"Will John Kerry have as much dignity, decency, and fundamental honor?"

Please add "an instinct for self-preservation."

Sigh. I work with official members of the Church of Moore and the film has energized them in their pursuit of changing people's minds about who they'll vote for. I can't say they are representative of the entire left but this film, regardless of factual content, has given some traction to those who believe in it.

I beleive this race will be a mirror of the 2000 election - close with no clear winner.

"Will John Kerry have as much dignity, decency, and fundamental honor?"

I don't think so, unless he changes what appears to be his basic campaign strategy. Kerry, in my view, is relying on voters to simply vote against Bush. He is not setting a strong, forward-looking agenda. I think he is relying on being the default choice when voters kick Bush out of office.

So, if that is truly his agenda, why should he denounce the extremism of the Left? It is a fundamental part of his campaign.

A Democratic party activist came to my door the other day asking for money to "get Bush out of office" and offering to show me his list of bullet points on the horrors of the Bush administration. No mention of John Kerry at all. I think it speaks a great deal about where the Democratic party is placing it's hopes to see that, once again, they simply have no interest in offering up a positive agenda.

Michael Moore represents Kerry's mainstream. Kerry has to stay close to Moore to keep his constituency. It's not about honesty, it's about winning an election.
As long as most media outlets are willing to give Moore a pass and pretend his credibility is intact, a large number of people who chew the mainstream cud will think the film is based on fact.

Nope Dean, I doubt it. Look at the D heavyweights who were in attendance at the movie's premier in DC.

This movie IS John Kerry's election strategy.

Yesterday I thought the media was starting to get a tiny clue, too. Newsweek had a truly lengthy article posted on MSNBC really laying in to Moore. Some of it was, apparently, because he somehow made them look bad, but quite a lot of it wasn't defensive.

However, today I can't find it anywhere. It was posted up front and center yesterday. Now, it's not even buried in the site, as far as I can see. Guess the editorial staff must have corrected their faux pas of allowing some critical thinking to slip intto print.

Couple that with the NPR experience I commented on in the "Ennui" thread and suddenly I'm thinking- "Liberal media? What liberal media?"

Here's the link to the Newsweek/MSNBC piece on the lies in Moore's flick:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/site/newsweek

Dean, why does he have to criticize the Michael Moore film? Has Kerry supported Michael Moore in the past? No.

Oh, I get it. Some Democrats are and you have to distance yourself from the "fringe"? Naa.. This a punk way of handling things.

What you say is:

"I'm a candidate for the U.S. presidency and could care less what any movie says and doesn't say. It isn't my concern since America has many issues to face besides centering on movies."

Plain and simple. That makes me respect him more. Not criticizing Michael Moore.

S-Train,

You miss the point - Bill Clinton didn't have to say anything about Sister Soulja; but by making his condemnation, he distanced himself from the looney-left and made himself a respectable candidate for the Presidency. Moore's film is Kerry one big chance to show that he's not at all in tune with the looney-left...its a Godsend for him, and it doesn't seem as if he even notices it.

There were a lot of bigwig Democrats at the premier - which shocked me but also showed how out of touch they really are; my guess is that they really did believe that the movie would sweep the nation and then sweep President Bush out of office...but I do believe that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have been spotted at Moore's flick...once again showing how very, very smart they are.

If Kerry were half as smart as the Clinton's, he'd have denounced the movie on its opening day - saying that such unfair attacks upon the Commander in Chief neither help the war effort nor get to the actual reasons a change is needed, blah, blah, blah...would have been very Presidential of him to do so and, actually, would have stilled some of the aprehensions we on the right have about him - which would make his job a lot easier should he actually win.

Kerry is failing this test, as he's failed so many others.

I think some folks (Dean, I'm lookin' at you buddy) miss the point of Moore's efforts. He knows that people will dismiss a significant percentage of his claims and assertions. The more outrageous and ridiculous some are, the better he is able to achieve his objectives.

But while we're focusing on the Big Lies, the truly outrageous and ridiculous ones, the minor points (the more menacing ones) sneak through. And that is his objective. It is a classic smoke a mirror trick--a don't look there while I'm wiggling my hand over here.

