No answer, so it's off to the races!

Well, Charles Johnson has decided to ignore my request for reinstatement. A few lizards threw some lame insults my way on a September 8 thread, and that was it.

So now I am officially closing Nodrog's Greatest Hits (it will remain available for your viewing pleasure), and I am starting a new, long-term study of LGF. This study can be found at the following location: http://lgfbannedandblocked.blogspot.com/. See you there!

For those of you typing-impaired, here is a direct link.

Nodrog's Greatest Hits - a Final Appeal

This last post to the Nodrog's Greatest Hits blog consists of a final appeal.

An appeal to Charles Johnson, the Lizard King himself.

Dear Charles,

I hereby request reinstatement as a lizardoid in good standing on Little Green Footballs.

If reinstated, I promise to post arguments rather than ad hominem insults, even when provoked. And I promise not to insult you, or misuse the comment ratings system. In fact, I promise not to use the comment rating system at all. If I ever renege on this promise, you can block me again.

Please reply to me via my email address at theposterformerlyknownasgordon@gmail.com

Sincerely,

Gordon/Nodrog/The Poster Formerly Known as Gordon

LGF BANNED AND BLOCKED - the Nodrog

All good things must come to an end, even great things, even the Nodrog's reign of the LGF threads. On October 4, 2007, Charles posted "Google Hearts USSR," yet another in a series of slams at the high-flying search engine, for having the effrontery to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1st vehicle in space, because it happened to be Soviet. I commented, acidly, in #20:

Another cheap shot at Google. I chalk it up to jealousy.

Notice the dings - minus 44! Mandy Manners, near the top on the LGF "number of posts" hall of shame, told me in #24 to "piss off already." But meanwhile quite a few posters were taking issue with Charles, and in #46 I made an interesting note:

Wow, Charles actually has a negative rating for one of his posts! LGF Dittoheads, you better start sticking in your + votes!

Don't worry, Charles, by the time this gets posted, you'll probably be back in the black.

This prompted the slavish lizardoids to respond, and Johnson ended up in the black with a plus 28. And I noted the change in #74:

Wow, Lizards to the rescue! If Charles writes it, it must be gospel (or perhaps Torah).

Mandy Manners intelligently responded in #87 with FOAD, you jew-hating bastard. And then Charles Johnson himself came down off of his high horse in #154 and ended it all:

That one did it. I've allowed Gordon to rant and spew for years at LGF, and now, in an attempt to get me to notice him, he resorts to Jew-baiting. OK, Gordon, I noticed you. I noticed that you're a real creep. A creep without an LGF account.

Plus 36 for Chuckles on that one! The lizardoids, led by Mandy Manners in #160, gushed all over Charles for ending their 4 1/2 year nightmare. (to his credit, long-time lizardoid Occasional Reader came to my defense in #199, pointing out delicately that claiming my comment was "jew-baiting" was, of course, ludicrous).

A nightmare of truth speaking to power. A nightmare of intelligence speaking to ignorance. A nightmare of facts combatting fiction. And now power, ignorance, and fiction reigned supreme on Little Green Footballs.

Except that it didn't. There have been additional disturbances in the force since the banning of the Nodrog. We'll discuss that in our final blog post.

The End of Ahmadinejad, and the End of ...

On October 4, 2007, Charles posted "Ahmadinejad Lashes Out at U.S.," bemoaning once again his presence in our sainted land. In #36 I quoted part of his post and demolished his argument:

[Johnson wrote] Looks like that dialog and free speech at Columbia University really helped him understand us better. Kumbaya.

Nice try, Charles. The point of inviting Ahmedinejad to Columbia was to educate us, not him. He's clearly uneducatable.

And given the significant discussions going on here, elsewhere in the blog world, and everywhere in the U.S. for that matter, Adhmedinejad at Columbia served that purpose quite well.

Lawhawk in #56 tried to claim otherwise, but his arguments were unpersuasive.

In #74, I linked to Seymour Hersh's piece in the New Yorker:

[Link in Original] Plans for Iran:

Alternative Title: How the Bush Administration has learned NOTHING from Iraq

More desultory responses from the lizardoids, but then an electrical post in #119 from loppyd: GORDON JUST GOT HIMSELF BANNED!

And that brings us to our final installment in the legendary Nodrog story.

LGF Embarrasses Itself Against an Ivy Leaguer

On September 24, 2007, Charles hosted two Columbia students who actually attended the dreaded Ahmadinejad event in their hallowed Ivy League Halls. The thread, entitled "Email From a Columbia Student," then hosted a "debate" between the earnest, intelligent "Jwakswman," and the usual illiterati. In #212 Charles pumped himself up by posting LGF, still a tough room. It was tough for the lizardoids, who got the floor wiped up with themselves against an actual educated individual. In #493 I commented:

Good luck debating these yo-yos, Jwaksman! It's like punching a bowl of jello.

You're absolutely right, by the way. And the abysmal quality of the responses is proof of that!

As if to prove my point, Talkin' Kamel in #494 came back with his Baldwin the Leper King schtick. I came right back in #495:

And on cue, the dolphin jello man extraordinaire shows up.

Maybe you should make your dolphin arguments to Eugene Volokh, who agrees with Jwaksman [link in original].

And the thread comments on that site aren't puerile jello either. You definitely wouldn't fit in.

As if to highlight the thread absurdity, TaxFreeKiller showed up in #506 to provide his usual insight and clarity to matters. In #507 I responded, and added a new wrinkle:

I've seen several LGF spouters over the past several days stating that the Iranian President was one of the hostage takers in 1979. That fact is definitely not proven. [Link in original] And no one's come up with new evidence since.

So stop spouting it like it's fact.

And TFK, all I've ever seen of you (still) is your feet sticking out from under that pickup trip behind the bar in Fort Worth !

The Lizardoids had been intellectually led to the slaughterhouse, and they didn't even realize it!

Dinnerjacket Feeding Frenzy

The LGF frenzy over the President of Iran's visit to the U.S. reached a fever pitch when he was invited to speak at Columbia University. It was "all Dinnerjacket, all the the Time" (Dinnerjacket, and Nutjob, were LGF nicknames for President Ahmedinejad). On September 23, 2007, Charles posted "Columbia Students: Clueless and Proud of It."

The following needs to be said to the LGF community, so afraid of discussion and so tolerant of "destroying our freedoms in order to save them."

[Link in original to an article: The Price of Freedom]

From The Nation?

No, The Economist.

I was immediately attacked in #117 by house sycophant Sharmuta, who has undoubtedly morphed into a bootlicking monitor lizard by now. Notice her counterattack includes no substance of any kind - typical for this loser. Note that after this U.S.395 and Sharmuta got into a little illiterati pissing fit - quite amusing, while the Nodrog left the building. Other lizardoids reacted as if I had definitely hit a nerve.

The next day, September 24, 2007, amidst the frenzy, Charles posted "Video: Columbia Students Applaud Ahmadinejad's Reply to Bollinger." To Charles' credit, he immediately posted email replies from Columbia students actually there, who disputed the "general applause" claim and stated most students had sat on their hands. In #187 I commented:

Thank you, Charles, for putting on the reply from the Columbia student. It earned you the first "plus" from me to one of your posts :)

And the Columbia student hit the nail on the head. It's important to see Ahminedijad for what he really is - a crazy tinpot fanatic in charge of a crazy, dysfunctional, but dangerous nation. And what better way to see him than in person? It's better than just taking your word for it.

