound infamy. He's apparently going on the "when you get the most flak, you're over the target" theory.

It's not a bad principle, but it doesn't really apply here. When you're getting the heaviest flak from what used to be friendly territories, then maybe you're bombing the wrong targets.

One final note: one of Charles' defenders is Kejda Germani, known at LGF as "Medaura." Ms. Germani was, briefly, nominally my "boss" at the end of my tenure at Commentary Magazine's blog. I had very few dealings with her, and my departure had nothing to do with her one way or another. The main factor was the ending of comments over there, and that decision was made before I'd even heard of her. I left a comment on her blog challenging her position and going into detail about the Killgore Trout/Hot Air incident.

It was never approved for publication.

Charles would be proud of her, I think.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/36865.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Littler Green Footballs:

» The Lasso of Truth linked with Return of the Pinup!

Comments (152)

The problem with Charles at... (Below threshold)
dref Author Profile Page:

The problem with Charles at LGF is not that he hates white supremacists (that's something we all agree on) but his obsession with them. He's gone of the deep end in that he sees neo-nazi's everywhere and uses that term to label anyone who disagrees with him, even when that disagreement has nothing to do with race issues at all.

For instance I can't stand gang members (as I'm sure virtually everyone will agree they are cowards and disgusting) but when I start to see them under every rock like Charles does with nazi's and began to think everyone from my mother to the mailman is a gang member, I would hope the people around me would have the decency to get me some help. It's fine to hate racism as you should all the evils of the world, but to obsessive about it 24/7 and see everything in terms of race is not healthy. And in the realm of politics it has translated into policies that hurt the very minorities democrats/libs claim to want to help.

The fact that Mr. Charley now sides with liberals on virtually every issue (including pro-socialism and ObamaCare) coupled with his use of the lefty tactic to demonize and call everyone who disagrees with him racist, stupid and liars (and in the case of the tea party movement, using the time honored lib tradition of using a few wackos in the movement to tar everyone involved) is what now puts the once decent LGF firmly in the ranks of far lefty sites like Daily Kos. LGF no longer belongs on any conservative blogroll, even those with the most moderate criteria for what constitutes conservative.

I used to like LGF - then I... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I used to like LGF - then I started getting uncomfortable with the direction it was going and found other places I liked better. It's a wide, wonderful bloggy world - no need to stay somewhere you don't like. Like Jay, I applauded the handling of the Rathergate thing, and also the Palestinian deception focus that Charles once had. Never got in as a commenter, however, and as Jay points out it was VERY easy to get lost in the crowd even so.

I'm not even sure when I started going "This is not to my taste" and found somewhere else. I've tried looking at LGF a few times over the last year, but nothing caught my eye. I heard about the wholesale bannings - it started to sound like Lee Ward had infected Charles - but hey, not my worry since I wasn't involved...

And looking at it this morning... well, the quote in the top open thread post looks correct.

I love mankind; it's people I can't stand.

-- Linus Van Pelt
I'd say Jay Tea is really right - LGF ain't what it was. The tone of the place reminds me of DU, he seems to have lost whatever sense of humor he used to have - and all in all... well, like I said, the blogosphere's too large and there's too many other places to visit and so little time in the day.

That said - posting inflammatory, racist remarks late at night and then using a delay before they're deleted to 'prove' racist attitudes strikes me as self-justification. "They must be racist because they didn't IMMEDIATELY delete stuff I posted!" Didn't Charles dislike that same sort of 'gotcha' journalism in the MSM?

Well - at one time he did.

He has his causes, his hot buttons. Everyone does - but the focus is now way, way too wide. He used to pick his battles, now he's not.

"I love mankind; it's people I can't stand." - Indeed.

Thanks, Jay, for wading over there.

I'm with you JL. I just g... (Below threshold)
Greg:

I'm with you JL. I just gradually stopped going there. I even deleted the link to lgf from my desktop weeks ago. I thought it was just me. Thanks, Jay for putting in words how I felt.

LGF used to be on my list o... (Below threshold)

LGF used to be on my list of sites to visit multiple times every day. A lively site that took the lead in the Faux-tography exposures of the Left.

I started going there less and less when I noticed the turn HARD Left...and the fixation with several topics, like "creationism" that had almost NOTHING to do with what is happening to our country rightnow.

And his laughable fixation with "White Supremacists" was the last straw.

I DO believe there a superior Race: the HUMAN RACE! I heard Dr. King's words as a child and would have thought "Duh!", except that phrase wasn't invented yet. But I have lived my life not giving a DAMN what someone's color was. Yet now our country is infested with people who ONLY care about color. Those people are the LEFT. They seek to identify people NOT by their character or ability...but by their RACE, EHTNIC background, or RELIGION. And then they seek to divide every group from one another.

The perversion and SUBversion of LGF is sad but instructive. By taking over a site many people trusted, they spewed their vile nonsense directly at people who had their "filters" down.

I will NEVER go there again...EVER.

Good luck sir, Lawyers and ... (Below threshold)
dingoatemebaby:

Good luck sir, Lawyers and monkeys(wiz of Oz) flying above your head

Antoher change for Chuckles... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

Antoher change for Chuckles is commenting on almost every thread. He is condenscending to any disagreement ito outright rude. The final straw for me was after mocking Christian faith, he later claimed not to be a bigot. If he could step outside his thin skin and see his own change, he might get into a 12 step program for anger.
Drop by Kirly's blog and get your name on the List of the Banned.

To put things a bit more su... (Below threshold)
jim m:

To put things a bit more succinctly, the problem with LGF is that it has become Charles' own echo chamber. It's all about him.

Now, it's his blog and he has every right to make it all about him, but it is reflected in his readership.

We're just not that in to you Charles.

Additionally, a lot of his posts on ID/evolution, Global warming, white supremacism and other topics reveal an alarming anti-Christian bigotry. He paints Christians with a broad, ugly and inaccurate brush.

He's a sad, small and hateful man.

I still read all the named ... (Below threshold)
jim2:

I still read all the named sites. Right-leaning sites (including LGF) showed Code Pink for what they are, showed the communist (and other wacko) participation in leftist activities. Remember the zombietime pictorials? Remember their disgusting signs, like chimpbushhitler? "Truther"s?

I take the LGF point to be that the right must police itself better than the left did, if it ever wants to make a fair claim for the moral high ground. The leftist MSM gave the left a huge and long free pass for the behavior cited above. The MSM will do the opposite when the right looks ready to possibly regain majorities in 2010 and/or the White House in 2012.

The right seemed in denial on many sites I frequented that their demonstrations contained the same sort of wacko-filth-element that the leftist ones had. If LGF has nipped that in the bud in 2009, then a truly valuable service has been done. The right must begin to police itself and no time is better than now.

Just curious, I found this ... (Below threshold)
dingoatemebaby:

Just curious, I found this funny.
http://www.bushorchimp.com/pics2.html
I think the current tide may find this racist?

I join you as a "former" fo... (Below threshold)

I join you as a "former" follower of LGF...I too had registered, but never posted (that I recall). Just about two months ago I deleted my listing of LGF from my list of regular visit sites. He had become much, much too involved in the exact theme you suggest, and in addition I just got tired of having to skip over 50% of the articles which had to do with the tech side of his site.

We all change, however, he has gone beyond simple change into realms that make him less-than-interesting to me.

jim2: "The right seemed in ... (Below threshold)

jim2: "The right seemed in denial on many sites I frequented that their demonstrations contained the same sort of wacko-filth-element that the leftist ones had."

I have been to several large "demonstrations" and two TownHalls...both very well attended. All well mannered...even quiet. And I watched 850,000+ people PEACABLY ASSEMBLE in Washington D.C., and noticed they left NO MESS...and had ZERO Arrests!

Then I watched the "arrest meter" at the G20 crest 100 in the first HOURS of the summit. 100% of the arrests were Leftists.

At gatherings of the Right the "wackos" are the exception...and quickly rooted out.

AT gatherings of the LEFT the "wackos" are the RULE...and welcomed!

Charles Johnson comes acros... (Below threshold)

Charles Johnson comes across as a bitter Mr Holier than Thou. And since he's the final arbiter on his blog, he can damn well post whatever he wants.

His blog became powerful because of 911, his links to Islamofascism, and his intelligent commenters. Charles has now spent his goodwill. There can be no question his blog has become useless--a compendium of open threads, his bike rides, those evil right wing supremacists and creationists, and a few other odds and ends. There's no direction. His passion now is to hide behind his blog and try to defend his weak arguments. He's become a laughing stock of the conservative blogosphere.

I also used to read LGF, bu... (Below threshold)

I also used to read LGF, but my main problem was as someone who believes in intelligent design I was frustrated by the forceful way Charles railed against any kind of creationism.

I am OK with people disagreeing with my view, I just stopped feeling comfortable being there. It seemed every time I went to the site, there was something on creationism and as you put it Jay, "They (we) are not the real enemy today."

With the gaffes and amazing amount of bumbling this administration and both sides of the aisle in congress have committed I think we have plenty to worry about.

Outside our borders we have much, much more important things.

So glad to see you back Jay. Keep up the good fight.

I dropped LGF from my bookm... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I dropped LGF from my bookmarks several months ago. By that time I had already long since ceased going there. The continual banning of people for the crime of dissent, the anti-Christian hate and the rise of the left wing whack-jobs just turned me off.

The best word for the site now is hateful. You cannot disagree. If you disagree yo are wrong and if you are wrong in one thing then you are wrong in all things and you are demonized and banned. It's mentally ill the way the site is run today. No thanks.

"He's become a laughing sto... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"He's become a laughing stock of the conservative blogosphere. "

Can we stop calling him conservative now? Honestly, I think Andrew Sullivan has more conservative views than Charles does these days. He's certainly more grounded in reality.

Jay TeaI was comme... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea

I was commenting on LGF before there was registration. Charles even used my pictures of an anti-Iraq-war demo in San Diego. But like you, I drifted away from LGF when it became a place for targeting people who didn't agree with the Lizard King's marching orders.

I avoided his obsession with ID because his take is to mock or attack or lie any person who professes even a mild belief in God. There are vastly more Christians who believe in evolution as God's own tool, but they are all young earthers to Charles.

I became an apostate when I quoted him in a thread on another blog. Obviously his minions scour the web for "disrespect" and I was banned for it.

But if you delete LGF from ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

But if you delete LGF from your list of favorites where else could you go for close up photos of bicycle parts?

Also, I alerted Stephen Gre... (Below threshold)

Also, I alerted Stephen Green aka Vodka Pundit when Charles started calling him a "white supremacist" too for having contact with Robert Stacy McCain -- pretty funny when one knows that VodkaPundit is Jewish.

Baron -But if y... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Baron -

But if you delete LGF from your list of favorites where else could you go for close up photos of bicycle parts?

Maybe here? If you're really in need of them...

(Shrug. Bike p0rn - who'd have guessed folks can get into bike p0rn? Takes all kinds, doesn't it?)

Hey Charles - when everyone... (Below threshold)
jvc:

Hey Charles - when everyone says you're drunk, it's time to sit down.

"For example, the anti-evol... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"For example, the anti-evolutionists. I think they're just plain wrong. I think that Darwin's theory is pretty much on, and in a scientific context deserves far, far more attention than the "intelligent design" thesis. That argument, no matter how you reshape it or recast it or gussy it up in scientific lingo, is rooted in theology -- and should be argued in a theological context, by those trained in theology. Not in public schools, by teachers who ought to keep their opinions on religious matters out of the classroom."