Yes, there will be idiots who will take what Moore says on face value, but they believed that crap BEFORE Moore made the film.

The rest of us are left with having to take apart every single one of his lies and memes, but the truth is we cannot do that. In some cases we have no substantive proof because the claim is so outrageous or there is no way to prove a negative. We're forced to deal only with the low hanging fruit.

Which means that much of it will get through and pass into the great memes and mantras of "common knowledge."

That is why this is so sinister.

In addition, it gives those with radical views (just for the sake of argument, Kerry) the opportunity to come off as rational by disagreeing with the low hanging fruit, but having no position on the more menacing, disprovable claims. By contrast then, the radicals will appear as rationals only because the bar has been moved so far into the extreme.

It's an old communist trick, but it is a productive one.

I think actually you WILL hear Kerry knock the movie in the not too distant future, something fairly ambiguous, just to get it on the record but it will be too little too late. His base, such as it is, will take it as a slap... wouldn't matter much if they had no where else to go but there is my buddy Ralph. Those the remarks are aimed at, the famed Swing Voters, will not be paying that much attention by then as this will be a "media story" of little general interest; and his opponents will shellac him for an obviously forced political maneuver. The guy cannot get a break; circumstances and his own decisions, or lack thereof, have left him NO room for maneuver. He's toast and I could almost feel sorry for him.

Too bad Ronald Reagan didn't distance himself from Saddam Hussein. Maybe then it wouldn't be necessary for Kerry to distance himself from Moore.

Joel,

Iraq was always a Russian and French client, not an American one. Try that comment over on the Democratic Underground, where it will play well. To this audience it's like signing your post "Joel Thomas, Troll-at-large".

Yours,
Wince

And so it begins.

Ugh.

Wince,

You ought to read up a little on the BNL scandal.

As a seminary student, several of us wrote letters to the Reagan and Bush administrations urging that we cut our ties with Iraq. In return, we got form "thanks for your interest" letters.

So that's your standard, huh? Disagree with someone and they're a troll. Well, I don't remember making accusations against you. Want me to start?

Joel, I'll go one further than Wince and say you're not only a troll, you're also a butt fucking idiot.

You see, back then, Iran was the greater enemy, and while we could argue the merits of whether we should have armed Iraq, it was standard US policy to engage an enemy directly by backing a lesser enemy against them. We did it all the time to avoid sacrificing American troops. It was hardly a Reagan idea.

And since you had the indecency to masturbate on us all the tired old incongruities of Bush-Reagan bashing, I must kindly ask you to go fuck yourself, you little dickless wonder of the 7th world.

Sam,If I could figure out who you are, I'd try to sue you for libel. But I bet you are too much of a coward to have a real identity.

But if Dean Esmay doesn't remove your post, I will certainly sue him, gladly.

Mrs. du Toit wrote:
"In addition, it gives those with radical views (just for the sake of argument, Kerry) the opportunity to come off as rational by disagreeing with the low hanging fruit, but having no position on the more menacing, disprovable claims. By contrast then, the radicals will appear as rationals only because the bar has been moved so far into the extreme.

It's an old communist trick, but it is a productive one."

Yes. I've made that exact same observation many times before. It applies to many issues and movements beyond this Michael Moore movie. I wonder if anyone besides me amd Mrs. du Toit gets it?

Joel,

Well, you're certainly a pussy, if nothing else...can't take a little insult? Geesh!

Steven,

You can be certain that if you say it, I believe it. Whenever I'm at a loss for what to believe, I repeat to myself "WWSMATLWGLSAD?".

Actually, of course, I did miss that very important point - Ms. Du Toit did correctly identify the Moore flick as being a page taken directly out of the KFG disinformation handbook. Been too long since the Cold War, I guess. I'll try to sharpen up.

KFG? What the heck is that? KGB, of course, is what was meant...

There is no "dignity, decency and fundamental honor" in $400 million presidential election campaigns. It's all about money, influence and power.

Which suits me fine, because I'm a single-issue sort of guy, and a party loyalist as well. That way, I don't have to waste my time dreaming up lies and excuses about why I really should support this or that candidate. Instead, I just buy the whole package and get on with my life.

