A Pet's Dogged Devotion

That's the title at the hard-copy paper yesterday, and that is some darned devotion, dang!

At LAT, "Despite the devastation all around him, Camp fire dog waited for his owners to return home":

As a wall of flames from the Camp fire moved toward their home, a Paradise couple had to flee with nothing. When they came back a month later, they discovered their dog Madison had been hard at work, guarding their home the entire time. https://t.co/JS3LqOpr7G

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) December 11, 2018

At first, Bill Gaylord didn’t think much of the black smoke that loomed across the horizon near his home on the morning of Nov. 8. As his neighbors prepared to flee, Gaylord hopped in his silver Chevy Blazer and drove to a nearby cafe to grab coffee.

After all, the stubborn 75-year-old Gaylord had lived his entire life in Paradise. Why would this fire be any different than so many others? he thought.

But by the time he got home about 7:15 a.m., all hell had broken loose.

Gaylord looked out his kitchen window and saw black embers sprinkling across the canyon. The dry brush instantly caught fire. He heard the flames roar as they raced toward his home.

Gaylord alerted his wife of 50 years, Andrea, who had just awakened, that they needed to leave. Fast.

Andrea, still in her pajamas, grabbed three pairs of underwear and some pants, hopped in her Nissan and left.

Bill didn’t grab anything.

As the flames approached, he parked his car on top of a hill, and focused on trying to save his two 8-year-old half-Anatolian shepherd, half-Pyrenees guard dogs, Madison and Miguel.

But the dogs were confused, and with black smoke surrounding them and the noise of first responders shouting in loudspeakers, the dogs refused to let Bill lift them into his car.

He was left with two choices: Stay and risk their lives or leave.

As Bill drove off that day, he felt a lump in his stomach. It wasn’t because he was worried that his house would burn down or that he wished he had grabbed his belongings.

It was because he had abandoned the dogs that had spent their lives protecting the Gaylords. When it came to Bill’s turn to protect his cherished canines, he felt as if he had failed.

Surely the dogs wouldn’t survive, he thought, as he saw a wall of flames in his rearview mirror.

In that moment, Gaylord felt like a captain who abandoned ship before his crew.

But a series of unlikely events not only led the Gaylords to a reunion with their beloved dogs nearly one month after the deadly Camp fire raged through Paradise and the neighboring communities of Magalia and Concow, but also helped forge a new friendship.

It was 11 days after the fire, on Nov. 19, when Shayla Sullivan, a volunteer with the animal rescue group Cowboy 911, returned to Paradise to try to find Madison and Miguel.

She was assigned to help the Gaylords and several other homeowners who had left their pets behind.

She knew Camp fire victims had had little time to escape the flames and were forced to leave their pets. She wanted to help and try to reunite evacuees with their animals.

But it was nearly impossible to find the Gaylords’ property. The entire city was flattened by the fire, and without cellphone service, Sullivan had to rely on maps to navigate through the destruction.

She called Andrea to make sure she was looking in the right place. That was the first time they had talked.

Sullivan returned the next day. There was no sign that Madison and Miguel were alive. She left food and water anyway, hoping the small gesture would provide some comfort to the Gaylords.

On the third day, Sullivan had a breakthrough. As she peered down the canyon she spotted a small pond. Then she saw what appeared to be a white ball of fluff.

It disappeared as quickly as it had appeared.

Sullivan knew the dog wouldn’t approach her. The breed is known to be protective.

Nevertheless, she called Andrea and Bill to tell them the good news.

The Gaylords were ecstatic. But what about their second dog? And which dog had Sullivan seen? Was it Madison or Miguel?

Andrea, 75, started searching online to see if she could spot a picture of any of her dogs and whether they had been rescued. On Nov. 24, several weeks after the fire, she came across a picture that looked like Miguel.

Andrea, who has difficulty walking, called Sullivan and asked for help.

Sullivan found out Miguel was being kept in Citrus Heights, more than 80 miles from Paradise.

With the help of a volunteer, Sullivan loaded the 150-pound dog into her truck and drove to Oroville, where Andrea and Bill were staying in a trailer house at the River Reflections RV park...

Still more.

Andrew Sullivan: "Christianists" Killed George Tiller - UPDATED!!

George Tiller, the Wichita, Kansas, abortion doctor, was shot dead today while on his way to attend church services.

The controversy over Tiller's late-term abortion activities drew heavy fire from conservatives. His Wikipedia entry notes that Bill O'Reilly alleged that "George Tiller performs late-term abortions to alleviate 'temporary depression' in the pregnant woman."

No one has been apprehended in the killing. KMBC 9 News - Kansas City reports "that police were looking for a blue Ford Taurus with a K-State vanity plate, license number 225 BAB. Police described him as a white male in his 50s or 60s, 6 feet 1 inch tall, 220 pounds, wearing a white shirt and dark pants."

But this information didn't stop Andrew Sullivan from convicting Bill O'Reilly and the "Christiantists" for the killing, "O'Reilly's Target Shot Dead In Church":

My thoughts and prayers go out to the Tiller family.

But let me state unequivocally here: The death of George Tiller is a tragedy. His killers should be brought to justice and the death penalty should be on the table. But Andrew Sullivan is sick man to use this murder for political purposes. The blood of the killing's not even dry, and Sullivan's already smeared the entire conservative movement as a coalition of murderers. There will be more on the left to join him. David Neiwert's probably writing a post at this moment. But have no doubts: The attacks here on O'Reilly as "Christianist" are tantamount to the attacks on Sarah Palin during the election last year. Andrew Sullivan slurred Palin as the "Christianist culture warrior in Wasilla, Alaska." But obviously Sullivan's allegations this morning are totally off the charts. Tiller's killing was a political assassination. The Christian Defense Coalition has already condemned the murder, and the group will hold a press conference tomorrow morning.

Sullivan's screed is a classic case study in how leftists operate. As demonstrated over and over since the election last year, the Democratic victory is fragile. Lefists will use any and all of the most unhinged tactics to defend a political program of postmodern nihilism. On a day when Americans should be pulling together, we instead have leftists driving the wedge in deeper. Contemptible.

**********

UPDATE: Right on cue, here's Joan Walsh: "George Tiller is the latest victim of right-wing American terrorism against abortion providers and supporters."

Yep, as I said, Comments From Left Field pegs everyone on the right as murderers: "NOW do all the pearl-clutching conservative bloggers get why that fauxtroversial DHS report on far-right activity was so goddamn pertinent?! As GallingGalla just said on Twitter, “forced-birthers are TERRORISTS on US soil.”

Ta-Nehisi Coates jumps on Sullivan's bandwagon: "We don't have the luxury of thinking about these bilious hate-mongers as loonies running off the lip. People are dying. And these shameless goons are cashing checks. Disgusting. I'm sick over this.

