The irony of this blog debate was just too much to ignore after a reader emailed the links. Last year, when Mel Gibson was in the news, I quoted Gibson saying about Frank Rich, “I want to kill him. I want his intestines on a stick… I want to kill his dog.” The Democratic Daily, where my criticism of Gibson was unwelcome from the start, used this as an excuse to shut down discussion of anti-Semitism and criticism of Holocaust denial. Their line was that I was promoting violence–ignoring the fact that this was a quote from Mel Gibson, the subject of my criticism. Less than a year later, The Democratic Daily is in the news, at least at World Net Daily, for advocating violence:
A Democratic Party blogger says he wants to shoot Rush Limbaugh and is calling for volunteers to assassinate rock star Ted Nugent, who champions the Second Amendment.
Hart Williams, a former writer for porn magazine Hustler and who now toils for the Democratic Daily, was waxing incoherent about a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed by Nugent, complaining that it was likely ghost-written.
“How we can remain ‘civil’ in the face of this is beyond my ken,” wrote Williams. “I will only reiterate what I’ve said WHEN they manage to inevitably push their litany of hatespeak into actual bloodletting, and full-blown civil war (for there is no other place that this hatred of American against American can go), well … I’ve got dibs on Rush, as soon as it’s legal and lawful to shoot him. Whoever wants Ted Nugent is welcome to him, but I would prefer that you would call it now, so as to conserve on ammunition. We will need to manage it prudently. But when the day comes that they have finally set brother against brother, and sister against sister in the name of their pocketbooks, I won’t approach exterminating them with anything approaching remorse. They’ve already told me what they think of me, of my friends and of my peers. Now, I’m returning the favor. Put that in your pipe and have the WSJ editorial staff show you how to smoke it, Nugent. Courage.”
The article by Ted Nugent which provoked such a violent reaction is here. Some may disagree with it, but writing this hardly makes one deserve the death penalty. The irony, that The Democratic Daily is fine with advocacy of violence as long as it doesn’t involve criticism of Mel Gibson, is just the start. They’ve launched attacks against me for posts including this cover of Harper’s Bazaar featuring pregnant and nude Britney Spears (with hands strategically placed to allow open sales of the magazine). More recently some of the writers there launched an attack for “misogeny” using a post mocking Lindsay Lohan in which a nipple is vaguely visible as their evidence. Of course, by their standards, most of the popular press would be also be guilty.
So, by the some-time standards of The Democratic Daily I’m a pornographer. In light of those attacks, it was amusing to learn that Hart Williams is a former writer for Hustler. Apparently these rather tame pictures of Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan are pornography and evidence of hating women, but Hustler is perfectly acceptable.
As I suspect readers have realized by now, Hart Williams is the same blogger who thinks he was being clever in claiming I wrote the exact opposite of what I wrote, and then refuting this straw man by drawing out astrological charts. Attacking straw men, along with ad hominem attacks, is quite common when they aren’t advocating out right shootings.
The Democratic Daily has milked this publicity with a number of follow up posts, including one bragging that they have also called for the killing of George Bush and pointing out this selection from a previous post:
Pragmatism can be a form of obfuscation, too. While one should not be principled to a fault, neither should one default on all one’s principles. Values DO matter, the GOP misuse of the term notwithstanding.
I’m very pragmatic about wanting to see Bush hung by the neck until dead — as we hung the defendants at Nuremberg, for many of the same crimes — at high noon on the Washington Mall.
While most liberal bloggers have a pretty low opinion of George Bush (regardless of whether they advocate hanging him by the neck until dead–personally I’d settle for life in prison) I imagine they must hate him even more than most of us. After all, before this controversy, they were also criticized from the right when conservative blogs mocked their belief that George Bush, and not al Qaeda, was responsible for the 9/11 attacks (and note who even added his words of “wisdom” to the comments when I reported on that).
Update: More conservative blogs have picked this story up, unfortunately presenting the advocacy of violence at The Democratic Daily as being representative of liberal thought. Even Sean Hannity quoted from the post on his show–probably being the closest I’ve ever come to agreeing with him.
There appear to be two defenses offered, neither of which holds up. Bloggers at The Democratic Daily argue that Ann Coulter and other conservative writers have advocated similar violence. Even if true, this does not justify others in advocating violence.
