Tucker Carlson's Populist-Nationalist Monologue Draws Response (VIDEO)

Abby Hunstman and Conor Friedersdorf were among some of the prominent responses. Video below:

The View's Abby Huntsman Defends Tucker Carlson's Private 'Heart of Gold' After Pay Equality Comments https://t.co/xmlOASVSiA

— People (@people) January 5, 2019

Conservatives ought to be angry when the right’s television hosts mislead the audience. https://t.co/sEee9hA2Fr

— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) January 6, 2019

Jordan Peterson and the Failure of the Left

At Quillette:

This piece from someone on the left who feels fellow leftists were selling her a false bill of goods about who Jordan Peterson is dovetails with what I’ve heard from several other people in conversation and correspondence. https://t.co/tGBl7I76ft

— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) May 23, 2018

So, John McAdams Hasn't Updated the Marquette Warrior Since Last Wednesday...

... Because the university is revoking his tenure and canning his ass --- for a blog post!

The Marquette Warrior is apparently in legal limbo.

See Conor Friedersdorf, at the Atlantic, "Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post."

Make sure you follow the links, especially to Cheryl Abbate, who left Marquette's philosophy graduate program after McAdams' alleged "misogynist" attacks. See the loooong post, "Gender Based Violence, Responsibility, and John McAdams." She really goes after iOTW Report, claiming that the blog should be shut down because the "rape culture" comments. Yeah, how's that working out for ya?

Look, I'm sympathetic to the women on the receiving end of all these so-called misogynist attacks --- the GameGate dust-up hasn't been one of my hottest topics, mainly because I can't see how folks like Anita Sarkeesian deserve the abuse. But then, there's a lot of inside baseball in the gamer culture, so I leave the coverage to those better up on the issues --- Milo Yiannopoulos, for example. Or see Robert Stacy McCain, "The #GamerGate Hate Hoax."

Meanwhile, the FIRE has come to Professor McAdams' defense, "The Travesty of Due Process at Marquette."

BONUS: From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg, "Free Speech and Ivory Towers."

Stop the #Gosnell Media Blackout

There's a backlash building against the Obamedia and its refusal to report on the Kermit Gosnell murder trial.

I'll have more blogging on this throughout the day. Meanwhile, if you you have time, via Weasel Zippers, "*Must-See* Documentary About Gosnell Clinic:Tying Women To Bed, Forcing Abortions on Them, Dead Babies In Jars, And The ‘Special Room’ For The White Women."

More at Legal Insurrection, "Tweet to break the #Gosnell news blackout."

From Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic, "Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story" (at Memeorandum), and from Mollie Hemingway, at Patheos, "Washington Post reporter explains her personal #Gosnell blackout."

Also, from Erika Johnson at Hot Air, "Gosnell abortion-clinic worker: I assisted with abortions while in high school."

Plus, AoSHQ has some of the pathetic push-back on the left, "More Gosnell: Wikipedia Weights Deleting Gosnell's Entry Due to Failure to Attract National Media Attention; Amanda Marcotte Declares, Contrary to the Facts, That Gosnell's Abbatoir Was "Underground" and Pro-Lifers Drove Women There."

Also, the hilarious Irin Carmon, at Salon, "There is no Gosnell coverup" (at Memeorandum).

Well, no, actually --- but the progs don't care about the facts.

I'll have more later...

'I Didn't Change. The World Changed'

From Daniel Henninger, at Wall Street Journal, "In an interview, Dick Cheney says 'It's important to have people at the helm who are prepared to be unpopular'."

I think Dick Cheney's been the rock of American public life for the last 10 years. He's unruffled in his convictions, more impressive as he got older.

RELATED: The left's revulsion of the former V.P. is picking up over at Memeorandum. See especially, ABC News, "Former Powell Chief of Staff: Cheney “Fears Being Tried as a War Criminal”." And click through at Memeorandum for Conor Friedersdorf's attack on Cheney. Friedersdorf's an airhead.

Democracy v. Stability in Eygpt?

Just posted: "Egypt Crisis Intensifies — Suleiman Could Take Power as Washington Plans for Mubarak Exit."

And from earlier, a big shout out for National Journal's coverage of developments in the Middle East:

The "democracy v. stability" them is picked up by James Kitfield, "Obama's Risky Idealism: Reversing the 'Devil's Bargain'?"

This is a much better analysis than E.J.Dionne's (mentioned previously), and this is especially good:

In the short term, the democratic upheavals in the Middle East will almost certainly spread instability and cause furrowed brows in Washington and Tel Aviv. In the longer term, however, the strategic interests of both the United States and Israel could be well served by the death of the venerable idea that the only choice in the Middle East is between autocrats and theocrats.

“Regime change is coming to Egypt whether we like it or not, so for the Obama administration to continue to back an ill, 82-year-old dictator like Hosni Mubarak would have been both short-sighted and unwise,” said Michael Rubin, a Middle East expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The United States should instead seize a rare opportunity to embrace a mostly secular, democratic opposition that is on the march throughout the Middle East, Rubin said in an interview.

And speaking of Barry Rubin, he's got more here: "Whose Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? Answer: Sensible People." Rubin's responding to this at New York Times, "As Islamist Group Rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear." (And at Memeorandum.)