**********

UPDATE II: Unbelievable! Leftists really do believe in "therapeutic" abortions! Here's Amanda "FUCK YOU" Marcotte: "Odds are pretty strong the murderer is a forced childbirth terrorist, out to kill the doctor who focused his practice on providing therapeutic abortions to women later in their pregnancy than most abortion providers can or will service."

Digby also highlights how "vital" are therapeutic abortions: Tiller "was one of only a handful of doctors who will perform this vital service for women under the new law. If you think that women should have to endanger their lives in order to give birth to a fetus with no brain, then you probably think this man was a murderer. For the women who went to him, and for whom he put up with a horrifying amount of harrassment and violence before they finally managed to kill him, he was a Godsend."

**********

UPDATE: III: A suspect is in police custody.

**********

UPDATE IV: This post now has a thread at Memeorandum.

Also blogging and linking, The Daley Gator, Gateway Pundit, The Other McCain, Pirate's Cove, Protein Wisdom, Right Wing News, Stop the ACLU, and Sundries Shack.

Be sure to read Robert George's post at The Corner, "Gravely Wicked":

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him.

Read Professor George's entire entry, here.

Andrew Sullivan pleads innocence in an update:

I do not and did not blame O'Reilly for the murder. I think his rhetoric and demonization of an individual subject to violence and threats are excessive and dangerous. He has every First Amendment right to speak the words he has spoken and I am sure he never wanted this to happen. But you can debate these matters with a little less personal demonization and get your point across.

What a sanctimonious gasbag!

"A little less personal demonization"? That's precious coming from the Queen of Trig Trutherism himself!

Inside the Mind of an Extremely Bitter Gay Man

It's useful to see Andrew Sullivan as a proxy for nihilist left-wing gay progressivism. Despite his claims to the contrary, Sullivan's widely considered a gay radical on the far left-wing of the spectrum.

As readers know, Sullivan routinely takes demonization of Republicans to the extreme. I've paid attention to his ravings, not just because he's still taken seriously on the left (and in the White House, of all places), but because his singular issue is gay marriage; and the radical gay agenda is shaping up to be the key issue of today's culture war. I've been reading Sullivan's Virtually Normal off and on, to get a feel for where this man is coming from. He's something of a tragic, tormented soul, as anyone who reads his blog would know. His narrow jihad against Sarah Palin is mindless yet endless, although he also continues his obssessive attacks on the GOP as a whole as if it were a new Nazi Party.

Sullivan's hysteria is simply unreal sometimes, but behold his post today calling for a purge of conservatives, "Who Will "Sister Souljah" Them?":

I'm not a Democrat and if pushed, I'd have to say right now I'm a libertarian independent. I'm uneasy about Obama's long-term debt, to say the least, but I'm intelligent enough to know it's not Obama's as such, but mainly Bush's, and I'm also cognizant that the time to cut back may not be in the middle (or beginning) of a brutal depression. On most issues, I side with what used to be the center-right, but the GOP is poison to me and many others. Why?

Their abandonment of limited government, their absurd spending under Bush, their contempt for civil liberties, their rigid mindset, their hostility to others, their worship of the executive branch, their contempt for judicial checks, their cluelessness with racial minorities and immigrants, their endorsement of torture as an American value, their homophobia, their know-nothing Christianism, and the sheer vileness of their leaders - from the dumb-as-a-post Steele to the brittle, money-grubbing cynic, Coulter and hollow, partisan neo-fascist Hannity.

I'm waiting for the first leading Republican to do to these grandstanding goons what Clinton once did to the extremists in his own ranks: reject them, excoriate them, remind people that they do not have a monopoly on conservatism and that decent right-of-center people actually find their vision repellent. And then to articulate a positive vision for taking this country forward, expanding liberty, exposing corruption, reducing government's burden, unwinding ungovernable empire, and defending civic virtue without going on Jihads against other people's vices.

If today's "conservatives" spent one tenth of the time saying what they were for rather than who they're against, they might get somewhere. But the truth is: whom they hate is their core motivation right now. That's how they define themselves. And as long as they do, Americans will rightly and soundly reject them.

Andrew Sullivan was one of the biggest and most vocal backers of the War in Iraq, and hence the Bush administration's policy of regime change. He renounced his views in 2006, and has become more bitter over time. You'd think he'd be more optimistic and, well, gay, considering the number of victories his radical homosexual agenda has achieved. My sense is that Sullivan, as much as anyone, knows that the gay marriage equality issue is far from guaranteed, so he's become more unhinged by the day, insuperably bitter, marinating in his hatred amid an extreme left-wing ideological environment that's presenting a chance of a lifetime.

This man is not a "libertarian independent." He's got no long-term grounding and is bereft of values. He's a political leech who bites onto the ideological wave of the moment. Why he remains popular is something of surprise to me, but amid all the Obamessianism of late, nothing should be surprising.

Related: The Politico reports that "Groups push for first gay Supreme Court justice" (via Memeorandum). Maybe the first gay Supreme might brighten sullen Sullivan's day.

The Catch-All Christianist Smear

Readers certainly know where I stand regarding the political disaster of today's Democratic-left.

It's bad enough to deal with the widespread moral bankruptcy and progressive nihilism of today's leftists, but as well it's the utter intellectual dishonesty of these people that's like a moldering filler of waste on top of the long-fetid ideological corpse below. Sometimes the relativist backlash and evil smears against conservatives are enough to drive people of good moral standing off the web, and if that doesn't do it, threats of intimidation or outright censorship will form the next steps of the left's campaign of death to right and wrong.

What's getting me going is E.D. Kain's de facto endorsement of Andrew Sullivan's all-purpose attack on conservatives as "Christianists." Sullivan, as many know, deploys the "Christianist" attack on traditionalists as an attempt to reclaim the moral high-ground from alleged extremists who have purportedly hijacked the moral debate on the right. As R. Andrew Newman notes, "Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism. The distinction between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist." As such, Sullivan and others who use the term have a ready wedge of repudiation and marginalization for traditionalists who stand in the way of the postmodern radical agenda, on gay marriage especially, but also any other policy associated with Bush administration backers and cultural conservatives, from coercive interrogations to race relations.

The smear of Christianism is now a catch-all attack on anyone of faith who rejects Sullivan's moral bankruptcy, his policy hysteria, his total hypocrisy on any and all subjects, and frankly, his own assumed universal standard of the acceptable for anyone with whom he disagrees. Yesterday, Sulivan denounced global warming skeptics as "Climate Christianists," as if there's the slightest possibility of such a thing.

This man is a nutcase first and foremost, and as Victor Davis Hanson argued the other day, it's a wonder that people still take this guy seriously. But they do. Time Magazine just included Sulivan's Daily Dish among its list of "Top-25 blogs," although Sullivan rightly ranks up there with Daily Kos as one of the "Most Overrated Blogs" on the web.