I completely agree Jay. One thing I do NOT understand is the creationist attempt to get into the science classroom. That has never made any sense to me. I understand the disagreements they may have with evolutionary theory (and certain historical/moral issues it can bring about), but in reality they can only debate on theological grounds. The whole ID movement has no science behind it. It is, as the NOVA documentary about the Dover, Pennsylvania case shows, a thinly re-cast version of creationism (which was banned from schools in the 1980s).

By veiling their efforts in pseudo-science, I think that creationists are discrediting their own cause. If they have disagreements and objections to the directions of US society, it makes more sense to me to speak out from their actual position, which is faith-based and theologically driven. And there is nothing wrong with that, AT ALL. It's just not science, since theological answers are not subject to empirical testing.

Ultimately I do not think this whole creationist/evolution clash should be such a big issue. It doesn't have to be, IMO.

(sorry for the tangent; I know this isn't your main point!)

Thin skinned? Say it ain't ... (Below threshold)

Thin skinned? Say it ain't so! I joined the list of the banned from LGF not long ago. I was never a frequent visitor, nor did I comment there more than a handful of times. (Mostly, I didn't want to wade through reading several hundred comments to make sure my comment wasn't essentially "Me, too!")
I would, on occasion of my attendance, scope out some of his links at the top of the page and add a "thumbs up" to those, or any front page article I thought had real significance.

I used a "thumbs down" only once the entire time I was there, on a front page article I thought was poorly stated and over the top.

My account was "blocked" the next time I tried to sign in.

In return, not that he's going to miss the traffic from my blog, I de-linked him.

Too bad! He used to be a real dynamo in the blogosphere.

I noticed a change in conte... (Below threshold)
Linny:

I noticed a change in content at LGF about a year ago and visited less and less. However, when I did dare wander over, I noticed most of my favorite posters were becoming less active and some new names began popping up. I found them to be rude and 'know-it- all' jerks to be quite honest. The vibe in the threads did a complete 360. I had no idea there had been a mass banning, I just wondered where my favorite posters had gone. Now I know. Presently, the threads are bubbling with nastiness and self righteousness, whereas, they used to be informative and humorous. I don't now what happened over there, but LGF is no longer a place I care to visit.

There are three pundits tha... (Below threshold)

There are three pundits that I began following at one point, then made a very conscious decision to stop following: Andrew Sullivan, Christopher Hitchens and Charles Johnson. Sullivan and Hitchens were both articulate defenders of the West after 9/11, and strongly emphasized the need to do more than sit back and take whatever the enemy (and they could identify the enemy, which was a big plus) decided to throw at us. Johnson was sometimes funny, always dug up good source material, and was sometimes insightful at finding new ways to look at things. I should note that all of these writers were, before 9/11, leftists in one degree or another. (Hitchens is an outright Trotskyite.) I will pause briefly to note the meaninglessness of political labels; when a Trotskyite can be identified as a conservative based on his anti-fascist passion, labels are useless.

I stopped reading Sullivan before he went insane. His writing had become less witty, less intelligent, and generally more petty and bitter. When he flipped to being anti-Republican, it really wasn't a large move; it's just that petty and bitter had won out in his head, now that the immediate threat of terrorism and his instinctive clinging to the powers he saw as his protectors had alike faded into the remote past. (Some people have a very short time horizon.)

I stopped reading Hitchens right after Reagan's funeral, and because of Hitchens' petty, nasty, bitter, small rant at Reagan, as if Reagan were the worst monster ever to walk the earth. No matter how lucid and rational someone's commentary might be, I simply cannot read someone that small and mean. The thing is, Hitchens has always been that petty and mean, but his gifted writing hid that for a while. Well, as they say, beauty is only skin deep, and in this case, once I saw the ugly, I was done with him.

Johnson was an odd case. I stopped reading his blog years ago, before even Rathergate. The comments have always been useless — even when there were intelligent commenters, and there quite often were, the signal to noise ratio was too low to wade through it. The main blog's signal to noise ratio was dropping sharply. Frankly, it wasn't worth my time. I did still come back from time to time, around Rathergate and the fauxtography incidents, and found Johnson worthwhile when on topics of interest to me, but still too noisy to be worth my time. The last time I read Johnson was about six months ago, based on an offhand comment about how he was sinking into the mire. Yup: complete nutball by that point. Honestly, I think that his problem is one of overdeveloped paranoia. When you spend a lot of time looking into the black and empty soul of an enemy like the jihadis, it's got to affect you. I think that Johnson must have gone from rational fear of the jihadis into outright paranoia and seeing enemies everywhere. The escalating series of bans was only symptomatic, as were the constant lashings out at enemies near and far. Basically, Johnson has become like Nixon at the end of his time in office, and I have no time for that.

People are people. Few are rational; fewer still are principled; fewer still are consistent in their principles. There are a whole lot of motives, positions, reasons, rationales and emotions mixed up in everyone's heads. I think you have to take from people what you need and they can give, and leave the rest. Some people have a lot to give; some have nothing. And it's not necessarily the case that someone who has a lot now will have anything at all later. It's a shame Johnson has fallen so far, but the marketplace of ideas will take care of that, and soon his site will be populated only by himself and his sycophants, and will have no influence elsewhere. If that hasn't already happened.

Charles seems to be another... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Charles seems to be another one of those people who claims to know things that can't be known. Of course it's a waste of time calling out such a person in a forum where they can just ban you.

20 years in Rev. Wrights ch... (Below threshold)
howcome:

20 years in Rev. Wrights church in now ways reflects on Obama. Some idiot white bigot at a rally with thousands=proof the whole movement is a double secret NAZI operation. LGF is a clown palace now.

Delete your bookmark. Probl... (Below threshold)
John S:

Delete your bookmark. Problem solved.

Over the past several month... (Below threshold)
luibse:

Over the past several months it became increasingly evident, to me at least, that Mr. Johnson seemed to be sliding into a self made hole of paranoia. To my mind he has become that which he used to mock mercilessly: a creepy, tin foil hat wearing, blogging in mommy's basement Kos Kid. I have since stopped commenting and have deleted the bookmark for his site. This has got to be one of the strangest and saddest declines in the blogoshere. I think the amount of time that has been spent discussing this decline is evidence of just how shocking it is. I miss the old Charles Johnson and hope one day to see him again. Sadly, I believe my wish will never be granted.

Perhaps I am (or have) miss... (Below threshold)
SmartyMarty:

Perhaps I am (or have) missed something, now and/or previously but: there are no references above to CJ's animosity toward Jawa, Spencer, Atlas et al?? Please someone, advise.

What was Pogo's money quote... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

What was Pogo's money quote?
"We have met the enemy and he is us."

I think my summation is that CJ has turned from being someone that was able to show a wide audience news that affected them directly to being a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur trapped inside an echo chamber that tilts at windmills.

He's become irrelevant by his own hand.

It's just not scie... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
It's just not science, since theological answers are not subject to empirical testing.

Evolution is founded on the principle that the universe is governed only by laws that always work in predictable ways. That is to say that there's no intelligent agent that created, directed or influenced the evolution of life. So how do you test that premise? Darwin himself devised a test that we now call irreducible complexity, which is a structure or process that can't arise in a step by step fashion through natural selection.

During the firestorm over ID an interesting scientifically valid point came to light, which is that something can never be proven to be irreducible complex. Thus, irreducible complexity is not testable. Unfortunately, in discovering that principle scientists proved that Evolution is not falsifiable, and thus, it's just not science. So why is it still taught in science class?

Charles "Frogger" Johnson i... (Below threshold)
MjM:

Charles "Frogger" Johnson is unable to process criticism.

I found LGF during RatherGate, but as those events unfolded and I continued to read LGF I detected something unsettling; the tone of the postings was a bit "off". After RatherGate died down I pretty much stopped visiting there.

Returning months ago - for no specific reason, just bopping around - I found his LGF to be nothing more than an all-out anti-religious hate fest. Frankly, I was aghast at Charlie's writings. It had become almost psychotic in nature.

The coming upon this under the heading "MOONBATS", in which he outright lies about events displayed in a previous video he posted, the proof of his over-the-cliff, can't-handle-a-little-criticism mental state became obvious.

Haven't been back since (except to find the above link). Won't be going back.

Not even to see the "Frog" post.

Smarty, I was closing in on... (Below threshold)

Smarty, I was closing in on 3,000 words. I didn't bring that up because I stayed away from that whole mess.

That you even know about it says you already know the story...

J.

LGF was also one of the fir... (Below threshold)

LGF was also one of the first blogs I ever found and read religiously.
LGF really did set the standard.

LGF is currently in it's death throes.

It's been a slow death and it's been painful to watch and I suspect it'll hang on for sometime to come, but it's kind of like visiting a loved one who has Alzheimer's.

It's just damn sad.

I stopped reading LGF month... (Below threshold)

I stopped reading LGF months ago. I took it out of my bookmarks during my last round of clean ups.

His site reminds me of Jeff Goldblum in "The Fly." Once a fine man, now degenerating into slime. Sad.

Ribbit!... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Ribbit!

Mac:Evolu... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Mac:

Evolution is founded on the principle that the universe is governed only by laws that always work in predictable ways. That is to say that there's no intelligent agent that created, directed or influenced the evolution of life.

Only in predictable ways? Then how do you account for the role that random genetic mutation plays in evolutionary theory? This is a strange formulation of what evolution is founded upon. Science is based upon observations and evidence of the material world, period. The question of whether or not an "intelligent agent" or supernatural force had anything to do with life on earth is outside the scope of science.

During the firestorm over ID an interesting scientifically valid point came to light, which is that something can never be proven to be irreducible complex. Thus, irreducible complexity is not testable. Unfortunately, in discovering that principle scientists proved that Evolution is not falsifiable, and thus, it's just not science. So why is it still taught in science class?

Talk about oversimplifying the whole issue. Where did you read this, on one of the online ID sites? The falsifiability of evolution (it's "testability") is not contingent upon Michael Behe's notion of irreducible complexity, which has been heavily criticized. Evolution can be tested by numerous lines of evidence, from paleontological to genetic. So far, it has held up pretty well.

Biblical beliefs in creation cannot be tested on ANY empirical grounds. That is the nature of faith. Apples and oranges. That's why I appreciate Gould's non-overlapping magisteria idea. Works for me.

I think it's ironic for ID folks--whose answers are all presupposed up front--to start talking about the falsifiability of evolutionary theory. Nothing against creationism, but there is just no way to come even close to testing the existence of God, let alone whether or not a supernatural creator was the guiding force of the evolutionary process.

Evolutionary theory is based upon material observations and data, and that's all that it can be based on. Supernatural phenomena cannot, by definition, play a role. Evolutionary theory is based upon the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, paleontology, paleoanthropology, etc.

The funny thing is that creationist try to argue that since there are problems and holes in evolutionary theory (there are, just like all science), that means that it's all false and the LOGICAL answer is that God made everything. Again, this is an answer that comes without evidence, based upon faith. Nothing wrong with that...it's just not science.

