MaxSpeak, You Listen!

You're a god to me, now, Max.

"Put simply, Reynolds is the leading purveyor of modern McCarthyism on the Internet."

Ahem. Given that Dr. Reynolds has positions of authority in exactly zero branches of the United States Government and lacks any authority besides having a modem and the ability to say that he thinks certain people are very bad indeed, I think the term "McCarthyism" might be just a tad bit overblown.

McCarthy himself had no executive authority either. And I did say 'ism.' IP is more like the Internet's answer to Father Coughlin.

Given that this is the same Glenn Reynolds who gloated over the deaths of French senior citizens in last summer's heat wave, perhaps he should put down the stone and get out of the glass house.

He puts the ass in bombastic. He's not why I started blogging, but he's one reason why I haven't quit.

Not to mention his jokes cracked at the expense of murdered U.N. workers: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/011066.php

To paraphrase the President: "Fuck Instapundit. We're taking him out (metaphorically, of course.)"

Can someone explain to me why the University of Tennessee allows Instacracker to spend his days posting to his blog on their dime? Is it UT policy to allow salaried, tenured staff to collect a paycheck while involved in their own personal side businesses during working hours? And what about using school equipment (computers, internet access, bandwith) for personal gain? Let's say a black woman from the African-American Studies Dept. was doing the same thing - can we predict the brownshirts' reaction, and the pressure they'd bring on the University to fire her ass?

You are absolutely, 100%, right on.

Thank you!

Instapundit is a complete jerk, but Dave, you're clearly unfamiliar with how academia works. Tenured profs can do whatever they please, once they fulfill rather minimal requirements for teaching load and office hours, and they don't work on a clock. Trying to limit the speech of college professors is usually a move that the right pulls.

Dave: this guy was under a lot of pressure for just that. The repugs got pretty close to having him censured, if not fired.

Why is Glenn Reynolds so popular? He just collects a bunch of links (many of which readers send him) and posts them with little to no comment. When he does comment, he never adds anything to the discussion. I don't get it.

Hear, hear.

In a related note, someone please tell Mr. Drum that labelling Kos as a "spokesman for the left" only reinforces Dear Glenn's logic.

A prominent, American-based blogger does not a spokesman make for a diverse, fractional political movement.

I'm kind of surprised that no one has asked Reynolds about his post where he seemed to think that funding terrorists to attack Europeans was a Point to Ponder:

"Providing financial aid to terrorists who target European civilians would be uncivilized -- but, then, the Europeans are supposed to be the civilized ones, no?"

...you're clearly unfamiliar with how academia works.

Actually, I'm not. I know all about how little tenured professors can work, if they want. But this isn't about some guy letting his student assistants do all the work while he lounges around the local coffeehouse chatting up coeds - he's running a complete and separate business out of his office, utilizing school property and time to turn a profit that has zero to do with his posted duties. It has nothing to do with "academic freedom" because there's absolutely nothing academic related to it.

as for the mercenaries, here's one prime problem.

some of these guys, for a few weeks work, make $1000 or more a week. they do a specific job, and then are back out again.

if they get caught up in a firefight, and enlisted guys also get involved, where do the private contactors' loyalties lie?

they're here for the paycheck, and to survive for the few week period they'll be around.

there's no mystery about any antagonism between them and enlisted guys, who have different priorities, missions, and commanders, not to mention compensation.

another strong point is that a lot of these enlisted guys signed up for guard or reserve duty, and then ended up going halfway across the world for the furtherance of American power and influence, some dying.

they get paid miniscule, and their families are suffering, and suicide rates are high, while morale is low.

whine about kos all you want - he's really brought attention to an issue that deserves consideration, and he never meant anything personal towards these particular individuals.

just a classic antagonism between enlisted guys and paid private warriors with differing missions and ultimate loyalties.

enlisted guys have to look out for each other. who knows what the private guys will do...

Kos clearly stated that if people don't want to advertise with him, fine. He's a blogger first, and he's not going to walk on broken glass for the rest of his career being worried about censoring himself mid-sentence.

He gave a credible and (in my opinion) convincing explanation for his reaction, so that it would be seen as not what it is being made out to be, and then went on to say he went overboard.

Perhaps a full apology is in order for the books, and to assure us that Kos realizes that "screw em" is not the best way to make a point, but at the same time Kos is ahead of the ball on this.

As always, our corrupt and subservient media is misreporting this issue, and that's the gist of this. Places like Kos' website are places to get real information, along with a lot of spun information to whichever partisan or intrapartisan persuasion.

Why do we accept our media? Their constant and consistent, not to mention blatant lies?

Are you free or what? Because, if you accept that there is "official" truth, and that leaders can legitimately "frame" the acceptable bounds of discussion, THEN YOU ARE NOT FREE!

That's it. In a nutshell.

Demand the truth, responsibility, transparency, and accountability from your leaders.

Or just get out of the way, and stop talking about freedom.

I'm not giving IP hits so I won't click on a link to IP or Drudge. Their opinions are not worth squat.

Instapundit classics:

The Palestinians "don't deserve a state of their own. It's not clear that they even deserve to keep what they've got."

Genocide can be acceptable: "Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide -- unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That's what happens when two societies can't live together, and the weaker one won't stop fighting -- especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger."

And terrorism against Europeans is cute, as pointed out by jj above.

Great post.

Max has three letters. God has three letters.
Coincidence?

Speaking of Kos, the site is down. Has this noteriety attracted a DOS?

(Long comment, sorry) For me, the thing that bugged me more than anything about Instapundit was his response to the Valerie Plame affair. "I don't understand why they would do such a thing! I'm so confused!" Jesus H. Christ, let me spell it out for you:

Joe Wilson goes to Niger to see if they have uranium to sell. They don't. He says so. The Bush administration ignores him and Bush lies to the people in his State of the Union.
One year later, Wilson, frustrated, writes a column saying there was no uranium in Niger.
The Bush Administration, instead of saying "we politely disagree" (they still would have been lying, but it's important to note that this option was available), targets Wilson and decides to send a message to anyone else who works for the Government who might go against the party line on Iraq. They find out his wife is a covert operative and expose her, endangering her life, her contacts' lives (some of whom may already be dead as I write this), and ruining her career. Incidentally, Wilson's wife worked to gather intelligence involving... weapons of mass destruction.
In the process, they broke the law and harmed national security.
The message was clear: go against us, and we'll screw you, even if we've got to break the law to do it.