In any case, for reasons that I've discussed before, E.D. Kain has sold out to the dark side. He's abandoned the intellectual rigor of neoconservatism to join up in the moral wasteland of "postmodern conservatism" and "liberaltarian" advocacy. In doing so, he's increasingly twisting himself into knots of Gordian scale and slowly but surely reducing his arguments to the most banal pedestrianism of the ideologically confused.

Check out this passage, for example, from E.D.'s post, "Christianism and the Gay Marriage Debate":"

Opponents of gay marriage have adopted faux-conservative positions and adopt religious arguments in place of legal ones, and so within the American legal system any conclusions they draw are false. A better tact for conservatives to take would be to evaluate social harm on a civilizational level - not simply the institution of marriage, but the larger society - and to realize that preserving our civilization, which is by nature one of continued traditions and continuous social progress, entails embracing gays into the mainstream through the institution of marriage. Nothing “normalizes” an outcast sub-culture like the suburbs, two cars, three kids and a mortgage.

The point of conservatism is to preserve the stability of the social order, and the only way to do this is to put out the fires of the culture wars, to take the war out of it altogether, and tackle each issue on a cultural rather than political level. The problem with politicizing the culture wars is that they become self-serving and cyclical–a sort of beaurocracy [sic] of ideas. This is why the GOP is ostensibly the party of cultural conservatism and yet never achieves any of the cultural reforms it promises. This is a political tact, not a religious one, and is ironically as much an affront to religious voters as to anyone else.

Where to begin, as they say?

Well, first of all, be sure to check the whole post, which begins as a really rank attack on Mormons (and even E.D.'s relaxing some of claims in a later post as a result of some pushback).

In any case, this notion that conservatives have mounted religious arguments in place of legal ones is bogus. E.D. provides no links, so it appears he's directing his assualt on truly religious organizations like the Family Research Council, and the like, who naturally advance a political-morality of traditionalism. But on purely political, non-religious grounds we can object to same-sex marriage as a violation of the precepts of conservatism, or classical liberalism, to be precise.

As I have shown in "The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage," marriage is historically substantiated as an institution that is fundamentally and essentially procreative and regenerative. That is, men and women marry in a civil legal regime for the elevation of the basic biological union of spouses. As a particular social practice, marriage has always been about the fertile union that serves for the regeneration of society, even in the situation of marriage among a man and women who have no desire to bear children. The foundation of marriage is a civil principle, not religious exclusively, for the consecration and protection of the family unit as a socially recognized partnership for human generation. Marriage, in this sense, is a civic rite that is not interchangeable with other definitions of marriage, for example, as that between two men or two women, because the historical function of the bounding of purpose and social utility is negated and perverted. As with other civic rites, like funerals, marriage is not something that can be just thown open to any combination of people or groups on demand. If it is, it will then not serve as the norm-bounded regime of goodness that it has in the past.

Indeed, as Susan Shell indicates, in "The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage:

A similar constraint applies to death. A society could abolish "funerals" as heretofore understood and simply call them "parties," or allow individuals to define them as they wish. Were the "liberationist" exaltation of individual choice pushed to its logical conclusion, would not a public definition of "funeral" as a rite in honor of the dead appear just as invidious as a public definition of "marriage" as an enduring sexual partnership between a man and woman?

But beyond this, E.D.'s not speaking logically or factually when he says a traditional embrace of marriage as between one man and one woman is to elevate "social harm on a civilizational level." In fact, it's precisely the opposite, for if gays - through their increasing campaigns of intimidation and violence - are able to transform society to their definintions and dictates, their wouldn't be much of anything at all about that "civilizational level" that remains. E.D. speaks of conservatism as embracing constant change, as "continuous social progress," but progress can only be an improvement if it builds on the practices and presumptions that the social consensus says need improvement. Any genuine conservative can tell you this, and thus for E.D., his criticism of Christianism is not geunuine. He's ultimately reduced to attacks on marriage traditionalists on religious grounds, and thus his argument's a de facto endorsement of Sullivan's "Christianist" smear, which is to demonize and discredit those with whom he disagrees (E.D.'s effort to distance himself form Sullivan utlimately fails, for as he says, "Used properly, Christianism can be a valid and effective rhetorical weapon").

Lastly, this part about Republicans and cultural conservatives failing to achieve "any of the cultural reforms" they promise is pure hogwash. The most important socio-cultural policy development in the last two-decades is arguably the 1996 welfare reform agenda, which came after years of conservative advocacy for family traditionalism and following the widely-validated attacks on Democratic federal polices that were exacerbating poverty.

We could go into to crime and education as well, as other areas of public policy where conservative ideas and institutions are having a dramatic effect. But the point should be clear by now. E.D. Kain at Ordinary Gentlemen is not only wrong on the facts, but intelletually dishonest. These are slimy, spurious attacks on traditionalists, plain and simple. Wrapping this stuff up in Sullivan-esque anti-Christianism makes all of this even worse, for these attacks by definition endorse a form of argumentation that eschews ideological and prescriptive clarity, but can be rightly regarded as unhinged as well.

As a professor, I would not recommend Andrew Sullivan as one to emulate for intellectual or policy guidance.

On November 7th, a couple days after California erupted in hardline protests against Propostion 8, Sullivan exhorted folks to chill: "I totally understand the anger, hurt and pain now roiling the gay community and our families, especially in California. But it's important to keep our heads ... Calm down. We are not experiencing a massive, permanent backlash." But as this very backlash has indeed started to build, Sullivan has dug in his heels, explicity repudiating his earlier arguments, with a new commentary suggesting that the left's campaign of intimidation has been characterized by "massive peaceful, even joyful, protests."

This, of course, is exactly the modus operandi of the catch-all Christianist smear campaigns.

These attacks are not about seeking truth and justice for the oppressed or disenfranchised. The gay rights community is anything but. These smears are about the delegitimation of a privileged moral community. These attacks take for granted the goodness of heart of traditional communities and seek to coopt conservatives' sense of decency and fairplay in a boomerang effect of inflicted guilt and the repudation of values. That is, if traditionalist are attacked hard enough and long enough they'll cede the moral high ground, and in the wake of this the left can step in and defile these old values - the civil regimes of goodness and human regeneration - with a replacement of gay licentiousness that will work to further breakdown that foundations of American society.

People should have no doubt about the true agenda behind all of this. And as they do, folks of good moral grounding must stand firm. Society will change organically if that's what people want. Revolutionary, violent change is not conservative, but the E.D. Kains and the Andrew Sullivans of this world want to make you believe that they are.

U.S. Says Russian Invasion of Ukraine Could Be Imminent: Biden Administration Warns U.S. Citizens to Leave Country as 'Soon as Possible' (VIDEO)

I almost can't contemplate a major European land-war in Europe in 2022. It seems unreal, though I don't doubt the intelligence. It's weird because Russia's a weak mid-level power whose leader is not unlike Kim Jong Un --- one who bluffs, blusters, and bullies until any and all opposition to Moscow's aims melt aside amid craven national self-interests in the West. 

