You mean a Jewish person once killed someone?

Oh, I guess that makes terrorist assassinations of innocent Jews OK then.

Whew, and I was worried there for a second, what with the unprovoked murdering and all...

I read it completely differently. "The emails we get." comment seems to be exasperation. Basically an offhand way of saying exactly what you felt. Then again I've never read TPM so maybe I'm just ignorant of the bigger picture.

It's not about once or twice a jewish murdered some innocent but number of occurrences and its position relative to today relative to the actions, marking the differences between 2 groups. Moral equivalence is a telltale sign of mental stupidity not unlike a toilette's clog. A tool chest with University license wouldn't help because it's never the tool's problem to begin with, but the sheer stupidity of the user.

You know, I tried really hard to read it that way (as Marshall being exasperated), but just couldn't.

It's a blog post, dashed off in haste as they all are, and maybe it's just carelessness on his part.

I certainly hope so...

A.L.

I read it the same way as front A.L.

"Look at the crazy email we get."

frontinusq,

I interpreted it the same way you did.

A.L.,

Why not just contact the author and ask him to clarify?

Marshall isn't great about replying to mail; when I get a longer break from sanding and painting, I'll add an update talking about the ambiguity.

A.L.

Moving into a phase of Cowboys & Muzzies is probably not a real bright jihadi strategy in America.

I strongly hope that the stable, mature, long-time American muslims get a handle on this sort of $#!+ and really shut it down. Otherwise some innocent, nice people -- like the Jordanian guy from whom I buy olives, tea, dates and such, and with whom I can improve my rather basic arabic -- are likely going to be in the cross-hairs quite undeservedly.

"The political is personal" can get bloody in a hurry. We lived through that here in Kansas 150 years ago, and would generally prefer to avoid a repeat.

Yeah, I'm not sure what "armed liberal" was smoking. But anyone even remotely familiar with my site or anything I've ever written had to know I was saying that the emailer was an idiot. Did this one really need a Cliff's Notes to interpret?

Honestly, Josh, I can see how a reasonable person could misread your update. You might want to ignore whatever AL is smoking and focus more on your writing skills. Or at the very least clarify your aside unless you prefer possible ambiguity. Or...do nothing. It's not like I read you anyways.

I thought Josh's exasperation was clear, and I'm surprised to find that AL or others wouldn't have seen it.

That said, for balance, I find Josh to be 100% in the wrong in his latest dust-up with Glenn over Podhoretz, et al.

Maybe if Marshall wrote, "Oy, the Meshuga email we get..." his meaning would have been clearer.

Since people are quoting me maybe Josh can use this:

Late Update: The emails we get. This one from GS: "Yes Josh. And in 1994 Barush Goldstein assassinated 27 innocent people while they were praying. Were you making a point or helping to keep score? You disappoint me." Thank you.

It's poorly expressed exasperation, yes; you've got it wrong (kinda strange, 'cause you yourself seem to write rather well and are, in my view, smart enough to have compensated here). But I understand your confision and forgive you, my son. Marshall should take some writing courses.

"The emails we get.."

Seemed perfectly clear to me. Then again I don't spend my saturdays desperately searching the left side of the blogosphere looking for something, anything, to feel outraged about. Especially considering the recent willfull ignorance on the opposite side by folks with a Yale law degree.

You've read him wrong. The guy's generally a goof, but he's been remarkably evenhanded on Israel/Lebanon/Hezbollah these last few weeks.

He's been printing angry e-mails from other liberal bloggers, along the lines of: "You're showing your true neocon colors now."

Anyway. Don't criticize the guy on this.

That "the emails we get" is the key. Again, for weeks now, he's been posting things people to his left on this issue have been sending him.

I have (small, sure-to-be-thwarted) hopes that this might be a come-to-Rudy moment for him. Josh! If you return to this thread and happen to read this! Use your powers for good!!

Then again I don't spend my saturdays desperately searching the left side of the blogosphere looking for something, anything, to feel outraged about.

No, Davebo, you do your searching on the right side.

Yeah, I interpreted it an an exasperated 'look at this idiotic email' remark too. Seems unfair to automatically ascribe the worst possible reading. I don't see anything in Josh's post (or his history) to support that.

