Our finest hour

The only way to bring security to London is to allow sharia law to manifest in the muslim community. I think a token good will gesture is in order here, say a few million pounds to build a stoning/beheading/flogging court to facilitate sharia judges and help bring some stability to the old city.

In related news — I understand Kos undertook a thorough house-cleaning. Not because of Malkin, but because he’d finally gotten tired of tolerating the conspiracy nuts and just exiled the worst ones and their supporters.

Not that Malkin would EVER mention that, of course. “Liberal blog kicks out a dozen real crazies, the other 50,000 members argue over first amendment rights and the concept of ‘reasoned debate'” doesn’t make for good copy.

The point of dumpster diving, as Krugman reminded us this morning: “And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it.” Domestic enemies are fine too, hence the joy of reading small-town newspaper letters to the editor section to find someone to bash. Then there are the real crazies who think that Michael Schiavo murdered his wife. No-one remotely mainstream could peddle that one, right?

Why are you doing this? What does it matter what 10, 100, or 1000 people think in a society that in its collective wisdom has decided it invaded a country because of massive intelligence failure? What do you hope to accomplish in Wonderland, my thoughtful friend, writing nostalgic memoirs of reality? Be absurd with the rest of us, while you still can.

Well observed, Ted. Ferreting out the intemperates on either side are yields only heat, not light.

In that spirit, I shall eschew rejoinders to some of the above comments. ;-)

The Powerliners like to do that as well.

Oddly neither Malkin or Powerline allow comments on their site.

Er, thanks Brad, but seeing as capital punishment is illegal here, “bring to justice” will do us just fine.

There’s that lack of seriousness again. Maybe the New York Times was right–the British just don’t have sufficient spine to just shut up and fly the flag while their government carries out the necessary atrocities to keep them safe.

Actually, while there is something a little logically loopy about quoting Malkin quoting loopy commentators to make the point that Malkin is loopy, it is a shame to see how many places are censoring comments. It is, of course, every site’s perogative, and deleting spam is fine, but can’t we trust the market place of ideas to weed itself (wow, there is metaphorical perversity galore in that phrase, but I swear this isn’t a spam for metaphorical porno)? In many blogs, like Atrios, the whole action is the troll-non-troll comments — the thirst to be outraged matching the hunger to outrage. It is like playing the dozens for geeks. I don’t know — the site’s superego, i.e. its poster or posters, should be able to intervene in such a way as to break up these games, rather than reaching for the suppression option right away.

Just in terms of genre, the evolution of comments is a curious thing. Somebody out there in the convesation analysis field is surely studying it.

FreeRepublic may be populated by frothing loons, but it does also have a degree of influence on the GOP punditry, and even the political establishment, that DemUnderground does not. Malkin and Jeff Gannon are registered members; a number of congresscritters have guested at Freeper events. Perhaps that’s a reflection on the wealth divide between those of each party that devote too much time to such forums, but I dunno.

can’t we trust the market place of ideas to weed itself

Thomas Friedman – you’re not fooling anybody.

Engels — bullet to the heart, man!

By lunch, she had worked through sorrow, anger, grief, and gotten to the healthy point of dumpster-diving.

Ted, you are always te gentleman. She probably started trolling the sites as soon as she got out of the shower.

Bipartisan goonery.

Dave F: so why are you whining about Crooked Timber? If you don’t like it, don’t bookmark it. Bleh.

Hmm-
Left wing lunatics make lunatic statements by lunchtime.
Right wing commentator (“…a professional writer…”) notices it.
Right wing commentator is in the wrong for deigning to notice it before lunchtime.

Just bizarre.

Steve

Uhm-
Left wingers make nonsense statements.
Right winger notices them.
Right winger is chastised for noticing them quickly.
Logically, then, shouldn’t the left-wingers (this site, Uncle Kvetch) ALSO be chastised for noticing Michelle, for the exact same reason you are chastising Michelle for noticing what she noticed?

Michelle was wrong for commenting on internet conversations, and you engage in an internet conversation to assert this?

Sorry uncle. Bizarre.

steve

Steve,

Seeing as you have already missed the point twice I don’t hold out much hope for this but here goes:

The people Michelle quoted were anonymous nobodies, comparable to people you might pass on a New York street corner. Michelle on the other hand is a professional writer. Michelle is criticising random posts as indicative of the left, whereas Ted is criticising Michelle’s post as indicative of Michelle. Therefore………. what Ted is doing is not the same as what Michelle is doing. Get it?

“By the same token, what’s the point of bitching about what’s in other people’s blogs? Crooked Timber’s penchant for telling us what blogs it doesn’t like continues to baffle me.”

Irony, thy name is dave f.

You people are weird. The whole purpose of internet websites is to discuss other people’s viewpoints. You are are discussing another person’s viewpoint (i.e. the very purpose of a website) and in the process criticizing that person for…discussing other people’s viewpoints! (I guess you are being sophisticated about it. You are criticizing her for discussing other people’s viewpoints before lunch. Or something.). Whatever.

You’re still stuck with the basic absurdity I mentioned at first.
“But on a day of tragedy, it’s really inappropriate, and it would do us good if we would just knock it off.”

The whole point. On a day of tragedy, its inappropriate to notice crazy rantings, but somehow its not inappropriate to make crazy rantings? (“That guy is pissing in the corner!” “How could you notice such a thing, you cad?”). Bizarre.

Steve

Steve

I guess you are being sophisticated about it. You are criticizing her for discussing other people’s viewpoints before lunch. Or something.

It’s something, Steve. If you want to know what that something is, you could read Engels’ and my last several posts, where we explain it.

Either you are demonstrating a rather astonishing inability to comprehend the English language, or you’re simply ignoring the points made by Engels and myself as if they’ll go away if you don’t acknowledge them.

Talk about a hopeless case. Bye now.

Malkin and Jeff Gannon are registered members; a number of congresscritters have guested at Freeper events. Perhaps that’s a reflection on the wealth divide between those of each party that devote too much time to such forums, but I dunno.

What appears to have offended slocum here is the crushingly obvious factual observation that the London attacks were made more likely by our country’s involvement in the war in Iraq. Anyone without a diploma in doublethink will acknowledge this fact.

And yes, Virginia, Guardian columnists are more “representative” than Kos commentators. The Guardian might be taken as “representative” of a large section of mainstream opinion in any country outside of the US, and, for all I know, even within the US, the lamentable state of that country’s media notwithstanding, as anyone who has ventured outside of their Fox News bubble already knows.

If you, slocum, wish to ignore the Guardian columnists whose writings you currently so avidly lap up, I’m sure they won’t be offended in the slightest.

Slocum. Your first paragraph is a hair-brained attempt to distort what I said. Your second is a tedious attempt to miss the point of Ted’s post. Profuse apologies if I can not be assed to reply to either.

i) Was a terrorist attack made… more… likely by the UK’s involvement in Iraq?

(ii) Please read my previous comments. Ted was criticising Malkin’s modus operandi which, like yours, lacks both intellectual coherence and honour.

Answer: Yes. Defending the logically independent claim that it may also have been likely before does not a valid argument make. I did not say it was “decisive” nor did I say we must “avoid the ire of al-Quaeda”. Anyone with half a brain can distinguish these issues.

But if your theory is that Iraq made it more likely because of an effect on motivation, then it does not follow. If Al Queda already regarded the UK as an enemy with which it was at war, it is reasonable to assume there was no effect on motivation and, therefore, no increase in likelihood for that reason. As to strategy and capabilities–certainly it is the case that Al Queda has been focusing many resources on Iraq that might otherwise have been focused elsewhere (perhaps Afghanistan, perhaps the West). And there have been reports of a debate within Al Queda as to whether to concentrate on attacks in the West vs attacks in ‘vulnerable’ countries in the Middle East (including, particularly, Iraq). If Iraq were not in contention, more effort might, indeed, have been focused on attacks in the West. Without Iraq, it may be that the underground bombings would have come sooner, or would have been a larger operation, or would have happened more than once by now–there’s no way to know.

Nor is there any reason to suppose that if, in the wake of the bombings, the UK were to withdraw its troops from Iraq only that this would take it off the Al Queda target list. More likely, it would encourage another attack to see if the UK’s behavior might be further shaped to Al Queda’s liking by terrorism.

(ii) Please read my previous comments. Ted was criticising Malkin’s modus operandi

And central to that criticism was that Malkin had selected unrepresentative comments from the lunatic fringe of the left. But given the Guardian columns I linked, that is in fact demonstrably not the case.

which, like yours, lacks both intellectual coherence and honour.

Gratuitous snottiness is not a sign of somebody confident in his argument.