Jay, you wrote exactly the ... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Jay, you wrote exactly the essay I would have written. My views seem comparable to yours: I'm a "hard agnostic" who nevertheless has a couple of creationist friends, I think the "Birthers" are absurdly obsessed (although I would like to know why Obama is so diligent about hiding all documentation of his past, especially his college transcripts), I don't understand his animosity toward the Tea Party movement, and I deplore his hostility toward anyone who questions the reality or degree of Anthropogenic Global Warming (I'm a scientist -- we're supposed to be skeptical!).

It's sad to see LGF deteriorate. My hypothesis to explain Charles' behavior is that for the past year he's been shtupping some far-left-wing chick, and he's trying to stay on her good side to preserve access to nookie.

ryan a, if this was LGF you... (Below threshold)

ryan a, if this was LGF your long analysis of ID versus Darwinism would be just the ticket.

But this thread is about what a crap-hole LGF has become...NOT whether ID has merits!

but, p.s., evolution and ID are NOT incompatible! only incompatible on LGF.

It amazes us to what extent... (Below threshold)
NH:

It amazes us to what extent people will go to criticize the tea party movement, all in an apparent effort to obfuscate the real problem which is the Obama administration.

"It amazes us to what exten... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"It amazes us to what extent people will go to criticize the tea party movement"

It's because EVERYONE KNOWS those Tea Party people are all RACIST! They're "a mob!" They're "Terrorists". They're "Corporate tools".
And they don't know their place. After all, the 'elite progressive intelligentsia know how to rule'. I think it's called "benign despotism from the moral high ground".

I'm with you on Robert Stac... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:

I'm with you on Robert Stacy McCain. I started reading him recently after a few links from Instapundit. Ironically, I pretty much ignore all his LGF blog war posts. I'm more of a shunner when it comes to guys like Johnson or Sullivan. Although I only visited LGF sporadically, I used to be a regular reader of The Daily Dish. However, as they have morphed into people who I just don't respect as commentators on pretty much anything, I think the best policy is to spend my time reading those who can make an honest argument for or against some matter of public interest.

The reason they should be shunned is not because they are wrong on this issue or that (or on almost all of them), but because of their dishonest approach to discussion and debate of almost all issues.

Oh, and as far as the "Kill... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

Oh, and as far as the "Killgore Trout" incident is concerned -- it's disconcerting and disappointing to see Charles, of all people, condoning a "fake-but-accurate" attempted takedown of a political opponent.

And they don't know thei... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

And they don't know their place. After all, the 'elite progressive intelligentsia know how to rule'. I think it's called "benign despotism from the moral high ground".

More than once I've befriended a tipsy left-winger and heard, after a couple more drinks, "The only thing wrong with communism in Russia/China/wherever was that the wrong people were in charge."

The Progressives, you see, are the Vanguard Party, destined to give the ignorant, deluded masses what they really need instead of what their "false consciousness" leads them to foolishly want.

Remember John Derbyshire's maxim:

"Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy."


I used to read Ballon Juice... (Below threshold)
Ken Hahn:

I used to read Ballon Juice regularly. I haven't been there ( except for a quick check a minute ago ) for months. A once great site is now a fever swamp of environmentalism and antirightism. It is sad.
I used to read Andrew Sullivan regularly. He had some good ideas and wrote well. We all owe him for being the only journalist that had any interest in the case of Jesse Dirkheising. I don't go to Andrew's site anymore. He has evolved into a one issue scold. It seems tragic.
I used to go to LGF frequently. I think everyone owes Charles a debt of gratitude in the Rathergate affair and for his early writing. But LGF is no longer either fun or accurate. I don't read it anymore. I do miss it. Charles has his priorities and they have rendered LGF unreadable.
The blogging world evolves quickly. Some of the evolution seems like a dead end.

My problem is that the comm... (Below threshold)

My problem is that the comments get way too big so that it is difficult to even put in an intelligent comment without just repeating what a number of people have said or being lost in the crowd.

My personal take on the "Intelligent Design" controversy is that, most times, neither side seems to know what they are talking about.

By definition creation could have occurred five seconds, minutes, days, years, centuries, or millenia ago and we would not know the difference. Logically, if Adam had cut down a tree, he would have been able to count the tree rings. Fruit trees were mature and had ripe fruits ready to eat. Mushrooms had dead trees to grow on. Herds of animals had the appropriate range of ages.

I can go on, but there is no logical reason for "young earth creation" to imply that evolution is false nor is there any logical reason for evolution to imply that "young earth creation" is false. In both cases, making the two mutually exclusive is due to unstated assumptions that have not been proven.

While I was never banned, I was "lost in the crowd" and I could never see a response to what I posted. One would have to comment almost as soon as the article appeared and be one of the first two or three people to comment to actually get noticed.

"The blogging world evolves... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"The blogging world evolves quickly. Some of the evolution seems like a dead end."

Indeed. I suppose that in the blogging world Charles would say that his blog is itself proof that intelligent design does not exist.

I should point out that if ... (Below threshold)

I should point out that if Al Gore recanted and said that "Global Warming" was false, I would be inclined to accept it as true. The fact that he is shilling to "convince" everyone that it is true, leads me to believe that it is false.

I do try to avoid guilt by association, but he discredits any reputable scientist that believes in it.

While I admit that some of ... (Below threshold)
Patrick:

While I admit that some of the "birthers" out there are obsessed it is not like they aren't asking good questions. To me, it is those who blindly accept what little we know about Obama's past as being the ultimate truth are the ones who have the real problem. I refer to those people as "beliefers" and to me they are no more intellectually superior than the people they constantly deride as being crazy.

The problem I have with Obama and how the media has covered him is that they are obsessed with him but unlike most obsessions it does not extend to a willingness to examine his life story beyond the immediate present. Does anybody find that at least a little strange? The man was elected mainly due to his compelling life story but it is a story that seems to only have one witness - himself. We don't even know if he was ever adopted by his Indonesian stepfather but we know he used his stepfather's surname while he was living in Indonesia and was enrolled in school there under the name Barry Soetoro. A document from the school he attended listed him as being a citizen of Indonesia. Whether he was adopted seems kind of relevant on at least a superficial level because it would have at least made him a dual citizen. Since we have not seen his college transcripts we cannot say for sure what name he was enrolled under and whether he may have attended as a foreign student which could have made him eligible for financial assistance. If he was enrolled as a foreigner and by this time he would have been an adult how might this have impacted his US citizenship because at this point he was no longer a child? Did he ever have an Indonesian passport? If he did and used it as an adult might this be interpreted as a renunciation of his American citizenship? The presidency has specific requirements as it relates to candidate's "natural born" status and I firmly believe these issues have not been explored to the extent that they should have. There have also been questions about the legitimacy of the document he has posted images of online - specifically his Certificate of Live Birth from the State of Hawaii.

The point I am making is that there are a lot of good questions that are worth asking and in this day and age where we seem to know more and more about people's personal lives suddenly we have a man who is President of the United States that we know far less about. All of these questions could easily be answered by the man who proclaimed that he was all about transparency yet he plays games with those asking the questions and the media has been complicit in allowing him to dodge these relevant questions. It is also a fact that he has spent an inordinate amount of money on lawyers that are helping him to keep these records hidden from view. The same media who complained that John McCain did not give them enough time to examine the hundreds if not thousands of pages of medical records he released were somehow completely satisfied with the fact that Obama released a one page letter from his doctor that claimed he was in perfect health! I remain stunned by not surprised by the media's hypocrisy on this issue and many others just like it.

It is his evasiveness about his past and his unwillingness to release such records is what is keeping the "birther" movement alive. Maybe that suits his purposes politically but for a man who said he wanted to be president to those who did not vote for him as well I find that kind of arrogance to be extremely divisive. I firmly believe that he has reasons that go beyond political considerations for keeping his personal records sealed and it may go as far as undermining his eligibility to hold the office of POTUS. What if his long form birth certificate shows that he was not born at the hospital he publicly claimed he was born at? Would this not raise many questions about his honesty about this issue and whether he is actually telling the truth about his Hawaiian birth? If he was not born in a Hawaiian hospital we would know at the very least he is lying about this and it would cast a pretty long shadow over his claims of being born in Hawaii because there is no reason why people would or even should automatically concede that fact because the burden of proof will have shifted from the doubters to Obama himself. I think you would then see a demand for greater openness when it came to his other personal records.

How many people here want to bet a lot of money that Obama's version of events are the complete truth? I would not take that gamble that is for sure.

Not to drag this on too muc... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Not to drag this on too much, but...

Sabba Hillel:

"My personal take on the "Intelligent Design" controversy is that, most times, neither side seems to know what they are talking about."

Hmmm. I think the issue is that they are often talking about completely different things, and often talking past one another.

Both sides are pretty knowledgeable when it comes to their respective specialties (theology vs. science).

"I can go on, but there is no logical reason for "young earth creation" to imply that evolution is false nor is there any logical reason for evolution to imply that "young earth creation" is false."

There are absolutely logical reasons for both arguments, depending on where one stands on the issue. There is no way that all of these processes could have occurred in 5600 years--not according to all modern biology, geology, paleontology, genetics, archaeology, paleobotany, etc.

This conflict hinges on whether or not the Biblical narrative/timeline is interpreted on absolutely literal terms. Some Christians say no, others say yes.

Justrand:

"but, p.s., evolution and ID are NOT incompatible! only incompatible on LGF."

I suppose it all depends on how people rationalize the two.

I generally lurk here but w... (Below threshold)
Trump:

I generally lurk here but wanted to comment - I'm sure there are LOTS of blogs we used to visit but the main guys turned squirlly.

Anyone remember "Balloon Juice"? "Right-Thinking from the Left Coast"? "Polipundit"?

All good blogs that ran off the rails.

Keep up the good work Wizbang.

I removed LGF from my bookm... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

I removed LGF from my bookmarks some months ago. Charles had banned me as well--nearly a year and a half ago as I recall. I made the mistake of disagreeing with one of his posted views, but it's his site and his rules apply, not mine. His move from relative right to apparently more-than-relative LEFT is what made up my mind to call it a day. Disagree with "birthers", creationists and tea party patriots and state your reasons as you see fit. But don't condemn, ridicule and insult. Barney Fwank has a virtual monopoly on that sort of boorish ignorance...given the fact that he does it so often. But why emulate Barney for God's sake?

I used to really like Polip... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I used to really like Polipundit and then he took some intolerant stand on some political issue (I can't even remember which one) and started banning all people who disagreed with him.

As much as Adrian, Vic, SAUD and others are pains in the neck, sometimes what you need is a lame regurgitation of liberal talking points to make the thread a bit more lively. There's even an occasional useful discussion (not usually with them). Banning dissent is just stupid. Too bad Obama can't figure that one out.

Charles suffers from Andrew... (Below threshold)
George Author Profile Page:

Charles suffers from Andrew Sullivan syndrome - a condition where prominent bloggers go off the deep end into unjustifiable rationalism.

My totally civil comments, too, were deleted and I was banned from LGF because I disagreed with Charles. I'm part of a very large club.

Ironically, the day after I was banned, LGF was accused of not even allowing opposite viewpoints. They laughably denied the accusation. I emailed Charles to point this out. He then went on to block my IP address from even being able to read LGF.

I don't even want to see the site now. He is a knucklehead.