No, we don't have to send U.S. troops to Ukraine. 

We do need to do something, and not the continuation of Biden's weaselly warnings that Moscow will pay a "terrible price!" should Russian troops waltz right on in. Pfft. 

At the Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Says Russia Could Invade Ukraine at Any Time":

WASHINGTON—The White House said Friday it believes Russia could invade Ukraine at any time with a major military action and urged Americans to leave the country as soon as possible.

In the White House briefing room Friday, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the U.S. wouldn’t conduct a military evacuation of citizens from a war zone. He said Americans should leave Ukraine on their own in the next 24 to 48 hours while land, rail and air routes out of the country remain open, in the most pointed directive yet from the White House.

“We are in the window when an invasion could begin at any time should [Russian President] Vladimir Putin decide to order it.”

He added: “If a Russian attack on Ukraine proceeds it is likely to begin with aerial bombing and missile attacks that could obviously kill civilians without regard to their nationality. A subsequent ground invasion would involve the onslaught of a massive force. With virtually no notice, communications to arrange a departure could be severed and commercial transit halted.”

Mr. Sullivan said an invasion could occur during the Winter Olympics. Until Friday, many U.S. officials and outside analysts believed that if Mr. Putin were to order an invasion, he might await the conclusion of the Games on Feb. 20 out of deference to Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he would be disinclined to upstage with a military incursion.

The U.S. wasn’t closing the door on diplomacy, however, and President Biden, who is at the presidential retreat Camp David in rural Maryland this weekend, was expected to speak with Mr. Putin in coming days, Mr. Sullivan said.

While U.S. officials declined to detail the new intelligence, some of it appears to consist of fresh signs that Moscow is preparing a pretext to invade its neighbor. The intelligence, officials said, has pushed forward the Biden administration’s understanding of Mr. Putin’s timeline.

“The level of concern is increasing on the imminence” of an invasion, one official said.

Oil prices jumped to fresh eight-year highs Friday on fears of an invasion, while U.S. stocks and bond yields sank, with investors fleeing to safer assets. The S&P 500 had tumbled 1.9% as of the 4 p.m. ET close of trading. The Nasdaq Composite erased 2.8%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 504 points, or 1%.

Mr. Sullivan said the disposition of Russian forces around Ukraine’s borders showed Russia was positioned to mount a major military action in Ukraine any day now, but said the U.S. didn’t know whether Mr. Putin had made a “final decision.”

“Russia could choose in very short order to commence a major military action against Ukraine,” he said. “We are ready either way.”

Mr. Sullivan said the U.S. envisioned a large-scale incursion by Mr. Putin. U.S. officials have said that an invasion could result in 25,000 to 50,000 civilians killed or wounded if Russia mounted an all-out attack and sought to occupy the entire country.

“I can’t obviously predict what the exact shape or scope of the military action will be…but there are very real possibilities that it will involve the seizure of a significant amount of territory in Ukraine and the seizure of major cities including the capital,” Mr. Sullivan said.

Ukrainian and U.S. officials say Russian action could also take the form of cyberattacks on critical Ukrainian infrastructure, sabotage, or efforts to undermine the Ukrainian state.

U.S. officials estimate as many as 35,000 Americans were in Ukraine at the start of the year, although as few as 7,000 are registered with the State Department.

Mr. Sullivan’s comments echo a statement from Secretary of State Antony Blinken earlier Friday.

“As we’ve said before, we’re in a window when an invasion could begin at any time—and to be clear that includes during the Olympics,” Mr. Blinken said in Melbourne, Australia.

Also Friday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley spoke with his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, the Pentagon said. The two generals “discussed several security-related issues of concern.” And President Biden discussed the Ukraine crisis with the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union allies.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon said Friday that it would deploy an additional 3,000 troops to bolster the defenses of NATO allies that could house and support Americans evacuating from Ukraine. U.S. officials said earlier this week that hundreds of U.S. troops would be deployed inside Poland along its border with Ukraine to help facilitate the safe evacuation of Americans and others from inside Ukraine.

The U.S. troops aren’t authorized to enter Ukraine, nor will any evacuations involve U.S. aircraft, officials have said.

In warning of the Russian military buildup, Mr. Sullivan was referring to the deployment by Moscow of more than 100,000 troops to the border with Ukraine, the movement toward Ukraine of heavy weaponry from bases in the Russian Far East, and the movement of Russian troops and missile batteries into Belarus.

To bolster the military position of the Kyiv government against Russia’s overwhelming advantage in air, sea, artillery, missiles and manpower, the U.S. and NATO countries have been transporting defensive weaponry to Ukraine. Those include small-arms ammunition, mortar and artillery shells, antitank guided missiles, Stinger antiaircraft missiles, grenade launchers, explosive- ordnance disposal suits and Mossberg 500 pump-action shotguns, according to U.S. and Ukrainian officials. The shipments haven’t included advanced antiship missiles or sophisticated air-defense systems.

Russia has denied it intends to invade its neighbor. But Moscow says NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War poses a threat to its security and has demanded the alliance swear off ever adding Ukraine and pull back troops from its eastern flank.

While rejecting Moscow’s demands regarding the future of NATO’s security posture, the U.S. and NATO have offered Moscow a menu of reciprocal proposals that would provide for inspections of U.S. missile defense sites in Poland and Romania and curbs on military exercises. At the same time, the U.S. and Europe have threatened crippling sanctions aimed at Russian banks and industry and the nation’s economy in the event of an incursion.

 

The Neocons, Russia, and the Soviet Union

I'm surprised, frankly, at the ahistoricism of Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall.

These two guys are not only among the very top-tier bloggers on the scene, they are also Ph.D. recipients in political science and history, from Harvard and Brown respectively. Given such esteemed backgrounds, the apparent ignorance of these two on the continuities of Russian history as they relate to the current war in the Caucasus is stunning.

Sullivan, for example, wants to excoriate the "neocons" for what he perceives is their abuse of historical analogies:

It's very bizarre to read the neocons' speaking about Russia as if the Soviet Union were still in existence. Here's a classic slice of the mindset from Max Boot, who wants a third little war in the Caucasus:

It should be no surprise that Russian spokesmen are masters of the Big Lie–their Soviet predecessors practically invented the technique.

Condi Rice, who really should know better, said:

"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."

Yes, things have changed: the Soviet Union no longer exists. Wasn't the entire point of the Cold War that totalitarian expansionist states are different than authoritarian ones? Are we now going to elide this Kirkpatrick distinction when it comes to Russia? Putin is not a saint; and his attitude is Cheney-esque in his fondness for secrecy, brute force and contempt for international law. But he is not a communist and he is not attempting to take over the world. The West fought the Cold War based on this distinction. Why should we forget it now it's over?