They also protest that they are only advocating shooting people when it is made legal, which shows a warped view of morality. Ethical people do not shoot others because to do so is felt to be wrong, and not simply because it is illegal.
Of course Pamela posts her usual attack on Liberal Values, again pretending to be the innocent victim despite all the smears originating from her blog. As usual, she attributes statements to me which I have not expressed, and comes up with yet another distorted account of events.
As always, I criticize the lunacy of both the extreme left and right, including the advocacy of violence and hatred which is seen at The Democratic Daily. This is a sad progression from the atmosphere there where only limited viewpoints may be expressed, and anyone who disagrees is evil and must be purged. The support of anti-Semitism which caused me to leave The Democratic Daily had nothing to do with accepting Mel Gibson’s apology, as she now claims, but was over Pamela’s defense of Gibson, her objection to my criticism of him, and her views on Holocaust denial. For Pamela to fall back on her long standing claims that my protest of the anti-Semitism, promotion of astrolgoy, and conspiracy theories at The Democratic Daily is based upon sexism is just plain pathetic. I criticize such views regardless of who they come from.
Update II: There’s much more on the attacks from The Democratic Daily discussed in the comments including further attacks coming after this post.
They’re not hypocrits or inconsistent at Democratic Daily when they attack you. The explanation is clear. They are anti-semites. This fully explains why they attack you but embrace others who really do advocate violence and perhaps porn. I haven’t seen Hustler to know if it qualifies as porn but there is no question that it is closer to porn than anything you have ever posted. The real question is Why does Hart write of shootings and hangings. I’d expect him to be making Voodoo dolls.
Skeptic,
I recall posts at The Democratic Daily regarding their belief in astrology and ghosts, but actually I recall nothing about believing in Voodoo over there. Of course you could do a search. Who knows what you’ll come up with.
You know, I’ve had this strange ache ever since I left there… 🙂
Ya gotta love the “peaceful” and “non-violent” Leftwing moonbats. The Left is truly becoming America’s Taliban!
Fortunately they are only one atypical segment of the left.
Shorter Pamela–
Liberal bloggers should stick together and defend my blog no matter what we say because that is the liberal tihng ot do. I’m into new age spiritualism and love everybody, except those who disagree with me and deserve to be shot. Anyone who disagrees with me is a sexist pig, and deserves to be shot. I used to love Mel Gibson but now I think it is safer to keep that to myself, but I’m not smart enough yet to realize that people see me as a kook when I defend astrology.”
Does that sum it all up?
Beth,
That’s quite a good impersonation. For a second I didn’t see your name and thought she had posted a comment here. To clear up the last line, she gave up defending Mel Gibson when she found that a reputation for such anti-Semitism was bad for business. On the other hand, astrology goes along with her business.
LOL. Beth really got that impersonation down pat.
All is becoming clearer. I take it Pamela also objected to your attacks on Chopra Woo because her new age customers love all his mystical essays.
This all shows why we prefer your blog to the typical liberal blog. Some blogs might even fall for the line that liberals have to stick together when a conservative attacks. You have the integrity to say a liberal blog is wrong and sometimes even agree with conservatives when Democratic Daily defends Mel Gibson, astrologers, conspiracy theorists, and ex-Hustler writers who want to blow away those who disagree with him.
Skeptic,
You got it regarding Chopra. A couple to times I debunked Chopra’s attacks on evolution and science, and she was pissed off.
You also get one of the ideas behind Liberal Values. Posting here is based upon principle, not partisanship. At the moment they do turn out to be one sided (against Republicans) but that is only because the current Republican leadership has moved to the extreme right. However, when there are situations where a conservative is right and a liberal is wrong, I won’t hesitate to say so.
I see little point in having a blog where all that is done is to repeat the party line. The benefit of blogs is to be able to express one’s own opinions, regardless if this means stepping on the toes of those who are on your “side.”
Besides, I don’t necessarily draw the lline on all issues between left and right. It would be rather hypocritical to criticize the right for their pseudo-science but to fail to say the same about astrology and Chopra Woo. (Somehow Chopra Woo has the right sound to sum it up. Where did that term come from?)