There are reports that the Muslim brotherhood has pledge an attack on Israel should they come to power, although perhaps the Times doesn't "get" the Internet. See, "Report: Muslim Brotherhood Wants Egyptians to ‘Prepare for War With Israel’." Maybe the Times is feigning ignorance? Wouldn't want some credible journalistic reporting to lead here: "U.S. 'held secret meeting with Muslim Brotherhood'."

RELATED: Get your kicks watching Conor Friedersdorf self-immolate: "Sophistry And Defining The Muslim Brotherhood, Ctd."

Hey, he claims to have lived in Egypt, so who knows, although the fact that he's posting at Sully's rabidly anti-Semitic blog doesn't much pump up the credibility factor.

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."

True/Slant Shuts Down — Charles Johnson, E.D. Kain Looking for New Digital Media Bones to Suck Dry

A belated follow-up to last year's entry, "Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Interviews Despicable Libel-Blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs."

Both of these bozos were sucking the guts out of the digital media beta site True/Slant, cross-posting material from their own digs for an extra couple of bucks in slimeball blogging.

Background at Neil Ungerleider, "Last post on True/Slant."

This is probably no big deal for most readers, although it's interesting to me that the Internet publishing gods weren't smiling down on these two libel-blogging bloviators. Maybe they'll actually hafta get jobs, you know, like most people of good moral standing. That said, Barret Brown is on True/Slant and I've found him to be a fairly decent guy after going a few rounds in the flamewars (and Barret's at Vanity Fair, so he has something of a viable inside thing going already). And I hope Kashmir Hill's social networking blog lands quickly on its feet at another location, and I'm confident it will (she's good).

Added: Dan Riehl links, "Conor Friedersdorf: Angel Of Death In Web Publishing." I forgot about that idiot Conor Friedersdorf, but he's right up there with E.D. Kain and Charles Johnson.

Resurrecting Culture 11? Or, How Faux-Righty Conor Friedersdorf Gets Media Attention

It's be hard to believe that "pomo" conservative opinion outlets would have much of a chance in the current environment, but hardline leftists love to entertain the thought. See Washington Monthly's, "Culture Shock: What happened when one conservative Web site ventured outside the movement bubble" (via Memeorandum). The piece pays special attention to longstanding faux-conservative and online attention-hog Conor Friedersdorf. The essay dismisses mainstream conservative websites (like Big Hollywood) as ignorant of the youth culture and afraid to break out of the right-wing cocoon. What's funny, of course, is that folks on the right aren't fooled by Friedersdorf-types who aren't conservative and who in fact push far left-wing policies and ideological programs. The "Culture Shock" piece is also stuck in a 2008 mindset, wherein Bush-fatigue, Obamania, and John McCain's political campaign disaster virtually guaranteed a Democratic victory. That moment is long passed. If Culture 11 is able to round up money for a comeback it won't be a reflection of demands for a more eclectic conservatism. Anyone can find that at The Daily Dish or the pretentiously ignorant League of Ordinary Gentlemen. In other words, these folks are epic fail. Conor Friedersdorf is a special case of Andrew Sullivan myrmidonism that's simply Democratic Party cheerleading by any other name. Besides, as Robert Stacy McCain notes:

This is becoming a familiar pattern for conservatives who want to waste a double buttload of cash:

1. Create a new Web site;
2. Promise something innovative and different; and
3. Most of all, don’t call Stacy McCain.

Because I don’t anything about “making conservatism fun, light-hearted and accessible.”

The Shellie Ross Twitter Controversy

This is some weird and deeply troubling pattern: It was just yesterday that I wrote about the death of Bengals wide-receiver Chris Henry, and the genuinely evil Twitter posts falsely reporting his death (it was Biodome10).

Now it turns out that Shellie Ross, whose 2 year-old son drowned on Monday, was tweeting at the time of the accident and sent a message just 19 minutes before her son's death: "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."

Now Ms. Ross is taking a lot of heat, and blame, for bad mothering, and even culpability in the boy's death. At USA Today, "Mom's tweet as son was dying stirs debate":

Ross' decision to broadcast that message Monday night to more than 5,300 people who follow her posts on Twitter has unleashed torrents of support and derision. Social networking experts and friends said Ross was right to reach out for help, while critics questioned whether her son would be alive if she spent less time online.

"Could this child's death have been averted had the mom not been on Twitter all day?" asked Madison McGraw, a personal security guard and writer who blogs at madisonmcgraw.com. "This woman spent all of her time on Twitter. It was unbelievable," said McGraw, who lives outside of Philadelphia and doesn't know Ross.
Ross, 37, is also a blogger — blog4mom.com — and a prolific poster on Twitter. She has two other sons, ages 18 and 11, and her husband is an Air Force sergeant.

She tweeted throughout Monday. At 5:22 p.m., she posted a message about the fog that rolled in as she worked in her chicken coop.

The emergency call to police came at 5:23 p.m., from Ross' 11-year-old son Kris, said Joe Martin, Brevard County homicide investigator. Ross and her son found Bryson at the bottom of the pool. While Kris was on the phone, Ross performed CPR on Bryson, Martin said.

Bryson was taken to Cape Canaveral Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 6 p.m. Ross was notified at 6:31 p.m., Martin said. At 6:12 p.m. she posted to Twitter, asking for prayers.

