The Next Jerk In The Circle
By Mitch Berg
To: Jeff Fecke
From: Mitch Berg
Re: Apology
Jeff,
Your appearance on Prager yesterday was not a real career highlight, let’s just say.
But while your premise started from a distortion, proceeded through a weak argument and, in the end, a disingenuous attempt to distance yourself from your own hours-old writing on the subject, your approach was at least not as puzzlingly silly as that of your guest-host, “Center for “Independent” Media” capo Robin “Rew” Marty…
I, too, think Dennis Prager has sex issues, but, unlike Fecke, I’m willing to say it’s likely because he’s really bad in bed. See! We can have lots of fun together.
…where “fun” equals really dim ad-homina.
Wheeee!
Anyway, Jeff, I’m sorry. I wrote too soon.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“unlike Fecke, I’m willing to say it’s likely because he’s really bad in bed. ”
Wait, is she saying that Fecke is good in the sack? You’d think a trained journalistic type would be able to write clearer.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
From the comment thread:
As for the in bed — I think it’s fair to say that when a man compares having sex when you are not interested to going to work when you don’t feel like doing it, I feel that leaves the door open for making a few guesses here and there.
In that case, I think it’s fair to guess that a woman guestblogging on a guy’s site is probably having sex with the guy. . . with a strap-on, and a ball gag.
Hey, this is FUN!
January 8th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Robin Marty and anything remotely related to sex?
Whoa! Do-not-want!
January 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
You ask in a post below:
“What The Hell Is Wrong With The Minnesota GOP?”
My new answer is the title of this post . . and two of the three above comments. I’ll let you pick which one.
Flash
January 8th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I’m a member of the Minnesota GOP?
This is news.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Flash,
And of course there’s NOthing wrong with what Fecke and Rew said. Right?
January 8th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Aren’t you shcheduled to be polishing something for Al Franken right about now, Flash?
Better toddle along….you don’t want to make Al Angry!
January 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Yay! Flash-Penigma flame thread!
It’s been a while.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
’cause you know Mitch, if you were nicer to Fecke and Rew, they’d both be Coleman voting fools.
flash — I’m sure you’ve contacted Robin to complain about the nastiness in her post about Prager. I’m just positive you did. Am I right?
January 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Soros sock puppets have their empty brain pans stuffed with a fancy transciever that allows the entire Sorosphere to communicate real time….George is probably telling Robin and Flush to snicker right now.
January 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Let’s be fair about this: Flash only comes here to provide moral tutelage. It what our betters do. It’s frankly churlish to bring up what the sorts of tutelage he offers others, since that’s a private matter.
Just accept your instruction, y’all. It’s Flashism with a human face!
January 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“Flashism”
Brilliant!
January 8th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Yeah, I have to give props to Mr. D for “Flashism,” too. Well played, sir.
January 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I thought Mr. Shirt’s observations RE Old Scout’s caved in face were funny. Now we get Flashism. If there were anything remotely funny about Peev, I’ve no doubt it would surface. Rather like one of Foot’s fetishes.
January 8th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Penema!
+1 for me!
January 8th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Hahahahaha!!!!!
January 8th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Sorry Foot, I coined that one months ago.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
This is classic Berger King – Prager makes an ass of himself, and Mitchey ducks the issue until he can find some twisted, tortured way to turn it into being about a ‘liberal’ in some way, shape or form.
The attacks upon Prager are certainly NO WORSE than the things said about Franken (mostly of course those being lies) but I suppose that makes no difference – ad hominem attacks being completely unheard of hear on Shot in the Onion – we should certainly weep and wring our hands that Fecke would dare to point out what a repellant, sexist bastage Prager is.. woops, there I go too.
Shame on me.
January 8th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
What exactly was the problem with what Prager said?
Maybe Peev can answer that.January 8th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I’ll correct what you said for you, Peevish Penigma.
“The attacks upon Prager are certainly NO WORSE than the things said BY Franken…”
There. You’re welcome.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
This is classic Berger King – Prager makes an ass of himself, and Mitchey ducks the issue until he can find some twisted, tortured way to turn it into being about a ‘liberal’ in some way, shape or form.
Maligna. Tell me you didn’t just accuse someone else of finding some twisted, tortured way to turn something into something else.
Please, tell me now.
Oops. Too late. Ya did.
Dintcha.
Here it comes…
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Ha
Ha
Whew.
Uh oh. I peed a little.