I believe Orac at Respectful Insolence coined the term. Here’s a search there of the Chopra Woo posts:
Link
Sorry the link messed up the blog.
Skeptic,
No problem. I got it fixed. There’s a problem in the template with long links in comments so I often have to fix this.
Sometime soon I hope to upgrade to the latest version of WordPress and then play around with templates. I’m hoping to find one similar which doesn’t have this, plus a couple of other minor bugs.
Great list of articles in that search. It is a bit ironic that the list includes a debunking of RFK Jr’s nonsense on autism and vaccines. Pamela also got pissed off when I gave an unfavorable review to his weak Rolling Stone article on the 2004 election. It was another case of being expected to stick with her hero, regardless of whether the claims in his article held up. I simply stuck to the facts–I would have been perfectly happy to give it a good review if the article deserved it. Of course to Pamela’s warped mind, any criticism of the weak arguments in the article meant that I was launching a vendetta against him. Unfortunately, regardless of his name, RFJ Jr. has had a few weak works (along with some good articles too).
We have Chopra Woo, Kennedy Woo, and now even have Giuliani Woo in your latest post.
Ron,
We also tried to put some sense in the RFK Jr discussion about vote fraud. It may be true it happened, but the argument by RFKjr didn’t hold up.
A lot of the facts did not fit the origional charge.
DD is pale compared to the former Dianiacs at Democracy Cell Project. They are really lost in space.
I still blog a little bit at DD but was really turned off by the Hustler discussion used to prove some article was ghost written. That is what the left needs… association with Larry Flint. Let the nut-case Right have him.
Come on…get a clue…if you want to be taken seriously then be serious.
Battlebob,
I actually had posts prior to the publication of the RFK Jr. article, looking forward to it. Once it came out and had many flaws, the honest thing to do was to review the article objectively and point out its flaws. Of course Pamela couldn’t comprehend the concept of criticizing RFK Jr simply because she liked him, and she certainly didn’t have the ability to analyze the data herself.
I haven’t bothered commenting so far on the charges of ghost writing. I see no reason why Nugent couldn’t have written the WSJ column. Lots of celebrities write similar things (with different viewpoint) at Huffington Post. It really isn’t that hard to write a single coherent column (especially when there are editors who might have had some input at the WSJ.) Even if Nugent had a ghost writer, it is hardly worth taking too much time to discuss, and certainly not worth posting about shooting people.
I only stop by DCP ocassionally, primarily to say hi to old friends from the Kerry campaign, so I really can’t comment on whether they are “lost in space.” I haven’t witnessed this, but I haven’t spent much time there. Dick did call me regarding blogging over there after hearing I left The Democratic Daily, but after thinking it over for a few days I decided to go with my initial impulse of starting my own blog and am glad I went that route.
I actually have a book by Larry Flynt in my library. (Keep in mind that my library expands over seven walls in three rooms, smaller book cases elsewhere, as well as books in piles due to running out of shelf space.) I was in a book store with a friend, buying several political books–pretty much all the anti-Bush ones out which I didn’t own yet. I ignored the Larry Flynt book because of his name, but my friend got me to take a look, saying it was pretty good. Glancing thru the book I actually did find some good material. After all, how hard is it to write a good book about Bush’s faults? At the moment I felt that it was in some way unfair to not buy his book when it appeared to be as good as other books I was buying.
I wound up never reading the book. Ultimately the problem is that, no matter how good a selection I might find, I would be very reluctant to every quote Larry Flynt as a source in a blog post for obvious reasons. In retrospect I wouldn’t have purchased it, but I actually do own a book by Larry Flynt.
Ron,
The “lost in space” refers to the Dean site – the old DFS or Dean For America folks – now called blogforamerica.
If there is a conspiracy theory out there..they beleive it.
I meant DFA..Dean For America…The Left Looney bin
That makes far more sense. While I don’t read DCP enough to judge, I didn’t think they were “lost in space.” I don’t read the Dean site so I can’t comment. While I’m sure that they don’t represent the majority of Dean supporters, during the 2004 campaign there were a number of really looney Deaniacs trolling on other blogs, and I could easily imagine a site continuing, being dominated by that type.
