February 28, 2005

I wonder if this is what they had in mind?

I was cruisin the dictionary, and found this.

In semi-related news, Oliver Willis, like a turtlehead, pops up in conversation over at Jeff Jarvis'. Again.

UPDATE: Comments are heating up:

I took some time to more carefully reread your blog posts, which, truthfully, I had not done before, more of a skim job.

I have some issues:

In January, you really softpedalled the Armstrong Williams story, particularly burying the lead - the use of government dollars. Jay Rosen called you on it, and you sort of grudgingly accepted the point but let it drop. One post. Nothing more.

Why? Was it not important in your mind. How about the other journalists who were revealed as getting government dollars? Did you knowingly bury the story? I doubt it, but something led you to softpedal the story.

Then the Zephyr thing. Your kid gloves for Zephyr made no sense to me. Jerome was clearly falsely slimed by her. She flat out lied. She altered her story to try and explain but that's hardly an explanation for spreading a false smear in the first place. I won't speak on kos.

And then you act as if she is qualified to discuss ethics when by her own words she indicts herself as having attempted an unethical act. Trippi denied it as did other people. How can you act as if she could possibly discuss ethics in any context after that? That was disgraceful to your conference and a very poor show by you. Why Jeff did you not speak to THAT?

As for you silly criticisms of people defending themselves against outrageous false charges, I really don't know how you can defend your attitude there. Your outrage comes out pretty quickly for other folks as well as yourself. Have you considered how you would react if such charges were levelled at you? Why you took that tact, I can't say, but it certainly is nothing to be proud of (to be sure I am quite the hothead myself and find myself apologizing all the time for overreacting, but I think I can be honest and see that in myself and acknowledge a failing.)

Finally, your comments on some folks' reactions, including mine, to the Iraq election is pretty ad hominem wouldn't you say? Eeyore? I mean, I certainly could be wrong but I didn't reach my opinion on a whim or on a hope for failure. My gawd, would that I am completely wrong. That is my hope. But my opinion is an honest one and not completely unfounded.

In light of that, something I did not know when I labelled you Right Wing BTW, I am quite surprised that you take such umbrage at my opinion that you are Right of Center, intended descriptively mind you, not pejoratively. I thought you were Right Wing.

Now I think I would more properly call you Right of Center and very much more fixated on the sins of the Left than on the sins of the Right.

One incident in particular makes me think this - you describe the exchange between Yglesias and Powerline on Powerline's hate speech (and it is that Jeff) intelligent and civil. Well, it may be civil, but it is also brutal. Yglesias basically labels Powerline liars. Correctly in my opinion. So have I labelled them liars and purveyors of hate speech.

You criticize their "obsession" with Carter. The problem is not the obsession Jeff, as you MUST know. The problem is calling him a traitor. Is that not as offensive as calling Bush a fascist? Oh BTW, have you ever seen Bush referred to as a fascist in a front page post at Dailykos? You know the answer Jeff. No, you have not. Because that would be a ridiculous statement.

And yet your condemnation of dailykos knows no bounds. But Powerline is still a nice group of GOP bloggers, intelligent and civil. That, in my mind, is troubling. It seems to me that it is difficult to expect to be viewed as Left of Center based on that record. OR Centrist really. No, the evidence is indicative of a Media Gadfly mostly concerned with criticism of the Left.

Now you are a Democrat, and I'm happy to hear that. But I really don't think you have much of a complaint regarding being labelled a Right of Center Media Gadfly. I think it an accurate description. BTW, there is nothing wrong with that.
Posted by Armando at March 1, 2005 02:55 AM

Gee, Armando, I didn't know you were the official arbiter of what's liberal. If I'd passed your test, would I have gotten a Liberal License? A Liberal T-Shirt, perhaps? A Liberal Membership Card?

On Williams: Gosh, I did say a lot about him but I didn't say it on the blog. I said it, for example, on WNYC. NPR. I think that is Officially Liberal. Right, Liberal Cop?

On Zephyr: Well, I think you may have some conflict of interest on that one, being a Kosite.

On the Iraqi election: There were plenty of Eeyores. You know, I was wrong about calling Juan Cole Pondscum. Professor Eeyore would have been a far better name.

As for Yglesias: I was referring to Matthew's criticism being civilized (as opposed to your and Oliver's one-word swipes). Surely Matthew passes your Official Liberal Test.

As for Kos: When your pal said what he said about the men killed in Iraq, he made us -- yes liberals -- look bad. We do criticize our own. We should.

Note, well, Armando that you did not make this judgment based on a SINGLE issue or stand. You made your Official Liberalometer Meter Reading based on whether I criticized your enemies or praised your friends.

I repeat: You and Oliver and Kos and company look upon the Democratic Party as your little club.

What did Groucho say again?
Posted by Jeff Jarvis at March 1, 2005 06:19 AM