Tagging along close behind is Marshall, who pumps up Sullivan with some big huzzahs for taking down the "neocon" warmongerers:

Andrew Sullivan, who's been on a tear on this story, has another good post on the bankrupt posturing of the neocons, jumping at the hopes of a new Cold War with the Russians, despite the lack of the ideological underpinnings on which we fought the first and any Russian global ambitions or capacity to fight it.

Marshall goes on to throw in a few more digs at the denizens of the American Enterprise Institute (a hothouse of neoconservative ideas), and he suggests that for people like Bill Bennett and Charles Krauthammer, the Georgian crisis is like an "80s era Gilligan's Island reunion flick."

The reality of anti-neoconservative fervor is well-recognized, but in the cases Sullivan and Marshall, their attacks exhibit a sense of irrationalism, almost an "acute paranoia" in reaction to neoconservative analyses of contempory security issues.

If we unpack the statements of Max Boot and Condoleezza Rice, for example, there's nothing particularly exceptional about them.

When Boot suggests today's Russians have mastered the "big lie" propaganda style of the old Soviet Union, he's essentially making a straightforward reference to the longstanding Kremlin practice of authoritarian control of political information for the external consumption of Moscow's antagonists.

Sullivan and Marshall's critique of Boot on this point is especially strange, since most observers of the Georgian war argue that Vladimir Putin - who was an internal security operative in the Soviet KGB's Fifth Directorate - has played a central role in Kremlin military policy, both before and after Dmitry Medvedev's accession to the Russian presidency. The undeflected similarities in Putin's personal role in the crisis - his personal embodiment of institutional path-dependence, from the Soviet era to the present - is astounding

Sullivan's jab at Rice is also highly ill-conceived, as the Secretary of State is a widely-respected expert on Soviet politics and foreign policy. Her reference to 1968 is to Moscow's crushing of Czechoslovakia's "Prague Spring," which was the shift toward a pro-democracy stance in the Czech communist regime, independent of Moscow, on the part of leader Alexander Dubček (and history records uncanny parallels between the Prague Spring in 1968 and the Georgian crisis of 2008, especially the similarities in the world corellation of forces, finding American power in both cases occupied in massive wars on the periphery - Vietnam and Iraq - which functioned to distract U.S. attention from the power-political machinations of the leaders in Moscow).

But beyond these points lies the larger historical context of current Russian international relations.

State power in Russia today reflects an amalgam of Soviet nostalgia and tsarist-era chauvinism. A key variable of concern is the role of Russian political culture dating back centuries. From Peter the Great to Joseph Stalin, leaders of the Russo-Soviet state emerged from a history of economic backwardness, cultural isolation from pivotal events in West (the Renaissance and Reformation), and the strategic vulnerability of Moscow's location along the great plains leading from Central Asia to Western Europe. Repeated wars and conquest subjugated ethnic Russia to external domination and enslavement. Threats of Western encirclement, from Napoleon to Hitler, contributed to a heightened need for psychological security in the Russian state, which in turn contributed to a widespread acceptance of authoritarianism in politics and the home.

Whereas Peter the Great sought to build Russia in the mold of the Western powers, attempting to import the most efffective state-building techniques to the nation (such as commercial and military organization), Stalin, at the height of World War Two - when the Soviets faced totalitarian defeat - appealed to the culture of Mother Russia, knowing that bland calls to defend Leninism would be less effective than the cultural glue of Great Russian Nationalism.

Thus, Moscow's politics in the post-Soviet era has returned in many respects to an earlier, tsarist-nationalist version of perceived strategic isolation and chauvinistic appeal. Indeed, Vladmir Putin's very popularity rests on his shrewd manipulation of popular Russian resentment at the loss of Moscow's previous great power status.

So, when prominent bloggers like Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marshall attack contemporary neoconservatives and GOP officials as hatching some newfangled AEI-style military gambit, it's evident that their goal is not careful analysis of realistic American reactions to genuine Russian brutality and hegemonic assertions, but to attack and delegitimize ideological opponents, amid an election where voters' perceptions of foreign policy experience and judgment may be decisive.

This neocon demonization might be expected among the lower-level hordes of the netroots, but these two are respected and award-winning mainstream journalists.

Andrew Sullivan Has Truly Lost His Mind

I've been saying it for some time. But Dan Riehl's got the goods on Andrew Sullivan, "Sullivan Has Truly Lost It Over Palin":

Sullivan seems trapped in some unfortunate reality in which he so has to demonize anyone he's opposed to politically, it really does suggest serious emotional issues of some sort. Whatever Sullivan may have been at one point, people who still believe he's even a semi-honest broker in touch with objective reality are just fooling themselves ...

It's beyond funny, into the realm of the sick, or disturbed.

Yep, it sure is.

What's also beyond funny is no matter how wrong, Sullivan remains widely cited by the netroots hordes (even though he's "not really a leftist").

Dan has more.

Meanwhile, Sullivan's scheming away again, this time with a "roundup of lies."

Related: The Rhetorican, "More “Salons” In the News."

Trig Trutherism Lives!

Here's Andrew Sullivan on Sarah Palin's recent comments about her pregnancy with Trig:

I tend to assume that everything Palin says is untrue until proven otherwise, and in this case, have no basis to confirm or deny anything.

As I've noted many times, like JammieWearingFool, "It Must Be Mental Illness: Sullivan Still Suffering From Trig Trooferism."

Of course, President Obama's a fan of Excitable Andy, notes Gateway Pundit, "Obama's Favorite Blogger Is Still Discussing the Trig Palin Conspiracy." And as Scott at Powerline adds:

I hope the White House minders who are feeding Sullivan's deep thoughts to Obama don't hold back Sullivan's latest reveries on the Trig Palin conspiracy -- you know, the conspiracy to make out that Sarah Palin is Trig's mother. Sullivan's latest reveries on Trig are truly representative of Sullivan's illumination of the issues of the day. Unbelievable.

And in case you missed it from last year's campaign, "Don't Go Over There, But Sullivan Is Pushing (of Course!) Trig Trutherism Now":

Let's see a brain scan, buddy. Let's get some answers ... Medical fucking answers."

Hat Tip: Memeorandum.

Conor Friedersdorf: Small-Minded Narcissist

I'd be charitable to say that Conor Freidersdorf's comment at my post last night was "odd." To say it was "egocentric" would be closer to the mark, and "narcissistic" also comes to mind.

The post was about the debate on the right between traditionalists and those who I've identified as neoclassical conservatives, or "neoclassicons." I mentioned Friederdorf and his debate with Dan Riehl. The exchange has been covered at The Other McCain. But the Friederdorf/Riehl debate was simply a pointer to the larger schism that's been roiling the conservative waters since at least the election of President Obama.

But Friederdorf wants folks to make it all about him:

I haven't any desire to purge social conservatives. I spent 14 years attending a religious private school ... I mean, how inaccurate! In a post ostensibly about me, you get most of your facts wrong, and spend most of your time talking about Andrew Sullivan.