And who should show up to respond, but my old buddyette Zulubaby in #203, with "Shaddup, Gordon!" In #244 I replied:

Hello again. It's nice to see that not all the oldtimers have been banned, or moved to a certain weird site that I perused for the first time today, or both.

And, thanks to Charles' rating system, I got to put a nice little "minus" by your comment! Life is grand, ain't it?

On a more serious note, it's nice to see that some LGF regulars like realwest don't think that Ahminedijad's visit to Columbia was quite the disaster some LGF doomsayers are all to eager to argue.

Zulubaby responded in #248 with LOL! Gordon, I think that is the first time you have ever made me laugh. Evah! You're still a tool though.

By the way, the "weird site" was none other than Gulf Coast Pundit, which made the news as the site for disaffected former alleged LGF purists. My mentioning of this site, even obliquely, may have led Charles to consider banning me - he was getting awfully touchy and big/pig-headed about things.

The Last Great LGF Brouhaha

We come now to the last great perfect storm LGF brouhaha, where the Nodrog took on all comers and vanquished them. The time was September 2007, and (gasp!) President Ahmedinejad was coming to New York. Hide the women and children! On September 21, 2007, the news was that DinnerJacket wanted to visit the 9/11 site. In "Violation," Charles linked approvingly to house cartoonists' Fox & Corkum on the subject. In #17 the Nodrog voiced his opinion:

I don't have any problem with President Ahminenutjob visiting Ground Zero, or Columbia University, or anywhere else where he won't find any national security interests.

Maybe he might learn something himself.

And why are we so afraid of this guy? He may want to destroy this nation, but he doesn't have the power to do so, and he's not going to get the power by visiting ground zero or Columbia University.

Saying "no" to him on such symbolic issues shows fear and weakness, not confidence and strength.

The lizardoids erupted in fury, proving my point that their America was weak and needed protection from the boogey men. Under Charles' new rating system my comment earned an amazing -28, showing the antipathy. I didn't even need to provide any more comments on this thread to completely take it over with my presence.

And Charles post? He got +113. Sort of like an old Soviet Union election - everyone vote for me, and those who don't, we know who you are! And it will soon be the banning stick [or off to the Gulag in the original version].

LGF Cognitive Dissonance: U.S., Israel, Torture

On September 17, 2007, Charles posted "Monday Afternoon Open." A recent story had caught the Nodrog's eye, and it was nowhere to be found on LGF. So in #360 I introduced it:

There is another nation that gives the most heinous Jihadi terrorists basic protections of the rule of law that the U.S. doesn't.

France?

No, Israel [link in original]

From the Supreme Court Amicus Curiae brief Table of Contents:

--For decades, Israel has faced an unremitting, mortal threat to its survival.
--Despite this unremitting terrorist threat, Israeli courts have discerned no practical obstacle to exercising jurisdiction and guaranteeing the rule of law, regardless of the petitioner’s nationality or location.
--Despite great danger and pressing needs for intelligence, Israel affords all detainees prompt, independent judicial review of their detention, protected by procedural safeguards and aided by access to counsel
--Unlike the United States, Israel provides suspected unlawful combatants the right
to judicial review of the basis for their detention within no more than 14 days of
their seizure.
--Unlike the United States, Israel provides suspected unlawful combatants the
right to judicial review in a tribunal independent from the executive.
--Unlike the United States, Israel limits detention to only those circumstances in
which the suspected unlawful combatant poses a threat to State security and when
no other means are available to neutralize the threat.
--Unlike the United States, Israel subjects the evidence and judgments supporting
the detention of suspected unlawful combatants to searching judicial review.
--Unlike the United States, Israel prohibits all inhumane methods of interrogation
and limits the use of coerced testimony against suspected unlawful combatants
when assessing the basis for their detention
--Unlike the United States, Israel requires judicial approval before limiting a
suspected unlawful combatant’s access to classified information offered in support
of detention.
--Unlike the United States, Israel provides access to counsel within no more than 34
days
--Unlike the United States, Israel provides for periodic review of detention at least
once every 6 months, permitting the continuation of detention only upon a fresh judicial finding of dangerousness following a fully adversarial hearing.
--As Israel’s experience during Operation Defensive Wall illustrates, providing prompt access to independent judicial review is practical even under the most demanding circumstances

Lizardoid responses were interesting. Mondoreb in #367 had a thoughtful response (as usual). By contrast, idiot lizardoid buzzsawmonkey told me to go post it on the Daily Kos in #368. Crazed islamophobe Storagemanager in #383 had a non sequitur Islamo-hatred post in response. An even stupider response came from Sifty in #440, seconded by the moronic hous bin pharteen in #448. In #477 I responded to all:

Sifty, Yochanan, and Hous Bin Pharteen seem to have missed the point of my original post (#360).

I suggest that you actually READ the linked document, or at least as much of it as you can.

Israel, which has far worse problems with crazed criminal-terrorist scum than we will ever have, still manages to treat them as any civilized, confident western democracy does. With fairness and equity that they undoubtedly don't deserve, but will get anyway because that's the way civilized nations do things.

Sifty's "solution" shows someone who is NOT confident of his own nation. It also show's someone who has no interest in the rule of law, or civilization as we know it.

It's pathetic.

On this same day in LGF history an ominous Orwellian feature took hold - Johnson had implemented his "rating" system for comments and now he added ratings for his own posts that "members" could do. Being the Nodrog, I promptly started rating Charles' posts - and less than a month later I was banned. Hmmmm.....

Ignorance and Islamohysteria About Turkey (Again)

An old LGF standby reared its ugly head on August 28, 2007, as Johnson posted "Islamist Wins Turkish Presidency," Johnson called it "very bad news" and made a thinly-veiled wish for a military coup at the end of the post. The lizardoids were called up short, however, when the Nodrog had this fact-filled refutation in #163:

Some context on this story that Charles has omitted:

Turkey was a notoriously mis-governed country under the secular regimes in place from the 1970's on. Corruption was rampant. The police force as brutal, corrupt, and prone to torture. Kurds were violently suppressed, being forbidden to even speak their own language. The economy was mismanaged, resulting in spotty economic growth, high inflation, and lost opportunities. And overt displays of Muslim piety were strongly suppressed - which is fine if you think Islam is an unredeemable scourge, but imagine thke response in this country if the wearing of yarmulkes were banned, or a fundamentalist Christian President was deposed by a military coup. Secular governments were notoriously jingoistic in foreign affairs, invading Cyprus in 1974 for example.

Under the current Islamic party, economic policy has resulted in strong and sustained economic growth, with a great reduction in inflation. Corruption has greatly diminished - in line with the fact that local governments in Islamic hands were run cleanly, efficiently, and most interestingly, fairly toward all. Repression of Kurds has diminished, although the recent resurgence of the PKK has threatened this development.

The most recent political crisis is a sign of how different Turkey's government is from the garden variety Middle Eastern theocracy. When the current government nominated Mr. Gul and the outrage and military threats commenced, the government decided that this matter should be tested in an election. The results were very favorable for the government, and now it has fulfilled its mandate and elected President Gul.