There's clearly a large enough group that read it waaay differently than I did that I'll (as I hope I did in my update) step back and go "oops".

I'll stand on it being at least slightly carelessly written, and step to the side and stand on my having read it way more carelessly.

How's that?

A.L.

That's admirable. Many a blogwar could be avoided in such fashion.

Josh! Come to the dark side! It's blliissss ....

Now, AL, go post something on Mel Gibson dammit! I've had a punchline for hours and nowhere to use it.

Marshall's intent to degrade the tit for tat thinking of the email was quite clear to the unbiased mind. Sometimes the perceiving of bias in others reveals our own.

Hey, first time here, and last (I know, boo-hoo)...

You are being dishonest. "(They/we) (get/send) (mail/letter)" is a means to preface that message as implying something outside of the simple content--Eschaton is an established home to this convention, typically used to refer to some jackass verifying his jackassyness.

I'm here to verify yours, Jackass:

G00GLE this

"they write letters" site:atrios.blXgspot.com

substitute the X with an o (your spam blocker doesn't fool anyone, you are a sissy who doesn't allow negative feedback)

[ tenmile, the reason there is a spam filter on the string 'blogsp*t' is because the site was getting overwhelmed by spam from... can you guess the domain? Hint, it's one that offers free hosting, but no screening, and inadequate anti-spam protocols. Clever people can get around this block by using the services of www.tinyurl.com.

For instance, here is your Google search. Sissy. -- Marshal Festus, July 30 03:45 AM ]

tenmile,

The sissy is the one who shows up on a site for the first time, yells "jackass" and says he won't be back.

I'm just curious as to what makes Josh Marshall a "moderate Dem"? Is it his position on Iraq, Bush, Social Security, Bankruptcy Law, Net Neutrality, taxes?

One difference is, you don't see Jews, Israelis or Americans handing out candies to children to celebrate mass murder. Murderers are condemned by the civilized which is another point of difference to the uncivilized in all countries.

Festivus,

Thanks for the tip! Now, as much as I'd like to get into a slap-fight over part B of my comment, how's about you respond to part A?

[ Naw, you guys are doin' fine without me. Party on! -- Marshal Festus, July 30 05:00 AM ]

*see barrydauphin, no worries--I'm in it for one thread not one comment. Unless, of course, folks around here are fun to take apart.

Sorry tenmile, stopped reading Duncan a while ago, except for occasional visits when I hear about something interesting (like his proposed Iran policy).

Your point may/may not be valid; me may use that shorthand for his claque - but it might be just as easy to just say "Look what the Jackass wrote/commented"...and more meaningful.

A.L.

You are misreading Josh Marshall's remark in a very foolish way. It was perfectly clear to me as soon as I read it what he meant: 'Look at this idiotic e-mail.' There is no problem whatsoever with Mr Marshall's writing skills, despite what the disingenuous Glenn Reynolds insinuates. There is unfortunately virtually no way one can get people who are incapable of understanding a little irony to understand it beyond advising them to read a little more and to grow up.
Tim Harris

Who gives a shit how each individual poster reads the remark? Can a reasonable person read it as an expression of exasperation? Certainly. Can a reasonable person read it as a blase introduction to an email representative of some group of Josh's readers? If you say no you are either 1) a damned liar, or 2) too stupid to be taken seriously.

AL responded to my point and subsequent points that belabored mine. If that's not enough why don't you just stop wasting everyone's time and tell us exactly what AL must do to make you happy.

You want Josh Marshall to work on his writing skills, AL, because of his "ambiguity" which is, what, dangerous? Undermining the "war on terror"?

What idiotic drivel....and furthermore, coming from you, highly, highly laughable.

Not to, ahem, point out a "moral equivalence" that might "torque" you, but you need to work on both your thinking and writing skills!

(And how can you be sure that it was the real Josh Marshall replying above? No email or webpage link.)

If you have any talent as a blogger at all, I'd have to say it is in continuing to demonstrate your irrelevance to both the Democratic AND Republican parties.