Checking the Madison McGraw blog brings up, "Shellie Ross Continues to Twitter After Death of Son."

ABC News reports that Shellie Ross was tweeting about the fog rolling in and her chickens going back to the coop while 911 was called by her middle son @ 5:23 to report that his 2 year old brother was floating in the pool. Ambulance arrives at 5:38 to find child in cardiac arrest. At 6:12 pm Shellie tweeted and asked for prayers for her son. She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive.

Shellie Ross's tweets on 12/14 during the hour her son died leading up to her Byrson Ross's death are as follows ...

Check the post for the tweets, and then:

After this tragedy, Shellie Ross has spoken and continued to Tweet, calling people assholes, hoping they rot in hell...but not once has she said, "I take full responsibility and I wish I could take that day back. I feel horrible and am so, so, sorry."

But then again, even if she did say that, I guess actions speak louder than words. And her actions leading up to and after her son's death speak volumes. She was twittering while her child died and she continues to Twitter, telling people to "Go Get Bent" and "Fuc* Tards."

If your child died because you were twittering, wouldn't that be the LAST place on earth you'd want to return to? If this was such a terrible time and you wanted people to 'leave you alone' why wouldn't you at least make your Twitter stream private?
I have no doubt it's only days before Ms. Ross appears for interviews and of course, people are already setting up donations.

I wish we could start a donation in Bryson Ross's name to sue his mother for negligence.

Why aren't people asking more questions about this? Do people not care about children and their safety at all? Who is looking out for children?

The ABC News story is here, "Mom Shellie Ross' Tweet About Son's Death Sparks Debate Over Use of Twitter During Tragedy: Mommy Bloggers Defend Ross' Tweet, Saying Online Community Is a Support System."

Ms. Ross has now protected her tweets. She's got a blog post up, however: "Please allow us to grieve the loss of our child."

I'm just going to say a prayer for all involved. All of this crazy Twitter stuff is unreal.

NO WAIT!!

Conor Friedersdorf blogged on this, at the Daily Dish no less, saying it's no big deal:

Isn't this just the latest example of people becoming insanely judgmental about a fellow citizen merely because she conceives of technology differently? It is unimaginable to me that people would react this way if Ms. Ross shouted over the back fence in the middle of the crisis to ask all in earshot to pray, and five hours later, still in shock, mechanically composed a letter to friends lamenting her loss.

But doing what amounts to the same thing on Twitter? It provokes vitriol that I find every bit as inexplicable as I do the Tweeting of a child's death. In this moment of utmost gravity, you're criticizing her approach to social media? "This woman is a perfect example of where humanity is heading as it becomes more enslaved by technology," one commenter said. In fact, the callousness strangers direct via Internet at a grieving mother is a far more dire harbinger of where we're headed.

Hmm. I wonder if he'd be saying the same thing if that was Trig Palin floating in the water? Somehow I doubt it.

Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Reaches Pinnacle of 'Conservative' Blogosphere! Simultaneously Linked by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson!

This has to be one of the greatest moments in my blogging career!

The inimitable sleaze-blogger E.D. Kain, erstwhile neoconservative and publisher of the now-defunct political webzine Neoconstant, has broken the final barriers of obscurity to capture the highly-coveted Conor Friedersdorf Wannabe Award for Faux-Conservative Punditry!

The award goes to the biggest gasbag to follow in the footsteps of Conor Friedersdorf, the Andrew Sullivan myrmidon and closet leftist who's jonesing to single-handedly nuke the entire American right-wing, from Sarah Palin to Mark Levin to Rush Limbaugh.

The honor is bestowed on those rare occasions when a nominees's work has been recognized for its supreme anti-right-wing smear-mastery by none other than RawMusleGlutes (the Daily Dish, now esteemed as the blogosphere's "nerve center for news from the Iranian street"); and King Charles of Little-Green-Libel-Lizard-Land (and now self-proclaimed expatriate from the "Birthers, creationists, climate deniers," etc.).

Looking at this Memeorandum screencap, we see that both mental cases have linked to E.D., the aspiring slander-master at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, and his post, "Conservatives as Self-Parodies":

I do recommend E.D.'s post, if for nothing else but the butt-freak arrogance that's dribbling off the page like a milky load of Andrew Sullivan's spooge. E.D. ridicules Andy Schlafly, the no-name publisher of the unread Conservapedia, with supreme self-importance:

I really am spoiled reading the conservative writers that I do read at the Scene and the Porch and Pomocon and the other little pockets of intellectual conservatism remaining.

Hey, can't be TOO spoiled now can we (can't be too rich or too thin either, as they say)?!!

The "Scene" is the insider's shorthand for Conor Friedersdorf's blog (no doubt the blogosphere's equivalent to William Buckley's National Review in the early days!). Absolutely no familiarity with the "Porch" (but my guess is "Front Porch Conservative"), and "Pomocon" is the Post-Modern Conservative over at First Things.

But there's more:

It just makes me throw my hands up in the air. I try too hard to retain the word “conservative” – to hold on to some other sense of its meaning, some other definition that the American right has no hold over. I have great admiration for the paleocons, but I would never really fit in even with that idiosyncratic bunch. I’ve tried to come to terms with the idea that the movement can be changed for the better but I’m beginning to doubt myself even there. The invention of the modern Tea Party only reveals how deep the fraud runs.