What now? The first term of the current government led to a great improvement in Turkish economic and political freedoms. The government was rewarded with an even larger mandate. I suppose the government coujld do a 180 and start acting like Hamas, but this is highly unlikely. In fact, this government has strengthened Turkish democacy and made the rule of law more paramount in the nation. The gains Turkey have made will serve it well whether or not it joins the EU, a prospect becoming less likely every year. And the Turkish government may now be strong enough to resist the call of the (secular) generals to invade northern Iraq and mess things up thoroughly there.

As soon as the discredited secular opposition unites and presents a cogent program for the country I'm sure it will provide a strong opposition for the government, and will likely win future elections. Turkey is not in danger, despite the hysteria expressed in this thread.

The responses, or lack thereof, from the lizardoids was of poor quality even by LGF standards, as fact-free and pointless insult were piled one after another by the illiterati. In #455 I summarized the mess:

Well, Well, Well, I see that my long and fact-filled post has generated the usual content-free comments from the usual suspects. Hello, Storage Manager, Mahmoud Ed, Kosovo-Manzikert, Mandy Manners, Beaver Cleaver, and the rest! I'm glad I was apparently missed.

As for non-content free responses:

#168 reb3: Turkey banned executions in 2002. The current government won the subsequent election, but has not repealed this law.

#172 Storage Manager: There are no Turkish criminal laws that prescribe hand removal or eye gouging as a penalty, nor are any proposed.

"The Trains Run on Time" argument - This implies that political freedom in Turkey has been sacrificed for efficiency and honesty in government. That in fact is not true. See this Freedom House summary spreadsheet of international political freedoms. Since the 2002 elections, Turkey's rankings have gotten better (lower numbers mean more freedom in the table).

#218 Mondoreb: A thoughtful response, thank you. The 1974 Cyprus invasion was done by the left-wing government of Bulent Ecevit, in part it is suspected to bolster flagging political support at home. But you are correct that Turkey hasn't made a habit of military adventurism. Perhaps I can more correctly state that Turkey has been notoriously paranoid about "Turkishness," as is evidenced by its denial of the Armenian holocaust, it's repression of Kurds, it's threats toward Kurds in Iraq, and its repression of Armenian and Greek minorities in Turkey. These policies have certainly not worsened under the current government - in fact, policies in these areas have slowly improved.

As for economic history, you are correct that under Turgut Ozal Turkey advanced economically in the 1980's. However, incompetent government policies afterward led to the crashes of 1994 and 2001, which set Turkey back greatly. The current government has corrected the flawed politically-based economic policies of the 1990's governments.

As a final note, Turkey is an exception to the malignancy of the Muslim world today. The government certainly bears watching - there are Islamic nuts in Turkey that want to pull the party in their direction. However, the party leaders know that to do so means not only Army intervention but, more importantly, loss in any future election.

So yes, this thread has exhibited hysteria about the situation, although you, thankfully, seem to be immune to it.

See mondoreb's substantive response to me in #527 - notice how weak his counter-arguments are. The Nodrog had won again! Just like old times! (but not for much longer - banning was around the corner)

Jimmy Carter is Bad Enough Without Making Stuff Up

On August 23, 2007, a misleading Charles attack on Jimmy Carter in "Carter Enabled Mugabe's Land Grab," combined with the fact that the source for this written excrement was the execrable Jammie Wearing Fool, led to a quick demise for the "polite Nodrog" strategy. In #296 I turned full guns on the two:

Well, Well, Well, it's a shame to see that Charles is now parroting the line of JammieWearingPoo, who is apparently digging through his pile of fertilizer in a desperate attempt to smear and pile on upon poor Jimmy Carter, already thoroughly discredited both as a President and as a former President. When the score's 50-0. you don't try a fake punt to make it 56-0 - because if you do, your star quarterback is likely to be needlessly injured in a fumble pileup.

Carter, like any President worth his salt, was trying to facilitate a peace agreement in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe which, for those of us not historically challenged like Charles and JammiePoo, was an important goal for American governments from 1965 (when Ian Smith led a white coup against the British) to 1980.

And until Dictator Mugabe messed things up in 2000, the deal brokered by the Carter administration had led Zimbabwe down a reasonably prosperous and successful path in the tricky world of African nation-building. Carter can't be blamed for the fact that 20 years after he became President Mugabe apparently went senile and demented and decided to destroy his country.

If Carter and the U.S. hadn't acted, Zimbabwe would have had years more of brutal civil war, leading to inevitable African victory and suffering far greater than even the great suffering Zimbabwe is facing today.

But, of course, in their rush to smear and simplify, JammiePoo doesn't think about his ridiculous allegations and Charles doesn't think about his ridiculous parroting. The only other alternative scenario is that both know exactly what they are doing and the lies and distortions they are fomenting on this issue. I don't think Charles is that bad, but as for JammiePoo...

A quick followup in #297:

And, of course, Charles once again is guilty of the old "misleading headline" trick. The events Charles is misinterpreting occurred in 1980, while Mugabe's land grab occurred in 2000. So Carter enabled events 20 years before the events Charles is following (one can't expect Charles to actually read a history book now can one?).

It was late in the thread, so I only got two responders, first LanceKates, who provided a fact-free insult in #298, and mondoreb, who provided substantive responses in #300 through #303, arguing that Zimbabwe became a hellhole long before 2000, and that Carter therefore bore some responsibility. I responded in #304: Moondoreb:

I see that, unlike LanceKates, you make substantive arguments.

So let's move the date of Mugabe's descent to disaster back to 1992, when his first wife died.

That's 12 years after the U.S. brokered the final peace deal that ended the civil war and transferred power to the Black Africans in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

Then let's look at the fact that adminstrations previous to Carter (Johnson, Nixon, Ford), who supported a peaceful settlement and ostracized the white supremacist regime of Ian Smith, and after Carter (Reagan, Bush), actively supported the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe with financial aid.

So put the blame on Jimmy Carter? Sorry, it doesn't pencil out.

Mondoreb provided more evidence that Mugabe was misruling Zimbabwe all the way back to 1980 in #306 and #307, acknowledging that Carter wasn't ENTIRELY to blame for the fiasco. I made a final response in #308: Mondoreb:

The actions you ascribe to Mugabe were done in the context of an economically prospering Zimbabwe, mainly due to the economic engine of the "white" farms. While it is true that Zimbabwe was never a democratic regime in the western sense, when compared with the admittedly deplorable neighbors it was a beacon of civilization. Only when Mugabe decided to destroy his nation's economy to keep power did things go terribly wrong in the country.

As for what the UK and US faced in 1979, the choices were" 1) Mugabe and ZANU (majority Shona), 2) Nkomo and ZAPU (minority Ndebele), 3) Abel Muzorewa's party, 4) a party led by a gentleman named Sithole (both 3 and 4 were partners with Ian Smith, and 5) Ian Smith and his British version of South African apartheid. In reasonably free and fair elections Mugabe's party won a landslide, based upon ethnic voting and the complete discrediting of Muzorewa and Sithole by their collusion with Ian Smith.

So the choice facing the US and UK was 1) protracted civil war, or 2) transfer of power to Mugabe and ZANU. Carter's position was thus eminently sensible.

Please note that my opinion of Jimmy Carter's Presidency is very low. And my opinion of his ex-Presidency started going downhill when he stopped building houses with Habitat for Humanity and started opining again on world events. But this article by JammiePoo, parroted by Charles, is an unwarranted smear.

The mean Nodrog was back - notice that JammiePoo didn't dare take me on when I trashed his story!