Andy, your spiel is hilarious considering AL didn't write the part about Josh working on his writing skills. Physician, heal thyself!

The effin' world is burning around us and you guys waste precious moments of your lives trying to parse an offhand comment from a friend, with the hope of finding something to be outraged about? You need things to be outraged about?

Get. A. Life. All of you.

tenmile

You thought your comments took people apart? And you're complaining about dishonesty? Time to be honest with yourself---you haven't got much to say.

Armed Liberal:

Speaking of writing skills:

There's no piece of news that can't be matched, tit-for-tat by the moral equivalence brigade out there. It pisses me off to see a leading commentator elect to highlight claims to moral equivalence.

Do you really mean to set up as a Baruch Goldstein apologist -- so he burst into a mosque, gun down 146 Arabs, kill 29, but no big? I'd rather blame your writing skills than believe that.

The Poms have a word for what Marshall's correspondent did, whataboutery, the practice of using the other side's transgressions to distract attention from your own.

Dude, you really need to retract this.

Marshall's comment was exhasperation, not approval of moral equivalence. Marshall said nothing for you to get agitated about. You're really got a serious problem if you think this is moral equivalence. Get a dictionary, man.

But then why would you change your problem with basic perceptions of reality? I see you have a chorus of sychophants at the ready to praise everything you say.

Or is there a larger agenda? Yes, Marshall attacked the venerable Instapundit for lying. Yes, Marshall is on the left. The Right blogosphere exists soley to attack anything that does not help the Republican Party. Who do you think you're fooling?

Scratch that. I know exactly who you're fooling. Idiots. And idiots are easily fooled.

This blog is trash. What a disgrace.

Spoons,

you have a funny idea of what "balance" is. an opposing ad hominem attack is NOT balance.

(Unless we're using the Fox News style book)

Sorry tenmile, stopped reading Duncan a while ago, except for occasional visits when I hear about something interesting (like his proposed Iran policy).

Dishonest

There's clearly a large enough group that read it waaay differently than I did that I'll (as I hope I did in my update) step back and go "oops".

I'll stand on it being at least slightly carelessly written, and step to the side and stand on my having read it way more carelessly.

How's that?

A.L.

-----
Holy crap, man! Can't you just admit you were wrong? Be a man about it. Sorry, but a "large group" of your sychophants does not qualify as a consensus. Again. Dictionary.

I should clarify that, dishonest about the "proposed Iran policy"

I mean really--who in their right mind does not recognize the inevitability of a US or Israeli nuclear response to Iran should they stike first (with their yet to be developed nukes). It is so plain on its face as to be laughable that you would parse it as you and dunderpundit have done.

quite the den of pharisees here

#30 from frontinus on July 30, 2006 04:26 AM
Who gives a shit how each individual poster reads the remark? Can a reasonable person read it as an expression of exasperation? Certainly. Can a reasonable person read it as a blase introduction to an email representative of some group of Josh's readers? If you say no you are either 1) a damned liar, or 2) too stupid to be taken seriously.

AL responded to my point and subsequent points that belabored mine. If that's not enough why don't you just stop wasting everyone's time and tell us exactly what AL must do to make you happy.

---------------
YOU SAID:
Can a reasonable person read it as a blase introduction to an email representative of some group of Josh's readers? If you say no you are either 1) a damned liar, or 2) too stupid to be taken seriously.

Well, sir. That's a false choice (and thus an invalid statement). A reasonable person CANNOT read it that way. Only a damned liar or a "too stupid" person would read it that way. Is it Backwards Day?

You know, I tried really hard to read it that way (as Marshall being exasperated), but just couldn't...

A.L.

Really? try the putting an expletive in front of it.

Jesus the emails we get.

Oy the emails we get.

Now maybe try to imagine saying that original statement in any other context--unless you are freaking Yoda, it is highly unlikely.

It's interesting to see how little game you have got when you are discussing semantics here in lieu of the truly important issues challenging us as Americans--I don't even know what you are trying to say about J. Marshal...does he have a pattern of doing this...of moral equivalency...or are you simply declaring this the "first in a series"

*sorry, I meant "try putting an expletive in front of it."