Oh, poor, poor baby!

Actually, no, I don't get the facts wrong, Mr. Friedersdorf.

The post isn't "ostensibly" about you. And indeed, as for Andrew Sullivan, my point is precisely that we have a clique of Sullivan myrmidons that's emerged from various perspectives on the postmodern right - folks who I've loosely lumped together as neoclassicons. But it's by no means just you. So, once more, I'm struck by how you think its "odd" that I wrote primarily about Sullivan! You tender little attention-whore! "Oh, Dr. Douglas, you nasty!" You spent "most of your time talking about Andrew Sullivan." How dare you, you cad!

And, of course, the facts in question aren't wrong. At your original post I cited weeks ago, "A Question for War on Terror Hawks," you assert moral equivalencies between a lone U.S. murder suspect and the untold number of violent jihadists within the global terrorist network - including many, of course, who were captured on the battlefield and held as enemy combatants in a real war on terrorism. Your post, as it proposes partisan payback for the robust anti-terror policies of the Bush years, basically endorses an Obama administration policy of declaring domestic anti-abortion terrorists as identical enemy combatants; you also deploy taunting language in saying, "I wonder how 'War on Terror Hawks' would react" if President Obama had the "prerogative to order the waterboarding of the uncharged, untried detainees." The scenario is not simply a hypothetical. It's transparent advocacy in furtherance of ideological retribution. Most of all, your post is dishonest hackery, and your defense of it is peurile idiocy.

And that brings me to something else: It turns out that Dan Riehl points to your underhanded attack on Mark Levin and conservative talk radio. Interesting how Dan refuses to mention you by name, better not to besmirch his page it turns out:

While many people may have taken exception to some of Andrew Sullivan's Palin posting at The Atlantic in the past, I find it somewhat troubling that they would hire a blogger who seems to have a serious problem understanding blog ethics, if not journalistic ethics, as well. Frankly, this is unethical and lazy blogging at its worst. So much so, one almost wonders if it isn't by design.

Their newbie blogger has spent the last two days presenting extremely small snippets of text to represent Mark Levin's broadcasts, almost to the point of obsession - see here and here. Along with being unethical, this makes no sense.

He links to Talk Radio authorities, David Frum and copiously back to himself. I thought blogging was about both documenting one's source material - and sharing same with your reader whenever possible? ....

It isn't simply unethical, it's poor blogging and bad etiquette, to boot. Assuming they are paying this guy money for his blogging, one would think an organization such as The Atlantic could do much better than that.

It's my hunch that the endless attacks on Mark Levin are not just about "improving" talk radio. They're about "improving" (purging) right-wing ideology - which you allege is a system that's "damaging to public discourse" - in favor of Sullivan-styled neoclassical conservatism (which, don't forget, is really a euphemism for the right's postmodern program of marching with leftists on social issues, civil liberties, and foreign policy). So, yes, Mr. Friederdorf, you are attacking social conservatives. These are exactly the "Rovians" and "theocrats" that you and the neoclassicals are out to destroy.

God have mercy on your soul, son.

P.S. Don't miss Jimmie at Sundries Shack as well, "Conor Freidersdorf is Not Ready to Take on Mark Levin."

The 'Glutes of Steel' Award

I missed yesterday's award entry from Doug Ross, "The 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards." And I had to laugh at this: "The 'Glutes of Steel' Award for Mocking Andrew Sullivan goes to: IowaHawk."

I was thinking earlier that Sullivan's buffoonery's now been overshadowed by Charles Johnson's. But Sully still comes in for a pretty good slam here and there, for example, from Glenn Reynolds yesterday (responding to a Daily Dish post attacking Instapundit without linking):

The more you argue that way — and the more you make it all about your self-satisfied sense of moral superiority — the less persuasive you are. Which, by now, has made you pretty damned unpersuasive indeed.

Glenns' responding to Sullivan's hysterical entry, "How Cheney Made America A Torture Nation." And clicking one of Instapundit's links to previous interations, we find this:

HMM, AGAIN: I’m not sure what Andrew Sullivan means by this post, in which he incompletely quotes my post here.

Perhaps he’d care to address the (omitted) quote from the Times debate about Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats endorsing waterboarding? Well, all kinds of people were endorsing torture back then and have later changed their tune, though Barack Obama was still sounding iffy last Fall. I, on the other hand, have always opposed torture — even when it got me compared to Mike Dukakis, — and even back in the fall of 2001. But, as I said a number of times, I think the subject has been turned into a partisan weapon — ignoring the pro-torture stands of many Democrats (and see this, too) — and that’s made me suspicious of the motives of those pushing it. In Andrew’s case, it may cause some people to forget how vigorously he supported the Iraq War, and George W. Bush, for a while, until his interests turned to gay marriage, and going after Republicans, but not so much Democrats, on this issue. Some people still remember.

Check the links there as well ...

GLUTES BACKGROUND: Richard Goldstein," The Real Andrew Sullivan Scandal: His Private Life Is None of Our Business. His Public Life Certainly Is," and Richard Kim, "Andrew Sullivan, Overexposed."

RELATED: Christopher Badeaux, "Through the Looking Glass With Andrew Sullivan."

Andrew Sullivan: 'You put a map of the Civil War over this electoral map, you’ve got the Civil War...'

Andrew Sullivan's ahistoricism is simply breathtaking. Just watch his stunningly ridiculous comments on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," at Mediate, "Andrew Sullivan to ABC: If Romney Wins Florida and VA, It’s the ‘Confederacy’" (via Memeorandum):

PBS reporter Gwen Ifill said that “we can’t ignore” the possible factor racial animus may play in deciding the election, noting that the poll indicates that, on some level, people are still willing to admit “racial bias.”

Sullivan then added: “If Virginia and Florida go back to the Republicans, it’s the Confederacy. Entirely. You put a map of the Civil War over this electoral map, you’ve got the Civil War.”

Conservative panelist George Will rolled his eyes. “I don’t know,” said a skeptical Ifill.

Will then posited two possible explanations for Obama’s slippage in the white vote since 2008: “A lot of white people who voted for Obama in 2008 watched him govern for four years and said, ‘Not so good. Let’s try someone else.’ The alternative, the ‘Confederacy’ hypothesis is that those people somehow, for some reason in the last four years became racist.”

“That’s not my argument at all,” replied Sullivan. “It’s the southernization of the Republican Party. [Virginia and Florida] were the only two states in 2008 that violated the Confederacy rule.”

