South of “Stupid”, West of “Loathsome”
By Mitch Berg
John Hinderaker at Powerline – my long-time NARN colleague – on the ironic “anti-killing” protests by Palestinians – who’ve been raised in a culture that for 40 years has been entirely formed, with the active moral connivance and financial assistance of neighboring Arab governments (who could at any time in the past four decades have absorbed the Palestinians easily into their own societies, or urged them to accept Israel’s offers of peaceful assimilation) on the premise of killing Jews and extincting Israel:
It’s a little late in the day for Palestinians to decide they’re opposed to killing. They’ve been desperately trying to sow the wind of mass murder for a couple of generations now, and if they’re finally getting concerned about reaping the whirlwind, they’ll have to look somewhere else for sympathy.
Put another way – Palestinian leadership has created a society based entirely on death (not only of Jews, mind you, but of any Palestinians who’ve espoused peace with Israel, who’ve been murdered or driven into exile). One might be forgiven for observing that fact.
Jeff Fecke – who is to “cartooning” and “writing” what he is to “Journalism” and “Feminism”, and who is unfit to carry Hinderaker’s gym bag as a writer, thinker, or human being – assumes Hinderaker’s voice to “write“:
I really hope that a whole bunch of Palestinian children die.
Amusing side note – he constantly calls Powerline “Hacks”.
In a blogging “career” characterized by silly statements self-excused with a giggle and a wink as “snarking” (like his determination of guilt in the Duke rape case, which he excused with perhaps the most juvenile abnegation of personal responsibilty I’ve read this side of an eighth-grade TP raid, “some of us–myself included–jumped the gun in this case. It happens. Write enough, you’ll be wrong sometimes” – in other words, the dog ate my homework), this may be his nadir.
Anyone who can’t tell the difference between “I think a society that has trained itself to be a killing machine is ironically ill-advised to plead for peace” and “I hope the children die” needs to be sent to remedial moral grounding.
The best news? Every dime of deep-pocketed-liberal-pressure-group money spent on Fecke’s “journalism” over at the Minnesota Monitor is a dime that won’t go toward anything remotely useful, and will give the rest of us a wealth of material.
Moral: Carry on, moral carrion!
UPDATE: Another NARN colleague, Michael Brodkorb at MDE, notes that Jeff has moved from petty defamation (no, not in a legal sense, yadda yadda) back to his usual turf, crummy reporting:
If you visited Minnesota Monitor in the last 24 hours, you would see a post on the front page titled “Bachmann Personal Financial Report Still Not Available.” The post, written by the notoriously sloppy and inaccurate blogger Jeff Fecke, makes the claim that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has not filed her legally required Personal Financial Disclosure Report (PFD).
“The Personal Financial Report for Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., was still unavailable Saturday morning, one day after the House deadline for filing reports.
Bachmann was not one of the 385 representatives to file a report, nor was she one of the 52 to request an extension, according to Congressional Quarterly.” Source: Minnesota Monitor, June 16, 2007
The reality is that Bachmann’s PFD is available online. Contrary to the reporting of Minnesota Monitor, Bachmann’s PFD report has been filed.
This is the second post that Fecke has written in the last 24 hours that will need to be corrected. Earlier today, Fecke wrote that Congressman Tim Walz’s PFD listed two credit card debts, when Walz’s PFD actually listed three credit card debts. Fecke’s oversight did move Walz’s debt below the level of Congressman Ramstad, who Fecke claimed had the most credit card debt. Fecke corrected the post after I pointed out his error.
I guess when you write lots of stuff, you’re going to make mistakes – when your fundamental driving force is ideology, not accuracy.
Or as Jeff himself might write, “Why Does Jeff Fecke Hate The Facts?”
June 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
My jaw kind of dropped when I saw that “cartoon” of Fecke’s. Jeff Fecke, the literal 900-pound gorilla of the Twin Cities blogosphere, is giving Hinderaker sh*t about eating a corn dog?
June 18th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Mitch coveted: “Every dime of deep-pocketed-liberal-pressure-group money…”
So you can’t write a grant proposal? No reason to shill for the fatcat party for free – it’s positively un-American!
June 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
You might ask yourself the same question, Mitch, considering how often you misrepresent, distort, or ignore them when you don’t like them, e.g. berating Franken for not having a private party open to the public, and misrepresenting the complaint made about Kline as one of ‘access’ rather than opennness. Did Kline script questions, was Kline open to taking tough questions? I don’t know, but the complaint wasn’t that Kline didn’t allow people to film him/record him, yet you spun it to that so as to, distortedly, go after Franken. You can’t live in the house of cards you constructed yourself.
Fecke’s a propogandist, and so are you. You use Fecke and MN Mon as justification for your own intent to deceptively present information, and now you get sanctimonious when Fecke does to Hindracker what your bo-bo Swiftee did to Flash?
If you don’t like the outcome, perhaps it’s time to evaluate the intent. People like Black try to, intend to, tell the truth about an issue, they work to overcome their own, and in Black’s case, their organizations bias. You, on the other hand, while bitching about bias, embrace it wholeheartedly, and in terms of intent, Black intends to present the truth, you intend to present ONLY the truth you like, or as you see it, and always spun to a degree you prefer. People like Fecke don’t pursue the truth, but he’s in your canoe bud, if you don’t like the smell of the water, stop dumping manure in it.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:06 am
“Fecke’s a propogandist, and so are you.”
Difference being: Mitch admits it. Most of us know exactly what to expect when we come here. Fecke, on the other hand, obfuscates and dodges over at MinMon, a “media” arm that itself refuses to admit it’s a propaganda arm. That, and Fecke’s a pretty awful writer.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Am I the only one scratching their head over “You can’t live in the house of cards you constructed yourself.”?
June 18th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I guess when you write lots of stuff, you’re going to make mistakes – when your fundamental driving force is ideology, not accuracy.,
Particularly when the topics you write about are just plain nonsense.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:22 am
berating Franken for not having a private party open to the public
Get it right, peevish.
Here is what Mitch wrote: “So I’m wondering if the local leftyblog peanut gallery has any comment about Al Franken, who barred cameras from his speech in Rochester?”
From the article he linked: “(KAAL)— Minnesota DFL’er Al Franken made a campaign stop in Rochester this evening as part of his run for US Senate.
Franken spoke with a group in Rochester during a private fundraiser.
Our cameras were not allowed in for his speech, but we caught up with him beforehand.”
So whose cameras were barred? The ones of KAAL-TV of Rochester. Not the public.
This is why I found it interesting that someone who ‘supports public funding of campaigns so he can focus on the issues’ would turn down free media coverage.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:23 am
As someone who was there, I can field these:
Did Kline script questions,
No. Unless you get your “news” from Norwegianity.
was Kline open to taking tough questions?
He was open to any questons. If you wanted to speak, you raised your hand, and the nice ladies with the microphones would come to you in the order they were raised.
I don’t know, but the complaint wasn’t that Kline didn’t allow people to film him/record him,
Er, yes it was. And it was baseless as there were a bunch of cameras there.
yet you spun it to that so as to, distortedly,
I don’t think “distortedly” is a word…
go after Franken. You can’t live in the house of cards you constructed yourself.
Flash? ‘Zat you?
June 18th, 2007 at 10:23 am
Uh oh, somebody didn’t close tags!
That should do it.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:24 am
June 18th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Oh well, I tried.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Hey, it worked!
June 18th, 2007 at 10:29 am
June 18th, 2007 at 10:30 am
heh heh heh
June 18th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Terry, you’re incorrigible.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:31 am
heh heh heh
June 18th, 2007 at 10:32 am
June 18th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Now leave it alone!
June 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
PB Molly Mikey JBaueerFor starters – I thought you said you were going to stay away from these parts?
You might ask yourself the same question, Mitch, considering how often you misrepresent, distort, or ignore them when you don’t like them
Simple answer there – never. Not once, at least not intentionally.
Note: “I disagree” doesn’t mean “You’re lying”.
You have an ongoing problem with that last.
misrepresenting the complaint made about Kline as one of ‘access’ rather than opennness.
No, the original MNMon piece was complaining about access.
Re-readread it for the first time.Did Kline script questions, was Kline open to taking tough questions?
No and yes, respectively (see Foot)
I don’t know, but the complaint wasn’t that Kline didn’t allow people to film him/record him, yet you spun it…
Wrong! Never said it had anything to do with Kline allowing anything. As Foot correctly noted.
Fecke’s a propogandist, and so are you.
Utterly untrue. I’m not a “propagandist”. Just a guy with an opinion and a vehicle for expressing it.
You use Fecke and MN Mon as justification for your own intent to deceptively present
SCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH
Again, PB, you ascribe motivations you are unequipped to find.
There is never, ever an “intent to deceive” on this blog. Never.
Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make them a liar – which, again, is something you seem to have trouble with.
If you don’t like the outcome, perhaps it’s time to evaluate the intent.
Statement without evidence; the “outcome” is just fine by me.
People like Black try to, intend to, tell the truth about an issue, they work to overcome their own, and in Black’s case, their organizations bias.
Where did Eric Black come into this? I’ve expressed my respect for Black’s work repeatedly.
You, on the other hand, while bitching about bias,
Wrong again! I bitch about bias that is disingenuously presented as objective. Most people can tell the difference.
you intend to present ONLY the truth you like, or as you see it, and always spun to a degree you prefer.
An interpretation that is, itself, deceptively and self-servingly spun.
I favor one side of the story, and I’m honest about it. I also strive to be fair, even as I admit my bias. I’ve never hid one iota of that from whatever audience I have.
And, as much as this may gall you, who seems to have hitched so much emotional import onto your little fiction, I never, ever willfully misrepresent ANYTHING.
Period.
People like Fecke don’t pursue the truth, but he’s in your canoe bud, if you don’t like the smell of the water, stop dumping manure in it.
Um, yeah. Leave the snappy signoffs to the professionals.
June 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I doubt the whiners are getting point, alas. Not that I’m surprised.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Naughty commenters! 🙂
June 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Wingnut wearing a bad JC Penney shirt fellating a corn dog in front of a nuclear blast? That’s fine comedy, my friend.