I wonder if this all says something about people who hang on to the 2004 election and are unable to move on. My suspicion is that the looniest of the Dean supporters might continue to dominate a Dean blog long after the 2004 primary race ended. Similarly, there is something a bit strange about The Democratic Daily being virtually all Kerry all the time. I’ll still blog about Kerry when he does something significant or the 2004 election is udner discussion, will ocassionally compare the positions of the 2008 candidates to his positions, and will defend him when unfarily attacked, as in the other post you commented on, but there is a difference between bringing him up when relevant and being obsessed with him. I suspect that The Democatic Daily and the Dean blog you mentioned suffer from similar problems being dominated by people who dwell on one particular point in time, leading to a certain detachment from reality.
I dunno Ron
The BS with Pam tends to bore me.
She has some pretty nasty allegations on her site.
I don’t agree with supporting Mel Gibson, astrology, Hustler, RJK jr theory of vote fraud and all 9/11 theories.
But I don’t agree with harassing another site because they disagree with you either.
I wish you and Pam keep your disagreements to yourselves. It adds nothing to the main task of removing government slime.
Battlebob,
It’s Pamela who keeps posting attacks on me at The Democratic Daily. Any harassement has come from her. Pamela and others there have been posting slurs, calling for boycotts of Liberal Values, and launching other attacks since I started this. (Actually the attacks started before I left The Democratic Daily when I disagreed with them over consipiracy theories, evolution, and anti-Semitism.)
After a couple recent attacks from Pamela, she wound up getting what she deserved when other blogs then attacked her for the posts on 9/11 conspiracy theories and then this week for the advocacy of violence. I was totally within my rights to post an entry on those situations–especially in light of my knowdlege of the situation at The Democratic Daily. They are the ones who turned it from a disagreement over these issues into personal attacks.
This case was especially worth my commenting on in light of the irony of her falsely accusing me of violence and sexism–and then to see her blog tied to both actual advocacy of violence and Hustler. Consideration of such karma falls more into her beliefs, but there is some justice as well as irony to this.
Actually I think Pamela wants this. Typically she launches an attack on me, and then when I respond she acts like the innocent victim. Periodically I either find a link back thru Technorati showing that she has attacked me, or someone emails me to tell me. As I don’t actually read her blog other than to verify reports I’ve received, I also wonder if I’ve missed other attacks beyond the ones I know about.
I think this is her way of getting attention for her blog considering how small the readership has become there. Either having off the wall posts such as the ones advocating killing those they disagree with, or waging attacks on me, is about all they can think of to fill up what is left of her blog. I bet jealousy is also involvled considering how much larger Liberal Values has become compared to The Democratic Daily.
With all the vile stuff they keep posting about me, I feel it is necessary to periodically put up a response to defend myself. I realize that this could bore many, which is why I tend to try to keep it to limited posts and then add updates as opposed to entering multiple posts as they do attacking me. This makes it easy to bypass this conflict and read all the other posts. Plus, the vast majority of the readers read Liberal Values through RSS readers and this gives just one title among far more for the week.
Ron,
Too bad a lot of stuff went sour between you two. The topic choices are often different which many times is a good thing.
I do have trouble with your site during the day. The scantily-clad babes are going to get me a trip to HR. Which is why I do not visit here much.
I tend to ignore those posts anyway as I watch very little TV.
I recommend that unless DD posts anything directed to this site, just ignore her.
It is hard to tell who fired the first shot and I don’t care but each has something to offer.
Both you and Pam have made conflicting charges. I do not want to see either side wronged as there is so much to do.
Its pretty rare that there’s a picture of anyone who is scantily-clad here, so I hope you don’t stand much of a risk of getting in trouble with HR. Of course coverage of television and celebrities often includes images which some at HR might disapprove of, but there’s hardly been anything here which couldn’t be shown on tv or in mainstream magazines. I can’t help but wonder if HR approves of you reading political blogs at work assuming.
The Democratic Daily doesn’t know when to quit. I just checked Memeorandum and found them listing this post at DD: “The Persecution and Assassination of Ted Nugent.”
I just glanced at it quickly and, considering how incoherent Hart is, I’m not sure exactly what his point is, but he apparently does defend his earlier posts on shooting Nugent and talks more of Hustler.
They’re digging their own grave with stuff like this and doing far more harm to themselves than anything I post about them will do.