There is, of course, nothing confusing about this. Glenn knows what happened perfectly well. The thing is, it's totally indefensible, so he's desperately trying to throw up a smokescreen. Okay, Glenn, we all know Bush & Rove (or maybe Cheney & Rove) did this, and did it on purpose. I want to hear you condemn them loud and clear. THEY HARMED OUR COUNTRY. THEY BROKE THE LAW.

Imagine his response to Woodward & Bernstein in '72: "I don't *understand* why Richard Nixon would hire people to break into the Democratic offices! I'm so confused!"

Great post.

Last year, Glenn Reynolds wrote that companies like Blackwater were "mercenaries." This year, he's outraged that Kos would call them by the same term he used in June 2003. Read it at my Shock and Awe post.

--Kynn

Never mind your distortions, Kynn: do you or do you not agree that Zuniga's remarks were beyond the pale?

Toby,

Kos himself called his comment stupid. You know, in his apology. In which he also put the comment in the larger context of a long filthy history of American mercenaries.

Now, whould you be so kind as to point me to any of Glenn Reynolds' apologies for any of his vile comments?

My distortions, Toby?

Which distortions are those?

As for my opinion on what Markos said, I refer you to my post, where I address the topic thusly: As a pacifist who values all life -- including both American lives and Iraqi lives -- I could never look at anyone's death with the insensitivity shown by Markos.

Kos was wrong, and I condemn his statements. On the other hand, if you cheered the deaths of anyone -- ranging from Rachel Corrie (someone I consider a good person) to Uday and Qusay (people I think are horribly, horribly evil) -- I condemn you for the same reason.

My standard is clear: Don't kill each other anymore -- ever! (Ironic, but maybe not so much, that satire magazine The Onion can contain so much of God's truth.)

--Kynn

Max, Thank you. The last paragraph is perfection (well, it all is, the last graf is merely greater perfection...;-).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong - and at this hour, I probably am - but weren't like five soldiers killed the same day those four contractors were killed? And Elvis alone knows how many Iraqi citizens?

Is it just the free market concept of "contractors" that make their deaths more important? Anyway, I gotta agree with Kynn in that all death is a loss,

I'm curious...has Instapundit ever howled about Misha's veiled threats against liberals or Charles Johnson's screeds against Rachel Corrie?

Skip wrote, Why is Glenn Reynolds so popular?

Two possibilities come to mind:

(1) Founder effect. Meaning that people who started blogging early in the game might have attracted "market share," so to speak, while there were fewer blogs and hence less "competition." Not sure whether Reynolds was an early blogger.

(2) Gun issue. Reynolds' original fame was as one of a group of legal academics who pushed the revisionist Second Amendment line (namely, that it really does provide for an individual right to gun ownership). Perhaps this made him attractive in conservative circles.

By the way, this is what Toby thinks should be done to the Iraqis who suffered under Saddam:

Every country must fight and sacrifice for its sovereignty. That is inescapable. But the Iraqis must do more to condemn these terrorist acts. They must do more to show the world that they deserve the freedom that we are helping them to achieve. For too many of them, though, the scars that Saddam and the Ba'athists left on them are too numerous and debilitating. The only thing that can be done for them is to put them down like the sick animals they are.

This is the guy who is so upset that "Zuniga's remarks were beyond the pale."

Charming.

--Kynn

I'm curious...has Instapundit ever howled about Misha's veiled threats against liberals or Charles Johnson's screeds against Rachel Corrie?

Of course not. Don't be silly.

--Kynn

Nice graph.

Great Post Max.

Insta-hipocrite and the other mouth breathers are disturbed by the rise of the lefty blogs. Especially Kos & Atrios with their succesfull money raising efforts for Dem candidates & 527s.

They'll be keeping an eye on every word trying to pull this shite again.

Exactly, BLZ -- now that they know it _works_, that angry LGFers en masse have more influence with the Democrats than a guy who has directed tens of thousands of dollars to the campaigns, they have no reason not to try it again. And keep doing it.

Who's the next blogger to make a mistake and get crucified by the lunatic right with the help of the Democratic middle?

Times like these, I'm glad that I'm such small potatoes on the blog scene.

--Kynn

Oh, something else stupid about all this.

The Kerry campaign has effectively taken responsibility for policing EVERYTHING said on the dozens of blogs the link to. If one of them happens to say something asinine, it now can _legitimately_ be tied to the Kerry campaign.

They've established a precident saying they'll unlink people for things they disagree with, and thus they are actively endorsing every blog they continue to link to. This goes beyond the normal sense of creating a link -- if Atrios links to Billmon, that doesn't mean that Atrios is vouching for every single thing Billmon says.

But now, the Kerry campaign has told us that's exactly what their links mean. God help them, but they sure stepped it in this time. This will likely turn out to be an even bigger bear trap than the one they feared from Kos's insensitivity.

--Kynn

Excellent post, max.

And Kynn's post above is right on. Kerry delinking to kos not only shows that he and his people do not get blog, but that they are willing to be responsible for everything said there. Stupid. The wingers are now scouring every blog linked to by Kerry to throw more distractions at them.

And (as I've posted elsewhere), it is pretty clear that the backbone transplant did not take, if we are still running away everytime the wingers scream.

Motoko - thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up Glenn's justification for the genocide of Native Americans and others. I always think of that post whenever I read one of his bowel movements about "the anti war crowd" or as I like to call us, most of the planet.

Out-fucking-standing, Max!

[BIG EYES rolling around on floor]

Although the idea that racism is itself not a "rightist idea" sounds to us like trying to meet a snake halfway.

We were under the impression that right and left came from the seating arrangements of the defenders of the status quo, the preservation of wealth and nobility and the Church, vs the people in favor of change, in one of the desperate press conferences staving off the French Revolution.

That and it's hard to find "left racists" (especially if you consider racism a rightist trend disqualifying them), but rightist racism is no further than the WSJ Editorial Page, rightist politicians, Rush and the radio set, O'Reilly and them on TV, Insta and Misha and Johnson, etc..