In the end I’m just at a loss. I see less and less hope for the American right however much they bellow and bluster to the contrary. I don’t even mean this in terms of electoral hope. I mean this in terms of salvation.

How deep the fraud runs? And the "tea parties"? Has E.D. ever attended a tea party? I can guarantee you there's more intellectual vigor in one good tea party sign than all the bulls**t bluster being spouted at all the "po-mo" websites I've cited on this page:

And E.D. Kain's an intellectual mountebank and an ideological imposter. I'd say a yellow-bellied backstabber as well, but I've covered that ground before. See, "Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Interviews Despicable Libel-Blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs."

Click the link above. More of the lowdown on E.D. Kain, po-mo-prick-in-arms to the wannabe right's libel-blogging contingency.

Best Conor Friedersdorf Tweet Evah!

I'm almost rolled over laughing! Talk about hammering Conor Friedersdorf!

I'm checking my @AmPowerBlog replies and I find one from Sandra Binder. And then clicking on her page we get this beauty:

So now I am totally following Sandra's tweets!

Hopefully next she'll put ever-so-worthy E.D. Kain on the chopping block, and not to mention Andrew Sullivan (no link for him, but R.S. McCain's on the case, "Kentucky Census Right-Wing Lynching Fake Hate-Crime Suicide Schadenfreude Update).

No doubt Dan Riehl's hip to it (see, "Conor Friedersdorf vs. Dan Riehl").

Who says Twitter's worthless!!?

Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Interviews Despicable Libel-Blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs

E.D. Kain, the dirtbag blogger who once giddily published my work at his now defunct "hardline" neoconservative portal, Neo-Constant, has an interview with Charles Johnson at the League of Ordinary Gentlemen, "The Evolution of Blogging: An Interview with Charles Johnson."

With the exception of perhaps the harebrained Conor Friedersdorf, I can't think of more perfectly suitable blogger to interview the Mad King of LGF (Charles pumps up the interview here). It turns out E.D.'s now a featured contributor at True Slant. It notes there, at his bio-blurb, that he's also a "writer at David Frum's site, New Majority" (now called the "Frum Forum," and circling the drain as I write this). Beyond his abject dishonesty and spinelessness (discussed here), E.D.'s made a name for himself with his incoherent ramblings at the Ordinary Gentlemen. He's a stream-of-consciousness smear-master who's never learned the meaning of terms like "concision" and "parsimonious." Not only that, he's an Andrew Sullivan myrmidon, which raises obvious questions of integrity (if not sanity) all by itself.

So now, with the interview of C.J. at Ordinary Gentleman, E.D.'s now gone all in, breathlessly and irreversibly, with the weasely so-called postmodern conservatives who are increasingly being revealed as mindlessly useful idiots for the radical left. A quick case in point is Andrew Sullivan, who gleefully links the interview (off a hat-tip from airhead Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum).

And you know what? All of these folks have unsurprisingly found a consensus focal point on this gem of a libel-quote from the interview with King Charles (compete with the softball lead-in question):

At that point in time you were fairly well aligned with much of the conservative blogosphere which unified behind the war on terror. Lately that seems to have changed. More and more LGF seems to be distancing itself from the right. What’s changed? Has national security become secondary to economic issues, or does it run deeper than that?

National security is still an important issue. But the main reason I can’t march along with the right wing blogosphere any more, not to put too fine a point on it, is that most of them have succumbed to Obama Derangement Syndrome. One “nontroversy” after another, followed by the outrage of the day, followed by conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory, all delivered in breathless, angry prose that’s just wearying and depressing to read.

It’s not just the economic issues either. I’ve never been on board with the anti-science, anti-Enlightenment radical religious right. Once I began making my opinions known on issues like creationism and abortion, I realized that there just wasn’t very much in common with many of the bloggers on the right. And then, when most of them decided to fall in and support a blogger like Robert Stacy McCain, who has neo-Nazi friends, has written articles for the openly white supremacist website American Renaissance, and has made numerous openly racist statements on the record … well, I was extremely disappointed to see it, but unfortunately not surprised.

I’ve always written the truth about my opinions, and I have no intention of changing that policy now, just to fit in with a “movement” that has gone completely off the rails.

Robert Stacy McCain is currently in Orlando, Florida. He texted me today to give me the heads up on his son Jim's scuba-diva lessons at their fabulous hotel. Robert hasn't responded at his blog to the Ordinary Gentlmen smears. He's busy, mostly likely, having a fun-filled business trip, although it's possible he's not aware of the latest salvo in Charles Johnson's campaign of libel smears. Of course, Robert's replied numerous times to these scurrilous attacks before (see, "Charles Johnson's Quantum Physics"). What's interesting here is how E.D.'s essentially given Johnson's ravings the patina of credibility outside the fetid fever swamps of the LGF commentariat and of the dungeons of a few hangers-on across the neo-communist blogosphere.

For the truth is that this campaign of fabrications of Robert Stacy McCains' "racism" is actually unintelligible except among those trolling the narrow ideological confines of the radical, unhinged postmodern left. No serious writer on the right today gives these allegations credibility. (No offense, but A.J. Strata recently proved, in his attack on Robert, that he doesn't know WTF is going on, so cross him off the list of right-wing respectables).