Regarding conflicting charges–Pamela makes up lots of stuff. That doesn’t mean there is any truth to her wild claims about me. Sometimes I wonder if she even knows the difference between reality and the stuff she makes up. I’ve never seen anyone fabricate stuff like she does, and that includes George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Battlebob says “It adds nothing to the main task of removing government slime.”
I disagree. There’s a lot more to blogging than pure politics. Opposing anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, and irrational belief systems like astrology is also important. Extremists win by taking advantage of hatred, such as anti-Semitism and talk of killing those you disagree with. They also win by dumbing down the population, which includes those falling for conspiracy theories and astrology. Liberal Values is does an important job in speaking out against these views.
Jimmy,
Definately. This blog is about far more than just politics. The “dumbing down of the population” as you put it has been a serious problem, allowing the Republicans to con people with their lies.
Liberal blogs try to fight this by being reality based, exposing the distortions of the right. This is undermined when liberal blogs defend Mel Gibson, Holocaust Denial, 9/11 Conspiracy theories, astrology, and advocate violence against those they disagree with.
An excellent example of this was seen recently when Fred Thompson attacked Harry Reid by saying he was influenced by the bloggers, and then tied in liberal views on the war with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Blogs like The Democratic Daily just give ammunition to Republicans like him.
Fortunately hardly nobody reads The Democratic Daily any more. Otherwise they could do a lot of harm to the “main task of removing government slime.”
I just checked out Democratic Daily. I think that Pamela has been smelling too much of the stuff she peddles.
That lady is not only a kook, she is a fake and a crook, selling stuff of no medical value. Here’s a good article: Aromatherapy: Making Dollars Out of Scents.
You should run some posts exposing such quackery
Jimmy,
Thanks for the link.
Perhaps I should add this link to our references 🙂
“Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought”
I take it that you’ve been living in an irony free zone your whole life, right?
Way to go!
Of course not–and no claim of living in an irony free zone was ever made. In fact, as is often the case when you and other bloggers who remained at The Democratic Daily write something about me, it is actually the opposite of the truth.
As opposed to an irony free zone, I see lots of irony in the world. This especially includes the current material at The Democratic Daily as is explained in the post.
Ron:
I think the astrologer is having difficulty understanding how your blog tag line applies. To help him out, Liberty includes freedom of speech, which is not understood by someone who talks of shooting someone because they wrote an editorial they disagree with. Enlightened Thought refers to the age of Enlightenment, when science and reason began to replace superstition (including astrology).
Good explanation Jimmy.
I’d add that in the past astronomy and astrology were closely related. Another product of the enlightenment was a separation of the true science of astronomy from the bogus works of astrology. Only the unenlightened continue to believe in astrology.
Ron
Remember, BOB stands for Beware of Bob. He was also posting at Democratic Daily last night discussing this with smell lady. He has no right to say what you can post about. Posting about disagreements with other bloggers is commonly done. If you disagree with them–as you should–about antisemitism, tooferism, astrology, and anything else you should be able to discuss it.
She’s making a bunch of charges. She still your disagreement was only over Mel Gibson’s apology. I see you already denied that in your update. She also says that you threatened her to get reinstated at Democratic Daily, and were posting at her blog attacking astrology (not that attacking astrology is a bad thing).
Beano,
Don’t worry about Battlebob. He was involved with The Democratic Daily from the early days and can toak with who ever he chooses. Unlike The Democratic Daily, I don’t call for boycotts of other blogs. (Wasn’t BOB from Twin Peaks?)
“Posting about disagreements with other bloggers is commonly done”
True. The problem is that they turn everything into personal attacks. If we disagree over Mel Gibson, Holocaust Denial, various conspiracy theories, evolution, and astrolgy then the appropriate response would be to defend her positions–not respond to my posts on the topics by fabricating a bunch of personal attacks.
“She still your disagreement was only over Mel Gibson’s apology.”
As I said in the update, this is totally untrue. The problem was her defense of Mel Gi bson and her decision to try to block discussion of both Mel Gibson and Holocaust denial, considering the later to not be of importance. When I posted on Mel Gibson, supporters of him started disagreeing with me in the comments. Rather than either supporting me or at least staying quiet, she backed those supporting Gibson. There were also a number of statements based upon either anti-Semitism or ignorance on both the blog and in her emails to me.