January 8th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
point out what a repellant, sexist bastage Prager is..
Really?
And you base this on…what?
Fecke’s word? Fecke’s wrong.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. You’ll go out on any factually-challenged limb there is to take your petulant little shots, won’t you?
And it’s “Bastiche”, not bastage.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
…and it’s whoops not woops.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
peev/precious/pb/penema/whatever
earlier today you invoked the Code Of Hammurabi as an argument refuting a post by Mitch.
Erroneously, of course, you asserted that Hammurabi’s code had only been in existance for 1500 years,
The Code of Hammurabi was created ca. 1760 BCE in ancient Babylon.
how many more years than 1500 is that? do remember there is no year 0.
and just for fun can you provide us all the complete text of the second law of Hammurabi. I ask only because I love the Irony of having you quote it to us.
While we’re at it could you detail your company’s (and in particular your CEO’s) position vis-a-vis the 102 Law of Hammurabi and of course we would be most interested in your usual erudite exposition on the subject. Perhaps your neighbor the Noble Prize winning international Jurist would be happy to chime in.
You did express earlier your support for the Code Of Hammurabi as a standard for evaluating civilized peoples so I’m sure you would have no trouble providing us with your usual trenchant insights into the financial decisions your employer has made in the past 8 years. Of course if the prospect of being that honest fills you with the usual fear and trembling we’ll understand if you remain mute on the subject.
it is entirely possible that you are not at all familiar with the actual content of the Code of Hammurabi and wish to remain silent so as not to further embarrass yourself or (according to the Code) your children – well show your silence the respect it deserves.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Denis Prager is one of the most thoughtful, reasoned human beings to offer opinion that I have ever listened to.
To read Peev’s baseless slander of a good man is repulsive.
Peev said: Shame on me.
You’ve earned it. You don’t even rise to the level of a joke.
January 8th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
how many more years than 1500 is that?
Ooh! I know! It’s 260. But that’s backward years, so maybe they don’t count the same.
This archeaologicalism is just so gosh darm complicated.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:26 am
“Flash,
And of course there’s Nothing wrong with what Fecke and Rew said. Right? ”
Nice to see that the very people you despise with every fiber in your being, are the very same ones you allow to set your moral code of conduct on these virtual pages..
Pretty funny coming from the guy who likes calling people out for the “I know you are but what am I” defense
Is that irony, hypocrisy or both.
My point was only that We/You expect that kind of behavior from them, claim the high ground, and then use it as permission to go a step further.
Make up your mind is all. You can’t have it both ways.
Flash
January 9th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Flash,
Absolute non-sequitur.
Fecke lied about Prager’s statements, and tried to disingenuously scuttle away, after distorting Prager almost to the point of defamation. Rew’s statement – “Prager only says this because he’s bad in bed” – is even dumber.
I have not actually done this. Note that you saying “yes you have”, absent any logical connection, does not make it so.
I don’t have it both ways. I have it one way; the right way. That’s all I need.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:55 am
“people you despise with every fiber in your being,”
Please tell me you’re kidding.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
As is often the case, I disagree. At least Robin’s ad hominem is an attempt to attack (to the extent than ad hominem can be) what Prager actually said, rather than grossly misrepresenting it, as the feckless one did.
That said, it’s a pretty lame cheap shot. (I’m not necessarily opposed to cheap shots, mind you — I’m reminded of the time I chided poor Tom Maddox for not knowing the difference between his Gibson and his Dick* — but I think that lameness should be avoided.)
Which, I assume (I haven’t checked) means that it’s getting applause over in that circle.
_______________
* It was in a discussion about the movie Bladerunner, and the writers William Gibson and Philip K. Dick, of course. Life rarely hands one such opportunities, and I couldn’t resist. Nor, in a discussion orthogonal to sex, can I resist revisiting it now; I’m weak, I tell you, weak.
January 9th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Joelr, when you start footnoting your comments it is time to step away from the keyboard.
Re Gibson & Dick: I’d like to know what you think about Scalzi. I think he’s a terrible, 3rd rate Heinlein but no one else seems to share that opinion.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I haven’t gone into his stuff, and we have a mutual acquaintance whose encounter with him has me thinking that he must wake up thinking, “I’m Gumby err, Scalzi, dammit.”
Sigh. I suppose I’ll hear from him now. Speak the devil’s name, and you summon him.
January 9th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I believe he left a comment on this blog back in 2003 or so, when he was blogging.