Anybody who has gone through one of our "dirty little wars," fought largely through mercenaries, as a preteenager, has every right to criticize Kos on this topic. Those of us who (like Prof. Reynolds) have not ought to think twice about denouncing him

Instahack thinks he's Whittaker Chambers or Westbrook Pegler. But those boys at least got out of the house, maybe into a pumpkin patch.

The only way, however, that InstantlyIdiotic is going to go down is if people refuse to link to him, or to read him. And folks like DeanforAmerica kept him on their blogrolls for months when they should have dropped him.

The case against this fool is proven. Shun him. (Read Mooreslore instead...)

I was wondering what was up with Kos' site, too. It doesn't look down so much as deleted. The body of the index is just html body /body /html and the other pages look like they've been deleted.

While people are talking about this, I read Mark Kleiman last night, and he's as bad or worse that Reynolds, accusing veteran Kos of aligning himself with America's enemies, and insinuating that Kos cannot be an ally in the coming election unless he makes a fuller and more complete apology. In this post, Kleiman seems to say that it's worse to bitch about the contractors than to celebrate the bombing of the UN, because the contractors are Americans and so first things first. WTF?

I'm just looking for a place to say, if the moderate lashing of Kos is a sign of where the Democratic Party is heading, the DP is in for an asswhipping, as it gets overwhelmed by Instapundit-driven Wellstone funeral rage every other day. And I had trouble sleeping last night thinking about the ridiculous moral preening going on, and its relationship to the occupation of Iraq.

Kos is just having trouble moving the site to a different DNS server. It should be visible shortly.

shit, they got kos.

thanks stirling

Stirling, thank you.
It was so long and so blank I began to really worry ...
and to keep this on topic:
still a grand post Max. I don't know what the emoticon is for a heartfelt air kiss, but have one.... :-) or two.

Man, everything seems to happen when I have a lost weekend. A little revolution now and then...

Great post, Max. Unlike some right-leaning bloggers, Reynolds has never made any pretension about being pragmatic. He is an ideologue, pure and simple. As a result, his blogging is awful, much like reading the National Review, Pravda or The Nation (sorry folks, the boring, unself-reflecting ideologues aren't only on the Right).

I still am shaking my head over all of this. Kos did not say anything to justify the kind of reaction that has occurred. It's ridiculous, especially considering that he is a veteran, and has consistently supported the military. Thanks, Max. This is a great post.

I agree with Tena, this is a great post. And I am quite sure you hit on something when you mention the traffic stats (Atrios is gaining very rapidly on Reynolds too, evidently). It hasn't happened yet, but when the newspaper articles on blogging start mentioning Markos and our favourite gym teacher as the big dogs instead of the default nod to Reynolds, that's gotta hurt!

Just a Suggestion...
If you want to link to Instapundit stories without linking to Instapundit, you might want to use Google Cache links instead.

For example:
Jokes at the Expense of Murdered UN Workers

"Someone correct me if I'm wrong - and at this hour, I probably am - but weren't like five soldiers killed the same day those four contractors were killed?"

You are not wrong. And that was the context of Kos' original comment. Americans and Iraqis are dying everyday in ways that are at least as horrific as the 'contractors'. The military just refuses to show it. A tiny bit of the reality of war slips out, Kos who has first hand experience of it points out the ridiculous, self-serving nature of the 'outrage', and boom he is responsible for apologizing for Bush's war. Where was the footage of the five soldiers?

That is sick and wrong. If you don't want people being torn to shreads and then burnt, stop dropping cluster bombs that do just that.

I am not a pacifist, I fully believe in the concept of a 'just war'. I also understand that in any war people get killed in terrible ways. But this is not a just war, the responsibility for those four deaths rests squarely on the desk of GWB. And we can't let them get away with this.

BTW, I am happy Kerry fundraising is going so well. Because he saw the last dollar I'll ever be sending by delinking Kos. You stand by your friends, you don't drop them at the first moment of trouble.

Finally someone points it out. Instapundit's site is merely an aggregation of cheap shots at anything that is even remotely center left. His daily posts usually convey a sense of eternal admiration for the sitting administration, as the punditry aspect seems to only extend to those that are out of power. Case in point, his evaluation of the Bush tax cuts is buttressed by a cherry-picking of emails of people who bought new barbecue grills and television sets with the extra money.

Can someone explain to me why the University of Tennessee allows Instacracker to spend his days posting to his blog on their dime? Is it UT policy to allow salaried, tenured staff to collect a paycheck while involved in their own personal side businesses during working hours? And what about using school equipment (computers, internet access, bandwith) for personal gain? Let's say a black woman from the African-American Studies Dept. was doing the same thing - can we predict the brownshirts' reaction, and the pressure they'd bring on the University to fire her ass?

Hmm. how to put this.

Whereas the issues you mention are typically well within the usual range of academic freedom, the University of Tennessee has far bigger problems than Glenn Reynolds. The Board of Regents has brought back the last respectable president of the university to run the place while it conducts a presidential search, the last two holders of that office having been driven from it under clouds of scandal. The most widely respected figure publicly associated with the University of Tennessee is Phil Fulmer, the football coach.

It should in all fairness be pointed out that the presidential scandals had nothing at all to do with the occasional NCAA recruiting violation that has been known to pop up in Knoxville. I don't believe that any of the UT's athletic programs are currently under NCAA sanction, but I am not sure.

These issues, along with the growing impracticality of the campus' geographical location, have recently conspired to reduce undergrad enrollment in Knoxville below that of Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, and I bet Memphis State is not far behind. Every few years Tennessee State U in Nashville, which itself is no paragon of academia, makes overtures to the independent Nashville School of Law, and, given the current population trends, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the state open a law school in Nashville (the state capital, 200 miles from Knoxville) or Murfreesboro. A state with reasonably progressive educational policies would have done so years ago.

It might also be relevant in this context that the largest employer in the state of Tennessee, aside from the state itself, is Vanderbilt University.

IP is a hack. Seriously. His blog is damn awful. It's a waste of space. What does he add to the conversation? Absolutly nothing. He's the worst of the worst.

Do I say that because I feel that he ruins a perfectly good first name? Yes and no. It's the truth.

(You ever feel as though someone is your mirror image? Like you but completly opposite? That's how I feel about GR. Same first name, even doing the heh thing as long as I can remember. Scary.)

Re:Kos remark. When I read it, I knew it wasn't going to go over well. I also knew that I agreed with it 100%. Even though it was a rant, I also knew what was trying to say.

What is this REALLY about? Some people on both the left and the right are absolutly terrified about the existance of most of these blogs. IPs is ok, it adds nothing to the discussion. However, take DKos or Atrios...both add plenty to the discussion themselves, and as well link to many other people who add much more to the discussion as well.

That sort of discussion can't be controlled. Last night on Capital Gang, Al Hunt, responding on Air America, said that it won't be Radio that revitilizes the Democrats, it'll be the Internet. He's right, but not for the reasons mentioned. He was talking about fundraising..but I'm talking about ideas. That new ideas can be given mainstream coverage. My current thinking is about a smart/stupid (A snarky way to put it, it's true, a better way would be wonk/politico) divide. The blogosphere is filled with the wonks, at least from the left. That terrifies the strictly political people, 'cos they can't control us.

Too bad.

I agree that Instapundit is a dreadful, boring, hypocritical, sanctimonious hack. One reason he is successful, though, is that he can leverage his position at the top of the ratings heap to inspire more discussion about him, which in turn drives more links to him.

So STOP already.

Really, if he weren't getting umpty-zillion hits a day, nobody would care what he says -- it's not as if he's providing any interesting insights.

Sounds like most of you here can't stand the idea that KOS imploded. He gave his personal feelings - horrible and disgusting by any standard - then tried to turn it into a political arguement. He did not apologize, as some of you have fallen for. He quite simply weaseled out of it, claiming it stupid to have made the remark, not that it was stupid to think it.

Glenn Reynolds properly called KOS on it. Instead of trying to defend the indefensible, ask KOS to really step up to the plate, apologize honestly, and recognize that KOS's insult transcends politics and parties. It's personal and indefensible.

That way, you'll stop confirming that rot really does infest the Left.

Great post Max.
I agree with all of the criticism of GR who, hopefully, will continue to fade away as blogs evolve.

I've always been puzzled by Reynolds success, but his timing was good after 9/11 I suppose, and he's ridden the wave for as long as he can. His 15 minutes are almost up.

I no longer read Reynolds at all, partly to deny him the hits, but more because he comes off as such a hypocritical dolt. The last few times I did read him, he was frothing at the mouth over Kerry/Intern rumors, end every other link was to Drudges breatheless blather on the subject.

I'm still honestly stumped as to how this guy could be a professor of anything.

amen!

i spent (wasted) an hour or so last night going to rightist blogs who decry kos and his right to free speech, asking them all:

funny we didn't hear any rightist hue and cry when little green footballs made fun of the shooting death of rachel corrie, the american peace activist killed by israeli bulldozer drivers in the palestinian territories. why didn't prof. reynolds say that charles does himself no credit gloating over ms. corrie's death?

after a while i realized it was like bailing out the ocean, and gave up.

sam b., i don't see how kos's personal feelings, forged in the cauldron of growing up in a war zone, where he saw mercenaries killing without compunction, are disgusting by any standard.

he basically said he had no feelings for people who chose to make a living with guns in a war zone (as opposed to those who sign up for their nation's military to protect their country) when they get killed by their enemy, which is a pretty reasonable outcome for anyone who chooses to make a living with guns in a war zone (i carefully avoid the word "mercenary" because you rightists think that word somehow dilutes the argument.

he has more feelings for the actual us soldiers who died that same day and got no press.

Sam B-

Markos' remarks were not "horrible and disgusting by any standard." If the Fallujah Four had been Chilean nationals instead of American, what would your reaction have been?

Sam B. , I guess I’ll play along.

Many answers to rhetorical questions such as yours can be found here , but I’ll qualify mine.

While I’m not familiar with much of Mr. Sawickys writing/work (although I agree with his assessment of Professor Reynolds), he certainly expresses himself in a way that I would describe as intelligent, if not humorous. In fact, anyone who quotes Ben Franklin on their masthead, rather than referring to themselves as say “The NYTimes of blogs”, is ok in my book.

Skippy,

KOS's remarks stand on their own. They are either right or wrong, justified or unjustified.

It is a logical fallacy to validate KOS's remarks on the basis that "the right does it too."

KOS knows that his statement was morally repugnant and the reaction to it is independent of political leanings. He chose to punt rather than take repsonsibility for it so has only compounded his mistake.

As long as everyone supporting KOS chooses topoliticize it as "right against left" then KOS will have permanently lost the moral high ground. It's time for KOS to stand up and take real reponsibility.

Sam

Sam B. wrote: He quite simply weaseled out of it, claiming it stupid to have made the remark, not that it was stupid to think it.

One would have to think the remark in order to make/write the remark. Right? What you are saying is that you don't believe Kos' apology.

And, that is a different issue entirely. You should have the integrity to say what you mean and not bander about with wordplay Sam B. The real issue for the right, and YOU obviously, regarding Kos' statement and subsequent apology is an inability to accept his explanation, reasons, emotional, personal and honest as they are...

It is telling that not a single right-wing blogger is discussing the important issues brought up by Kos in his ill-mannered and selfish initial statement, but most especially, the important issues raised in his apology, which are mirrored in the Iraq experience and the Fallujah tragedy.

The truth is Sam B, by focusing their rage on Kos, the right is conveniently ignoring their own horrible calls for genocide, which have peppered the internet blogsphere and media sites like a virus, as well as ignoring arguably the most important issue: That Fallujah was abandoned by the US military in a fierce battle only a little over a week ago, and the war is not going well.

Well, just remember the Right reaction in the blogosphere to the murder of Rachael Corrie last year, the way many of them danced and whooped over her corpse (she's was an American citizen, fighting for what she thought was a just and moral cause no different than those four mercs in Iraq--except she wasn't earning a grand a day like them)...

Now some of those fucking right-wing assholes try to use moral relativism with KOS?

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me.

SNAFU,

Read again. It's not a political issue but KOS wanted to make it one and he did. It's a personal issue that he's avoiding - and he's counting on political support to avoid that personal responsibility.

And KOS did not not really apologize as his two subsequent posts show. It's too bad you don't see that. KOS did not even have the decency to acknowledge he was wrong about the role those 4 played.

If you want to see it only in the political light that you do, then you'll continue to miss the point: it was a personal expression of hate toward those 4 who were killed for being "mercenaries." Period. And KOS tried to change the subject.

He will carry this around his neck until he really apologizes, up front and directed to the families of the four who were killed.

It's personal responsibility, not political expediency. But KOS is risking his political career in avoiding it and the Left is paying the political price.

KOS could stop the damage now and you could help him, SNAFU.

Sam

Sam, I have to disagree. What Kos touches upon in his initial statment, while personal, is entirely political as well. Come on. That's as obvious as it gets. No brainer. The reaction from all sides, pro and con, are testament to that fact.

It's a personal issue that he's avoiding - and he's counting on political support to avoid that personal responsibility.

Seems to me that his apology was a damn pretty personal (and as public as it can get) confession of not only wrongdoing, but confusion, and rather than avoiding the issue, he put a whole lot on the line, including his own personal responsibility for his rash initial statment. Again, the problem is, people don't wish to accept the apology, and they've succeeded in pushing Kos into defensive mode. And, really, your statment isn't being entirely honest. You are presuming to know what is going on in Kos' head. Come on. This is lynching the liberal.

it was a personal expression of hate toward those 4 who were killed for being "mercenaries." Period. And KOS tried to change the subject.

Have to disagree here as well. Kos explained his pov and the reasons for his hate quite well. Read it again Sam B. Kos apologized in the way he knows how to, whilst VERY PUBLICALLY expressing some extremely PERSONAL issues, in a very personal and appropriate manner. That much is glaringly obvioius. Yes, it IS a personal issue, and a hate issue, which, he addresses and explains, in a personal way. How much "apology" would be enough?

It is my contention that most of the right would never allow Kos off the hook whilst he is such a great poster child for the "angry left", an overgeneralized bit of propagandistic nonsense which is as untrue for the "left" as it is for the "right". The blood is in the water, the sharks are feasting. And, the truth be told, if he had responded in apology with a full out crow eating no holds barred "uncle", the right would still find something to attack. That much is clear.

It's personal responsibility, not political expediency. But KOS is risking his political career in avoiding it and the Left is paying the political price.

Yes, it is about "personal responsibility", but it is also a "political" issue. And, if you read Kos' very personal apology, take off the "make him pay", "make him cry uncle" glasses for a minute, and read how his apology essentially states "I'm fucked up about this stuff and I blew up and flew off the handle." And, he explains why.

This is a small issue in the long run.

And, you've not addressed the rights calls for genocide. Here's a particularly sanctimonious, ill-tempered, self-righteous and angry one, which really promotes killing on a personal level, for very personal reasons, because the writer is a friend of one of the unfortunates killed and mutilated in Fallujah.

So, please, tell me. The right is entitled to it's anger, but when Kos expresses his anger it's wrong? Clarify that please as well as your reaction to the calls for genocide.

Wasn't it InstaCracker who once asked whether the residents of Washington, DC, were ready for voting?

I think what this incident really proves is that even the supposedly "serious" people on the right aren't serious about anything but partisan politics. People are getting killed and they think what's important is holding liberals/Democrats to the standards of sainthood - while excusing themselves and their fellow travellers far worse sins.

But, god, I wish they hadn't front-loaded the damn primary. The last thing we needed is another decent but wimpy Democrat who caves in to the right.

Nice one, Max!

Kos' remarks were poorly timed and phrased, but his point was quite correct. Everyone made a fuss over the deaths of the contractor/mercenaries, but no one said a word about the deaths of five soldiers that same day. It goes to show that it's not what you say but how you say it.

Good on you. Smart, cogent and fiercely independent.

I love your blog, Max

Here's a link to a Google cache from Lucianne.com... more calls for genocidal type revenge. Removed from the main site of course... Sad sad sad. Dillusional, power mad...

Kos' comments were indeed caustic and disrespectful. But they were not calling for genocide, and Kos made the mistake of insulting American's...

To summarize: Markos said something he should not have -- so over the top that he took the unsusal step of deleting it and explaining himself mor ethan once. He did this primarily from a reservoir of anger at the Administration and its war. Glenn reacted from a reservoir of anger at what he perceived (maybe understandably, but incorrectly) as Markos' subordination of human decency to winning a political argument. So, Glenn's buddies (not Glenn), acting from what they felt was righteous anger, took the over-the -top step of pointing out Markos' remark to several politicians, who (cautious creatures) distanced themselves. If I were Kerry I would have done the same. Now Max, acting from what I suspect is his own reservoir of righteous anger, and perhaps loyalty to a friend, has launched an over-the-top tirade at Glenn. My observations: sngry, over the top behavior is at best self indulgent and at worst harmful. This all could have gone meuch better if *everyone* had stopped to think before lashing out.

Just so I can be the first to say to Mark that nothing was deleted, and so his summary is severely flawed.

He will carry this around his neck until he really apologizes, up front and directed to the families of the four who were killed.

Hahahahahaha. Please.

Someone else said:
To summarize: Markos said something he should not have -- so over the top that he took the unsusal step of deleting it and explaining himself mor ethan once.

Markos didn't delete anything.

--Kynn

Markos made a mistake, but we should be focusing on more important matters - like making sure Bush doesn't get another 4 years. How about a little unity out here!

Also, some commentators are in a tizzy because Markos was delinked by Kerry's page - let's not blame Kerry, he doesn't make small decisions like that. My guess is the Markos will be relinked in no time and this whole issue will be over. On the other hand, who can blame the Kerry site for pulling Drudge Report fodder like that.

Lets keep our eye on our ultimate goal. Don't let the conversation be veered into a discussion about Markos; patriotism. We all know he's doing a fantastic job.

No doubt about Max is a moron (clinical sense)...

Only a moron (clinical sense) or a completely seditious, leftie-liberal parasite could have found anything remotely useful in the killing of those contract security people...

Is this all a result of what passes for public education over the last thirty years? The inability that this is a long, very long term war between ragheads and western culture...

If so then yes, public education is another sterling example of tax dollars extorted from the productive are just wasted pandering to the parasitic...

If that illiterate tirade was one of the fruits of the public education system, Russ, then you're right. I wish that you were able to express yourself more intelligibly.

No one here seems to understand why the death of the four contractors was such big news.

If several marines or regular soldiers had been killed and *then* had their remains burned, dismembered, dragged behind vehicles and finally strung up by cheering mobs, that would have been an even bigger story.

If Rachel Corrie had been torn to pieces by crowds of bloodthirsty Israelis, it would have utterly changed the way conservatives view her death. That would have given pause even to Charles Johnson.

But she wasn't. The episodes simply are not comparable.

It really is amazing and disheartening to see how many commenters here seem eager to prove Instapundit right about the moral rot on the left. Four Americans are killed and their bodies desecrated in scenes of medieval brutality, and some here, following Kos, seem to see it as an occasion to criticize the victims!

Dave, April 4, 1:01 a.m. While the rat's away, the mice will play. You also have to factor in that the last two (at the very least) presidents of UT have been overpaid crooks. UT doesn't currently have a president because they're seeking a new overpaid crook to replace the last crook.

As far as KOS is concerned, I didn't read anything to get all het up about.

I'm probably just pissing at a forest fire here, but I'd thought I'd say a few words in defense of Professor Reynolds, since things have already escalated to comparing him to McCarthy (I imagine Hitler is next in line if people are still talking about it in a week).

I was a student of his in the early-mid nineties, at a time in my life where I had voted for Clinton and was deriding my friends that watched Rush Limbaugh's TV show. Not only was Professor Reynolds was easily the most entertaining and enjoyable professor that I had during my entire three years at UT, but he did not inject a single note of politics into his teaching, even though one of the classes I had with him was Constitutional Law II (dealing mostly with the Bill of Rights), a subject matter that is ripe for the slanting. To categorize him as a "McCarthy" runs completely counter to what I observed first hand for three hours a week over two semesters.

As for L'affaire de Kos, I would note that the very day before Kos made his unfortunate comment, Prof. Reynolds was on a nationally syndicated talk show offering up Kos as an example of someone on the Left that he would recommend reading. The next day Kos made the "Screw them" comment, and Prof. Reynolds simply noted that Kos "does himself no credit" with a comment like that. Hardly a criticism of the "have you no shame, no sense of decency" variety, much less a call to blacklist the man. In a later post Prof. Reynolds specifically said that he didn't think "de-linking" campaigns were a good idea, a rather "Anti-McCarthy" position, in fact. Due to his high traffic, the many readers of Instapundit happened upon Kos's comment, and exercised their right to free speech the same way that Kos did his, undoubtedly to varying degrees of vehemence. Kos screamed victimhood, and he ended up with the best week of traffic his site will ever see.

That's what happened, and I fail to see how it makes Prof. Reynolds some right week ideologue orchestrating the Republican Attack Machine.

From Mark's comment above:

"This all could have gone much better if *everyone* had stopped to think before lashing out."

This all could have gone much better if everyone had stopped to think before GOING TO WAR.

Great post. Instapundit links to sites that several times each week post more offensive things than Kos said in his blog. Check out e.g. Little Green Footballs. Instapundit knows it too. He tries for that "I'm a moderate" tone, but he's a radical right-wing partisan.

Houston, doesn't surprise me that he wouldn't have been that way in class. He only started veering into lunacy after 9/11.

If Rachel Corrie had been torn to pieces by crowds of bloodthirsty Israelis, it would have utterly changed the way conservatives view her death. That would have given pause even to Charles Johnson.

--uhm..a little difference. corrie wasn't armed. wasn't threatening anyone in any way, not associated with people who were known to be using violence...simply a college kid on an idealistic pacifist mission. mercenaries are of a rather different sort...paid to enforce an illegal occupation...the comparison is invalid, but not for the reasons you seem to think.

a tad paranoid are we? let's see, bush in the whitehouse, cheney running the show, ashcroft over at justice...repubs running congress...supreme court...and you think the prof is facing some kinda threat to his free speech from the 'left'?....wow!

The LEFT (caps needed to emphasize its power and reach) runs everything, Steve. Don't you read the warblogs?

Houston sums up the argument against the growing Instapundit hate going on in this echo chamber. It amazes me that you guys can compare the posts on the IP site with "McCarthyism." All he did was point out to a wider audience the stupid things Kos said.

The fact that you guys are attacking Instapundit more fiercely than Kos reinforces the premise that there is a rot on the american left. You guys cannot self criticize. Chris epitomizes this with:

"Markos made a mistake, but we should be focusing on more important matters - like making sure Bush doesn't get another 4 years. How about a little unity out here!"

Kos screwed up because he put beating Bush above simple common decency and tried to downplay a horrific event. When he realized he screwed up he didn't just delete the post and replace it Kynn, he deleted the internet cache and google cache copies as well. That is an all-around ass covering.

What is really funny is that Max says he disagrees with the Kos posting and makes a couple posts here about how bad it is when people are killed. Then he goes off and rants about how IP is pointing out that Kos, who disagrees with Max, said some inhumane things and equates this with McCarthyism. The difference between Instapundit and this site is the partisanship. People realize that sites like this are skewed and beating Bush is more important that anything else. IP has no such loyalty towards Bush and actually has a point of view rather than someone to hate.

max, you asshole: how hard is it for you to suck your own dick?

The Instapundit responds!

And what of the Leader himself? Always on the hunt for anti-semitism when it serves their right-wing political cliches, not when it stares them in the face on movie screens across the country.

The Passion of the Christ? Anti-semitic? So would you consider the filmography of Martin Luther King, Jr. to be anti-American because both the protagist and the various antagonists were American citizens?

Always ready to accuse the peace movement of sedition, he disparages a blogger who has actually served in the military, unlike you-know-who.

KER-BLAM! Max delivers a nasty right hand jab: a devastating non-sequitor, linking Instapoodle's supposed accusations of sedition by the "peace movement" to 'Kos's military service. Huh?!

KOWPOOEY! And now a lefty uppercut: the shopworn "chickenhawk" theme. 'Cause ya know: the intellectual rigor of an argument concerning the Iraq War is only as good as the insignia on the arguer's sleeve. Double-huh?!

The true, deep rot is IP's endless hypocritical, inane bloviations in defense of a war he won't be fighting in and an economic policy he is not equipped to evaluate.

Hey, like I always say: if you can't beat 'em, change the subject. Hell, if I can't best the argument my opponent makes supporting the war, I'll just ignore the subject and make a snarky remark about how my opponent never saw Day One of basic training. Yup, works for me.

Put simply, Reynolds is the leading purveyor of modern McCarthyism on the Internet. He is a daily source of cheap shots, pot-kettle criticisms, and two-cent sanctimony.