Man Bites Dog - Nodrog is Lauded on LGF

During the Summer of 2007 I kept my visits and comments to LGF on an infrequent basis. On August 14, 2007, Charles posted "Tuesday Afternoon Open," and the topic of discussion eventually got onto Hugo Chavez and Cuba. I took a slightly different tack in #84:

The way to counter Hugo Chavez is to promptly approve free trade agreements with Panama and Peru, and start negotiating more of them with Latin American nations. Unfortunately, the Democrats have become enamored of economic protectionist stupidity, evidence for which was amply provided at their last debate when many were even stupid enough to attack NAFTA.

Occasional Reader responded in #86: My God, I'm agreeing with Gordon. Imploder seconded my words in #87. BenZacharia showed his obtuseness by agreeing with the left-wing that "fair trade," not "free trade" is needed. And my longtime nemesis goodbye_natalie heartily agreed with me in #98. The Nodrog was popular, for once (and not for long!).

Nodrog Resists the Immigration Flames

The immigration hubbub continued, and on June 28, 2007 Charles gleefully reported on the demise of the McCain Immigration Reform bill in "Immigration Bill Cloture Vote Fails." The lizardoids were jubilant (see post #1 from allegedly intelligent Zombie, Yeah Baby!) - the Nodrog was not. In #343 I provided an extended discourse:

Now that this bill is dead, let's look at a real solution. No, not putting up a 1000-mile Berlin Wall, but rather an open border with Mexico, allowing free flow of non-criminal Mexican and American citizens back and forth through authorized border checkpoints.

There are 100 million Mexicans. There are 300 million Americans. Even if every Mexican moved to the U.S. we would be a majority. And that's not going to happen - the majority of Mexicans are happy to remain in their own nation.

If Mexican workers are legalized they will no longer be exploited to the extent currently by employers. They will be able to legitimately earn a minimum wage, they will have safe workplace conditions, and when they've earned enough money they can decide whether they want to become American citizens or move back to Mexico with their families. My prediction is that an open border will actually increase the number of people returning to Mexico, because they will know they can come back if needed, and they won't be stuck in the U.S. if they no longer want to be here.

The economic law of supply and demand means that these workers are a net benefit to our economy. They do jobs that our capitalist system wants and needs done - at pay rates that optimize benefits for us all. The workers are here because they can make more money than they can in Mexico, and for some of them, they can become Americans. They don't want to become Americans so that they can turn this country into another Mexico, they become Americans so that they can enjoy the same life that we already enjoy. The U.S. unemployment rate is low - there really aren't U.S. citizens available to do these jobs in the locations that they need doing.

Yes, these Mexicans put a drain on social services and health services. But they also spend their money on goods and services needed to live here - it doesn't all go back to Mexico. That money gets recirculated in the economy, and generates overall tax revenues in excess of social service expenditures. The problem is that the tax resources are mis-allocated - the federal government gets most of the tax revenues, while state and local governments get stuck with the social service costs. The answer is to reallocate tax revenues, not kick all the Mexicans out.

Well, this should be enough to generate some interesting responses! I'll try to respond to all responses that contain factual rebuttal and not ad hominem attacks (Nodrog is a La Raza scum!) or anecdotal evidence (three Mexicans pooped on my front yard yesterday!).

The lizardoid responses can be divided into categories - the first is evidenced by a new Nodrog opponent, and now LGF irregular regular Sharmuta, in #346, asking for proof of my statement that "the majority of Mexicans are happy to stay in their own nation." Occasional Reader in #360 also asked skeptical questions of the Nodrog. The second is evidenced by RickZ in #359, who provided mostly anecdotal rebuttal evidence. The third is evidenced by none other than long-time illiterati 'nam Grunt in #361, who had this to say: Well I must say, that was a great post Gordon and it hurts for sure, but you are right,( did I say that) but illegals should not be here or welcomed when there actually are Americans to do those jobs. And the fourth is evidenced by ... 'nam Grunt, who "came to his (lack of) senses and started spewing the usual pointless insults that he was comfortable with in #370, #378 and #400. In #402 the Nodrog came back with the first of many measured and intellectually devastating responses:

Sharmuta: Here's one link [link in original]

a poll of residents of the metropolitan area of Mexico City taken in September 1997. To the question "What is your opinion of Mexicans who go to work in the United States?" 47 percent of those polled answered, "bad" or "very bad

I'm going to assume that at least this one-half of the population of Mexico City (approximately 20 million) has no interest in moving to the U.S.

Here's a comprehensive recent poll of Mexico. The question you raise is not directly answered, but the poll results show a mixed bag for Mexico - good points and bad points, as with any country. It certainly doesn't provide evidence for a conclusion that most or a majority or even a large plurality of Mexicans want to move to the United States.

As a sideline, the Mexican economy has grown faster than the U.S. economy since the 1995 economic debacle, and is projected to grow by 3.5% per year over the next five years, compared to our rate of 2.5%. By fully implementing our treaty obligations under NAFTA, we can make sure Mexico continues on this trend toward prosperity (which will further dampen immigration urges) and, based upon the well-recognized benefits of free trade vs. protectionism, make our nation more prosperous too

I continued my measured responses in #406:

#359 RickZ: One of your assertions I answered - the losses to state and local service providers doesn't mean there isn't a net economic benefit - it means that the benefits are misallocated between the federal and state governments, and if the federal government provides tax revenues to compensate the states and localities for their losses, it will still be ahead economically.

As for remittances to Mexico, since we have a free trade agreement, increased prosperity in Mexico means more spending on goods and services from the U.S. and increased prosperity in the U.S. The economics of free trade show that it is not a zero-sum game - the most economically efficient allocation of goods and services across borders lifts all boats over the protectionist alternative.

A lot of your other statements are anecdotal and I can't answer them - but I will make an exception for your assertions about illegal uninsured motorists. If these motorists were legal residents, they would be much more likely to purchase insurance. Their current illegal status precludes them from buying auto insurance.

Occasional Reader had asked a snide question in #363: I gave him a straight answer in #417:

Occasional Reader: Our current (2006) unemployment rate is 4.5%. If you look at this chart, you will see not only that this is a low rate historically over the past 30 years, but that the U.S. economy has been steadily providing better and better employment opportunities over that period (the lows get lower, the highs are getting lower too). When the rate gets as low as it has, much of the remaining unemployment is "structural" (consisting of unemployable people), and the economy can be considered close to a full employment mode.

In comparison, the EU overall unemployment rate is 7.1%, and much higher in some of the bigger countries, notably France and Germany. Japan's unemployment rate is about the same as ours (4.2%), where traditionally is was much lower during the past 30 years.

I followed up with him in #422:

As for your other question, part of the "structural unemployment" issue is the fact that people aren't always as mobile as the jobs. People who live in cities can't or won't immediately move to farms to become farm workers. Over time, people will make these moves, but it often takes many years or even decades.

See Occasional Reader's response in #420 - wrong, but at least trying. Compare and contrast to nutcase Taxfreekiller's content-free response in #423. An embarrassment to Johnson all around. Meanwhile, in #371 Bunkerbuster claimed that immigrants were a net drain on the economy. I answered respectfully but firmly in #430:

Bunker Buster: Supply and demand isn't just for goods, it's for the skills people bring to their employment as well. There is a demand for low-wage work right now that is being met by a supply of Mexican laborers. The demand is not met by U.S. citizens at the price of labor that the market is willing to pay.