“you threatened her to get reinstated at Democratic Daily”
More nonsense. She appears obsessed lately with wanting to think that her banning me from The Democratic Daily mattered. It occured after I told her I was leaving and I had no interest in returning. Pamela tried to get me to return. I actually did return briefly and cross posted material there against my better judgement, but she continued to attack me so I decided to leave for good.
“and were posting at her blog attacking astrology”
She gets things rather backwards. I made a point of avoiding comments on posts where I disagreed with her, but in contrast she seemed to make a point of disagreeming with everything I wrote, regardless of how absurd her disagreements were. When I’d present facts to contradict her cirticism of what I wrote, she’d go into her personal attacks.
There was one post where astrology came up. I mentioned my view of astrolgy in passing, and then tried to change the topic when I realized that Pamela and others there actually believed in it. Rather than letting it go, they turned this into more reason to attack me, writing nonsense such as that my disbelief in astrolgy is comparable to Bush not believing in global warming. (Obvioulsy the scientific viewpoint is that global warming is a real problem and that astrology is not valid.)
Yes, BOB does come from Twin Peaks. I think I might have seen you use this before.
As for Democratic Daily, I think it all comes down to them not being able to tolerate any views different from theirs (as well as some nutty views on their part.) You were smart to get out of there.
The BOB acronym from Twin Peaks does sound very familiar–maybe I have used it.
I definatley had to get away from The Democratic Daily. Actually I had planned to leave for a while before I did, but originally planned to wait until after the summer (when blog traffic is lower) to start a new blog. The conflict over Mel Gibson precipitated a quicker, and more acrimonious parting.
I also thought that leaving there would lead to an end of the attacks from them, but clearly I was wrong.
Keep up the battle against astrology and other nutty beliefs. Your blog receives interest on the science blogs and other blogs dealing with these subjects, and personally I’m far more interested in this than reading about pure politics.
I checked on the posts Beano mentioned. Pamela also claims that it is you who have been starting the attacks, even saying she has links to prove it.
Skeptic,
Don’t worry, I’ll always blog on subjects beyond politics. There are lots of liberal blogs out there. Liberal Values is successful due to looking at topics beyond what everyone else discusses. Plus other blogs, like the Science Blogs, do help bring in traffic. Much of the traffic here comes from people beyond the usual readers of the main liberal blogs.
As for Pamela’s “links” she reminds me of Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind, saving all sorts of evidence of conspiracies and threats which do not exist. She would often email me with irrational claims of having copied this or that, as if it proved something.
Maybe she has links to me criticizing something at The Democratic Daily, but I’m sure she leaves out the fact that she probably attacked me a few times before I said something. I really have far better things to do, both with the blog and in the real world, to worry about “attacking” Pamela. I left The Democratic Daily after bulding that blog up hoping that would be the end of these fights, but she refuses to let it end.
Initially I tried to ignore her, but it gets tedious to constantly see lies about yourself being posted. I also see no pont in putting up with her implications that I’m the intolerant one when it is Pamela who constantly attacks anyone who disagrees with her (including playing Michelle Malkin dirty tricks), or that I’m the crazy one when it is Pamela who has backed astrology, Mel Gibson, and various conspiracy theories.
“As for Pamela’s “links” she reminds me of Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind, saving all sorts of evidence of conspiracies and threats which do not exist”
Wow, you really got her pegged. Aroma lady went and posted another comment attacking you with all sorts of irrational rants. She thinks her stupid links prove her bs claims that you and not she started all the attacks. She even claims they never discussed astrology at Democratic Daily until you attacked her for it. I guess she doesn’t read her own blog.
Jimmy,
As I said, the girl is nuts. She actually claims that they never discussed astrology before–after they attacked me for not believing in it months ago? After they’ve had a recent post discussing it? After they’ve come here with several attacks regarding disbelief in astrology?
I don’t know what she thinks she is proving with her links. Posting links misses the point that she repeatedly attacked me before I mentioned her. I’m sure she doesn’t include that fact in her links. As I said, the point of starting this blog was to get away from her nonsense, but that became impossible when she repeatedly attacked me.