Interestingly, the first comment at the Ordinary Gentlmen post -- no doubt from a friendly but brainless "post-mod" -- sums up perfectly the non-conservative bone fides of Charles Johnson's leftist sycophants:

My theory on LGF ... is that he was never really a conservative at all. His original understanding was that the War that began on 9/11 was ultimately a LIBERAL war, i.e., a defense of those Enlightenment values he mentions above.

There's more of that (classic) comment at the post; and notice how it's a essentially an attack on the "evil" neocons as "illiberal" -- with the added bonus of smearing the reputation of former President George W. Bush. No doubt we'd find similar rants in the totally fubar comment threads at Daily Kos.

It's worth noting that Serr8d showed his mettle with a comment there as well, where he suggested that:

Charles Johnson is a hateful, spiteful little man who uses his ‘custom-designed software’ to form and shape his hand-picked commentariat to echo his own thoughts. It’s a classic methodology to assauge his desire for positive feedback. He’s selected Robert Stacy McCain as his target du jour, and in fairness, Ordinary Gentlemen, you should give RSM an interview as well.

Indeed, in fairness, by all means.

'Ask God What Your Grade Is' ... Judge Rules in Favor of LACC Student Defending Traditional Marriage

From the Los Angeles Examiner, "Judge Rules in Favor of LACC Student Defending Traditional Marriage":

A California court has ruled in favor of a Los Angeles Community College student who said he was called a "fascist bastard" by his teacher for defending traditional marriage.

The court also ordered LACC to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.

Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom, the Los Angeles Times reports.

U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.

Lopez said his professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to “ask God what your grade is,” the suit says.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to higher-ups.

The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code, according to the LA Times.

King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

See also, Los Angeles Examiner, "Student Wins Court Ruling After Being Slandered for His Spiritual Morals: Ask God Your Grade."

This is great news.

My question is how come this story's not plastered across newpapers nationwide? Not a toughie. Obviously, Judge King's decision violates the left's "gay marriage is inevitable" meme, and the liberal media-commissars wouldn't want to deviate from the program. Seriously. A Google search right now turns up paltry results (look here, here, and here).

It's fascinating, really, since a look over at Volokh Conspiracy pulls the mask off of the "rights" program of the radical left. Judge King has enjoined the LACC district's policy on sexual harrassment, and check out the language highlighted by the court:

It is important to be aware that sexual remarks or physical conduct of a sexual nature may be offensive or can make some people uncomfortable even if you wouldn’t feel the same way yourself. It is therefore sometimes difficult to know what type of behavior is sexual harassment. However the defining characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and pervasive. It’s important to clearly let an offender know that certain actions are unwelcome. The four most common types of sexual harassment are:

1. Sexual Harassment based on your gender: This is generalized sexist statements, actions and behavior that convey insulting, intrusive or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men. Examples include insulting remarks; intrusive comments about physical appearance; offensive written material such as graffiti, calendars, cartoons, emails; obscene gestures or sounds; sexual slurs, obscene jokes, humor about sex ...

I like the part that says "the defining characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and pervasive."

Man, that's broad. Who's to say what's "unwanted," much less "pervasive." On that standard, my class lectures include a lot of "unwanted" comments that would be deemed as "harrassment" by the left's gay marriage ayatollahs.

And get this, from an update at Volokh, "A Footnote You Wouldn't Want to See in a Court Opinion":

This case is likewise not mooted by Defendants’ recent revelation that the Policy was supposedly repealed in 2007.[2] First, the Policy continues to appear on the District’s and LACC’s websites.... Thus, Plaintiff, and other students and employees, can reasonably believe they are subject to the Policy and experience a chilling effect.

[2] We are chagrined that defense counsel and Defendants’ representative who were present at the oral argument on June 10, 2009 were apparently ignorant of the status of a policy they purported to defend. This lack of preparedness is viewed with great disfavor.

It's important to remember that the First Amendment is central to the debate over same-sex marriage. After Californians passed Proposition 8 last November, the gay radical lobby launched its infamous outing and shaming campaign to intimidate and silence those who exercised their First Amendment rights to contribute to the intitiative measure (see, "Outing Liberal Blogger – Bad; Outing Prop 8 Donors – Good"). In the immediate aftermath of the election, Diana West described the chill in California as "soul-grinding" and akin to "something out of Soviet show trial history."

There's no word on the District Court's ruling at some of the big gay radical blogs, for example, Joe. My. God., Pam's House Blend, or Towleroad. The ever-so-prodigious Andrew Sullivan is on vacation from The Daily Dish, but hot-shot stand-in Conor Friedersdorf missed this story as well.

Pretty interesting, you think? Recall that these folks are quick to shout down "unwanted" speech they deem offensive (see, "Pam Spaulding Falsely Accuses Christians of Inciting Violence — But What About Her Own Behavior?").

No comment on the Volokh post at Memeorandum either.

It's a big news week, but not that big. The Sotomayor hearings are winding down, the administration's trying to keep the health reform story alive in the press, and folks have pretty much forgotten about authoritarianism in Iran. One might think even the Los Angeles Times would run a piece on the story, but I'm not holding my breath.

(Now, if the court would have upheld the LACC District's policy, THAT would have been big news!)

For additional background, see Eugene Volokh, "Professor in Speech Class Refuses to Grade Student's Presentation."

