Tim Blair

Finding the stupidest people who represent an opposing view and mocking them might be fun, but it doesn't take any brains, and not much courage, either.

Do you think that quoting one of the many right-wing fools who sound off about how only good rag-head is a dead rag-head, or that the U.S. should take Iraq's oil, or that George Bush is God's instrument to smash Islam discredits everyone who thought the war was a good thing? That would seem to be the premise of your approach to left wing fools.

Mork,

It's interesting to read your comments.
So let's get this straight, which part of the spokesperson's comments do you consider foolish?

And do you consider George Galloway, a prominent anti-American campaigner, foolish?

The comments of the spokesperson seem to me pretty much inline with most of the anti-war commentary. I therefore am a bit suspicious when I hear 'oh those people are nuts and are not representative, so you shouldn't use them to promote your argument'!

Tom

When the "stupidest people who represent an opposing view" happend to be the keynote speakers and most prominent representatives of the entire movement, it's a little hard to call them marginal and unrepresentative.

When Bush starts yelling that a good rag-head is a dead rag-head, demanding to take Iraq's oil, and claiming to be God's instrument to smash Islam, then we'll talk.

Untill then, looks like you are the one constructing strawmen here, Mork.

Tom:

Pretty much everything the "Stop the War" person is quoted as saying is self-evidently idiotic, and "foolish" somewhat understates how I feel about George Galloway, who is an evil and depraved person.

But if stuff of that caliber is seriously the only commentary you hear that is critical of how the administration has handled Iraq, I'm guessing that you're getting a lot of your sense of what "anti-war" views there are via right wing blogs like this one, which specialise in finding the most ludicrous versions of opposing arguments, kicking the shit out of them and congratulating themselves for defeating the enemy.

If you want some serious critical reflections on Iraq, I suggest Josh Marshall's blog, Seymour Hersh's articles in the New Yorker (particularly the most recent one on how the administration developed the intelligence that it used to justify the war) or the transcript of the interview Wesley Clark just gave 60 minutes, which is on the CBS website.

You think Galloway's evil and depraved but no-one else can say so? The collapse of the Soviet Union was his saddest day? Shame he wasn't under the Berlin Wall when it collapsed - he belongs under a rock and in certain less democratic countries, would end up under several were he to be spouting such loopy nonsense.

Fact is, one should be ashamed to be associated with either end of the spectrum, but today is the psychotic left's day in the sun in Britain (oxymoron) so that's what's being reported.

Mork,
I've tried telling the left wing loonies to shut up and quit making fools of themselves, it only makes them yell louder. Maybe they need someone of their own ilk to tell them. Just a suggestion.

Good to have you back Timbo

ilibcc - you're being a little disingenuous. It's not like Tim "reports" any statements with which he disagrees other than loony ones. He repeats only the most extreme and unconvincing versions of opposing viewpoints, because he intends to tar all such viewpoints with the same brush.

Any argument that challenges his position that he can't instantly dismiss, he ignores.

Jim - I'm pretty much between ilks these days, if that's your implication. Perhaps that's why lazy and dishonest blowhards on the left and on the right annoy me equally.

Mork, if this site annoys you so much, why are you reading it? Why are you commenting here?

I'm serious. You never have anything good to say. You are always cutting Tim down. What is your problem? If you like Josh Marshall's website so much (congratulations on finally finding some other blogs to read) then why aren't you reading his blog?

I swear -- you are like those Americans who hate everything about their country except, apparently, the fact that they grace it with their presence.

(This, by the way, can be read an being directed at all Tim's trolls -- "Miranda", Petey the tardboy, and the rest of the lot. Come on, isn't there something you people would like better to do than to come here and be Outraged! once more at the fact that Tim Blair isn't writing what you want to read?)

I'm happily married Andrea, but can I adopt you?.

Sounds like a plan; I'm about ready for that second childhood.

Gee, Andrea, if you don't like my comments, why do you always respond to them?

This is an interesting intellectual discussion but I know why I like Tim’s entry above this thread. It’s that he refers to one of the anti-war types as a “spokesghoul.” I called them ghouls on Lucianne.com last night, & I like to think that Tim read it. Yes, it’s a stretch, but the thought pleases me. “Ghouls will wave their arms & gibber in the breezy fog,” I wrote. I must write more things like that.

Answer my question, Mork.

Aye, a quark for your lepton patterns, Muster Mork.

OK, Andrea, I'll bite. I visit this site because I think Tim is a very talented and original writer, and is frequently as funny as all heck. He also does a nice line in skewering some targets that are also pet hates of mine, such as the ABC and Mediawatch, which I find very entertaining.

