Glenn Greenwald opens a new frontier by criticizing Glenn Reynolds for a post he didn't link to. Folks who go to Greenwald's post will currently see this:
One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race
(updated below - Update II - Update III)
Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds today linked to what he called "EASTER THOUGHTS" from one of his favorite right-wing blogs
gers, his namesake, "Instapunk." That Easter post has a large picture of a crucified Christ along with a lovely religious poem.
Careful readers of Greenwald will note a subtle acknowledgment of that problem by his presentation of the crossed out "favorite right-wing blogs
Now if Greenwald could only contact Memeorandum, which preserved his original title:
One of Instapundit's favorite bloggers speaks on race
Oh, dear. Despite three Updates, Greenwald has yet to mention explicitly the little problem with his creative attack.
PILING ON: Can we count on Dave Neiwert to just make stuff up that suits his narrative? Yes We Can!
Glenn Greenwald has a superb piece pointing out a Glenn Reynolds-endorsed post from Instapunk that truly lays bare the ugly racism that has been rising, like all scum, to the top of the conservative movement these days...
Of course the post in question was not "Reynolds-endorsed", but wouldn't it be great for Neiwert if it had been? So let's pretend! Long time readers will recall that Dave Neiwert was one of the libs who discovered that Ann Coulter could bend space-time. The reality was interesting enough, but not nearly as interesting to the reality-based community as their own fiction.
TIME WARP: Mark Kleiman still misses the Oprah news and fails to surprise, in his second Update:
Tom Maguire, intending to defend Reynolds and attack Greenwald, instead succeeds in illustating Greenwald's point: that hate speech isn't offensive to some people on the "respectable" right. The good news is that, hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue, Maguire has to pretend that the hate speech he's defending isn't actually hateful. Instead of arguing for the value of what the Old Punk had to say, Maguire pretends he said something else and then argues for the value of that imaginary contribution instead, accusing Greenwald and other "lefties" of intolerance for wanting not to hear it.
Calling the Old Punk "hateful" ends any thought of dialogue, which is obviously Kleiman's objective. If this were a group discussion I would be looking for a commonality to draw a person into the talk, not an extremity that could be used to exclude them. As to how typical the Old Punk might be, with the dialogue over we will never reach that question.
Kleiman makes hay of an internal contradiction in the Old Punk's post which I skated past - after telling us he likes some black people the Old Punk tells us he dislikes all black people. Tricky. Since the OP then focused on the gangsta wanna-bes as offensive, I resolved the contradiction in favor of trying to interpret his real message. Obviously, folks inclined to find the worst he said and use that as an excuse to ignore everything else are free to do so.
Kleiman concludes with unexpected drollery:
I'm astonished that Tom Maguire sees it differently. But then the Irish-Americans were always a potential a fifth column: slaves to the Pope, friends to slavery and traitors to the Union, dirty, lazy, drunken, and dishonest.
Let's have a conversation about it.
I think we had that conversation; certainly John Kennedy addressed the "slaves to the pope" question in 1960, although others insist that anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.
So his point is what - that his anti-Irish sentiment is as historically antique as the Old Punk's anti-black sentiment? Interesting opinion, since we are often told that anti-black sentiment is alive, well, and a problem in need of a solution.
Or is his point that anti-Irish sentiment is as out of the mainstream as anti-black sentiment? Again, this is news to me. Good news, if I can believe it.
Or maybe he is thinking that I would never engage in a dialogue with a loon such as he. Good point! But one might argue that Obama sort of encouraged loons to come forward by inviting a national conversation about race. "I want to hear what people think about the Irish, but not if it's nasty" - sort of phony, yes?
Let's close on a positive note - if national reconciliation on race means ignoring the views of people who express a problem with blacks, it should be an easy project.