In any case, America is in a civil cultural war. The Republicans largely represent people like me. The Democrats largely represent people different from me. That sort of seals it.

(Have any of you, anywhere, anytime, or under any circumstances, ever met anybody as brutally frank and candid as me? Ready to admit to anything that I truly think, regardless of how politically uncorrect it may be? Is it or isn't it a pleasure to have somebody around who never lies? Tell me yes, and I'll be a happy man.)

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Mark,

Being called a "pussy" is a minor thing, and something that isn't libelous. Being called a child molester is a serious matter, however. It doesn't surprise me that you find such matters funny, though.

If I went to another site and anonymously accused one of the military comment posters of being gay or being kicked out of the military because they are gay, would that be funny to you?

It wouldn't be funny to me. It would also not be grounds to threaten punishment by lawyer to anyone.

Regardless, it is irrational and irresponsible to suggest that the site owner is responsible for the typing of others. Tell me, do you have a time limit for Dean to see that post, see your objection, and comply, before you will sue, or were you blowing smoke, or are you more interested in making someone's life difficult no matter whose it is?

Here's the funny thing. Dean is sleeping because he works third shift. When he wakes up he would almost certainly have taken care of "sam's" post.

Now, Joel has threatened to sue Dean, and me by default, if he doesn't.

I'm not sure how well Dean is likely to respond to such a threat and one that Joel was very happy to make & follow through on.

I know how I'd respond and it wouldn't be very nice ...

Dear Arnold Harris:

"(Have any of you, anywhere, anytime, or under any circumstances, ever met anybody as brutally frank and candid as me? Ready to admit to anything that I truly think, regardless of how politically uncorrect it may be? Is it or isn't it a pleasure to have somebody around who never lies? Tell me yes, and I'll be a happy man.)"

I've known very few people like you, or as honest and independent-minded as you. And, yes, I've always liked having you around. Your _style_! Yes, I think Arnold Harris is my favorite commenter here in Dean's World.

Mark Noonan wrote:
"Whenever I'm at a loss for what to believe, I repeat to myself "WWSMATLWGLSAD?"."

...and then do the opposite.

I'm going to stop reading Dean's World if that @$&* SMATLWGLSA/FAMB keeps commenting here. He's a *&^%$#@!

Dean,

I apologize for encouraging this distraction.

Joel,

I hope other commenters will refrain from making totally unfounded accusations and childish attacks against you.

I did not call you a troll. My comment was more nuanced than that. Here's how I call people trolls: "You are a troll." I was telling you that your comment was unwise to make to this audience. We've whacked that rat a hundred times.

Know your audience.

Here's an audience tip to me. I've got to remember that fine nuanced wordings will always be misunderstood, especially if they can be misunderstood to be more insulting than intended. Must be another Murphy's law. Plain words are best.

Here's another audience tip for you. You are probably going to call down the wrath of Dean for the entire line of argument. What you just did was the exact same thing as saying to Dean, "When are you going to disassociate yourself from Coulter?" Your comment had that exact form, and it is, in fact, the exact same argument, and is also just as invalid as the twenty hundred other times it was made, as Dean has repeatedly pointed out.

I was going to continue the argument about Reagan/Iraq, but that would be encouraging the distraction.

Connie,

I was fascinated by your comment.

Arnold,

You are so brutally frank that I will never argue with you. I am in awe.

Yours,
Wince

SMATLWGLSA,

FAMB?

Yours,
Wince

Joel, while your claim is completely bogus (to the point of foolishness), I apologize for the dingleberries surrounding you. Calling you names won't advance the argument and just makes the opposition look bad. It's the old "never wrestle a pig" thing.

As an aside: I don't think you could sucessfully sue sam, as it would be difficult to show actual damage to your repuation, etc. I mean, who pays attention to him, anyway? :)

As for the whole Reagan/Hussein thing, Wince has already pointed out that we've debunked this about two dozen times. The only support the Reagan administration ever provided Iraq was some satellite intel while they were fighting Iran. "Enemy of my enemy," and all that. It was hardly crucial to the existance of the Baath regime in Iraq, so I don't see how you can blame it on Reagan, or any other President either. Not even Slick Willie. :)

Dean, I've changed my mind somewhat after our recent chat: I'm not sure that Moore represents the actual thought of the Democratic Party right now. I'm going to chew on this a bit more, and probably put something up about it tonight on the Launchpad.