But I also think that he tends to get a little lazy and attention-seeking and squanders his talent scoring cheap laughs from soft targets because that's what amuses the ready-made (but insular and uncritical) audience that bounces around the network of right-wing blogs.

There are two reasons why I tend to comment more on the latter tendency and not the former: first, like a lot of people, I am more motivated to vent when I see something I disagree with than when I see something I like.

Secondly, there are already so many sycophants on the comment pages that there would not be much marginal value in me joining in, even if I were able get over the feeling that it lacks a little dignity.

Now, perhaps you'll answer a question of mine: did Tim ask you to be his little attack-bot on the comment pages, or is this a role to which you appointed yourself?

You've been told before Mork, if you don't like the way things are don here start your own blog. Or stop trying to dictate on things that aren't your business and say something. Maybe that's why you get mistaken for rampant lefty is the little control fetish that you have common with them. And carrying on like your entitled.

Mork,

You know the about the "squeaky wheel getting the grease," don't you. Well the psychotic left is one loud squeaky wheel. And just like all the moderate terrorist hating muslims we keep hearing about out there the voice of the moderate reasonable left is barely audible. Makes me wonder if it even exsists anymore.

George Galloway, a Labour-party parliamentarian

Well, he was elected as labour, but he ain't one any more, right?

In his memoirs, Galloway says that the day the Soviet Union collapsed was "the saddest day" of his life.

Sheesh. Sounds like his stupidity with saluting Saddam "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." (the explanation afterwards doesn't explain why he said "sir" rather than "sirs") wasn't a one-off.

"Do you think that quoting one of the many right-wing fools who sound off about how only good rag-head is a dead rag-head, or that the U.S. should take Iraq's oil, or that George Bush is God's instrument to smash Islam discredits everyone who thought the war was a good thing?"

Please point out specifically which right wing fools are saying those things. The closest I've heard is General Boykin and he most definitely did not say "George Bush is God's instrument to smash Islam." And I've never heard any prominent conservative politician or pundit say anything remotely resembling "the only good rag-head is a dead rag-head" or "the U.S. should take Iraq's oil", so where the hell are you coming up with that?

Face it, the right has become a lot more moderate than the left which now has an endless number of prominent fools - from politicians like George Galloway and Ken Livingstone to Harold Pinter and Michael Moore - who are endlessly saying something stupid that deserves to be ripped apart.

Here is the contact information for the Stop the War Coalition. Why not drop them a note of appreciation for all their efforts?

If you want some serious critical reflections on Iraq, I suggest Josh Marshall's blog, Seymour Hersh's articles in the New Yorker (particularly the most recent one on how the administration developed the intelligence that it used to justify the war) or the transcript of the interview Wesley Clark just gave 60 minutes, which is on the CBS website.

But the Stop the War Coalition turns a heck of a lot of people out onto the streets and gets loads of press attention. They seem to be representative of a considerable undercurrent of opinion in Britain. But their activities do not rate any scrutiny? (Tilts head in puzzlement)

Here is a list of recent events from the SWC. It's possible they are taking credit for more activities than they actually organized but they seem to be very well organized and very active for their cause. Perhaps they deserve a little scrutiny.

What Randal said! Quotes please!

Mork,

Tim, Amos, and Tom make good points. Where, exactly, can I expect to find people saying the following?

how only good rag-head is a dead rag-head, or that the U.S. should take Iraq's oil, or that George Bush is God's instrument to smash Islam

OK, I've seen some pretty rank stuff in some LGF comments, but the sad little people responsible aren't in the forefront of the pro-intervention movement, are they? If I go to NRO, or the Weekly Standard, or Front Page Mag, I see lots of frank assessments of the economic and social failures of many Middle Eastern countries, and defences of Israel, but nothing that really approaches the racist attitudes you mention. By contrast, Galloway and the Stop the War Coalition are leaders of large movements with a substantial amount of popular support. There's no comparison between them and LGF trolls.

Oy. Redundancy in comments threads! Who could have predicted that? I'll just second Tongue Boy and Randal.

I'm with Mork. Blair, you under-achiever, if you don't start writing to your potential a note's going home.

Wow 100k out of 55 million people, with a decent amount of Europeans showing up to bolster numbers. The protestors are the extreme.

Galloway is an evil piece of smeg. Even the Labour Party knows that and quite rightly kicked his nasty butt out.

Re: Andrew Ian Dodge

Actually, it's more like 10K. 100K is the fantasy number that BBC is shooting for (and will be reporting as fact).