Well, sir. That's a false choice (and thus an invalid statement).

Actually, it isn't. And I think Josh's little toadies have proven it in this thread.

A reasonable person CANNOT read it that way. Only a damned liar or a "too stupid" person would read it that way.

You only say that because you do not see AL as reasonable. Put your massive set of luggage aside and read the update again.

Is it Backwards Day?

I think we're on day 2 now. Will there be a fireworks show when you're done?

Really? try the putting an expletive in front of it.

Jesus the emails we get.

Oy the emails we get.

Thanks for agreeing with me that Josh's remark was somewhat vague and would benefit from further clarification. I'm glad you stuck around to "take apart" people, twomile.

Thanks for agreeing with me that Josh's remark was somewhat vague and would benefit from further clarification. I'm glad you stuck around to "take apart" people, twomile.

You are very welcome!

more more more!

Actually, I am sure why I'm so torqued. There's no piece of news that can't be matched, tit-for-tat by the moral equivalence brigade out there. It pisses me off to see a leading commentator elect to highlight claims to moral equivalence.

Here is what is lost in his update—any sort of acknowledgment of what seems a pretty clear mistake or conscious lie on his part--from which he assembled a post out of fairy dust and oxycontin. If he reads Josh every day (which I personally sure couldn’t do, because I disagree with him too much), then he certainly must have some corroborating evidence as to Marshall’s membership in the “moral equivalence brigade”. Actually, he gives no evidence of that brigade at all for all of its tit-for-tatting (though I am sure that there is plenty of evidence on both sides, readily available to him—which would have made for a more substantive argument). This is an attack on Marshall, plain and simple--poorly executed and disingenuous at its core.

more more more!

Sorry tenmile, stopped reading Duncan a while ago, except for occasional visits when I hear about something interesting (like his proposed Iran policy).

Ah, the fallacy of his “Iran policy”. I made the mistake of responding to only one of the lies you folks like to talk though belches about (see previous). Did Josh Marshall say that we didn’t kill enough Sunni’s? You can be the judge:

Not only did millions of Japanese and Germans die in World War II, but U.S. and British aerial bombing of major Japanese and German cities alone killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in what is now delicately termed “collateral damage.” And that’s not even counting the carnage caused by the atomic bombs we. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the final days of the war against Japan. . . .

Violence, death and destruction on such a massive scale have a profound conditioning effect on the psyches of individuals. And the same applies to whole nations. Japan and Germany weren’t just ‘defeated’ or ‘occupied,’ they were crushed — not just their armies, but their civilian populations too. This led to a sort of national humiliation and a transformative willingness to embrace defeat and change.

True defeat changes people and nations too. The fact that our subsequent occupation turned out to be so benign was extremely important. But part of that importance was the contrast between how much these populations had suffered during the war and how much better things got for them after we took over.

And thus our problem. If everything goes according to plan, the loss of civilian life in Iraq will be minimal.

Does that mean he wanted to kill more Sunni’s? Nope. What he is doing is simply laying out where we are (or will be in this wayback moment, but no matter, we are there now)—this is of course essential in problem solving, and apparently it is rocket fuel for bluster and bloviating on your part. Most importantly the lies you kids are telling amounts to the old saw known to many of us as the “Straw Man”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

More more more!

It appears to me that you guys spending a lot of time picking the fly shit out of the pepper around here. Might want to stop acting like wounded game or get back up on the porch, I’m really just warming up (really).

There's clearly a large enough group that read it waaay differently than I did that I'll (as I hope I did in my update) step back and go "oops".

I'll stand on it being at least slightly carelessly written, and step to the side and stand on my having read it way more carelessly.

How's that?

A.L.

You agree with us that it could(should) have been written more clearly. And apparently you missed this post in post #19.

Iran crap. This Josh fellow seems to have a track record when it comes to horribly vague and imprecise writing. Thanks for highlighting that for me. You saved me quite a bit of work I doubt I'd ever care enough to do.

Straw man? What is this you speak of? I no understand.

It appears to me that you guys spending a lot of time picking the fly shit out of the pepper around here.

Ahh, now I understand. Thank you, twomile.