Of course, you say, we could just pay farmworkers housecleaners and others $15 or $20 per hour, and Americans will take those jobs. Well, first of all, at full employment, Americans taking these jobs are foresaking other jobs that will need to be filled. Next,and most importantly, if a lettuce grower must pay $20 per hour to a lettuce picker, the price of lettuce will go up. People will buy less lettuce. And there won't be a need for lettuce pickers. The jobs disappear.

As for net benefits, you are forgetting this fact: if prices are lower for food and housing and other items because of l0w-wage migrant workers each of us has more money to spend on other things, or save. This results in greater tax revenues, which, if allocated to the losing local service providers, will pay for the costs of providing social services to immigrants.

In #431 Occasional Reader found it necessary to distance himself from the taxfreekiller loon division of LGF by noting that he was for immigration in general. Splits in the lizard ranks, courtesy of the Nodrog's stunning intellect and new-found rhetorical restraint. In another response to Occasional Reader in #451, I had this to say:

Occasional Reader: I have no doubt that some of the demand for farm products could be met with increased imports from those countries. I have no problem with that - although the agricultural sector is one of the most protectionist in the U.S., and a lot of otherwise right-wing members of the U.S. Congress will fight to the politcal death to keep that protection.

However, there will always be a local market for a lot of goods because of the transportation costs of bringing the farm products to this country. So there will always be a need for at least some low-paid agricultural workers in this country.

In #452 whiskeraway accused me of using anecdotal evidence regarding the attitudes of Mexican immigrants, a fair charge. So I answered with statistics in #456:

If they want to turn us into Mexico, why among the third generation of Mexican-American immigrants do only 25% speak any Spanish at all, with virtually none not being proficient in English? Why do 50% of those who speak Spanish at home also speak English "very well," according to a 2003 U.S. census survey?

And do you have anything against bilignualism? One of the great barriers to American competitiveness in the world economy is our lack of proficient foreign language speakers, whether it be Spanish or Chinese or Hindi or any other language. On a non-economic front, do you think it's wise to have a lot of people proficient in Arabic so that we can better fight our enemies?

Meanwhile, Sharmuta and others continued to harp on the "most Mexicans want to move to the U.S" theme," so I respectfully and devastatingly answered in #460:

I appreciate the link about the 4 in 10 Mexicans polling data - I had been looking for such a poll, and appreciate you bringing it forward.

Assuming the Mexicans who would move here also bring their families, that's 40 million Mexicans.

First, not all would actually come here - I don't know what percentage would, but it certainly wouldn't be 100%

Second, the poll indicated that many rich and middle class Mexicans with skills would like to come here too. There are certain professions in the U.S. (nursing, engineering, etc) where we have a current shortage of employbable persons. I wouldn't object to some skilled and highly educated Mexicans as immigrants, would you?

And finally, even if all 40 million trooped into the U.S., that would make for about 90 million Hispanics in a population of 340 million. Still nowhere near a majority. And Mexican birthrates have plummeted in the past 30 years - they're down to 2.5 children per woman, not much more than our native birthrates.

And as for concentrations, one of the most interesting aspects of recent Hispanic immigration is that it is no longer concentrated in the Southwest.

But some lizardoids would have none of the "New Nodrog." Peck in #480 demanded that I be ignored. And Sharmuta never engaged in a rational debate with me again - she was clearly scared, and celebrated when I was finally banned.

Yes indeed, the new Nodrog provided facts, not flames on this thread, despite vicious provocations by the likes of 'nam Grunt and Tax Free Killer.

The Return of the Nodrog

Lizard Nation remained agog at the Nodrog's departure - and then, I was back! I actually didn't read the site for four months, then in June 2007 started looking at it again occasionally - and then an issue came forward that I felt strongly about - immigration. On June 26, 2007, Charles posted "Railroading the Immigration Bill in the Senate." Johnson and the rest of Lizard Nation were inflamed with blood lust against illegal aliens, almost as much as against Muslims. In #287 I showed up with some facts:

There is a clear solution to the immigration issue with Mexico. We should have an open border with Mexico, allowing free flow of people both ways.

But before we do this, we must work with Mexico to improve security. Mexico must agree to coordinate with our security services to prevent terrorists and Jihadists from entering Mexico and then the U.S. This will mean extending what I presume are our sea and air defenses to Mexico, and establishing controls along the border with Guatemala (which is a lot shorter than our border with Mexico). Mexico must also improve its law enforcement capabilities - this is something that Presidente Calderon is already working vigorously on. I see no reason why Mexico wouldn't agree to these measures in return for providing an open border between our two countries. Mexican citizens should be allowed into the U.S. at official border checkpoints, upon proof only of Mexican citizenship and no criminal record. Then we'll know that anyone crossing the desert is engaged in criminal activity of an actual harmful nature, and can be dealt with accordingly.

Mexico's per capita gross national product is only 16% of ours ($7,000 to $44,000). But let's look at the European Union. The new Eastern European EU members have per capita gross national products that are a fraction of the Western members. Poland's is only 25% of Germany's for example. Yet there are still millions of Poles in Poland - they haven't all left to become plumbers in France and elsewhere. My belief is that a majority of the Mexicans who want to be in the U.S. are already here. A few million more still won't tip the scales - there are 100 million Mexicans and 300 million of us.

Furthermore, an open border, and full implementation of NAFTA, will make the Mexican economy grow faster. It is currently projected to grow at 3.5% per year, faster than our 2.5%, and it has been growing faster for the past decade. For And it could grow faster - India, another imperfect democracy, has an economy growing at a rate of over 7%. If Mexico can start growing faster, with out help, there will be less economic incentive for Mexicans to come work here.

As for the lack of assimilation, the statistics, and the logic of American history and economics, don't back those claims up. By the third generation, three-quarters of Mexican-Americans don't even speak Spanish as a second language. Even among those who speak Spanish at home, half of them also speak English fluently. And the reason these people are coming here is not turn the U.S. into Mexico - they're here because they want to succeed and prosper like previous immigrants have done. And they know that the path to success includes English language fluency. Furthermore, what is the problem with bilingualism? One of the hindrances to American competitiveness in world economic markets is our lack of fluent foreign language speakers among businessmen and others. Spanish fluency opens up economic markets in huge swaths of the globe.

As for the "taking jobs away from Americans" argument, that's bunk. Americans don't want jobs paying minimum wage doing hard physical labor. But, you say, employers should just pay high wages, and then Americans will do this work, right? It doesn't work that way. If lettuce pickers start earning $20 per hour, the price of lettuce goes much higher. Fewer people buy lettuce, fewer people plant it, and guess what? Those jobs have disappeared. Economics is not a zero sum game.

Anyway, I believe our goal should be an open border with Mexico.

It's great to be back. I'll prepare for incoming missiles now...

And sure enough, the missiles came out of their bunkers. Goodbye_natalie started the invective in #298, spouting anecdotal evidence and attacking my facts (but without any counter-facts, not surprisingly). V the K had more fact-free information in #299, throwing around insults instead of arguments, as usual. In #300 I replied:

goodbye_natalie: Your post was long on invective and anecdotal evidence and short on facts. You only have one fact in your post, that 60% of Mexican immigrants don't have a high school education. I'm not sure what the relevance of this statistic is, since most of these Mexicans are doing jobs that don't reqwuire a high school education. Jobs that Americans, most of whom have a high school education, don't want to do.