I think 72 hours is a reasonable amount of time to remove a libelous post. Even 72 hours after Dean wakes up would be fine.

Casey,

You might be right. But I'm an attorney and it never hurts to get further education in the law.

It never hurts to get off your high horse, either, Joel.

There are many attorneys who regularly post on this on this site; also PhDs, MDs and other highly educated folk who were too busy to collect assorted abbreviations after their names.

Quite frankly, your posturing will probably give all of them a reason to heave one giant, collective, sigh. If you're worried about libel, it might be wise to use a more anonymous nic than your whole name.

However, be that as it may, calling you names on an internet web site may be childish, but it isn't libel.

Dani,

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be libelous on a web site?

Arnold:

You are indeed one of the most frank and candid people I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. As I hope you know, I admire persons like you who are intellectually honest, quite independently of whether I agree or disagree with what they say.

Your'e a lawyer? Never mind, it's impossible to slander a lawyer!

Joel? I'm kidding Joel. Come back, now. :)

Paul: agreed. I like having Arnold around; it's kinda like having a pet wolf in the house, ya know? Heh.

I think the primary criterion would be consideration of the source. This website is composed of the opinions of various different people, none of whom profess to be professional journalists. Everyone reading this site knows this.

As you must know, very few libel suits are successful. This is primarily due to our right of freedom of speech, which the courts are understandably quite unwilling to intrude upon.

Casey's point about damages is well-taken; however, that matters very little when one is ticked off. Which you seem to be. I don't blame you- but threateneing to sue doesn't cast you or your profession in a very good light.

Casey,

I'm not as ticked off as Dean is. I don't think I'm capable of having a temper as hot as his.

At least I can say that what people post here is nicer than what I receive by e-mail.

Joel,

Dean is sleeping. And you just gave yourself a free pass.

This is only my observation.

You poisoned the well water with your first statement. That statement was intended by you to insure that you would not recieve a favorable reponse.

In your second comment, you tell us,

"As a seminary student, several of us wrote letters to the Reagan and Bush administrations urging that we cut our ties with Iraq."

That may be an initial mistake. Why ? Because as a seminary student you ain't supposed to be doing politics and law. Isn't your first committment to hear the voice of God in the scriptures ? And Jesus said, "turn the other cheek" no ? If I'm wrong, it means your initial committment isn't spiritual but political.

If you are a lawyer, would you have made statement number one with the intention of having a fool for his own client ?

You freely comment and then threaten to sue others because they comment ? And now you threaten to sue ?

Someone is pulling someone’s chain here. I suspect you deliberately invite negative response ? Somehow that’s your payoff. Do you ever think about that ?

Catch 22,

Always nice to read your comments.

I'm not as ticked off as Dean is. I don't think I'm capable of having a temper as hot as his.

Really? You threatened to sue him for something he wasn't responsible for...

You could have handled this so much better and come out on top. You could have just simply asked Dean to delete the offensive comment, if you lacked the faith that he would have done the right thing. Instead, you chose to act like a bully and you are surprised that Dean is ticked?

Whatever.

Rosemary,

Are you sure Dean is handling it the right way now? And would you care if he wasn't?

Yes I care. Your threat against Dean is also against me and my son.

Do you care about that?

No, you obviously don't. You are obviously too angry to think straight.

Of course, it's you who is the "victim" right? Some guy offends you while Dean is sleeping and you're gonna sue Dean! Makes perfect sense. Can't just simply request the offensive comment be removed , Oh no, you threaten us.

Well, Dean's kinda prickly. I guess it's his Texas heritage showing through. :)

Come to think of it, Joel, I would imagine you -as a lawyer- would have a very good idea of how weak your case in court would be if you tried to pursue this. Has anyone ever won a libel case off of a blog? I would imagine that the cases relating to ISPs would be relevant, and I think acting as a third-party host to independant comments gives Dean at least some protection, aside from any other considerations.