George - See, now that's pe... (Below threshold)
jim m:

George - See, now that's perfect. You can't read the site so you can't disagree. Charles just needs to block all sites and then no one will ever disagree with him and he can be happy.

ryan,Only... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

ryan,

Only in predictable ways? Then how do you account for the role that random genetic mutation plays in evolutionary theory?

Randomness is part of the natural laws, and as such, is statistically definable. In fact, quantum mechanics is based on probability rather then predictability. I know of no evolutionist who claims complex structures are the result of random chance, but rather of natural selection of small random changes. All of which are governed by natural laws that always work in predictable ways.

Science is based upon observations and evidence of the material world, period.

Science is based on hypotheses that are supported by observations and evidence through the use of reason and logic. A well tested or formulated hypothesis becomes a theory that seeks to explain observations and also predict future observations. The problem for evolution is that all existing evidence can also be explained by an the intervention of an intelligent agent.

The question of whether or not an "intelligent agent" or supernatural force had anything to do with life on earth is outside the scope of science.

Congratulations, you've figured out that some things are unknowable. Yet some like Charles at LGF seems to claim they know things that can't be known. Like Christianity, a belief in Evolution is a statement of faith.

The falsifiability of evolution (it's "testability") is not contingent upon Michael Behe's notion of irreducible complexity

The falsifiability of evolution is based on Darwin's description of what we now call irreducible complexity. Darwin knew that to be a valid scientific theory Evolution had to be falsifiable and he described the means of doing that. Michael Behe simply took that notion further and gave it the name irreducible complexity.

Apart form IC, no one has devised another means to falsify evolution, because either there's an indigent influence or there's not. You can't directly test for intelligence because it can choose to remain hidden, so the means Darwin and now Behe have come up with is to test for the evidence of intelligence in the structures and processes of living cells. That evidence is irreducible complexity. During the ID debate the flaw in Behe's work was discovered, which is that you can never prove something is irreducible complexity, because to do so you have to prove a negative, that it didn't evolve. Some structure or process may well be irreducibility complex, but it can't be proven.

With no means to falsify evolution it fails to be a scientific theory according to the definition of what science is. In that regard it's no different then ID. I'm not for teaching ID in schools, but for telling kids what you have expressed here, that science cannot rule out an intelligent creator. As you said there are some things "outside the scope of science", yet pro-evolutionists fight over telling kids that evolution a just a theory.

Should be ...either there's... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Should be ...either there's an intelligent influence or there's not...

What you said ... too bad, ... (Below threshold)
bill-tb Author Profile Page:

What you said ... too bad, LGF was good way back when.

If they succeed in... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
If they succeed in getting Obama removed from office, what have they achieved? They've given us President Biden.

I'm not sure that's true. If Obama was proved to not be a natural citizen then the Democratic ticket would have been fraudulent including Biden. If Obama knew he was not qualified before the election the courts might decide that McCain should be President.

Deleted LGF from my favs ab... (Below threshold)
D-lo:

Deleted LGF from my favs about five days ago, I do miss the bike porn though.

Mac Lorry, its' really easy... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Mac Lorry, its' really easy to disprove evolution: Just find a fish fossil that is 3 billion years old, or the fossil of a tiger that predates the existence of alligators.

Alternatively, given a billion years of direct observation of a planet with multi-cellular life, if no new species emerge despite changing environmental conditions, evolution will also have been disproved.

The problem with irreducible complexity isn't that it's impossible to prove, it's that every example brought forth to support it has been demonstrated to have an evolutionary pathway. Now, the IDers (by which I mean those who are trying to shoehorn the idea of a creator into a sciencey-sounding field) want to backtrack and claim that because they haven't been able to produce a biological system that is irreducibly complex, that it means the standard is wrong. Of course, that already assumes the answer that there are intelligently designed biological systems out there, which their method is not finding, and thus evolution is wrong. Such placing of the cart before the horse is by nature not science.

And the problem is not with telling kids that evolution is "just" a theory (the word "just" being used to signal that the person speaking has no idea what a theory actually is). It's in singling out evolution for special caution. We'd have no problem if equal time was spent saying gravity is "just" a theory, or electromagnetism is "just" a theory, or the cell model was "just" a theory, or relativity was "just" a theory, or, well, you get the idea. Obviously, as the ID debate shows, there's a huge segment of the population that has no idea what a theory actually is or how science works. So, we have a big problem there that needs to be addressed.

He gladly takes credit for ... (Below threshold)

He gladly takes credit for breaking the "Rathergate" fiasco, but wasn't it a Freeper(Buckhead) who actually figured it out?

I'm not sure that's true... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I'm not sure that's true. If Obama was proved to not be a natural citizen then the Democratic ticket would have been fraudulent including Biden. If Obama knew he was not qualified before the election the courts might decide that McCain should be President.

And then, what would you have...Pelosi.

Ponder that.

JSchuler, <bl... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

JSchuler,

Mac Lorry, its' really easy to disprove evolution: Just find a fish fossil that is 3 billion years old, or the fossil of a tiger that predates the existence of alligators.

You could also find obvious man made objects in coal or rocks that predate man. In fact many such objects have been found and regardless of the evidence of their age they are dismissed as intrusions. That would be the fate of any out of sequence fossil, it would be dismissed as an intrusion into the older rock. It could have already happened.

Alternatively, given a billion years of direct observation of a planet with multi-cellular life, if no new species emerge despite changing environmental conditions, evolution will also have been disproved.

That, like other harebrain ideas, are not testable. That's like saying Christianity is falsifiable by launching all the world's nuclear weapons before the end time prophesies are fulfilled. If you accept that then Christianity is a science.

The problem with irreducible complexity isn't that it's impossible to prove, it's that every example brought forth to support it has been demonstrated to have an evolutionary pathway.

And like global warming, the supposed proof is a computer model written by someone intent on disproving some thing is IR. That might pass for proof in the Evolutionary community, but it wouldn't stand up in even small claims court.

See the thing is that no one has to prove something is IR, only that nothing can be proven to be IR because to do so is to prove a negative. In doing so Darwin's test of falsifiability fails, and with it, the status of evolution as a science. That condition remains until evolutionists come up with a viable means to falsify evolution. Until then it's only distinction from ID are all the careers that are on the line, you know, like the man made global warming nonsense.

And then, what wou... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
And then, what would you have...Pelosi.

No, I think you would get the winner of the election if the Democratic ticket were shown to be an intentional fraud. That would be McCain.

I'm yet another former read... (Below threshold)
AJ:

I'm yet another former reader of LGF. When I first got into reading political blogs, LGF was one of my daily stops. As time went on I got sort of tired of the "getting lost in the crowd" so I didn't go there as often. After an absence I went back and it seemed every post was bashing creationists. After a few more visits and seeing that was the general trend of LGF, I didn't bother visiting. I never went there to read about evolution vs creationism; I went there because I enjoyed his political links and stories. Apparently Charles has now been infused with the spirit of Lee Ward? Banning people for simply disagreeing? That's sad.

The problem for ev... (Below threshold)
ryan a:
The problem for evolution is that all existing evidence can also be explained by an the intervention of an intelligent agent.

ANYTHING can be explained by a supernatural cause, Mac. That's not a problem for science, that's a philosophical/theological issue. Pulling the "intervention of an intelligent agent" card doesn't prove anything, let alone create any serious issues for scientists, who can only deal with material realities.

Congratulations, you've figured out that some things are unknowable. Yet some like Charles at LGF seems to claim they know things that can't be known.

Congratulations, you've realized that I am not Charles from LGF. Of course there are many aspects of life that are unknown and unknowable.

Apart form IC, no one has devised another means to falsify evolution, because either there's an indigent influence or there's not.

Ah, I see how you are framing this. In your view, unless it can be proved that God was not behind Evolution, then Evolution is ultimately unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific? Wow. For me, since science is only about observable phenomena, that one's a stretch--if that's actually what you are proposing.

With no means to falsify evolution it fails to be a scientific theory according to the definition of what science is.

There are lines of evidence to test evolution, including the fossil record and genetic data. And then there is always the possibility of finding those precambrian rabbits...

The point here is that IC is not, by any means, the only way that evolutionary theory can be tested.

LGF and Charles jumped the ... (Below threshold)
Austin Conservative:

LGF and Charles jumped the shark over a year ago. I deleted the bookmark back then when Charles started on his evolution kick and reverted back to the stinky liberal hippie he has always been.

You could also fin... (Below threshold)
ryan a:
You could also find obvious man made objects in coal or rocks that predate man. In fact many such objects have been found and regardless of the evidence of their age they are dismissed as intrusions.

Many? Where? And who found them?

ANYTHING can be ex... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
ANYTHING can be explained by a supernatural cause, Mac. That's not a problem for science, that's a philosophical/theological issue. Pulling the "intervention of an intelligent agent" card doesn't prove anything, let alone create any serious issues for scientists, who can only deal with material realities.

As science seeks to supplant the religious view of the world it can't then claim it doesn't have to address religious arguments because they are not scientific. There is a truth of how life came to be what we see today and to say that science can't address the entire scope of that truth is to admit that science is but an intellectual game. I'm ok with teaching evolution as long as it's limitations in seeking the truth are also revealed to students.

In your view, unless it can be proved that God was not behind Evolution, then Evolution is ultimately unfalsifiable and therefore not scientific?

I'm only asking evolution to live up to the definition of what any science is, and part of that is the requirement that it be falsifiable. Contrary to Darwin, IC can't be that test, so what is it?

There are lines of evidence to test evolution, including the fossil record and genetic data. And then there is always the possibility of finding those precambrian rabbits...

You started out by saying that "ANYTHING can be explained by a supernatural cause", so how do lines of evidence to test evolution?

And then there is always the possibility of finding those precambrian rabbits...

Such a find would be dismissed just as the many finds of obvious man made objects in rocks older than man are dismissed. The only people looking for fossils are those who have a vested interest in advancing their careers within the current scientific dogma. No scientist is going to throw away their career by claiming an out of sequence fossil disproves evolution. The "intrusion" card is played to dismiss any such find and they move on.

When Ed Morrissey woke up a... (Below threshold)
simkeith:

When Ed Morrissey woke up and discovered it, he was more publicly furious than I've ever seen him -- and Ed is normally a very calm fellow. In a flurry of action, he deleted Trout's comments and banned him, amid several very intemperate and uncharacteristic cuss words.

Ed Morrissey is one of the most sane and decent guys on the right of center blogs. However I don't blame him for going off on that jerk one bit.

Many? Where? And w... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Many? Where? And who found them?

Here's a sample.

Mac:As sc... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Mac:

As science seeks to supplant the religious view of the world it can't then claim it doesn't have to address religious arguments because they are not scientific.

In my view science and religion tread on different grounds. I don't expect them to agree, and it doesn't bother me when they don't. I see no need for science to be taught in seminary school, let alone religion to be taught in evolutionary biology classes.

There is a truth of how life came to be what we see today and to say that science can't address the entire scope of that truth is to admit that science is but an intellectual game. I'm ok with teaching evolution as long as it's limitations in seeking the truth are also revealed to students.

No human endeavor has a lock on "truth," Mac. Of course there are limitations to science. Scientific knowledge, after all, is not about absolutes. Religion is more about absolutes.

You started out by saying that "ANYTHING can be explained by a supernatural cause", so how do lines of evidence to test evolution?