**********

UPDATE: Patriot Room links! See, "Court Rules 'Ask God What Your Grade is' Prof Violated Student's 1st Amendment Rights."

It's a Good Thing Hilzoy - a.k.a. Hilary Bok - Is Retiring From Blogging ...

... Because she's lost her grip on reality:

I'm taking this opportunity to retire from blogging ...

The main reason I started blogging, besides the fact that I thought it would be fun, was that starting sometime in 2002, I thought that my country had gone insane. It wasn't just the insane policies, although that was part of it. It was the sheer level of invective: the way that people who held what seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable views, e.g. that invading Iraq might not be such a smart move, were routinely being described as al Qaeda sympathizers who hated America and all it stood for and wanted us all to die ...

That said, it seems to me that the madness is over. There are lots of people I disagree with, and lots of things I really care about, and even some people who seem to me to have misplaced their sanity, but the country as a whole does not seem to me to be crazy any more.

Wow!

Perhaps Professor Bok needs to spend some time with her colleagues in the Department of Psychology!

I mean, she recently excoriated Ed Whelan as a "petulant bully" for outing Publius. That episode drove a whole weekend's worth of political blogging, and the moment pretty much refutes the idea that "the madness is over." (And of course the idea that "the "madness" has stopped makes more sense now that "The Lightworker" has been elected to the Oval Office.)

For such an accomplished blogger (she also writes at the Washington Monthy), her post demonstrates an extreme disconnect from the hyper-partisan political polarization we've seen since President Hussein was elected.

And her faux outrage in the Publius blow-up is something else!

It turns out that Bok is one to insist on being identified by her online handle. Yet, she published her picture at Obsidian Wings in 2005, here. Her Wikipedia entry includes all of her blogging information. So it's kind of strange for folks to allege that she was "outed" in a blogging controvery earlier this year, see Linda Hirshman, "Sheltering Women: Linda Hirshman Responds to Hilzoy."

But really, it's not difficult to understand why she insists on pseudonymity.

She took her Ph.D. from Harvard University. In case you didn't think of it, Professor Bok's father is Derek Bok, a former president of Harvard University, and the author of a highly-influential book on affirmative action, The Shape of the River:Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Professor Bok's mother is Sissela Bok, a highly-regarded moral philospher and currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies.

That's some high powered left-wing creds! And you wouldn't want to sully them by getting down and dirty in the netroots fevers swamps. And remember what they say about that old pinnacle of the Ivy League:

“Harvard” is suspicious of patriotism, disdainful of small-town values and entertainments, enthusiastic about big government programs and transnational initiatives like the World Court and the EU. It is “homeopathic” at one remove: that is, it harbors a sentimental affection for the Third World, “traditional” medicine, native tribes (”native” anything, really, except “nativism” and “natality”) but only so long as it is filtered through the scrim of Western affluence and “progressive” values. (By the way, I keep putting the word “progressive” in scare quotes because progress suggests a movement forward towards a desirable goal whereas “progressive” in the Harvard sense embraces the rhetoric of progress while advocating policies that stymie it.)

Anyway, see John Hinderaker's comments on why reputation matters in blogging, "Leveling the Playing Field."

And here's an interesting piece of related trivia: Conor Friedersdorf, the eminent "conservative" and now Atlantic blogger/Andrew Sullivan colleague, was a student of Professor Bok's at Pomona College in the 1990s. And being the idiot that Friedersdorf is, he refuses to address her by her real name after he found it published at Wikipedia.

Wait! Here's another piece of related trivia: The "conservative" Andrew 'Harvard Ph.D.' Sullivan confesses that out of thousands of bloggers, "Hilzoy might be my favorite of the bunch" (via Memeorandum).

Well, there's your six-degrees of leftist separation for the day!

Photo Credit: The John Hopkins Newsletter, "Prof. Bok Goes Behind the Music: Bok Studied Both Economics and English Before Finally Settling On Her Love: Philosophy."

**********

UPDATE: I love it! Personal attacks in place of argumentation or refutation! From the very first comment:

Your jealousy is showing, Mr. Long Beach City College.

As regular readers know, I've addressed the "I can't believe you're a professor" slur, and its corollary, "he's only a junior college professor," in recent entries. See, "You're a Professor, Really?", and "Political Science at LBCC: Training the Next Generation of Leaders."

Actually, that would be "Dr. Long Beach City College."

And I would be jealous, if Hilzoy was a Harvard Ph.D. AND a neocon!

Daniel Larison, 'Prefab Conservative'

Is Daniel Larison a "prefab conservative"?

Drawing on John Schwenkler, Conor Friedersdorf suggests that "prefab conservative" is the hot new term of day. It describes a kind of "off-the-shelf" right-wing talking head, prepackaged, like a home built with prefabricated construction (via Memeorandum):

The prefab conservative, or prefab-con, brings the same attitude to political discourse: rather than using reason and critical thinking to craft arguments that fit the real world, he trots out prefabricated memes, arguments and conclusions that are passably functional at best. All too often, they are even worse: the typical prefabcon lives in an intellectual house of ugly, wobbly walls that collapse on themselves in slight gusts. Undaunted, he throws up another structure on the same spot, though that wolf named reality is standing right there, ready to huff and puff again.