Sullivan's comments are perfectly representative of the left's hopelessly desperate and utterly despicable politics of racial fear-mongering. Progressives have been attacking conservative presidential politics as racist since at least 1968, when Republicans deployed the so-called "Southern strategy" in the election of Richard Nixon to the White House. The South has been in the GOP column for decades. It's just the way it is, not shocking and not a racist conspiracy. That's the 2004 map above, where George W. Bush was reelected with 286 votes in the Electoral College, winning all the states of the Old Confederacy, and some of the Border States as well. Mitt Romney could put together a similar coalition of states on election day. I mean, if the left is intent on attacking Mitt Romney's campaign as racist, it will only be in line with long-standing leftist research stressing inbred racist DNA in Southern voting constituencies, which I personally don't endorse. These kinds of attacks on Republicans aren't new. If race indeed plays a role in a Barack Obama's defeat on November 6th, it certainly won't be something that Republicans pulled out of a hat at the last minute.

But remember, it's decidedly not the current strategy of the Republican Party to run a racially divisive platform. No, that honorarium goes to the current White House, the bankrupt Obama for America campaign, and the left's pathetic race-baiting enablers in the press. We've been accosted with allegations of racist "dog whistles" for almost four years now. The progressive left is positively obsessed with race, as the nearly criminal initial reporting on the Trayvon Martin incident showed. And any reader of William Jacobson's Legal Insurrection blog is more than aware of the embarrassingly comic minstrel show the left puts on every week with race-baiting attacks on conservatives. It's utterly shameless, for example, "Saturday Night Card Game (If You Can Hear the Dog Whistle, You Might Be a Racist)."

If Obama loses it will be because Americans have had it with his administration's failures and incompetence. The progressives will cry racism until the cows come home. But the rest of us have long tuned out the race-baiting. People who're genuinely concerned about the country will simply get to work rebuilding the economy and repairing the damage of four years of atonement in foreign policy. It's not a matter of if but when. And as recent polling increasingly indicates, 2013 is looking like a big restoration year for American conservatism.

BONUS: More at NewsBusters, "Andrew Sullivan Makes a Fool of Himself on ABC's 'This Week' With George Will and Gwen Ifill's Help."

UPDATE: Michael Zak on Twitter reminds us that the Democrats were and remain the party of racial segregation, as he pointed out in his book, "Back to Basics for the Republican Party."

And Ed Driscoll links at Instapundit (thanks!), and Glenn Reynolds updates at the post:

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): Andrew knows even less about American history than he knows about American culture and politics, something he’s demonstrated repeatedly. He should stick to his core area of expertise, forensic obstetrics.

Dissecting Nihilism and Gay Marriage

Robert Stacy McCain has written on Ta-Nehisi Coates' essay, "Nihilism and Gay Marriage," where the latter attacks oponents of gay marriage as bigots and homophobes. Ta-Nehisi is responding the Andrew Sullivan's long essay excoriating Rod Dreher's social conservatism, "Be Not Afraid, Rod." I saw Sullivan's piece earlier, but I've covered this ground so much in the last six months that I skipped over the piece as nothing really new. Not only that. I'm currently reading Sullivan's Virtually Normal, so as to get a sense of this man's thinking prior to his mental deterioration over the last few years (in the Bush era). Plus, the gay marriage debate's picking up steam by the day; so long's as Sullivan's own sexual proclivities don't kill him before society reaches some satisfactory equilibria, we'll certainly be hearing more from the barebacked narcissist.

In any case, McCain has a great takedown, where he notes in particular:

Sully and his friends insult conservatives by supposing us to be cowards. If we disagree on what is, at heart, a question of policy, we are accused of vicious hatefulness. Indeed, we are said to be suffering from a psychological disorder, homophobia. To this insult - and their arrogant supposition that we are too stupid to know when we are being insulted - I quote one of the great heroes of cinema.

"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining."
- The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

The discourse Sully means to have with us:

Sully: You're stupid.
Us: Excuse me?
Sully: You're mentally ill, too.
Us: What the . . .?
Sully: Hatemonger!
Us: Boy, I'm about to whup you.
Sully: Fascist!

He does not argue in good faith. We have on our side ancient tradition and religious orthodoxy. He has on his side the prestige of the intellectual elite. Ergo, we are ignorant rabble, and he is so infinitely superior to us that he can insult us with impunity, and we dare not even take notice of the insult.

Actually, I don't think Sullivan has "intellectual prestige" anymore. Ross Douthat, maybe so? Sullivan's mostly getting pulled along for the ride at the Atlantic, where's he's now an embarrassment to that previously august publication.

What's interesting here is actually Ta-Nehisi Coates' elaboration of the "bigots" and "homophobes" meme. It's just a dumb attack, first of all, and pure intellectual cowardice on top of that. The slam on conservatives as "bigots" and "homophobes" simply attempts to shut down debate, not encourage dialog or understanding. What's really bad about Ta-Nehisi is how he reverts to the infantile comparison of gay marriage activists today to black Americans during Jim Crow, Americans who faced the enormity of this nation's system of racial apartheid. There's is very little support for the analogy that Ta-Nahisi attempts, for example:

... in the white male paranoid mind, the deepest ambition of all black men lay between the two legs of some white woman--any white woman ....

Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance, a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around your destruction. It is the ultimate narcissism, a way of thinking that can only see others, through a paranoid fear of what one might lose. The fears are almost always irrational. To go back to Chuck D, perhaps he was too cold when he said, "Man, I don't want your sister." But there was deep truth in it, the idea was, "Fool, this ain't about you and your fucked-up sexual hangups." In much the same vein when I read people complaining that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, I think, "Fool, these gay motherfuckers ain't thinking about your marriage. This ain't about you and your hang-ups."

Bigotry is the heaping of one man's insecurity on to another. Sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-immigrantism, really all come from the same place--cowardice. In his history of lynching, Phillip Dray notes that mob violence against black men wasn't simply about keeping black men in their place--it was about keeping white women in their place. Lynching peaked as white women went to work outside the home in greater numbers, developing their own financial power base. White men, afraid that they couldn't compete with their women, would cowardly resort to lynching. I am not saying that the anti-gay marriage crowd is a lynch mob. But in tying opposition to the sexual revolution what you see is, beyond a fear of gay marriage, a fear for marriage itself. A fear that their way of life can't compete in these new times. It's ridiculous, of course. But bigotry always is.

Well, yes, Ta-Nehisi, you are alleging traditional Americans to be a lynch mob, because you are conflating the kind of earlier racist bigotry with today's program of moral right that supports the normative conception of the traditional marriage union.

I wrote a post on all of this last November following the violent gay rights protests against Proposition 8, "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right." I link there to Eugene Rivers and Kenneth Johnson's, "Same-Sex Marriage: Hijacking the Civil Rights Legacy," where the authors note that:

There is no evidence in the history and literature of the civil rights movement, or in its genesis in the struggle against slavery, to support the claim that the "gay rights" movement is in the tradition of the African-American struggle for civil rights.

And:

It is precisely the indiscriminate promotion of various social groups' desires and preferences as "rights" that has drained the moral authority from the civil rights industry.