Anything can be explained that way, because all that requires is acceptance and faith. NO evidence or proof is necessary, and therefore such answers fall well outside of scientific reasoning. Natural laws or processes can be completely trumped in religious thinking, so it's not even within the bounds of this discussion. You can't prove or disprove anything related to God, so it's a moot point, Mac. Don't you get it?

Evolutionary theory relies upon 150 years of observations of natural phenomena. This includes evidence from the fossil record, modern genetics, paleontology, paleoanthropology, comparative anatomy, and so on. All you need to "test" evolution is to find any data that runs counter to the basic premise of evolution...like a fossil specimen that shows up completely out of place. Or maybe DNA evidence that show that humans are more closely related to chickens than apes. There is plenty to test. So far, the theory has held up to scrutiny.

Such a find would be dismissed just as the many finds of obvious man made objects in rocks older than man are dismissed.

What kind of an answer is that? And you are basing this on what? What "finds" are you talking about?

The only people looking for fossils are those who have a vested interest in advancing their careers within the current scientific dogma. No scientist is going to throw away their career by claiming an out of sequence fossil disproves evolution. The "intrusion" card is played to dismiss any such find and they move on.

Well, there are indeed politics in science. But I guarantee you that there are archaeologists and paleontologists out there who are interested in more than just upholding dogma. Previous theories, discoveries, and ideas are always under scrutiny and revision. Granted, if someone came up with an incredible discover, their work would be carefully scrutinized. But if the evidence is there, then it would change science.

But your argument that it would just be ignored is spurious at best. Can you see into the future or something? Now you're getting back into the metaphysical realm.

Over the last year and a ha... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Over the last year and a half+, I got pretty busy. Got married (2 years next week), been in the hospital with a GI condition, finished of my degree, work, work and work. End result, less time for blogging. Including the shut down of my own blog.
Anyway, I remember visiting LGF for the first time in 6 or so months after the wife and I moved to another state and things had quieted down enough to sit on the couch with a laptop...
THe place had changed. Keeping the trolls over there under control was always an agressive endeavor. But the echo chamber atmosphere was a huge change. Like J I agree with many of Charles' pet peeves, but disagreement on semantics and minor points was enough to be tossed out the door.
It was like stepping off the transporter and Spock had a beard.
I haven't been back since.

Mac,That is convin... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Mac,

That is convincing evidence to you?

In honor of the subject of ... (Below threshold)

In honor of the subject of this thread, I am hereby deleting all comments arguing evolution vs. intelligent design and banning all who participated.

J.

(Just kidding... but sheesh, people, do you really gotta duke it out here?)

"In honor of the subject of... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"In honor of the subject of this thread, I am hereby deleting all comments arguing evolution vs. intelligent design and banning all who participated."

hahahahaha!

BANISHED!

Ok, Jay. No more I promise.

Uh... who hasn't been bann... (Below threshold)

Uh... who hasn't been banned by LGF?

I dared criticize Van Jones.

A lot of good points here. ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

A lot of good points here. I stopped going to LGF a long while back when I saw the shift, (Charles wrote a short piece declaring his shift in focus because of the interest his readers were showing) never realizing (because I hadn't gone back in a while) that he had gone full blown nuts.

It seems Mr. Johnson has declared himself sheriff - and in essence, High Priest - rooting out witches and heretics from "the right". And it seems he's found a willing army to follow him. I don't begrudge him his beliefs or what he's passionate about. What I do take offense at is the approach.

In response to #8, jim2: Policing our own indeed. First one must accept that the birthers, the creationists, the white supremacists, etc. are "our own". We are individuals first. In "policing our own" all we should be doing is asking for civility - certainly not demanding someone toe the line in believing everything we want them to believe or we'll demonize them, smear them and ban them.

Some of the nicest people I know think Obama may not be a citizen. Some of the most charitable people I've met believe the world is 6,000 years old. So what? But almost all of them think the government is orchestrating a huge power grab and it frightens them. We have something very much in common there and how old they think the world is matters not.

To focus on creationism vs. evolution as a tool to separate us is foolish. Is this "policing"?

Jay keeps saying, "They are not the real enemy today." We have real enemies. Let's not forget who they are in creating imaginary ones.

ryan,Convincing on... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

ryan,

Convincing only is demonstrating that out of sequence fossils would be likewise dismissed, and maybe already have been.

ryan,I would addre... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

ryan,

I would address your post #73, but as you can see from Jay's post we have already gone too far into that topic. Of course it's a topic Jay listed as one of LGF's problems areas. If nothing else, we have proven Wizbang is much more tolerant than LGF.

Mac, first, observing a pla... (Below threshold)
JSchuler:

Mac, first, observing a planet for a billion years is a test. It's physically possible to do so, and it's a process that we are actually engaged in by looking at our own planet. But hey, if you want something more feasible, with results right now, there's the fact that people realized that IF evolution was correct, THEN all these incredibly weird, fossilized remains we're finding should show a progression to modern-day species. There's a big test right there! I know, I know. It's far more comforting to believe that IC, the thing IDers hang their hats on, is the ONLY way to test evolution.

The fact that you are so hung up on what Darwin says is another indication that you do not understand science in the least. Darwin is NOT the Pope. He is not infallible in all things evolution. Galileo may have discovered gravity, but it didn't emerge perfectly formed from his forehead. It took Newton, Einstein, and whole bunch of others to discover more and correct errors in the preceding theories.

Speaking of Einstein, do you know that he theorized Super Nova would give off a gravity wave? It's in his theory of relativity, but he declared that it would be impossible to prove, and so brushed it off. At this point, you'd say anyone who talked about a gravity wave was not being scientific, as Einstein, the Great and Infallible Father of Relativity, doth decree it so. Well, there are some heathens that are taking what are obviously satanic lasers and building a device which they blasphemously declare will be able to detect such waves if they exist. Naturally, the scientific community is marching on them as we speak with pitchforks and torches, and the inquisitional tribunal is being set up by Stephen Hawking.

Second, you really think a website that takes the crystal skull hoax seriously as an authority? Well, hey, if it's on the internet, it must be true, right?

Third, your statement with computer models actually is a perfect illustration of how dangerous psuedo-science is. Computer models are terrible for prediction unless you intimately know the forces you are dealing with (hence, they work great for collisions and explosions and structural analysis, because we know what we're dealing with inside and out, and just let the computer do the grunt work). However, when you don't know the specific details, they are great at telling you if your theory tracks observable data. For instance, we know anthropogenic global warming is a bunch of hooey because the CO2 based models cannot replicate patterns seen in past climates. That means the models are way off base, because they show patterns that have no relation to anything we've seen. Yet, strangely, when we model evolution, we see the exact same evolutionary patterns as we do in the fossil records; namely, large periods of stability punctuated by short periods of rapid change. This says that, even if the theory evolution is wrong, it gets more than enough right that you might as well use it until something better comes along.

And yes Jay, we must do this. It's like the Highlander. We are driven to fight, and there can be only one.

I hate to sound like an idi... (Below threshold)
Paul:

I hate to sound like an idiot...

But are we sure CJ still owns and operates LGF?

I find it hard to believe the transformation myself.

No... I'm serious... does anyone know him first hand that can vouch for his writing all that stuff?

I find the negative score o... (Below threshold)
jim2:

I find the negative score of my #8 an amusing confirmation of the points I made. You all are in denial.

It matters very little if the Dem-lefty demonstrations are/were/will-be even 50% wackos to the bulk of truly independent voters because the MSM will not show them. Someday, those critical voters will not rely on the newspapers and MSM tv - - that day has not happened yet and won't happen by 2010 or even 2012.

All the right-conservative movement needs is low single digits of wackos-with-signs and the MSM will play it up to those same voters. Don't you guys get it yet? Do I have to say "peace mom" example to remind you how the MSM will play it in 2010 and 2012?

All the MSM needs is a few to show up with the filth-signs LGF clearly documented as there and it does not matter if there were 1000s of clean ones. Conservatives can pound each other on the back all we/they want about no trash after a demonstration and how few evil signs there were. The story the MSM will carry will always be the outlier few, and the reporters will try to hide their grateful glee, at least a little bit.

You all go ahead and chew off that LGF limb if you think it will get you out of this trap, but all it will really do is condone and enable the behavior that will bleed out the right in 2010 and 2012.

jim2,Funny how all... (Below threshold)
mpw280:

jim2,

Funny how all conservatives need is a few wackos to show up and it casts a massive shadow, while thousands of whackos show up at any lefty event and its a ok. Maybe Charles should show the difference of what it takes to be news for left vs right a little more often rather than pissing on the whole of the right for the few whackos who show up at any event no matter who sponsers it.

Good post Jay. I've been k... (Below threshold)

Good post Jay. I've been knocking around a similar one myself, but never found the time to finish it.

Before Robert Stacy McCain, Charles Johnson repeatedly attacked Pamela Geller from Atlas Shrugs, as well as noted scholar Robert Spencer, one of our foremost experts on radical Islam. Both Geller and Spencer were, according to Johnson, "Neo Nazis". It was at that point that I started to question Charles Johnson's sanity.

Then he began to ridicule Creationists, and evangelical Christians in general (I suspect that Johnson believes we are all in some kind of evil Creationist/Dominionist conspiracy together) and I realized that Johnson had gone off the deep end. Then the mass bannings began, and I simply stopped reading his blog.

LGF was one of the first blogs I read regularly. I think I found it via Bill Whittle's original blogroll. In the early days (2002-2003) I was a frequent commenter and enjoyed the vigorous conversations that occurred among regular commenters. Sadly, those days are long gone.

I think he HAS shown it. H... (Below threshold)
jim2:

I think he HAS shown it. His series of posts on the subject began, IIRC, as a refutation that the right-conservative demonstrations had none such. That is, after MSM reporters happily wrote about the right-wackos, the right side of the blogosphere said "not true" - - but LGF posted the pix to show that the MSM could not be refuted so easily.

No, it is when the dem-lefties get so desperate as to get caught trying to create the stories they seek, that the MSM has trouble.

And, it is actually worse than what you said. The "peace mom" idiot shows up with three fellow fools and they get huge play in the MSM, when it suits them. Three thousand or thrity thousand or three hundred thousand conservatives show up and the MSM will be busy covering a wine-tasting exhibition somewhere else.

The right should be bowing in thanks to LGF, instead of mooning him. Well, unless you all LIKE the prospect of another Congress headed by Reid and Pelosi, simply because you like to bitch about it.

Guess I was just early. I d... (Below threshold)
Jay:

Guess I was just early. I decided sometime in my first year or so of blogging. 2003/2004, that LGF was over the top. Not necessarily wrong all the time, if ever, but rabid, and especially feral in the comments.

I'm another one who lost in... (Below threshold)
Tej Author Profile Page:

I'm another one who lost interest in LGF. Back in the rathergate era I went once a day and maybe once every few months since then and have no interest to go back. I don't have interest in 90% of his postings and disagree with his teaparty logic. The teaparty is a great movement and has nothing to do with racism.

I quit visiting Polipundit about the same time when they also transformed. I did visit it a couple weeks ago and it wasn't as bad as it was before.

I've narrowed down my list to Wizbang, hotair, biggovernment, malkin, powerlineblog and randomly hit a blogroll from one of those sites once in awhile.