Mork:

How do you write this statement:

There are two reasons why I tend to comment more on the latter tendency and not the former: first, like a lot of people, I am more motivated to vent when I see something I disagree with than when I see something I like.

And not see that perhaps, just perhaps, Tim is equally motivated to vent about something HE disagrees with?

Or is that too logical?

“Galloway is an evil piece of smeg.”

And so it comes to smeg.

Years & years ago, I browsed the residential phone directories (yclept “the White Pages”) of Manhattan & Brooklyn, in search of obscene names or their semblances, like “Fuchs,” “Kuntz,” etc.

I found nothing surprising & was ready to give up when on a whim I looked up “Smegma.”

There it was.

Smegma, Merkin. With a phone number.

My friends, my relatives, & I called that number, called & called, but never got an answer.

A merkin, by the way, is a toupee, especially for the crotch, says the dictionary.

Merkin Smegma was in the Manhattan White Pages for at least three consecutive years.

I find one reference to this person on the Internet, at a British old-school-chums kind of site. I suppose there must be some connection.

Suddenly everybody stops posting. I didn’t mean to shut the discussion down. To bring the thread back to its subject, I might point out that Merkin Smegma — with its UK school origin & its appearance in the Manhattan White Pages — may be an alias—maybe for George Galloway himself on his many secret trips to Manhattan to unwind & visit the target range with Bella Abzug & Ruth Messinger.

Yclept, eh? Do you subscribe to AWAD?

My sister-in-law's maiden name was Porn. You can imagine the phone calls her family gets. She married right out of high school and I don't blame her.

I can’t believe anybody is really named “Smegma,” much less “Merkin Smegma,” although there is a David Merkin who writes American TV comedies. I’ve wondered whether “David Merkin” is a pen name & even whether he was responsible for the White Pages entry as a prank. These days I suppose I could email him & ask him, but in preparation I’d want to go somewhere & dig up the old phone books (from 15 or 20 years ago) where the entry appeared, & that would be a chore.

I know a couple of leftists (who have since broken up amicably), & her last name was such as would nowadays cause ceaseless mass teasing of a boy in school. She wanted any children that they might have to carry both last names or (in reversal of The Patriarchy) just hers. For reasons of euphony, the hyphenated combination of last names seemed out of the question. It was delicious to see him twist & turn about the issue, despite his bone-deep political correctness. Well, no children were produced anyway.

“Porn” is indeed a last name to which the development of modern English has been unkind.

I have a true anecdote about the name “Tittsworth” that doesn’t translate well into written form. (It’s not brief &, really, you had to be there.)

I aver, so far am I from subscribing to AWAD that I had to Google it up in order to ascertain its character & quiddity.

ForNow reminds me of a story...I will genericize it for the benefit of our Australian brothers (and anyone else, feel free to adapt to your own particular circumstances, we are an equal opportunity offender).

Seems this immigrant from [fill in name of country] came to [America/Australia circle one]. He worked hard, studied his civics, and after the appropriate amount of time applied for citizenship, which was duly granted. Realizing that his name sounded peculiar to his new countrymen, he went to court to change it to something more pleasing to the Anglophone ear.

He came before the judge and said "Your Honor, now that I am a citizen of this great country, I would like to change my name."

The judge replied "And what is your name?"

"Yevgeny Smegma"

The judge said "Well, I can certainly understand why you want to change. What do you want to change it to?"

"Bob Smegma"

______________________________

Shut up. You know you liked it.

Leaving naming oddities aside for a moment, here's more from the Stupid Left Loonies Department, of which there are plenty at the BBC.

As Mork suggested earlier, perhaps we should ignore them, but there is a compelling and dreadful fascination with people who outwardly appear quite normal but are in fact raving psychotic loonies.

This is an American woman from Seattle:

"I'm an American - from Seattle - and I've lived here for 35 years. I made this pretzel (picture: mad woman holding up large pretzel) sometime last night, I'm quite surprised at the reception it's getting.

Some people ask me why the pretzel and one man just congratulated me on my snack of mass destruction. I thought lots of other people would do funny things too, the general idea is 'choke on this'."

Choke on it yourself, stupid psychotic bitch.

the above BBC link here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3284991.stm

Ah, back from a long day at work, now I can answer Mork. "Little attack bot" -- that's nice. As usual, you seem to have a bit of trouble dealing with females who are less than worshipful of your mighty male brain. And no, I was not "appointed" anything; I might have come back at you with "and who died and appointed you Tim Blair's editor and moral overseer" but it occured to me that I didn't really care.