For his key example, Friedersdorf offers up conservative talkshow host Kevin James, who came up empty-handed in a May 2008 appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews. James' problem was that he clearly didn't know the history of the Munich crisis - you know, that little bit about "peace in our time" that has come to define craven diplomacy in the face of unspeakable evil. Yeah, Chris Matthews pounded Kevin James for ignorant posturing, and rightly so.

But staying with the World War II historical frame, perhaps Daniel Larison, Schwenkler's buddy over at the American Conservative, should throw his hat in the ring for nomination as the "prefab conservative" standard bearer. Few "intellectual" conservatives have abused the history of interwar European diplomacy as well as Larison.

I distinctly remember a dramatic post Larison wrote last year during the campaign, "Avoiding Key Details Is Essential In Warmongering." In apparent classic "prefab conservative" form, Larison wrote:

People will endure remarkable hardship, at least once, to expel an invader from their country. Like France after Verdun, the horrific experience might be great enough to force a nation into a purely defensive posture, but even post-WWI France, which is a better comparison with post-1988 Iran, did not sink into pacifism.

Indeed, the occupation of the Rhineland, security guarantees to central European states and the building of the Maginot Line all point not to pacifism, but to an assumption that another war might come and France should be prepared for it. The Maginot Line came out of the experience of Verdun, which was that the defensive position held the overwhelming advantage in modern warfare; the problem with the Maginot Line was not that it was defensive and therefore somehow “weak” or pacifistic, but plainly enough that it did not guard the entire border.

This was a breathtaking revision of history, especially Larison's analysis of the Maginot Line and French pacifist public opinion. As I wrote at the time:

Historians have long since shown that "pacifism" in the interwar context is captured by the entire collapse of social will that indicates a stage existential crisis far beyond numbers of men under arms or military armaments. The French case is even worse than the British, for as Eugen Weber has shown in his book, The Hollow Years: France in the 1930's, the entire national posture in France in the face of the rising Nazi challenge was one of national decay, moral laziness, and cowardly inaction. If anything, the Maginot was the greatest French symbol of the refusal to fight. I mean, really, the Maginot Line was a huge national system of underground bunkers within which French troops could hide from German Panzer divisions! There was no "overwhelming" advantage to defense on the eve of World War II. It was the opposite, as the German High Command's blitzkrieg strategy was to illustrate in the rapid defeat of the French in 1940. Basic books of French interwar history have covered the theme of French pacifism and moral decay for decades. William Shirer's The Collapse of the Third Republic is the central first-hand journalistic account, and the outstanding scholarly synthesis of the historiography can be found in Robert Young's, France and the Origins of the Second World War. Young's theme is strategic "ambivalence" rather than pacifism, so if folks want to quibble with details, you might be able to throw Larison a bone with that.

The exact historical debate on the origins the French collapse in 1940 is less important than discerning the countours of the "prefab conservative" template.

If historical cluelessness is a top criteria, Daniel Larison ought to be a frontrunner.

But wait!

If it's really as Friedersdorf suggests, that "the prefabcon's core flaw is a misunderstanding of what it means to be principled," then it frankly seems that Friedersdorf himself should be in running as well! Hey, maybe Andrew Sullivan and the boys at Ordinary Gentlemen are "prefab conservatives" too. They seem to be, to a man, supporters of Barack Obama and the diplomacy of deceit and weakness, not to mention the abandoment of democracy and human rights. On that point, maybe someone who is a "prefab conservative" isn't conservative at all. Maybe "prefab conservative" is just another nifty little attack slogan that these "neoclassicons" have invented to advance the cause of postmodern hypocrisy. "Prefab conservative," as a term, is similar to "Rovian Islamist". It's not a term of meaningful debate. It's a moniker of excoriation, an attack grenade in the left-libertarian rearguard battle against the current top conservative on the American right.

If that's the case, no worries: Idiots like Larison are already totally marginalized. And folks like Conor Friedersdorf are simply chumming the waters to build a personal sinecure as a "house conservative" at some liberal mainstream journalistic outpost. Thank goodness the inane hypocrisy of these folks is so transparent. Let them stay over at American Conservative and the Atlantic. That way they won't bother anyone of real credentials on the genuine conservative right.

**********

UPDATE: Dan Riehl links, and adds an interesting take on the "fundamentally flawed" languaged behind Friedersdorf's notion of "prefab-cons". See, "Pre-fab Isn't An Insult."

Conor Friedersdorf: Avoidance, Obfuscation, Prevarication

Unless I see some serious engagement on some of the points I've raised, this should be may last post in the current debate over Conor Friedersdorf. I will keep my eye open for some of the more egregious claims Mr. Friederdorf is wont to make in his future blogging; but there will be no further iterations in the current controversy in the absence of new information or responses. Mostly, it's simply not worth my time. Why engage if folks are too lazy or too self-absorbed to even attempt a rebuttal to the points I've raised? There's some current roiling on the right, and this is good, but some of those engaged in it are not acting in good faith, and that really defeats the purpose of it all.

Frankly, I'm not particularly invested in Mr. Friedersdorf. He's not a class intellect, and his writing is both arrogant and pedantic. I'm interested in ideas. As I've noted, Mr. Friedersdorf has made some generally off-the-wall arguments on some key public policy issues. He's also embarked on a personal jihad against Mark Levin, who is currently the #1 bestselling conservative author in the country. That kind of personalization of political difference is itself worthy of rebuttal. And as a number of my good friends have joined the exchange, I thought I might behoove myself to throw them some support.