One of the ways that Charle... (Below threshold)
AnonyPundit:

One of the ways that Charles has gone off the deep-end, is his belief that no matter how much he or his commenters go out of their way to harm you, you owe him your loyalty. The Killgore Trout incident is a good example. After that incident, he was offended that AllahPundit doesn't link to him, show him repsect etc. Personally, I can't blame Allah.

Anotehr way, is when he tells people "If you don't like how I run my blog, go start your own."

Well, I know some former LGFers who did just that - the folks over at C2. So what happens? They tried to move on - no mention of LGF, no involvement in the drama, ignoring LGF and Charles as if they dont' exist. He can't handle it. Because they dont' link to him, he believes that they are out to "get" him. He started calling them a "Stalker Blog", even though there are no mentions of him, his blog, or his commenters anywhere. Any mentions are quickly deleted. They are not "Blog War Neutral", they are "Blog War Verboten". That makes them "the enemy", for some reason.

Apparently, if you leave, or are banned from, LGF, you are not allowed to post anywhere else on the internet, or you are "stalking" him.

But Charles will take comments from there, and repost them on his site, and add lies, innuendos, and "guilt by association" type attacks. Who, exactly, is the "Stalker Blog"?

He has become so paranoid, it would almost be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

I stopped reading LGF a cou... (Below threshold)
annawhousedtocare:

I stopped reading LGF a couple years ago, I just lost interest, had better things to read. I remember thinking that it seemed to be changing but I thought I was the only one who felt that way. I'm not an avid reader of HotAir but I started noticing comments about CJ a few weeks ago. When I went and looked I was shocked at how paranoid he'd gotten. I made a comment knowing I'd be banned but I didn't want my name associated. Not that anyone would recognize it - I might have commented twice in all the time I was there. But I knew I was registered and didn't want to be a part of it so I made the comment just rude enough to insure my fate - turns out all I'd have had to do is downding the post or one of the stupid comments by a sycophant. How sick and how sad.

Mac:Convi... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Mac:

Convincing only is demonstrating that out of sequence fossils would be likewise dismissed, and maybe already have been.

Not good evidence for your argument Mac. You are absolutely making assumptions about how you think science and anthropology/archaeology works, and I can tell you that you are in left field. The site that you linked to proves nothing, and the finds there are beyond problematic. As Schuler said, linking to a page with a crystal skull and UFO links isn't exactly the best route for disproving evolutionary theory.

Ironic how you are so critical of something that has been tested and retested with multiple lines of evidence, and your alternative is a bunch of highly questionable artifacts with serious provenance problems.

(Sorry Jay Tea)

A quick point. Go back in ... (Below threshold)
Iron Fist:

A quick point. Go back in the archives and read Charles on the issues of the day then (Islamofascists, Israel-"Palestine" conflict, anti-Semitism, and the like) and compare them to what is being said (or not allowed to be said) on those issues today (to the extent that he even covers such issues anymore).

It is a simple fact: today's Charles Johnson would ban, delete, and mock the Charles Johnson from September 2001 until November 2008.

most of the heavy lifting o... (Below threshold)
JeremyR:

most of the heavy lifting on rathergate was done by Denny at Grouchyoldcripple.com . He was one of hte first who was all over it. Denny was an IBM tech who knew the stuff inside and out. When he called BS, a lot of others began digging. IIRC all Charles really did was the throbbing memory. it was an important contribution, but many others who were not associated with the media were on it as well.

For example, the anti-ev... (Below threshold)
Jehu Author Profile Page:

For example, the anti-evolutionists. I think they're just plain wrong. I think that Darwin's theory is pretty much on, and in a scientific context deserves far, far more attention than the "intelligent design" thesis. That argument, no matter how you reshape it or recast it or gussy it up in scientific lingo, is rooted in theology

The argument posed by myself and others concerning the nearly rabid defense of Darwinism is that it to has all the trappings of a faith. Certainly it never addresses the origin of life itself, so it tries to tell a story by starting at chapter 10.

The problems with classical Evolutionary theory are never taught in schools until you have invested a tremendous amount of time and effort in accepting that theory. It is only in graduate school that they begin to tell you of the holes and problems with this "scientific theory."

No professor or advocate of evolutionary science can tell you why female giraffes are much shorter than their male counterparts. If the need to survive dictated ever longer necks, how did females survive? No one can propose how symbiotic life comes into existence, for it involves some mechanism that allowed entirely different species, even from different kingdoms to evolve separately, then suddenly in time have completely interdependent lives, with matching behaviors and morphology. Those species cannot exist without each other.

Such facts perhaps do not dictate ID or some other theory can be argued in our classrooms but at the very least they should be aired in the same classes that appear more as indoctrination than "proven," and "repeatable" science.

It was Johnson and sycophants that pretended only they know science when they see it, forgetting that modern science was for the most part founded by Christians, indeed science only developed, or could develop in a culture that believed in a creator God, that is an indisputable historical fact, noted by science historians for centuries.

And Johnson and cohorts were dismissively arrogant towards many of us who are scientists, engineers or work in technical fields and we brought legitimate arguments, which they ignored and instead mocked and ultimately banned any of us that did not accept the parrot line "Evolution is a fact, evolution is a fact...awwk, awwk!"

It was not creationists that found the need to invent the theory of "punctuated equilibrium," when the nearly complete fossil record shows explosive appearance of species at several points in time, not the slow development over long periods of time that evolutionary theory demands.

But one of their own brightest and best Stephen J. Gould. Nor creationists that proposed panspermia theory because of the huge problem of the origin of life itself, that was done by evolutionary believing cosmologists Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe.

jim2:I am very con... (Below threshold)
Kenya:

jim2:

I am very confused by your posts.
We should thank LGF for amplifying the voices of the MSM in picking out the fringe elements at the Tea Party protests? For a prurient and hysterical condemnation of protest signs that did not warrant the violence and racism attributed to them?
And we should thank Charles for this service because? Why? Because the constant self-purification of LGF (where whole strings of comments consist of pseudonymous posters competing to express moral outrage)will cause the voting public to realize that not all on the right think Obama is Hitler or are otherwise mad? And so they will then vote Republican?
Is this moral preening a new form of conservative political activism? Hmm. I don't get it.

I have a request of Charles... (Below threshold)
klrtz1:

I have a request of Charles Johnson. I have never registered or commented on your blog but I want you to ban me anyway. I want to join the list of the banned. Please preemptively ban me.

I am a Christian. Isn't that reason enough to ban me?

Please forward this message to Charles Johnson.

Thank you.

Supposedly prior to 911 Cha... (Below threshold)
justdanny:

Supposedly prior to 911 Charles was riding his bike and was almost hit by a man leaving a mosque. For whatever reason the man leaving the mosque mimicked shooting Charles. On 911 Charles imagined that man was somehow involved in the events of 911. His focus on finding and linking to stories about Islamic militancy drew crowds as people searched for news on the net about Islamic militancy after the events of 911. The wave started and he directed his focus at satisfying the interests of those now visiting his site. Skip forward and he begins accepting ad dollars and there is the source of his current flip flop.

Its all about money. If advertisers can be assured that anti Obama material will not show up on the front page or in comments, Charles can then pull down more ad money. Its simple greed. He had fashioned the site to receive the most number of hits. Now he fashions the site to get the most ad dollars.

I personally now hope his business fails.

Those of us that have been banned for no reason at all are Chevys and Fords. Those that haven't been banned are Hondas and Toyotas. American cars don't sell anymore. He's just changing out the stock, thats all.

I think it's funny that on ... (Below threshold)
John Wehman:

I think it's funny that on Hot Air, on their Blogroll, LGF has moved from "Right Channels" to "Left Channels". Don't know when that happened, maybe it's old news, but I just went there to check if LGF was even still listed, and saw the switch.

Kenya -I will repe... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Kenya -

I will repeat myself somewhat, but will give it another try.

The right-leaning blogs I read all strongly denied that the sort of sick wacko elements at lefty demonstrations had been present at the righty demonstrations. LGF proved that wrong. If the right wants to remain in denial, that is their privilege but it gives the MSM a free run and one they will take, and have already taken.

If you think the MSM need LGF to find that crap, you are so mistaken as to be ludicrous. That "amplifying" accusation is equally ludicrous - - sorry, but that's a fact.

Okay, let's fast forward to the 2010 elections. Election day is just a day or three away. Right/conservative demonstrations and rallies are naturally being held in key spots. Tens and tens of thousands turn out. In those crowds are a few tens of filth-wacko signs and righty Code Pink clones. Do you have any doubts what the MSM will play up? Do you? Do you have any doubt that the MSM will try their devious and wretched best to scare the key independent voters with pictures of those few dozen joker Obama signs? And with anything else fringe types wave about in their demented daze?

I do not have to agree with everything over at LGF, but I hate watching you all lay the foundation for more Reid/Pelosi/Obama and that is what you are doing here.

Sure, the right can remain in beatific denial. The left can get away with a lot of that because the lefty MSM has their back and will cover for them, not with the righty blogosphere, but with the still-critical voter blocks that do not read the righty blogosphere.

Still, if it makes you all happier, remain in denial and expel the bad news bringer, the messenger, the coal mine canary. Just get used to Reid and Pelosi and practice your aggrieved looks, as you will need them next election day + 1.

I too had drifted away from... (Below threshold)
Gizmo:

I too had drifted away from LGF for a period of time (for no real reason) and recently visited it again out of boredom a week or so ago. My reaction was "What the heck happened to this place!".

I know that Johnson thinks that he hasn't changed stripes and instead is just continuing to call out the same sort of "nuttiness" as he has all along, but one topic alone will disprove that: his treatment of the recent troubles of ACORN. After he posted the news story about how the now-fired ACORN worker featured in the San Diego sting had actually reported the "pimp" to the police (albeit via a "backdoor" means a couple of days later with a informal conversation with a cousin on the force), a LGF poster accused Johnson of only posting the story because it was helpful to ACORN's defense. Johnson took exception to the accusation and said that he had linked the story because it was "news".

However, unless I can't use LGF's search tool correctly, the only other time ACORN had been featured in the prior 30 days on the site was when Charles had posted the press release from ACORN's CEO blasting the initial video, calling the sting a scam, and accusing the tapes of being doctored.

While I agree with Charles in his comments with one of the postings that this hardly is the "story of the year", I seems a bit odd that the only "news" items from the scandal he feels is worth posting are two items that seek to defend ACORN and attack those that have exposed their systemic misdeeds by their employees. That's hardly posting the "news" in most people's eyes... that's promoting a position.

I was also banned (for a cl... (Below threshold)
Banned_for_a_click:

I was also banned (for a click)

I was concerned about a year ago about his fixation on evolution. I am a Christian and believe that God was involved in creation.

I down-dinged a couple of his "here's proof that ID is stoopid" posts. No comments, no racist words, nothing. I was banned the next day. I thought it was a mistake, so I e-mailed asking what had happened. Terse response that "Creationists" need not apply for LGF.

I still go to LGF occasionally, primarily due to the "popcorn effect", sort of like you can't help rubbernecking at the site of a major car wreck.

Point taken, yet again, Jim... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Point taken, yet again, Jim2.

You sure know how to make a mountain out of a molehill though.

Teaparty demos = thousands of normal posters + a sprinkling of fringe Rightwingers and Mobys. The MSM will almost always focus on the nutjobs or the Lefty counterdemonstrators. LGF isn't exactly saying anything new here.