What I'd like to see are the IPs of the two twits who started this, as they both have obviously fake email addresses. Maybe a single twit with too much time on his acne-spotted face and hands...

Wince:

SMATLWGLSA = Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete

(not for children, please:)

FAMB = fucking asshole moron bastard

Which accurately describes me often enough, and which an extremely interesting man recently called me in an e-mail he forwarded to me. I don't take it as an insult because he's calling everyone that, or worse, now. I don't take it as a compliment because he's a man whose integrity and convictions I still admire. I'm laughing about it because the whole situation is so intensely serious, and, having no sense of humor, I only laugh at things that are intensely serious. That's all I'm at liberty to say about that, at least for right now.

Sorry, I was alluding to a whole different and more interesting (to me) imbroglio than the one going on here. Well, as to _this_ one, I will only say: HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL....!!!! AND HAIL TO THE KING!!!!

And go ahead and sue me for that.

Rosemary,

See, the thing is, neither you nor Dean are concerned about how I might feel. You never have been. It only matters how you feel. Much of the reason for this is that Dean has driven away most of the people who have different perspectives than his, leaving mostly brown-nosers.

There is a time for reacting in emotion and a time to react with logic. We both get to make the choice of what becomes the predominant reaction.

You have no clue what I feel or don't.

Fact is had you not immediately threatened - I and most certainly Dean would have smashed the twit.

You alienated both of us before you gave us a chance. Now, I don't care.

You got your feelings hurt and chose to bully and threaten us and our future. Fuck you.

"SMATLWGLSA"...can we pronounce that smattlewigglesaw? Its not much easier than the whole name, but it is a bit...

....though it does sound mildly vulgar....

Rosemary,

He doesn't know you're armed, does he?

So now I see Joel has just labeled everyone who comments on Dean's World a brown-noser. I find this to be a common tactic with certain people who disagree with me, and it's always amusing since I can recall hardly a single day going by when someone left, right, centrist, libertarian, or just plain batshit hasn't disagreed with me about some damn fool thing or other.

The ones who get driven off are the ones who either intentionally insult me, or run down my nation and my President as fascist and evil. Which I have no problem with whatsoever because so far as I'm concerned such people are hatemongering, unpatriotic fucktards.

As for caring about your feelings, Joel: I've always found you mean-spirited and nasty, and not to care much about other people's feelings at all. You also seem to think it's your right to insult me and other people, and then complain about how mean we are to you in response. But that's neither here nor there.

It's going to be a relief to have comment registration come in place this weekend. Then no one gets to comment here at all without advanced approval. Really it should improve the signal to noise ratio.

Watching someone consider suing an empty pocket in a distant jurisdiction would be interesting though. I do wonder how much it would drive up my traffic to be the first weblogger who was sued due to his comments section. Oh wait, I wouldn't be, that would be Justene Adamec, in a lawsuit that went nowhwere.

Guess I'll just remove the offending comments.

Probably. As I count it I have what, another 69 hours to remove something that, had we been asked nicely rather than by a rude jackass, would have been removed hours ago....

I find myself wondering, could I countersue Mr. Thomas for legal harassment? Probably not but it would be interesting to try. He undoubtedly makes more money than I do, almost everybody does....

I don't comment here very often, but for the record, "sam" above is not me.

Joel Thomas is most definitely a troll, though, and this thread is merely one more piece of evidence. Having read numerous comment threads to which he has "contributed" both here and at Rev. Sensing's blog, I can only conclude that he deeply enjoys causing emotional havoc and mental anguish whenever possible. IIRC, threatening to sue is a new twist, but it is hardly out of character.

I have after due consideration removed the offending post. Not, of course, due to silly lawsuit threats, but becuase I don't like that kind of behavior. Not that I can catch it all anymore (comment traffic's too heavy) but I do my best.

I was also going to remove Mack's comment about "butt fucking idiot" too but I'm getting tired of trying to play Kindergarten Cop to such things.

Man, comment registration can't get here fast enough....