Another consideration is that this isn’t the only issue. While it is not the case, even if I criticized her for her support of anti-Semitic views without her previously attacking me, that is partially what the blogosphere is all about–discussing disagreements over issues of substance.
The latest round started after she began attacking me. I first called her on it here:
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1563
She continued and I didn’t bother saying anything else about The Democratic Daily until the blog got involved in controversy over their backing of 9/11 conspiracy theories shortly afterwards. The fact that she had been attacking me may have contributed to it, but regardless I was within my rights to both comment on the controversy raised in the blogosphere and comment on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. This was especially true as I had background information to bebunk the claim the views at her blog represented the views of other liberals or Democrats.
After that–especially when I posted evidence debunking the conspiracy theories–their attacks got quite a bit more vicious. I was certainly within my rights to respond to the attacks from her and her cobloggers. If she disagreed fine–they could try to defend their views logically, but instead resorted to personal attacks.
Shortly afterwards there was further controversy, which extended to World Net Daily and Hannity’s show for the advocacy of violence against those they disagree with at The Democratic Daily. Again, while I was commenting shortly after other attacks from her blog, this was a perfectly legitimate topic for me to blog about.
In other words, when a blog defends Mel Gibson, Holocaust deniers, astrology, and conspiracy theorists they should expect to be challenged on it in the blogosphere.
When the same blog repeatedly launches personal attacks on me, that further ensures that I will respond to their nonsense. However, unlike those at The Democratic Daily, I respond to real issues rather than inventing things and resorting to personal slurs as they do.
It sounds like Pamela is making it quite clear that she intends to continue these attacks on me. If so, she hasn’t seen anything yet in terms of the response she can expect from me.
She sure has a double standard going. She ignores all her attacks on you, but any time you respond to her attacks she claims you are attackign her. If I were you I’d hit expose her once and for all throughout the blogs. You could afford a few bucks for some ads–or sue her ass for her outright slander of you to pay for it. While you’re at it, expose her aroma therapy racket. Sick up ads everywhere “Anti-Semite Astrologer Selling Quack Treatments.”
For now I’m busy checking out the Friday papers, as well as getting material ready for SciFi Friday tomorrow. There’s plenty of time to contemplate my next move if she doesn’t cease her attacks.
A slander suit would probably be possible considering how she repeatedly responds with lies and personal attacks and there would be no difficulty proving malice. There are two problems. First, she’s made it pretty clear that she has no assests worth going after in such a suit. Secondly, I would not want to establish such a precident in the blogosphere. While her personal attacks go well beyond what is normally accepted in the blogosphere, the spirit of the blogosphere still favors lack of such regulation or legal action.
Besides, there’s plenty of other ways to handle her if she insists on continuing these attacks.
Whatever you do, leave aroma lady with enough money to buy a ticket to see A Beautiful Mind. On rereading her post, she misunderstands your comparison. She thinks you are saying she has no links, so she thinks she is proving you wrong.
Smell Lady, if you are reading this–Russel Crowe played a mentally ill character who saved all sorts of newspaper clippings, thinking they proved a nonexistent plot–just like you saved all your links which prove nothing except in your deranged head. The more I read your blog, the more obvious it is that Doc Ron is right. Get a life. Don’t you have anything better to do than to attack others on your blog?
Jimmy,
I took a peek at The Democratic Daily and don’t see the post you are talking about. Is ths a new post or something added to old stuff?
I’m not surprised that Pameal didn’t understand the reference to A Beautiful Mind. This was obviously written for readers here who are more culteraly literate, and accustomed to the Amy Sherman-Paladino style of throwing in cultureal references into conversation as often as possible.
Oh Smelly Cat, Smelly Cat…
How’s that for a pop culture reference which seems to fit with above. Jimmy’s talking about a comment added to her post attacking you. As he says, its a load of crap making like she is totally innocent. They “respond” to you with their personal attacks, but when you respond to she labels it as an “attack.” She does threaten to make it a front page post–so much for her claims that you have been the one making threats.
Her premise is that you are not allowed to disagree with any of her offbeat ideas, and if you do you are attacking her. No more posting on anti-semitism, astrology, or conspiracy theories for you!
Looking at some of Pamela’s other comments, it is also clear that she she doesn’t understand the difference between secularism and atheism. I bet you could really tear them apart by going thru all the links and everything she also said.