I recall that you have occasionally made a sane, sensible post without your usual overbearing and uncalled for bile, but in general you seem to be a bitter, angry person. Perhaps you are not actually so in non-internet life, but on the internet no one knows you're a sweetheart if you never mention it. (And before you ask -- me? I'm evil to the core.)

Now, where were we... Oh yes, attacking. The peacenuggets, that is. Actually, I think trying to dismiss them as not being "serious" opponents of the war is a mistake. These people are certainly serious about their views, even if their methods are moronic. Also, giving them the "ignore them and they'll shut up and go away" treatment is the same method the West used against Middle Eastern terrorism up until a couple of years ago, and we can see how well that worked. I say keep these freaks busy with their puppet making and marching, and give them all the tv soundbites they need. It will mean less time to huddle in basements building bombs.

Never ignore leftists &, as one does to Nazis, kick commies when they’re down.

Do it for yourself, your family, & your friends, do it for the elderly & for the children, do it for the sick & the starving, do it for prosperity & jobs & security &, yes, the environment, do it for your country, for all the world’s peoples, & for all the ships at sea, & do it for liberty.

Andrea - I respond to your posts exactly the same way I would respond to any other person, male or female, who posted the same things.

Aside from the fact that I don't particularly treat women differently than I do men (at least in this sphere of activity), you're just a screen-name to me: I have no idea whether you are really a woman or a man. Nor, for that matter, do you know that of me.

If, on the other hand, you are asking for special consideration because of your gender ...

The real Mork wasn’t so glum & demanding of critical reflection by others when in his presence. And he always treated Mindy like an alien, nicely.

But it’s dark over Queens & I still haven’t foraged, so off I go.

Oh, before I go, I repeated your story to some folks, Ken, & they were pleased.

I wonder if that piece of shit has heard about these: http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6539723%5E25777,00.html

Or seen this
http://hrw.org/photos/2003/iraq/>

or this
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php

or seen & read this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/iraq/20030920-4.html

"There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation."

- G.W.Bush, London, Nov 20, 2003

If Dubya can handle opposition why can't the blogmire?

We’re talking about George Galloway, elected UK official & Saddam’s paid PR pimp. Hello?

Why when people disagree with the Mork's on this site do they feel the need to tell them to go elsewhere.

I read this site because I greatly enjoyed Tim's Continuing Crisis Column, and still do.

I almost never agree with Mork, or any of the left leaning contributors, but I do enjoy the discussion that their contributions create. The links that are provided by readers to web sites all over the world to information that I would otherwise never locate is often read and enjoyed.

If there were no dissent this blog could end up with a witty comment from Tim followed by fifty posts saying "I agree".

This site would then be as dull and meaningless as web diary.

I am totaly against banning anyone from the comments section, even, especially, 'tards like Peter Richardson. This kind of debate id the lifeblood of an online community, banning the naysayers just converts this into a boring monoculture of agreement like Democtatic underground, what's the point?

It's especially silly to tell well-spokem naysayers like Mork who arn't hysterical or abusive, to piss off. That's just crazy, what are we, stalinists?

Blocking people because you don't like what they say is dumb and uncool.

Because Mork and people like him are often bitter and nasty, and their posts have no substance. They answer questions with more questions, or change the subject, or turn the tables on people when they can't come up with a sufficient reply to a criticism of what they have posted. You may find it entertaining. I find it wearying.

By the way, Mork, I am really female; I don't hide my identity online. I'm no coward, and it saves me the embarrassment of being "found out." And no, I don't want any special treatment, but you could treat me as civilly as you do all of the apparent males here, instead of using belittling phrases like "little comment bot" when I asked you a serious question. As for your insistence that you treat men and women equally, I call bullshit. Prove it.

And Amos, who asked you? Oh dear, we are "uncool" in Amos' eyes. Excuse me while I slit my wrists.

Easy, Andrea - here's a link to a blog thread in which I was far ruder than I've ever been to you to a succession of persons who are named "Mark", "Sean" and "cs" (who is the left-wing Australian blogger Chris Shiel).

http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/surfdomarchives/001384.php

As far as I know, each of those persons is male.

The thread does not exactly reflect well on me, but at least you might not feel so singled out.

As for whether I treat you less civilly than other posters, well, you're not exactly the stranger to me that most others are.

I seem to recall that our very first interaction started with you insulting me and then attempting to mock me on your website. Do you think it could be possible that past experience has more to do with my attitude towards you than whether or not I think you're female?

I agree it can get wearying at times becasue points of contention come down to points of view.

I think the ABC is a waste of money. Mork probably does not. Fifty posts may be dedicated to this argument and it is still not going to change my mind about the ABC, or Morks for that matter.

Same re David Hicks. He made a decision, he got caught, he is suffering the consequences. No amount of comment is going to change my point of view. I don't think a Mork should be directed elsewhere because his is different to mine.

If people are repeatedly and overtly nasty, personal or offensive then I agree with them being blocked.

I didn't think Mork had said or done anything in this thread that justified that, unless of course being wrong is justification enough.

Hmmm ... funny that you should choose my attitude to the ABC as your hypothetical example, Gilly, given the content of the thread to which I just directed Andrea!

I was only thinking of poor Mork's welfare. He seems so bitter and unhappy whenever he comments here, unless it has something to do with sports. That subject seems to be the only one which brings light into his sad, dark life.

By the way, I didn't "attempt" to mock you. I successfully completed and emailed several passages that were composed entirely of mockery of you and your ideas. And you received them, since you replied. Still, I don't think that gives us much of a "personal" relationship. Give up the dream, Mork.

Well strike me down, I agreed with you.

Bias however is not the issue, they can say and do what they like, I just object to the taxpayer having to fork out for it.

Provision of televison and news is not a function of government

Mork wrote:

>Tom:

>Pretty much everything the "Stop the War" person >is quoted as saying is self-evidently idiotic, and

Many people on the left, certainly the people quoted, would argue tenaciously that the comments quoted are indeed NOT self-evidently "idiotic and foolish" - what gives you the authority to declare that they are? - You seem to be saying "I hereby declare this comment to be too foolish and idiotic, therefore you must NOT criticise it"! By what authority can you make such a claim?

>"foolish" somewhat understates how I feel about >George Galloway, who is an evil and depraved > >person.

and a prominent left, anti-war campaigner. Why should the fact that you think that he is evil mean he should not be criticised? I am having trouble grasping your logic here!

>But if stuff of that caliber is seriously the only >commentary you hear that is critical of how the

Well how would you know whether it is or isn't the only commentary I hear? Are you psychic?

>administration has handled Iraq, I'm guessing that >you're getting a lot of your sense of what

Yes, you are guessing: wrongly as it happens!

>"anti-war" views there are via right wing blogs >like this one, which specialise in finding the >most ludicrous versions of opposing arguments, >kicking the shit out of them and congratulating >themselves for defeating the enemy.

This blog frequently critices the major figures in the Australia media, especially those on the left, such as Phillip Adams, Robert Manne, David Marr. Surely you are not suggesting these are all examples of 'ludicrous versions' of anti-war arguments? It is stupid to complain of cases where Tim has also had a go at less articulate, less careful and (although not certainly) less intelligent commentators.

>If you want some serious critical reflections on >Iraq, I suggest Josh Marshall's blog, Seymour >Hersh's articles in the New Yorker (particularly >the most recent one on how the administration >developed the intelligence that it used to justify >the war) or the transcript of the interview Wesley >Clark just gave 60 minutes, which is on the CBS >website.

I suggest then that you go to those sites and stay there.

Tom.

I was rather hoping that Mork would come back with some of the supposed quotations (rag heads, grab the oil, smash Islam) that we can, in his opinion, find so readily if we look.
Mork, as other commentators have said, these have to come from mainstream political and journalistic opinion for your comparison to hold water.
Galloway may have been fired from the Labour Party, but he is definitely NOT unrepresentative of it. I should know: I was a member for years, and only left this year because I could not bear to share an organisation with him and Clare Short and Robin Cook and Glenda Jackson and the rest of them.
It's one thing finding a comment on a blog. For instance, I admire what LGF does, and most of its participants too. But you get the odd nutball there. However, it's quite another when you set them up against the Galloways, the Jacksons, the Fisks even - there is a vast gulf in readership, influence, and responsibility.
To make it easier for you (all these posts here are today, and it does take time to track quotations down) you can restrict your search to elected US politicians, or even just UK ones if you prefer. We require racist comments about 'rag heads', specifically, and genuine enthusiasm for stealing Iraq's oil, and genuine enthusiasm for crushing Islam.
Here's a greater challenge for you. Find a prominent right-wing elected politician or mainstream journo comment of this ilk that has not been condemned by at least two of the bigger right-wing blogs: e.g. Instapundit, The Edge of England's Sword, Andrew Sullivan, James Lileks, USS Clueless, Silent Running, and indeed, Tim Blair, etc.
The second is more work by far, but you might want to give it a go, who knows?

I'll check back in a couple of days. Good luck!