We get it already. The vast majority of us already knew this before LGF said anything.

I know it's a molehill; you... (Below threshold)
jim2:

I know it's a molehill; you know it's a molehill. Before LGF's pix-posts, most righties claimed the terrain was absolutely flat. I do nnot see that level of denial any more, as they now call it molehills.

It's a start.

We need to get the word out NOW that to show up with filth-wacko stuff is to aid and abet the MSM and their Reid/Pelosi/Obama campaigns. It may take a year or more for it to permeate and sink in, but we have that time because LGF has rubbed our noses in it.

So, how many times did jim2... (Below threshold)
Banned from LGF for rating posts up/down:

So, how many times did jim2 post n***** between 1 and 3 a.m.?

I used to love reading LGF ... (Below threshold)
John:

I used to love reading LGF and did for a couple of years. Last year I began to feel very uncomfortable with the site, he seemed to be doing a Andy Sullivan (lossing his prespective) and making weird statements and claims. "Trout" and "Medaura" seemed to be running the site more and more and they are just in the bag nuts. I miss the old "LGF" but I find the new "LGF" Stupid and foolish. I still visit every once in awhile to see if they have made a sanity recovery but not so far, so I treat them like an Andy Sullivan and ignore their comments.

jim2, the only thing Charle... (Below threshold)
Kathy:

jim2, the only thing Charles Johnson is revealing to the right is that he and Obama have a microthin skin in common. We don't have to worry about wackos showing up at tea parties because a majority, 56% of LIKELY VOTERS, now support the same position. Guilt by association is practiced by those with weak deduction skills or those suffering from paranoia. It reveals NOTHING about the tea party protests. Poll after poll demonstrates that.

Jay, a brave post. Hope it doesn't get you double-banned. (After banning what else can he do? Impotence is a sad result of hitting every thing with a hammer even when it isn't a nail.)

I saw Charles Johnson as the worst sort of bigot when he began his anti-Christian rants. Haven't been back in months. Can't say I'm surprised by the meltdown.

Most "righties" have never ... (Below threshold)
CluePhone:

Most "righties" have never heard of LGF (except for a good number who might have seen the frog segment on Beck) or this blog. Most "righties" don't live their lives glued to an internet connection. LGF is not the only entity to have saved footage of the tea parties. The MSM did not keep the "righties" from the townhalls and tea parties and it won't keep them out of the voting booth. Most "righties" vote, as most "lefties" do, as most EVERYONE does, based on their own self-interests. The MSM painted beautiful Obama propaganda pictures before the election but people are waking up now, as shown by the polls. The MSM will have a much harder time in 2010. The Democrats are not in the best interests of most Americans.

Kathy,After ban... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Kathy,

After banning what else can he do?

Double secret probation banning...

Hey!!! My strike through sh... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

Hey!!! My strike through showed up in preview but not in the actual comment!

It should read "double secret banning..." with probation in strike through.

Charles has always had a th... (Below threshold)

Charles has always had a thin skin. He has also been among the most ruthless bloggers with regard to banning people, from the very beginning.

Charles runs his site as if it had a dozen regular visitors. It's his site, his code and he runs it. If he only had a dozen visitors a day, no one would notice or care.

As has been pointed out, if you don't like LGF, don't visit the site. All this sturm und drang is a waste of time and energy. It really isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

Kathy -The tea par... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Kathy -

The tea party demonstrations in the summer of 2009 and the related poll numbers of today will not be what will make middle ground voters choose what they vote in Nov 2010 (and Nov 2012). The span of 13 or 14 months (let alone 2 years plus 13 or 14 months) likely ensures other things, other issues, other demonstrations will come along in the meanwhile.

The crazies who showed up in the summer of 2009 will, however, doubtless be there again and again - especially if nothing is done in that direction between now and then.

The MSM will be all-too-happy to "peace mom" them.

The lefties will vote one way, the righties will vote their way, and the middles will decide the election, as always. If the MSM gets enough righty-ammo, be assured they will use it. If the right does not do something to keep avert the behavior LGF pix-posted, the MSM will have all they need to scare the middles and we'll get more years of Reid/Pelosi/Obama.

Is that what you want?

JSchuler,See Jay's... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

JSchuler,

See Jay's post #76.

Oh, you're so right, jim2! ... (Below threshold)
CluePhone:

Oh, you're so right, jim2! As the congress continues to malign and misrepresent the people, and the administration continues to shovel more lies, crap and debt down their throats, the MSM will magically convince the people to vote for more of it. Right! Lizard brilliance!

Supposedly prior t... (Below threshold)
Supposedly prior to 911 Charles was riding his bike and was almost hit by a man leaving a mosque. For whatever reason the man leaving the mosque mimicked shooting Charles. On 911 Charles imagined that man was somehow involved in the events of 911. His focus on finding and linking to stories about Islamic militancy drew crowds as people searched for news on the net about Islamic militancy after the events of 911.

I had not heard this before. Is this something Charles wrote about on LGF?

Jim2: "If the right does no... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Jim2: "If the right does not do something to keep avert the behavior LGF pix-posted..."

Do what, exactly? Ban them? That only works on websites.

In the real world, anyone can show up at a protest. Guess what, at any 'righty' protest, there may be .1% righty nutjobs or Mobys.

In a country that still has Free Speech and Freedom of Assembly, we just have to put up with that.

The mainstream Teapartiers already denounce the whackos, what more would you have them do?

CluePhone -"Lizard... (Below threshold)
jim2:

CluePhone -

"Lizard brilliance"? Is that some sort of reference to LGF? If so, I'd like to note that I've never posted or even registered at LGF.

Many conservatives are apparently content to remain in their group think denial stupor.

Les Nessman -If I ... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Les Nessman -

If I had a solution to offer, I would. I don't. But that's no reason to condemn the messenger, or blame the canary for the coal gas.

I do know that the left's solution (to trust the MSM not to cover the lefty wackos) will not work.

Maybe it's like counter-insurgency, where the solution is more to get the community as a whole involved and more sensitive, rather than to rely on targeting individuals.

jim2I guess we just ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

jim2
I guess we just have a different view of what the Teaparty movement is or how it has been conducting itself.

I just don't think the problem you are describing is as big as you think it is.

Or maybe a better way of putting it is, the MSM is always going to point out the Right fringe and ignore the more prevalent fringe behavior of the Left. I think most Righties acknowledge this unfairness and just soldier on. At this point that is all we can do. We shouldn't waste too much precious air time denouncing a tiny fringe that we have no control over.

We can only be responsible for ourselves, not for others.

"Is that some sort of refer... (Below threshold)
CluePhone:

"Is that some sort of reference to LGF?" Gosh, for someone who doesn't post and isn't registered at LGF, I wonder how you made the connection. Someone who merely reads over there doesn't have to ask the question, someone who doesn't wouldn't know to ask it. You know what, jim2? I don't believe you.

"denial stupor" - that's precisely what they left behind when they got out of their comfort zone. So answer the question. Why would most people vote for someone whose policies they don't support? Because the MSM shows them pictures of wackos? Whatever.

Les Nessman -I am ... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Les Nessman -

I am certainly willing to cheerfully hold and respect different views, but I do not think our views of the Teaparty movement differ.

I again point out, however, that (before the LGF pix) I saw/read many denials at right sites that there had been no fringers with such posters at those demonstrations.

My hope is that the right fringe presence near the 2010/2012 elections will be small enough that the MSM cannot make much of it. However, it may be that some internal policing between now and then may help there, even if it only takes the form of scaring the fringers by waving huge HiDef pix of Pelosi in their faces(they'd scare me!) and telling them their actions will only help her remain Speaker.

CluePhone -You kno... (Below threshold)
jim2:

CluePhone -

You know what, CluePhone? I don't care what you believe. But, for what it's worth, LGF is what this whole post is about and there is something over at LGF called "Lizards' Lounge" or something like that. Those two bits are what I had to work with.

As for your other rant, if you don't think the baseless "Rascist!" cries got folk to the polls and got them to vote as they did last November, then it is you who are in denial.

Baron, how about here?... (Below threshold)
Calvin Ball:
Jim2:I don't under... (Below threshold)
Tej Author Profile Page:

Jim2:

I don't understand your point about the teaparty movement. What needs to blow over before the next election?

Unfortunately, these protests are conducted on public property and there is nothing we can do about the fringe or the MSM's portrayal of the movement.

The polls may be presenting the real story that 42% of Americans agree with the complete disregard for our tax dollars being pissed away by this administration. The MSM is losing more as the months pass so we are winning and this needs to be remembered and expanded on for the next 13 months.

Supporters of the tea party movement are mostly regular American voters against socializing America...not people trying to win the hearts of the MSM or appologizers for racist and lunatics in this country.

Jimmy, there's a wee bit of... (Below threshold)
Calvin Ball:

Jimmy, there's a wee bit of difference between anecdotes and proof. Go get a dictionary. And as it turns out, most of the really wacky signs at the 9/12 rally were La Rouchers.

No, Jimmy. Johnson didn't "prove" squat. But he also has a problem with the definitions of a lot of words including "proof".

I think getting banned is a... (Below threshold)
Dennis D:

I think getting banned is a badge of honor. I was banned at Dailykos and Huffpo more than once. But what really amazed me was Red State. Moe Lane banned me for a difference of opinion and demanded I retract my opinion.

Perhaps I am clueless to th... (Below threshold)
Dennis D:

Perhaps I am clueless to this white supremecist issue but are there still people who actually believe Whites are genetically superior to blacks? If so how large is this movement?
On the other hand there are many white people who are fed up with Affirmative Action, Black TV, Black Media and the Unconstitutional Black Congressional Caucus which bases membership on skin color. Are these people being lumped in with the White Supremecists?

Tej -I am not maki... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Tej -

I am not making any point about the teaparty movement.

I have been pointing out that the right appeared to be in denial that they could possibly have had in their midst wacko fringers prominently waving filth posters. The MSM printed that there had been such posters, and the right disputed it. LGF posted pix. Already, the argument has shifted even here from zero to them being a very small percentage.

Whatever movement or activist stuff (teaparty or not) the right has going as the elections approach, be assured that the MSM will look to play those cards again.

The right really needs to drive the number of fringers down to make the MSM's job tougher. If a way is not found, we will have Pelosi to gripe about for years to come.

Do not overlook that polls are about the general and voting is about the local, the specific, the last minute.

Calvin Ball -Ah, y... (Below threshold)
jim2:

Calvin Ball -

Ah, yes, nickname baiting, name calling, the sign of content-free bloviating. Thank you for such strong validation.

As for what else you posted, confirmed anecdotal evidence is refutation enough for denial of existence. It does not matter what sub-strain of non-lefties wackos might be. Furthermore, you refute yourself by your own "most of" admission.

Oh, Jesus Christ, Jim. Unli... (Below threshold)
Calvin Ball:

Oh, Jesus Christ, Jim. Unlike at LGF, there was nobody at the 9/12 rally with the authority to ban anybody. So you get a half dozen pictures of nuts out of a crowd in the 100s of 1000s. That's not even evidence. It's noise in the data.