BTW why are you citing Amy Sherman-Paladion? According to Pamela you hate women and don’t believe they could do anything meaningful. In contrast, their resident Hustler Astrologer is ok as he once wrote a post supporting women’s issues. Your many posts on abortion rights and contraception don’t count because Pamela says you hate women.
Skeptic,
I’m afraid that singing Smelly Cat doesn’t place this discussion on the level of Amy Sherman-Paladino diaog. Besides, to meet her level we’d need to be speaking all of this rapidly as opposed to posting over a metter of days.
“BTW why are you citing Amy Sherman-Paladion? According to Pamela you hate women and don’t believe they could do anything meaningful.”
Pamela doesn’t get the fact that I respect or agree/disagree with people based upon what they say–not their sex, not whether I like them, and not whether they are labeled a liberal. While I’ve always liked Amy Sherman-Paladino, there actually were people who didn’t think she could write dialog like she did and thought Aaron Sorkin was ghost writing for her. Both are great writers, but there is a difference in their styles.
“Her premise is that you are not allowed to disagree with any of her offbeat ideas,”
Yes, that sums it up. No views other than hers are tolerated.
“is also clear that she she doesn’t understand the difference between secularism and atheism.”
We’ve been over that many times. You are right–she has no understanding of my views on religion. It is rather strange that a liberal blogger wouldn’t understand a basic liberal idea of secularism and separation of church and state, confusing it with atheism.
Actually she shows pretty weak understanding of other areas of liberal thought. After I wrote my recent post on the definition of liberalism she even started an argument claiming I was wrong in saying that liberalism has its origins in supporting liberty.
“I bet you could really tear them apart by going thru all the links and everything she also said.”
I’m sure I could but, unlike Pamela, I have plenty of other things to do rather than to search out old links.. Besides, some of the posts where she first attacked me were taken down after I responded to her. There’s really no need to waste the time accumulating links. It ishould be quite clear from comparing the posts who is writing on principles and who is engaging in personal attacks and slander.
Her linkfest was in the comments not in a new post.
Don’t bother wasting your time digging up links. Her own data proves your were right.
Point 1: You rightly condemned Mel Gibson. She responded by attacking claiming you were promoting violence. She might have done more too, but after this she deserves what you posted about your reasons for leaving The Democratic Daily.
Point 2: Your link to http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1563 shows that after a period of quiet she initiated a new round of attacks on you. This link shows that you didn’t even mention her until she launched an attack on you.
Point 3: Your posts, at least until she got into attacking you, were simple and calm comments on your disagreements or coverage of items being discussed over many blogs. The posts at Democratic Daily consist of personal attacks such as their claims you are sexist because you disagree with Pamela.
Ha, so she goes to the trouble of writing such a post and it proves she is wrong. What a dope.
She doesn’t think liberalism is about liberty? I should know better than to ask, but how does she come up with that? Where does she think liberalism comes from if not liberty
It’s been far too hectic today to keep up with much of this–the conequences of coming back from vacation.
Knowing Pamela, I’m not surprised that her supposed evidence against me shows she’s wrong. Of course there’s a lot more, but there’s no time to bother with digging up more now. I haven’t even gotten to SciFi Friday yet beyond picking a few links.
“She doesn’t think liberalism is about liberty? I should know better than to ask, but how does she come up with that?”
She said I was wrong about this and then pasted in a dictionary definition. I did not that a dictionary definition is not necessarily the best way to get a real feel for a philosophy but she didn’t understand that. It didn’t matter. Her own dictionary defintion showed I’d was right. The first significant definition involved liberty. There were other examples of religious groups which allowed more freedom than earlier groups. Once again, she didn’t understand what she was reading and failed to see the connection to liberty in the word. Instead she misinterpreted this to mean that liberalism came from the religious groups being mentioned.
That really makes things a lot clearer. If Pamela-Liberalism, which must be distinguished from Real-Liberalism, doesn’t involve a support for liberty, at least she isn’t a hypocrit. Under Pamela-Liberalism it is ok for her to try to prevent you from speaking out. Under Pamela-Liberalism it is ok for her court astrologer to threaten to kill people they don’t agree with. Under Pamela-Liberalism even Mel Gibson is a good guy.