Ta-Nehisi Coates descends to the same level of invective found in Sullivan's "Christianist" slur. There's really no underlying argument in support of these claims. Such attacks as "bigots" or "Christianists" are either totally disconnected from historical facts and circumstances, or are just epithets of genuine nihilist hysteria seeking to bully those who hold majoritarian views on the appropriate role of tradition in society.

Of course, It's actually pretty disgusting how low this debate has devolved (to demential and demonism). But that's what you're going to get from folks like Andrew Sullivan and his allies, who are determined to force gay marriage on the rest of society, or die trying.

There's more of this debate at Independent Gay Forum, "Dreher's Conversation With No One." And also Memeorandum.

Barrett Brown Cross-Posts Lame Response to R.S. McCain at Sick and Evil Little Green Footballs

There's little advantage for me in posting on Barrett Brown's cross-posting of a hit piece against Robert Stacy McCain to Little Green Footballs. That's because while Barrett is likely to respond, I'm not sure if he can link to my blog from Little Green Footballs (since Charles Johnson often refuses links to enemies). And it's definitely no linkage at Ordinary Gentlemen, which is home to sleaze-blogger E.D. Kain. It's okay actually, since I often refuse to throw links to those who're unworthy --- the lying dirtbag RepRacist3 comes to mind. But in this case the stakes are fairly high. Barrett Brown has threatened Robert Stacy McCain with a libel suit. I sometimes communicate with Barrett Brown, and of course I'm a long-time blog buddy to Robert, so I thought I'd just throw out a few thoughts for the heck of it. Maybe there's some utility in this as an excursion in the blogospheric politics of flame wars.

I do link to Ordinary Gentlemen, as folks will recall. It's hilarious when E.D. Kain checks out my blog while analyzing his stats. E.D.'s ashamed to this day of once being the proprietor of a boldly neoconservative webzine known as NeoConstant. He got tired of it just as the ideological winds were shifting toward the Democrats in 2008. Long-time readers will recall that in response to my series of essays on E.D.'s craven ideological and moral machinations, he launched a campaign of workplace harassment at my college. I had bestowed upon him the "Conor Friedersdorf Wannabe Award for Faux-Conservative Punditry!", and no doubt that didn't sit too well. (See, "Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Reaches Pinnacle of 'Conservative' Blogosphere! Simultaneously Linked by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson!") And while I often hear folks still refer to E.D. as a libertarian-minded conservative, the truth is he's a dyed-in-the-wool progressive. He finally gave up the ghost at Balloon Juice a few months back, "Why I am Not a Conservative." E.D.'s obviously on a search for acceptance --- by someone, anyone, no matter how deeply immoral and without possibility of redemption. It's pretty bad.

And that's why E.D. refuses to link me at Ordinary Gentlemen. I've hammered him mercilessly. The truth hurts, seriously. And ignoring me is his way of admitting he's a tool of the even cheapest sleazeballs higher up the blogging chain, like RAWMUSLGLUTES and husky über narcissist Charles Johnson.

Anyway, I'm perplexed that Barrett Brown has decided to go all out with the cross-post to Little Green Footballs, linked here and here. (And the Confederate illustration appears only at LGF, although Ordinary Gentlemen is not above those kinds of base smears.) Barrett's post is the basis for his accusation of libel against Robert. And folks can read the latter's original post here: "Narcissism, Isolation and Trolls." And Robert's response to the libel threat is here: "Nothing Says ‘Merry Christmas’ ..." All of this entails a lot of reading, and frankly I don't really see where Barrett's case for libel can be found. Robert's a judicious blogger, and having made a living as an established journalist I'd expect he knows how to avoid litigation. But here's a quote in any case, for a flavor:

Brown pretends to disprove my skeptical remarks about his characterization of Vanity Fair reporter Michael Hastings as his “colleague.” What I wrote was that, in using this term in his YouTube video lecture to National Review editor Rich Lowry, Brown was “expressing a collegiality that probably exists mainly in Brown’s mind.”

The jury will please note the word “probably” in that sentence. Of course I could not know the extent of Brown’s acquaintance with Hastings, despite Brown’s having written sundry things about that relationship, for we have already established that by his own admission Brown perpetrates falsehoods on the Internet. (See defense Exhibit B.)

Given Brown’s confessed use of online deception (his phony “alter-ego,” etc.), his mere assertion as to any particular state of affairs — e.g., an alleged professional relationship with Michael Hastings — proves nothing, as an admitted liar has no credibility. Therefore, skepticism toward such an assertion by Brown was entirely warranted. And what does Brown say of his relationship with Hastings?

We talked on the phone several times and exchanged some number of e-mails . . .

Brown does not say, “We’re best buds,” or “We hung out and had beers together.” No, it’s e-mails and phone calls. By that standard, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’ve got a whole crapload of “colleagues,” including several members of Congress. But you’ll notice that, so far as we can tell from Exhibit A, Brown and Hastings have never met in person, thus sustaining my assertion, in the blog post that the plaintiff claims is libelous, that “while Brown and Hastings were both True/Slant contributors, it wasn’t like they were hanging out around the office coffee machine, swapping stories.”

My credibility once more vindicated, I next call to your attention this statement by Brown:

. . . the rest can be confirmed by Andrew Sullivan, with whom I discussed the events after he linked to my piece.

Andrew Sullivan. Andrew Sullivan? Does the plaintiff really wish to bring to this honorable court’s attention his professional collaboration with Andrew Sullivan? Your honor, the defense would like to introduce at this time Exhibit C, showing that this same Andrew Sullivan has a criminal record for possession of illegal drugs. We also introduce Exhibit D, a blog post from Ace of Spades HQ, containing certain relevant information about Suliivan’s other behaviors, although there is perhaps no need to discuss this information at this time.

So far, then, we have established that Barrett Brown is a confessed drunkard, by his own admission “arrogant and narcissistic,” a deceptive Internet “troll” who is friends with others who engage in similar deceptive activity online, and an associate of a criminal drug abuser, Andrew Sullivan.

Given all this, your honor, it is the belief of the defense that Barrett Brown is a person of such infamous ill-repute that any negative comments made about him on the Internet could not possibly be considered defamatory.

I'm now going back over Barrett's response, and I see that he's quick to engage in race-baiting allegations against Robert and the latter's ties to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, ad nauseum. And Barrett has a book coming out on all of this as well, with an entire chapter devoted to McCain, Hot, Fat, and Clouded: The Amazing and Amusing Failures of America's Chattering Class. (In recalling this I'm understanding why Robert has something to be pissed about.)

And for a flashback, here's Barrett Brown attacking me as dishonest earlier this year. I later updated a post he criticized (don't remember which one), so I guess this is mostly of entertainment value at this point, if that. Related: "Barrett Brown Doesn't Read Well."

Footnote: For the origins of the "sick and evil" reference to LGF, see "Ace of Spades Smacks Charles Johnson in a Post Every New* Blogger Should Read."