"Denial of existence" is a straw man. Just like his Godwinizing use of the term "denier" to reference to climate skeptics. Cut the straw man crap out, ok? If you can find 1 in 1000 to support your stereotype, that doesn't "prove" diddly that really matters.

jim2 at 128,How do... (Below threshold)
Kenya:

jim2 at 128,

How do you propose to "drive the number of fringers down to make the MSM's job tougher"?

Jim2:So, what exac... (Below threshold)
Tej Author Profile Page:

Jim2:

So, what exactly are we to do to the fringe? Many people never saw them so they deny and others saw a few so they said they were a small number. In either case the media and lefties have made them bigger than life and even if 1 fringe shows up at the next rally then they will use that to make their point.

I understand your concern but you are being a bit paranoid that this is a problem we have any control to correct.

I say we continue the way we are and if issues such as ACORN, NEA, failed government programs and a multitude of other issues continue to make the news then we will do fine. It may be best to spend more energy exposing them for who they are and what they do then going on the defensive to make us look better in the eyes of those who would follow them over the cliff.

I truely doubt that even the LGFers will run to the polls to support the democrats because some racists participated in tea party rallies. Actually, the media does us some justice in that regard when they undervalue crowd size or don't cover the events.

My posts in this t... (Below threshold)
jim2:

My posts in this thread:

- 8
- 87
- 100
- 104
- 112
- 117
- 118
- 121
- 122
- 128
- 129

Already too many, probably. I can add little more to what I have already said and repeated.

What's "noise in the data" to some is the message they want to print. I repeat from earlier - I do not have solutions, but to deny there is a problem seems foolish. One approach might be to try more to convince the right fringe that to bring back such posters is to bring back Pelosi.

I'm sorry for my post count in this thread - I must be getting too easy to goad in my old age.

They aren't "fringe" - Lou... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

They aren't "fringe" - Lou Dobbs is not "fringe" Rush Limbaugh is not "fringe" - these are the party figureheads. Sarah Palin is a Creationist. Is she "fringe"?

jim2:"Already, the a... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

jim2:
"Already, the argument has shifted even here from zero to them being a very small percentage."

'Even here'? I don't think so.

Can you name someone here who thought there were "zero" fringe whackos at a protest?

Steve Green (or whoever's h... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Steve Green (or whoever's hand is in said sock):
Care to back that up with a citation?

I removed my icon for LGF m... (Below threshold)
Vegas Vic:

I removed my icon for LGF months ago. They just got to extreme for me. So much anger and going in the wrong direction.

Peace Charles

The problem jim2, is that y... (Below threshold)
Kathy:

The problem jim2, is that you think the MSM wouldn't send in their own 'whackos' to color the issue.

Most of the people, upwards of eighty percent, 4 out of 5 voters say the media helped Obama to win. They also say the media is not trustworthy.

But you want to have a panic attack over non pertinent issues, or imply that LGF is doing a service to conservatism by 'making us face our own (perhaps fabricated) demons', or state that we'll lose the next election because of denial.

(Sarc on/ We couldn't have lost due to poor fiscal restraint and an economic downturn and two wars. Must have been because of the perception that the right wing is wacko. Sarc off/)

You are entitled to your opinion although nobody here shares that with you. Hmmmm.... could there perchance be a flaw in your thinking?

If there is, I don't think you are man enough to admit it. Prove me wrong.

I think when jim2 said : "A... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

I think when jim2 said : "Already, the argument has shifted even here from zero to them being a very small percentage.", his argument shifted from 'flogging a dead hobbyhorse' to 'fibbing about Wizbang'. Not cool.

I'd be happy to entertain proof of his claim, though.

Steve Green at 134:<p... (Below threshold)
Kenya:

Steve Green at 134:

Dobbs, Limbaugh, Palin are not elected to office. They do not represent you, they speak for nobody but themselves, despite the millions who agree with them.
Your vote is your own. There are reasons to vote Democrat, among which the following are very moronic:
1. As a means of dissociating yourself from creationism.
2. To prove that you are not rabble-roused by talk-radio.
3. To protest at uncivil discourse on the right.
4. To express outrage at wackos on the right.

The last is particularly stupid, because you will be exchanging birthers and creationists for collectivists and eco-nuts who are far more dangerous. And, of course, the wacko ideas of the left are far more "mainstreamed" than those of the right. (Which is probably why there is the hysterical reaction by the left to Obama/Hitler signs or references to revolution. Hitler and revolution are perfectly acceptable, if not mandatory, for sloganeering on the left, who have a proprietary interest in these metaphors.)


Lets discuss fringe and ext... (Below threshold)
Dennis D:

Lets discuss fringe and extremism.

Obama and Pelosi are the most extreme radical left. There has never been a President to the left of Obama or a Speaker to the left of Pelosi. Fringe is only dangerous when they have power and the fringe left has power.

OregonMuseYes, Cha... (Below threshold)
justdanny:

OregonMuse

Yes, Charles wrote about it. Its in a very early post at lgf. A prior to 911 post. Then, and I can't be specific because frankly its not that important to me, he wrote about the episode later as well. And he also wrote about the specific mosque later.

Yep, I think Charles has go... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

Yep, I think Charles has got it just about right. Show pictures of some kooks at a tea party on your blog and start banning your readers. THAT oughta fix things!

Jim2. Your argume... (Below threshold)
Jehu Author Profile Page:

Jim2.

Your arguments are exactly the type that became the foundation at LGF and helped to derail that site. You must monitor the actions and speech of everyone else lest it reflect adversely upon LGF and Charles.

That led to the hall monitors of Medura, Killgore Trout, Mandy Manners, and the insufferable Sharmuta. All assigning to themselves the position of purity commissars. Fuck that crap! I went to a tea party in Phoenix, first protest of my life. I talked to dozens of middle aged folks, they had never been to a protest either. The signs were funny, homemade, humorous.

The only problem was a bunch of jerks, maybe 5 or 6 with offensive signs and a bullhorn saying crazy stuff. We just shouted them down and they went away. Fuck the media also, we are on our own, the media is the enemy, if they did not find some hateful signs or actions, they would splice in footage.

Did you see all the mainstream coverage of the Tea Party in DC? Tens of thousands, probably nearly a million, if not for FOX news and conservative talk you would not even know it happened.

These bastards are on the run, we will vote them out 2010 and 2012.

"Oh, Jesus Christ,... (Below threshold)
Pablo:
"Oh, Jesus Christ, Jim. Unlike at LGF, there was nobody at the 9/12 rally with the authority to ban anybody. So you get a half dozen pictures of nuts out of a crowd in the 100s of 1000s. That's not even evidence. It's noise in the data."

And even those are not all what Charles might like you to think they are. For instance, the anti-abortion woman in the blue Jesus T-shirt with the "How can I bless this nation..." sign is a fixture in front of the Supreme Court, either with that sign or another. If you go to DC, you can get a picture of her protesting. So, she's not there for the Tea Party, she's just doing what she does all the time. Anyone who's spent any time on Capitol Hill over at least the last decade can confirm that.

The Obama/Hitler photoshop is a product of LaRouchePAC which is not of the right (LaRouche being a Democrat) and which virtually everyone can agree is deeply rooted in crackpottery. Yeah, they showed up. So what? Who cares? Well, aside from Charles Johnson, that is.

It's sad that "The Site That fact Checks Your Ass" is now the "Argue And You're Banned" site. But then, at the end of the day, it's only a blog. There are lots of others.

LGF is such a train wreck, ... (Below threshold)
Linny:

LGF is such a train wreck, it's hard to look away. Whenever I do feel compelled to go there, it's strictly for amusement. Just yesterday while reading through a thread, Charles pretty much threatened one of his long time posters that he/she would be banned if they posted at another site. And the poster just took it. I almost felt sorry for the person, but if they don't have enough sense to walk away, they must enjoy being dictated to and treated like children. Pretty sad.

Johnson's list of neo-Nazis... (Below threshold)
SMAN:

Johnson's list of neo-Nazis and white supremacists has expanded to include people such as Pam Geller and Michele Malkin. That is, a Jewish woman and a Filipina married to a Jewish guy.

It's time to face the fact that he considers the entire right to be infected with Nazism and racism. And probably always did. He was a lefty prior to 9/11 after all.

"I have been pointing out t... (Below threshold)
SMAN:

"I have been pointing out that the right appeared to be in denial that they could possibly have had in their midst wacko fringers prominently waving filth posters."


What's your problem with "filth posters"? I don't see why it's any business of you speech police at LGF what other people want to put on their posters.

I signed up thinking how lu... (Below threshold)
Prairie:

I signed up thinking how lucky I was to finally get that chance - WRONG. I returned a few times and then deleted the link from my bookmarks. So sad to see a once vibrant and astute site turn into a snooze fest.

Another site I frequent when I want to see what nuts have to say is owned by a liberal board owner with a hatred of facts. The site is mostly women (some teachers) that proudly proclaim their influence over your children!

If a Conservative voice is powerful they get so riled up they will gang bang until ultimately banning you from the site. That's when you know you've been successful. It is almost comical to watch the spin as they justify their behavior. Take a look sometime and be prepared to laugh:
http://www.hometalkentertainment.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=21

Jay,Don't forget, ... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Jay,

Don't forget, Charles also (apparently) had a falling-out with his partners at Pajamas Media not too long after PJM was started. To Charles' credit, he was the visible "face" of PJM when it began. But then he left PJM around the same time he began his First Crusade, which was against the far right in Europe. Innocuous at first, until he tangled with Gates of Vienna and JihadWatch. That bothered me quite a bit.

I think the beginning of the end for LGF though was when Charles decided to go McCain on everyone about not saying anything "negative" about Obama some time before the election. After that came the anti-ID Crusade. I stopped reading his blog around that time.

Ace pointed out recently that Excitable Andy was praising Charles about LGF's defense of Van Jones.

Game.Over.

Meanwhile Charles doesn't subscribe to ID because of its element of faith, but he *does* believe in the First Church of "Climate Change".

Bleh.

jim2,Should we "th... (Below threshold)
Mick McMick:

jim2,

Should we "thank" charles for (tee hee giggle giggle) hinting that the Tea Party movement had somehow incited the murder of that census worker?

Should we praise him for his labeling of anybody who disagrees with Obama a bigot or "paleoconservative"?

Should we thank him for his continuing work on behalf of the cap-and-trade scam? The ObamaCare ponzi scheme? His rooting out of every conservative blogger or politician or pundit or commenter as a nazi skinhead KKK crossburner if they once shook hands with somebody who shook hands with somebody who was in the same city as a stormfront poster during Hands Across America?

No, but the left if very thankful for his constant smearing of anybody not on the far left fringe.

Next thing you know, he'll be praising CAIR and Dan Rather for their wonderfulness.

He talks and talks about how the GOP is doomed because needs a bigger tent, and is driving out RINOs like Colin Powell and Arlen Spectre. But he doesn't see the horrid irony in his demonization of the much more significant segments of the party, along with most independents who now oppose Obama and his power grabs and awful foreign policy and abandonment of our allies and his Chicago tactics and the destruction of our economy.

Charles Johnson's tent is getting so small that with a few more bannings, and he and Gilgore will suffocate in their loving embrace.

Over 1500 bannishees in The... (Below threshold)

Over 1500 bannishees in The Book of The Banned
http://kirls.blogspot.com/2009/05/banned-monium.html

We've started our own chat too
http://table9chat.com/




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy