March 23, 2008

EASTER THOUGHTS, from InstaPunk.

UPDATE: Jeez, get a clue, Greenwald. I don't know why you felt you had to bring me into this -- well, actually, I think I do -- but the post you're bitching about is by a different blogger than the post linked above. I know it's hard to get your mind around the idea that multiple pseudonymous writers might actually be different people, but . . . .

MORE: Dan Collins -- one of several bloggers at Protein Wisdom, just in case Greenwald doesn't know that -- weighs in.

I hadn't actually read the post in question until Greenwald started yammering about it -- I thought I was just linking a nice Easter item -- but Collins is right that it's kind of "ugly." However, I suspect that it accurately reflects how a lot of Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters are responding to the Obama/Wright scandal, which is probably what's really got Greenwald upset.

STILL MORE: How many punks does it take to embarrass Glenn Greenwald? Heh. "Despite three Updates, Greenwald has yet to mention explicitly the little problem with this creative attack."

And from the comments: "Apparently, in Greenwald's world Reynold's association (?) with this blog is important and must be noted but Obama's association with a black radical nationalist church for 20 years is meaningless. In some world somewhere that makes sense; but not this one."

I'm used to Greenwald misrepresenting me wholesale, but being savaged for a post I didn't link to is a new one.

MORE STILL: In the comment section to the InstaPunk post that I actually did link to, someone else is posting comments under my name. Phony-name sockpuppetry -- Say, you don't think . . . ?

AND EVEN MORE: This is just the gift that keeps on giving. Thanks, Glenn! Reader Howard Deutsch emails:

In reference to the latest Greenwald stupidity, I love Andrew Sullivan's characterization:

"Glenn Greenwald wonders why Barack Obama has been routinely forced to answer for extremist statements by people he has absolutely nothing to do with - solely because he's, er, black. You think this would happen to white people? On those grounds alone?"

Given that you're being called to answer for the statements of a blogger to whom you did not link, I can only assume that the photographs do indeed lie and that you are not actually white.

Bill Clinton was the first black President. And I, apparently, was the first black blogger! It's just the photographs that make me look so extremely white.

FINALLY: Mark Kleiman comments:

But when Reynolds sends an item link to a posting of the Easter poem "Dulce lignem dulce clavo" by InstaPunk contributor "Chain Gang," I don't see where Glenn Greenwald is justified in tying Reynolds to the racist rant posted on the same site by a different contributor, "Old Punk."

Neither do I. But my expectations are low where Greenwald is concerned. Plus, "Is it just me or does the Blogosphere just need a big fat group hug or something?"

Skippy seems to agree, but hey, who's more huggable than a kangaroo?

And Dean Barnett emails: "I missed the part where you spent twenty years using that secondary Instapunk guy as your spiritual mentor. I must have also missed the part where you declared your candidacy for president. Good luck! but for the record, my standing as a member of the media means I don't make contributions. Sorry." If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve, and fortunately -- for me, and even more for America -- there's no likelihood of either.

The "Old Punk" post was pretty bad. I wouldn't have linked to it if I'd read it, but I didn't read it -- or, for that matter, link it. Meanwhile, I suppose I could start looking closely at the stuff Greenwald links to, but that would require me to slog through his posts. . . .

And, in an update, Tom Maguire asks: "Can we count on Dave Neiwert to just make stuff up that suits his narrative? Yes We Can!" Don't these people even read each other's posts? But then, bogus charges of racism are a Neiwert standby.

OKAY, REALLY FINALLY: "Old Punk" responds to his critics.