And, like with all other immigrant groups, Hispanic education rates go up with successive generations of the descendants of immigrants. More than half of Hispanic kids graduate from high school, a higher percentage than American blacks, although less than the general population.

As for V the K: it's not my fault that Republicans in California, and now the nation, are throwing away their otherwise excellent chances to capture the votes of culturally conservative Hispanic voters with their anti-immigrant hysteria. And, the last time I looked, a CONSERVATIVE had just been elected President of Mexico. So much for your "wave of socialists."

It was the new Nodrog, light on invective, heavy on facts! EC Marm (#303), Goodbye_natalie (#305 and #309) and the repulsive V the K (#306) just repeated the same tired and discredited talking points, mixed in with insults. At least Killgore Trout, the one with the alleged gay man crush on Ed the Weatherman, welcomed me back in #316. Goodbye-natalie was a lot more sour regarding my return in #318 - his echo chamber was ruined. But in #334 I tried again with facts:

Sorry for getting into the anecdotal evidence swamp - EC Marm proves that the immigrant-haters have the edge there. By the way, EC Marm, you could change a few words and your post could have been written by a Mississippi Klansman circa 1960. So I'll go back to facts.

One of the prime arguments against immigrants is that they take jobs away from Americans. If employers would pay higher wages Americans would be willing to fill those jobs in agricultural labor, heavy industry, restaurant service, etc.

But basic economics says that higher wages will mean that a lot of those jobs will disappear. I would be surprised if very many LGFers agreed with the Democrats that the minimum wage should be a lot higher. The reason - stated eloquently by small businessmen everywhere, is that a raise in the minimum wage means that employers must raise their prices to offset the wage increases. Once prices are increased, demand for the product drops. Once demand for the product drops, there is less demand for employment.

The same law of economics applies to jobs filled by illegal immigrants. If employers must suddenly double or triple the wages paid to farm workers, restaurant workers, construction workers, etc., they will have to raise their prices. This will reduce demand for their product. Which means they will have need for fewer employees. Many, if not most of the jobs freed from the curse of illegal immigration disappear.

My primary reason for advocating an open border with Mexico is not to destroy the American way of life and our economy. My goal is to make both stronger.

EC Marm challenged by characterization of his (her?) post #332, so here it is in its entirety: nodroG Translation (to my post #329, not reprinted here, my words in bold): There were some gang members and some slumdwellers, Could hardly walk out the front door without being shot at or having my ass kicked but, if you want anecdotal evidence, I saw many new or nearly new middle class residential subdivisions filling with Mexican-American families who, Five families per household, three cars up on blocks in every driveway apart from sometimes speaking Spanish at home and having somewhat different tastes in music and fashion than mine, Yeah, that gang color thing again. Loudspeakers blaring 120 db music 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Threatening me in spanish everytime I asked politely to maybe turn it down. Yeah, the American dream.

So when EC Marm challenged my characterization of his post in #335, I responded succinctly in #336:

EC Marm. I can read English. I can look at what you wrote and note 1) it is free of verifiable facts, 2) it is filled with racial stereotypes, and 3) it is filled with race-hatred.

Mostly annoyed in #340 actually made arguments without insults attached, but I easily countered them in #341:

Mostly Annoyed: You are correct that illegal aliens are exploited unfairly by employers. But the better solution to that is not to deport them all and hurt our national economy. The better solution is to bring them under the protection of our minimum wage and worker safety laws. And, if these folks were legal, they would have no disincentive to report illegal employer conditions.

I disagree with your statement that economics is a sterile academic exercise. I believe that economics is the only "social science" that in fact has major demonstrable impacts upon our lives, even if people don't recognize or accept this fact. You point out that some markets, such as for food or housing, are necessities and are almost immune to changes in price. This is true - however, if an individual must pay more for food or shelter, the money doesn't appear out of thin air, it must be obtained through cutting back on some other more discretionary expenditure. And this means that the maker of that product suffers because of the higher price for food or housing.

As for the fact that "food prices are rising anyway," the cost of labor is not the only input into food prices. The input that is probably causing the biggest rise in food prices right now is the energy costs of producing and transporting that food. An increase in labor costs would just make the food prices rise even higher.

Yes the Nodrog was back, with facts on his side! And the pathetic lizardoid response told me that standards were getting even lower!

The Voluntary (and Temporary) End of Nodrog's Reign of (T)error

After my early January LGF bouts, I took a breather from LGF. I returned with a vengeance on February 1, 2007, when Charles posted "Arkin Blasts Critics as Arrogant and Intolerant." I made a snarky comment in #84:

Sorry Lizards, the Iraq war will soon be over, Americans will no longer be killing Muslims there. You'll have to get your jollies in some other way.

Ed the Weatherman replied in #95: I see Asshat Nodrog got is on the computer today. So Nodrog worked for the city government in a small Oregon city. Meter maid, perhaps? I was alarmed by Ed's post, and did some backtracking to early January. I had made the mistake of posting on LGF sycophant spinoff Jammie Wearing Fool's blog, and JammiePoo had posted some personal information about the IP address I used. So in #179 I had this to say:

Ed: I was a bit baffled by your comment. I haven't posted on LGF for a while because, quite frankly, I had more important and better things to do.

I now see, going back to early January, that JammieWearingFool decided to try and "out" my identity. He hasn't succeeded, but as a result, I'm going to stop posting on LGF. If that was Jamhead's goal, he is successful. I have no interest in having my true identity, or anywhere within 50 miles of my actual location, disclosed to the likes of TFK and some of the other crazies who infest this site.

By the way, thanks to WriterMom for questioning Jamhead's tactics back in early January. She seems to understand what's at stake here.

I also want to thank Charles for putting up with me for these last few years. And I will continue to occasionally peruse this site, because, despite its many flaws, it performs a valuable service.

So Adios, LGF. You can disconnect my registration, CHarles, because I won't be back.

A couple of the lizardoids were gleeful at my departure (see, e.g., Doug's profane outburst in #180 and maddog in #183). BabbaZee in #184 predicted (correctly) in #184 that I would eventually be back. And then came an unexpected outpouring. Mandy Manners, Peacekeeper, Writermom, EC Marm, Talkin' Kamel, goodbye natalie, and Zulubaby(!) all asked me to stay.

It was touching, but JammiePoo had spooked me. I changed my registration from "The Conscience of LGF" to "The Former Conscience of LGF," and took what turned out to be a five month extended vacation from LGF.

The lizardoids hadn't forgotten me - there were numerous references to the legendary Nodrog sprinkled throughout threads, and numerous alleged sitings under the new nicknames of pathetic would-be Nodrogs. But BabbaZee was right - eventually, like a bad penny, the Nodrog would turn up again!

LGF: Intellectually Barefoot and Pregnant

Charles was up to his old tricks as LGF welcomed in 2007, in January 4th's "A Klan President?" Robert Byrd, a former klansman, was the new Senate President Pro Tempore. I found the immediate flaw in Charles' shilling in #67:

Well, from 1995 through 2002 the third in line for the Presidency was a nonegenarian (briefly centenarian) guy from South Carolina who was starting to dribble uncontrollably at meals and also had a somewhat unsavory past as the leader of the arch-segregationists.

This seems to be an argument for not making the senior member of the majority party in the Senate the President Pro Tem, not an excuse to bash the Democrats.

But I wouldn't expect Charles to actually let historical context (assuming he isn't ignorant of it) get in the way of a good partisan hack rant.

Ed the Weatherman defended Johnson in #77 (not much LGF defense from Ed these days over at GCP!), claiming the MSM brought up Strom's segregationist past often. In #96 I answered Ed:

Ed: Charles and the LGFers are now making the same mistakes as the MSM.

If Charles had included mention of Thurmond in his post, and pointed out the foolishness and potential danger to the country of the practice of making the senior majority party Senator the President Pro Tempore, then your argument that Charles and LGF and the right-wing blogging world are better than the MSM would hold water.

As it is, Charles is just making the same mistakes the MSM makes. And he's keeping his loyal readers equally, if not even more, ignorant and misinformed.

Ed once again defended Johnson in #111, pointing out that Johnson attacked Republicans at times too. I responded in #116:

Ed, it's one thing to be partial - it's another to omit key facts and context. By doing so, Charles is doing exactly what he accuses the MSM of doing. Charles is entitled to his conclusions, and the conclusion that Robert Byrd's KKK past makes him unfit to be President Pro Tempore is a conclusion I agree with.

But by completely omitting any mention of why and how Byrd has become President Pro Tempore, Charles is misinforming his readers, and adding to their collective stock of ignorance.

Then, on a new tack, as if to prove LGF ignorance, Adrenalyn in #148 claimed that Jimmy Carter and arch-segregationist Lester Maddox were bosom buddies while serving as Georgia's Governor at Lt. Governor from 1971-75. I set the record straight in #150:

Adrenalyn: From Wikipedia:

Under the Georgia constitution of 1945, Maddox was prohibited from running for a second consecutive term, necessitating a 1970 run for Lieutenant Governor of Georgia. Although Maddox was elected as a Democratic candidate at the same time as Jimmy Carter's election as Governor as a Democratic candidate, the two were not running mates; in Georgia, particularly in that era of Democratic dominance, the winners of the primary elections went on to easy victories in the general elections without campaigning together as an official ticket or as runningmates. Carter and Maddox found little common ground during their four years of service, often publicly feuding with each other.

At this point, Johnson needed some prodding, so in #171 I started trying to taunt or shame him into providing some context:

And I see that Charles hasn't yet updated this post to provide some necessary context.

Charles likes to keep his readers intellectually barefoot and pregnant, apparently.

A great line! So I reinforced the point in #172:

In fact, I would suggest that as an LGF rotating title:

LGF Readers: Intellectually barefoot and pregnant!

No response from the Lizard King, so I summed up my frustration in #219:

Or, Charles, are you just too important now to be called to account for your distortions and obfuscations?

Interesting that Johnson has recently challenged some of his more intellectually barefoot and pregnant followers with his campaign against "intelligent design" nonsense. Many of the more maroonish lizardoids are disagreeing, leaving, or being banned. But Johnson can't be too sure whether the remainder truly agree with him, or are just sucking up!

A Couple of Nodrog Christmas Zingers

On December 22, 2006, Johnson linked to LGF House Clown Iowahawk, who presented a lame parody of a Wall Street Journal attack on blogs in "Iowahawk: Blogs Make Me Puke." I couldn't resist a zinger in #104:

The reaction of unthinking imbeciles to the truths I post on this very site are proof enough of the truth of Mr. Ragan's piece.

And Charles ignores me because he knows it isn't wise to argue with one's mental and moral superior.

Amidst the usual garbage thrown my way in response by the likes of taxfreekiller, Live4Truth in #115 posted an amazingly (for LGF at least) thoughtful commentary on the original blog criticism piece in the WSJ. In #123 I thanked him, and added a new zinger for the rest of the gang:

Live4Truth: Your thoughtful commentary, which I partially agree with, is completely out of place of this site.

Putting your commentary out on this site is like putting pate de fois gras out on a table for a raccoon to eat.

A pretty good analogy, I must say!

The Logan Act Meets LGF

On December 20, 2006, Charles slammed Senators Kerry and Dodd for meeting with Syrian Dictator Assad in "The Dictator and the Democrats." (a week earleir he had slammed Florida Senator Bill Nelson for the same offense). Comment #1 started the lizardoid tirade, as M. Bensson-Levi stated, "TIME to ENFORCE the LOGAN ACT." The LGF response in a nutshell - if lizardoids don't like it, it must be criminal behavior. In #16 I presented my first response:

They're just trying to implement the Baker-Hamilton report. Talk is cheap. It's called DIPLOMACY.

A followup in #26:

Of course, if you believe, like LGF yo-yo-dom does, that Assad is part of a giant Islamo-supremacist conspiracy enveloping al qaeda, both Sunnis and Shiites, Mathathir of Malaysia, the Bosnian Muslims, and of course most of Dearborn, Michigan, then these Senators shouldn't be speaking to Assad.

But for the rest of us, repeat these words: DIPLOMACY IS GOOD ...

As for Silhouette's complaints in #28 that the Senators were setting up a parallel government, I had the best reply in #36:

Silhouette: In a perfect world, these Senators would leave diplomacy to the State Department.

Unfortunately, the existence of a stupidly incompetent and stubborn executive branch means we don't live in a perfect world.

After lots of abusive illiterati replies, I threw out the gauntlet in #144:

I don't believe there is any law against members of the United States legislature meeting with foreign heads of state. It has been going on for many decades, if not centuries.

Can anyone make a straight-faced plausible claim or cite to any United States law violated by Senators Kerry and Dodd?

And the answer came back - THE LOGAN ACT. So the Nodrog had to do some research, and came up with this reply in #180:

Some interesting information about the Logan Act: [Link]

Although the act has been found to be constitutional, no one since the act was enacted in 1799 has ever been prosecuted under it. Perhaps that's because the act has been so consistently ignored, violated, or alternatively narrowly interpreted.

It is the opinion of the State Department (from the 1970's) that the Logan Act does not apply to members of the U.S. Congress who are talking to foreign governments in pursuace of their legislative duties under the Constitution. To take an alternative viewpoint would have opened hundreds of Congressmen and Senators over the past several decades, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, to prosecution under the Logan Act.

To which the lizardoids provided the following debate points and legitimate responses .....[crickets]

This thread exemplifies the paucity of intellectualism among the mass of lizard nation - when faced with legitimate counter-argument, they are at a loss for (non-insulting) words.

More Torture, and a New Sinister LGF Response

The Democrats were coming to power, and the lizardoid torture supporters, including Johnson, were becoming nervous, as is evidenced by the December 13, 2006 post "Durbain to Oversee Detainee Treatment." He accused the D's of plotting to make the FBI even more politically correct and useless than ever, and attacked Senator Dick Durbin as the man who compared the American military to Nazis, the Soviet KGB, and Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. The lizardoids took the bait starting right off the bat with beavereater in #2 who opined, Failed commie pukes! The Nodrog had something more intelligent to add in #278:

Thanks to the Bush administration, torture methods such as waterboarding used and perfected by the KGB,Gestapo, and Khmer Rouge have been adopted by the U.S.

So Durbin is right.

And LGF'ers should be proud of it, since you all support waterboarding and torture.

In #282 and #288 I took a misstep, accusing Charles of lying about Durbin and then retracting the charge after further evidence (how often does Johnson do this, by the way?). I got back on track in #296:

Sorry to provoke such anger, but the truth hurts.

And under the "leadership" of George W. Bush, U.S. troops have been using the same tecnniques against prisoners used by the Nazis, KGB, and Khmer Rouge.

And unless you are one of those idiots who believes that "the end justifies the means," you should hang your head in shame as an American. And hope, Like I do, that our country chooses leadership in 2008, whether it be John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, that will turn our military and our country awasy from this nightmarish path.

I further attacked in #314:

I don't know what la-la land you are all lviing in, but a clear majority of Americans (thank God) do not support routinized torture of prisoners.

The "he knows about a plot to blow up America tomorrow, so do we torture him now?" canard is easy to answer - of course we do.

But I doubt that any Gitmo or Abu Ghraib or secret torture rendition center prisoners, or U.S. CITIZEN Jose Padilla had any such knowledge more than about 48 hours after their capture and detention. And yet the torture continued, authorized by the Secretary of Defense and the President. And, more recently, belittled by our monstrous Vice-President.

The attitude of the typical LGF poster (and Charles) would be scary if I didn't know that you are nothing more than a marginalized, extreme fringe of our national political scene.

Amidst the usual lizardoid charges that anyone who didn't support torture was anti-military, I had this to say in #319:

I'm proud of our U.S. military, and grateful that they protect me.

And I will be even prouder and more grateful when the shameful and odious civilian leadership team at the White House is sent out on their sorry butts in about two years.

In #316 mich-again called b.s. on my claims that we were using techniques that had been used by the Soviets, Nazis, and Khmer Rouge. I supported his argument (!) in #339:

mich-again:

Here's a source on past use of water-boarding: [Link]

When U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel William Harrison came home from the Korean War, his treatment by waterboarding was showcased as an example of the immorality of his North Korean captors.

So far, no Nazis, Khmer Rouge, or KGB. Just the North Koreans. That's MUCH better ...

tfk was really on my case on this thread, and in #329 accused me of being unhappy (?) I gave an appropriate response in #344:

tfk: I was reasonably happy between 1993 and 2001, when we had a President who was fellated by interns instead of a President who authorized torture of prisoners and lied to get us into a military adventure that we can't extricate ourselves from easily now.

Then a lizard got into scary territory - in #341 gymnast implied that a military coup might be appropriate. I called him on it in #354:

gymnast: Is your real name Agusto Pinochet Jr.?

Because that statement is appropriate for a Latin American Banana Republic, not our great nation. Shame.

I then followed up with several posts providing additional links to Khmer Rouge torture center museums showing waterboarding tanks. Iron Fist in #364 and #370 gave typical responses for him, a mixture of insults and bad arguments, a few cuts above the TFK nonsense, admittedly.

The lizards were getting scared, if #341 gymnast was any indication. Military Coups in the U.S.? Barf me out!

Imbeciles with Spitwads

More LGF (perhaps willful) ignorance was on display with December 7, 2006, "We're All Progressives on This Bus," about a conclave between Howard Dean and "far left" (Johnson's description) Portugese and other European Socialists. After over 600 posts of bloviation, the Nodrog stepped in with #630 to offer some sanity:

Only in LGF la-la land would the equivalent of America's Democratic party (the European "Socialist") be considered "far-left."

But this is LGF la-la land, so I'm not surprised at all. Charles seems to have the understanding of the subtleties of world politics that an average fourth grader in Gadsden, Alabama might have.

I suggest a subscription to The Economist, Charles, so that you can ameliorate your ignorance. But, then again, your ignorance may be wilful, in which case you are beyond hope.

SaneInMN responded in #648 with news about Vermont electing a Socialist, to which I provided the needed correction in #660:

#648: (In)Sane: Sanders is a Socialist, not a Democrat.

The European parties with the name "Socialist" in them have long ago dropped (for the most part) platforms that require the state own the means of production.

For example, how much of the German ecnomy did Gerhard Schroeder and the "Social" Democrats turn over to state control while they were in power? How much of the Portugese economy under the "Socialists," or the Spanish economy when Felipe Gonzalez, the "Socialist" prime minister, was in power from 1982 to 1996, were turned over into public ownership?

The Labor party in Great Britain is a sterling example. When they won the election in 1945, they prompty nationalized the railroads, steel industry, coal mines, etc. When they took power in 1997, they nationalized nothing, and did not undo the privatizations accomplished by the Conservatives.

Gawd, I feel like a school teacher talking to a class of imbeciles here. Imbeciles with spitwads.

Feeling a bit frisky after having coined my new proposal for a rotating title, I went back and took on the deified Zombie, who back in post #2 had said: Dean is also protesting an election result in Florida. The guy just won't shut up! I took Zombie down with #665:

By the way, Zombie (#2), the "election result in Florida" involved 18,000 ballots not registering an electronic vote for Congress, in a Democratic County, in a closely fought election where the Republican won by a few hundred votes. That sounds like it is objectively worthy of an investigation.

Would you still be so nonchalant if the result was reversed, Zombie? Or are you just another stinking partisan hack?

Wow, another potential rotating title; ZOMBIE, PARTISAN HACK!

LGF Absurd Pretentions - Case Study # 35,678

On December 7, 2006, after dredging up Pearl Harbor on another thread, Johnson posted "LGF Nominated for 2006 Weblog Award." He complained that his nomination in the "Best Conservative Blog" category was a misnomer, and he urged that his lizardoids vote every day (hint, hint) for him in this category anyway, and in addition in the "Best Blog Ever." It was too good a target for the Nodrog's rapier-sharp keyboard to pass up, starting in #8:

I'll vote for this blog in any category other than "blog with the most genocidal loony thread posters,"...

when hell freezes over.

I continued in the same vein in #12:

Make that genocidal loony DELUDED thread posters.

And how about a category for "blog with the most disingenuous webmaster?"

Charles "I'm not in control of my threads" Johnson with his Cheshire cat grin would win hands down.

Of course, Charles expects other popular weblogs, such as Kos, to better control their loons.

How about "most hypocritical blogmaster?"

Cattt in #13 said Come on, Gordon. You know LGF is your favorite blog. :) To which I responded in #22:

Cattt: Maybe so. After all, I also like to watch Stanford football games. Maybe sadomasochism is just my bag.

The ridiculous response on this blog to the utterly sensible Baker-Hamilton report is just the latest final straw in the LGF loonbag collection.

How about the "don't confuse me with the facts" blog?

I followed up with a Pearl Harbor slam in #32:

And, based upon Charles' sly Pearl Harbor post earlier today, LGF is also in the running with Michelle Malkin for the:

"Let's round up the Muslims like we did with the Japanese (and rightly so!)" weblog award.

The lizardoids responded with equal measures of humor and vitriol. And in #71 I changed tack (the quotation in italics is from Andrew Sullivan, although it is unattributed so I'm not completely sure): I've changed my mind:

LGF is indeed the best conservative blog:

Here you have a U.S. citizen detained on American soil, kept without charges for 3 and a half years, accused of plotting a dirty bomb attack (an accusation never substantiated in any way), tortured until he may be mentally incapable of standing trial ... and the conservative blogosphere is completely, utterly silent. Habeas corpus disappears not with a bang, and not even with a whimper, but with deathly quiet. Well, we know what American conservatism now stands for.

Yes indeed, LGF is the new face of the American conservative movement.

I don't think LGF won anything this time, and by the end of 2007 LGF had a host of new enemies due to Charles' bannings.