Joel, (NOT CHILDREN FRIENDLY)

You have forgotten the #1 ground rule: THIS IS DEAN'S WORLD. Let me spell it out for you. This ain't your house, baby. Or your court room, or your psychiatrist's office. Although we are a gentle lot most of the time, how you feel is between you and your shrink. Rosemary and Dean don't have to "care" how you feel.

They provide, through their own funds--mostly, a forum for information, opinions, and ideas to be exchanged. But, under their rules--not yours.

So, it's a personal web log--blog that we get to peruse. Read the rules, and if you don't like them, move on.

I am sure you have great opinions, ideas, and thoughts, but I think you're outta line here. Why waste your money, time, and energy plus risk the embarrasment and possible discipline from your colleages on a frivilous lawsuit or the threat of one?

Silliness, pure and simple. Every place has unwritten rules of conduct as well. The #1 unwritten rule here is: If you act like an ass, be expected to be handed toliet paper while others describe your shit...

Interesting little drama going here. It has worked quite effectively, I might add.

We've been distracted from the central point of debating the morality/intellectual honesty of the subject post.

If I were a suspicious kind of person, I might begin to wonder if the players in this little charade knew what they were doing. I might, if I were a suspicious kind of person, call them out for being manipulative or label them either a Useful Idiot or an intentional communist agitator/propagandist. But then, I'd have to weigh carefully how willing I was to deal with the potential need to deflect the wrath of the threatening commenter, to get back to the central thesis that KERRY SHOULD DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM LUNATICS AND LIARS.

But no, people are never never so sinister as to intentionally create distractions like this. That would just be too silly and far fetched.

The truth IS stranger and sillier than fiction. Not too far fetched of an idea at all. I think we all should distance ourselves from lunatics and liars--and those who masquerade as such.

Good point.

Mrs. du Toit,

KERRY SHOULD DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM LUNATICS AND LIARS.

Amen,
Wince

Hmmm.... Mrs. du Toit again makes some very interesting and excellent points. I wonder if BMA is now or has ever been a member of the National Lawyer's Guild -- which has been identified as a Communist front.

Nice try, Steven, but it isn't libelous to call someone either a Communist or a brown-noser.

Well shit man, it'd sure be libelous to me if someone called me a communist. I'd sue the fuck out of em for that. :)

I'd personally consider it libelous to be called a communist.

Then again I consider it blackmail to make lawsuit threats. So what do I know?

Joel Thomas:

It also isn't libelous to call either you or me a fucking asshole, and we can sit here calling each other fucking assholes all day and all night for the next year. But I've got better things to do.

I wasn't asking whether it was libelous. I was wondering: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the National Lwyer's Guild? You don't have to answer that question, of course, and I don't expect you will answer it, and I don't much care. It was just speculation on my part.

I'm not interested in your legalistic quibbles. I'm interested in what's morally right. It was wrong and despicable for that slime "sam" to call you a child-molester, and, yes, I agree, potentially libelous. And had you thretened to sue _him_, I would have been on your side 100% on that, and so would Dean and Rosemary, and Dean would have deleted the offending comment without a second thought, just because that's the kind of man Dean is and that's what he does. He's done it before.

BUT, since your FIRST response was to threaten DEAN, you lost our sympathy and became and asshole yourself. And, now, even AFTER Dean DID delete that comment, which he would have done ANYWAY, deleted it IN SPITE OF your threats, you STILL persist in making your threats. I don't know what your motive is, whether to try to shut down this blog because you disagree with Dean's political views, or just to show off what a hot-shot lawyer you are. Either way, you're an asshat, and I wouldn't blame Dean at all if he banned you from his blog. He should, of course, ban that troll who smeared you as well.

Mark Noonan,

I don't think S-train missed any point he actually made a very valid point. i.e. Kerry doesn't need to respond to Michael Moore or his movies.

"Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief." William Shakespeare, Hamlet

It's time to pull back the attack dogs. The whole scenario was not the blogosphere's finest hour.

Yes.

Steven,

At one time I was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union. I do not belong to, and never have belonged to the National Lawyers Guild.

Saw an interesting Italian movie tonight, "I'm Not Scared." Well, I'm not and no one else should be either.