I've responded to Mr. Friedersdorf with a number of detailed posts (here, here, here, and here). All of these essays are detailed and substantive. Mr. Friedersdorf's silence in engaging them goes beyond disrespect. Frankly, as is the case with Mark Thompson and E.D. Kain, it's most likely that Mr. Friedersdorf is simply overwhelmed by superior firepower; and rather than further expose the superficiality of his intellect, he adopts a variety of coping techniques: avoidance, obfuscation, and prevarication are the first tactics that come to mind.

Readers can check Mr. Friederdorf's comments to the links above. Let me first note the most recent for some flavor:

Look man, if you want me to address your arguments, just state one clearly enough for me to respond!

This response fits with any of the tactics I mentioned above, although I'd add the noun "dishonest" as well. Readers might check my search of "Conor Friedersdorf" posts. All the argument I've made are "clear" and compelling. That Mr. Friedersdorf chooses not to engage them simply confirms his penchant toward avoidance and more.

I actually wrote on Mr. Friedersdorf's essay attacking "war on terror hawks." As I said at the time, Mr. Friederdorf "equates the actions of one lone wacko with those of an international terrorist network that's responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as well as a number of other terrorist atrocities around the world in recent decades."

Mr. Friederdorf has never responded to this substantive, AND APPARENTLY CLEAR, point. He did retreat to denial, of course. But he has not systematically defended his argument that conservatives should treat suspected abortion killers just like captured Islamofascist jihadis - that is, he suggests conservatives should support waterboarding for both. It's not possible to pose a hypothetical like this a priori if the proponent of the scenario doesn't in fact see the two categories of antagonists ("combatants") in equivalent terms.

In fact, Mr. Friedersdorf claimed that he "did not equate" the actions of the abortion murder suspect to global terrorist barbarians. He then demanded that I explain what "leads you to believe otherwise." And so I did, here:

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.

To this, Mr. Friederdorf DID NOT ALLEGE vagueness on my part. Indeed, he asserted that my argument - offered in good faith at his request - was "a paranoid theory."

I'm not prone to paranoia, actually, so there's little to make of Mr. Friedersdorf's comment other than a one-off bit of snark. It is a good example, however, of my point above, which is that Mr. Friedersdorf resorts to avoidance, obfuscation, and prevarication when confronted with superior argumentation.

And that's actually kind of sad for him. The man clearly hopes to make an intellectual contribution of some sort. But as we see here, he's flummoxed with a case that deploys inferential logic as a matter of straightforward argumentation. It's simply not that complicated, much less unclear. So why no response from Mr. Friedersdorf? He rebuked me for not defending my original post, and then he turns and panics when I stand up to him. Readers can see why I question this man's capabilities.

But that's not all. I offered a detailed and highly reasoned argument in my essay, "Neoclassicons." Mr. Friedersdorf appears to be among a number of bloggers seeking to claim the mantle of today's "genuine conservatives." As I noted at the post, "From Conor Friederdorf to David Frum, to Daniel Larison to Andrew Sullivan, and then E.D. Kain, there's a movement afoot that wants desperately to be "conservative," but one that is failing miserably."

Once again, Mr. Friedersdorf refused to respond. He did make some lame, and completely irrelevant, points about how he'd been "defending Rod Dreher," as if dropping some names of people not even tangentially related to the discussion might possibly be considered a rebuttal. Mr. Friedersdorf apparently does that thing quite a bit, so we shouldn't be surprised.

My main thesis at "Neoclassicons," in any case, is that these folks are not "conservative." I especially indicated that Andrew Sullivan - who is the ideological lodestar for these people - is not a conservative. Hardly anyone would situate Sullivan on the right of the ideological spectrum nowadays. Andrew's colleague at The Atlantic places him at "the center right." And even liberals now think of Sullivan as one of their own.

And this is the key thing in all of this: Mr. Friedersdorf seems to think that the most important intellectual developments today are taking place on the left of the political spectrum. This fact helps explain Mr. Friedsdorf's jihad against Mark Levin. The latter, as I noted, is the hottest thinker in conservative politics today. Levin's Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto is essential reading for anyone who's seriously thinking about the future direction of the American right. And Mr. Friedersdorf is attacking him?

It takes no great leap of imagination to see that not only is Mark Levin threatening to Conor Friedersdorf, but also that Mr. Friedersdorf's attack on him are less about ideology and more about self-promotion. "Hey, if I attack Mark Levin I can score some points with the Andrew Sullivan and the left-libertarians."

That's really all there is to it. As I've shown in this post, which is now a lot longer and more detailed that I'd anticipaed, Conor Friedersdorf is an essentially dishonest man with an inflated sense of self-importance. I can hardly be more clear in saying this, but be that as it may, I'm not expecting a response to the arguments I've made in any case. Mr. Friedersdorf doesn't have it in him, and in all of his recent slurs, he's mostly out to gain attention for himself rather than debate those who really do care about the movement.

I've enabled comment moderation. I won't be publishing Mr. Friedersdorf's drive-by snarks here. If he responds with a post at either of his blogs, I'll reply in kind if they are substantive - and if in fact they move the debate forward.

Otherwise, I'm moving on ...