Well, at least he's not using the bully pulpit of his Senatorial post to start Commie blacklists and browbeat Hollywood pretty boys. See, Instapuddle's not so very bad after all. Just lighten up!

Oh, and Instaport-a-potty isn't likely to bandy about a charge like McCarthyism very lightly, thus demeaning the real sacrifices made by true patriots who stood up to that maniac, often at the cost of their careers and livelihoods. Isn't there some corollary to Godwin's Law that can be invoked here?

Houston -- here's my problem. My knowledge of Reynolds' McCarthyite activity is confined to his blogging and on-line columns. I never suggested his teaching was biased. I have no reason to think he is not a decent fellow in person-to-person interaction. Put people behind a keyboard, however, and sometimes amazing Jeckyl/Hyde things happen.

If you don't recognize this in his writing, you haven't been reading much of it. It's true that his style is not straight-ahead offensive, like Horowitz. He is more the passive-aggressive type.

And you would recognize that type because...?

The Link title on my blog for IP is "Web Whore". Despite supposed intellectual weight, most of his stuff is rather light and mostly gratuitous.

Tongue-boy makes some points. I'm going to take them seriously. His statements are in italics.

The Passion of the Christ? Anti-semitic? So would you consider the filmography of Martin Luther King, Jr. to be anti-American because both the protagist and the various antagonists were American citizens?

I haven't seen the MLK thing, your link doesn't work, so I have no idea what you are talking about. This is not what I would call a substantive point. The anti-semitism in the film is well documented by people of assorted political persuasions. You're just being stupid here.

KER-BLAM! Max delivers a nasty right hand jab: a devastating non-sequitor, linking Instapoodle's supposed accusations of sedition by the "peace movement" to 'Kos's military service. Huh?!

KOWPOOEY! And now a lefty uppercut: the shopworn "chickenhawk" theme. 'Cause ya know: the intellectual rigor of an argument concerning the Iraq War is only as good as the insignia on the arguer's sleeve. Double-huh?!

That's non-sequitur, but no matter. Chicken-hawk works pretty good, so I'm going to keep using it to describe everyone who throws charges of sedition around, but who never got around to serving in the military. It's the hypocrisy, get it?

Hey, like I always say: if you can't beat 'em, change the subject. Hell, if I can't best the argument my opponent makes supporting the war, I'll just ignore the subject and make a snarky remark about how my opponent never saw Day One of basic training. Yup, works for me.

I wasn't arguing with IP about the war. I'm saying he has no moral stature to comment on Kos or anything else in the political realm. He's probably fine lecturing his kids about sharing and keeping elbows off the table.

Well, at least he's not using the bully pulpit of his Senatorial post to start Commie blacklists and browbeat Hollywood pretty boys. See, Instapuddle's not so very bad after all. Just lighten up!

You're right, he could be worse. He could be like some of the people he links to. He could be a Federal judge. We've had worse.

Oh, and Instaport-a-potty isn't likely to bandy about a charge like McCarthyism very lightly, thus demeaning the real sacrifices made by true patriots who stood up to that maniac, often at the cost of their careers and livelihoods. Isn't there some corollary to Godwin's Law that can be invoked here?

Clever, but obscure.

All I did was write a few paragraphs about IP. It's not a habit. Every so often the spirit moves me.

Sam, I have to disagree. What Kos touches upon in his initial statment, while personal, is entirely political as well. Come on. That's as obvious as it gets. No brainer. The reaction from all sides, pro and con, are testament to that fact.

Yes, Snafu, his statement reflected his personal feelings so you agree with me. KOS reaction to the reaction to his personal feelings was political, not personal. And that was KOS's mistake and why he did not apologize. It's plain as can be. He was politically stupid to make that mistake and take the low road. He could not muster up the courage to apologize personally and, instead, gave the Right the moral high ground.

Seems to me that his apology was a damn pretty personal (and as public as it can get) confession of not only wrongdoing, but confusion, and rather than avoiding the issue, he put a whole lot on the line, including his own personal responsibility for his rash initial statment. Again, the problem is, people don't wish to accept the apology, and they've succeeded in pushing Kos into defensive mode. And, really, your statment isn't being entirely honest. You are presuming to know what is going on in Kos' head. Come on. This is lynching the liberal.

Snafu, for whatever reason, you're missing the point that Kos in no way apologized. He just retracted his statement. That is the point and why the belief continues that Kos meant what he said about the four dead: "Screw them." Really, this isn't rocket science. Kos lynched himself.

Have to disagree here as well. Kos explained his pov and the reasons for his hate quite well. Read it again Sam B. Kos apologized in the way he knows how to, whilst VERY PUBLICALLY expressing some extremely PERSONAL issues, in a very personal and appropriate manner. That much is glaringly obvioius. Yes, it IS a personal issue, and a hate issue, which, he addresses and explains, in a personal way. How much "apology" would be enough?

Already explained. An actual apology, not a retraction. There are no "buts" in an apology.

It is my contention that most of the right would never allow Kos off the hook whilst he is such a great poster child for the "angry left", an overgeneralized bit of propagandistic nonsense which is as untrue for the "left" as it is for the "right". The blood is in the water, the sharks are feasting. And, the truth be told, if he had responded in apology with a full out crow eating no holds barred "uncle", the right would still find something to attack. That much is clear.

You are determined to let Kos off the hook for the direct and unambiguous statement he made. You cannot logically use the Right's reaction to KOS's personal statement as justification for Kos's actions. It does not compute. Anyone with any personal and political common sense in Kos's position would have immediately written an apology for grossly insenstive statements, directed to everyone and particularly to the relatives of those who died. He would not even have had to acknowledge the Right's criticism's in any way and he would have stopped the Right in their tracks making them look like fools. Again, this isn't rocket science.

Instead, Kos lost Democratic advertisers for the goddam good reason that Kos has not apologized.

Yes, it is about "personal responsibility", but it is also a "political" issue. And, if you read Kos' very personal apology, take off the "make him pay", "make him cry uncle" glasses for a minute, and read how his apology essentially states "I'm fucked up about this stuff and I blew up and flew off the handle." And, he explains why.

Sorry, Snafu, there's hardly a person, whatever there politics, around who sees Kos's retraction as an apology. Ask Kerry and ask yourself how the Right can still make points off of this. Oh, yes, ask any decent person you know.

This is a small issue in the long run.

You're right, but it's too bad Kos has harmed himself so badly and lost political support.

And, you've not addressed the rights calls for genocide. Here's a particularly sanctimonious, ill-tempered, self-righteous and angry one, which really promotes killing on a personal level, for very personal reasons, because the writer is a friend of one of the unfortunates killed and mutilated in Fallujah.

Oh, dear, "if they can do it so can KOs." Sure, I can address them. It's repulsive. But the Left's reaction that it is all right for Kos to do it because the Right does it just confirms that Kos did something really, really bad. That reaction has done more to confirm how the Left really KNOWS how bad Kos's statement was. If you want me to believe for one moment that is relevant in any way to Kos making his own statement of his own free will without coercion, you've got a large mountain to climb backwards. It's a logical fallacy.

Let's get to the point again: Kos expressed his personal feelings about 4 dead Americans and he has not, of his own free will, and without coercion, apologized for them. He decided he did not have to because of support from those like you. It was a political calculation that has backfired.

So, please, tell me. The right is entitled to it's anger, but when Kos expresses his anger it's wrong? Clarify that please as well as your reaction to the calls for genocide.

You're still trying to let Kos off the hook for his own remarks? If you read me the first time I made it clear: it's personal, not political. As soon as stop focusing on the political, and look at the personal, you'll see that it really isn't rocket science. Again, just ask John Kerry (unless you agree with others on the Left who said the Right "intimidated" Kerry's campaign.)

Unfortunately, it's too late for Kos. He had his chance and blew it royally.

Sam

An endless series of slurs on some undefined, amorphous entity called "the left" to the effect of that "the left" is a seditious cancer on the republic that seeks to undermine the security of the U.S.

If you can't do any better than ask stupid questions, why not just f**k off?

See, that took very little time.

It's true, playing was a mistake. I defended my statement, and you brought nothing. Thanks for not coming back.

Kos said something that was wrong and easy to disagree with. Then he said he was sorry. He didn't "blow it", hang himself, or anything of the sort. His comment was wrong but not that serious. All he really expressed was that he valued those mercenaries lives a lot less than the upwards of eleven thousand other human beings who have been killed in Bush's misguided adventure, including the five other American troops who died that day. He appears to be driven by frustration with the counterproductive butchery we are now involved in. A very understandable emotion, and one that shows the man's basic humanity and (in a backwards way) his compassion.

On the other hand, the right blogsphere has constantly been calling for more killing and more bodies to be stacked on top of the ones that are already there. A very different sort of thing. The extremists on the right call for blood, both overseas and here at home (by calling people seditious traitors -- you know the constitutional punishment for sedition, don't you?), and types like Instapundit link approvingly to their posts. THe point isn't that things said by the right excuse what Kos said, the point is that the right is saying things that are far worse than anything that has ever come from Kos. Kos's statement comes in the category of mistaken but forgiveable comments by someone you basically agree with.

what I want to know is, who said Rachel Corrie was a shooting victim?

--nope, she wasn't shot...though enough Israeli activists, including former reservists have been shot...though their shootings are probably justifiable in your book since they too are, presumably, 'sissy'...to borrow the chickenhawk lexicon....

"He gave his personal feelings - horrible and disgusting by any standard - then tried to turn it into a political arguement."

By any standard? That's a pretty stupid remark, even for a troll.

A bunch of ex-special forces, who were very well rewarded, chose to go into a risky arena, doing god knows what, and got killed. They rolled the dice, and lost. That's a shame, but its roughly akin to mountain climbers who lose their lives. As for the crowd... the gods had descended to their level for once. After you've been humiliated, shelled (and now bombed) - I imagine you take any opportunity you can get. Doesn't make it right, but its no more wrong that what we're doing in Fallujah right now. Except we're the occupier.

"she was one of many sissy pinko liberal scumbags in Israel"

You're a sissy when you put your life on the line, and go into a warzone. Interesting definition you have there...

"who was "working" for the ISM, which means she was helping Palestinian terrorists hide their weapons"

This unsubstantiated leap of logic was brought to you by Republicans for the destruction of public educ...I mean, Republicans for School Vouchers.

She was actually trying to stop a Palestinian house being demolished, which the Israelis justified by saying there were tunnels underneath (were there? We have no way of knowing, as our only source is the Israeli army, hardly an unbiased source).

"she wasn't a victim, she was an overly-emotional and misguided idiot"

Actually one can be a victim, and overly-emotional and even misguided. Whether she was overly-emotional is a matter of opinion, though given that you didn't know the woman, your opinion isn't worth a great deal.

Misguided here obviously translating (as it usually does) into "she believed something different to what I think everyone should believe".

"she wouldn't get out of the way of a bulldozer she had been warned several times to stay away from"

Yes its called peaceful resistance (you know - like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc). Or do you think that anyone who practises peaceful resistance deserves to die. In which case what do you suggest instead? Violent resitance? Or that they should just stand on the sidelines like sissies, and wave placards?

"and she got killed when she was crushed by debris"

Well even allowing your rather dubious interpretation of events - what does that say about the bulldozer driver who deliberately put her life at risk in this way? Just demolition really come before human life?

This, along with Nathan Newman's site, has been a real public service. I don't have to visit LGF to see what it's like over there.

Max wrote:

"I defended my statement, and you brought nothing."

Your statement was an assertion, Max, without any evidentiary support:

An endless series of slurs on some undefined, amorphous entity called "the left" to the effect of that "the left" is a seditious cancer on the republic that seeks to undermine the security of the U.S.

If you can't do any better than ask stupid questions, why not just f**k off?

The gratuitous use of the term "McCarthyism" is a plague in modern political debate and you have not distinguished yourself by following that pattern.

Anyone reading Reynolds and Horowitz, as I presume you do, knows the differences that seperate them. But you're just putting them together in an "amorphous" pot called "the right." We learn nothing from that and you come across as doing what you accuse Reynolds of.

You didn't like being challenged on it. I question what you would do if you gave the same quiz to your own students and one of them gave your response.

If Motoko is still here, I'd like to see him refute the points that he brought up. I'd also like to know if anyone here knows what specifically is racist about Little Green Footballs. Thank you.

online anime strip poker

airline tickets