American Samizdat

Friday, September 05, 2008. *

Kowardly Kos Strikes Again

I just happened to have a page of this spiked diary hanging around that Markos spiked. I placed it here. Its missing around 500 comments but you can see the essence of the argument for yourself and determine if censorship should have been used. This poster placed two diaries on this topic. The first one has gone down the memory hole and I've restored three fourths of the second post. This was all public record of course.

I wrote this introduction:

This page was spiked by so-called new "journalist" Markos Moulitsas. Completely cowardly. Here's a thought: politicians shouldn't turn their back on promising to filibuster FISA and then not do it. Markos shouldn't pretend to be a "journalist" and then censor stories. The worst that can happen here is that this story is proven false. Then we can move on to the many many other interesting Sarah Palin scandals whether its trooper gate or book banning gate or sleeping with your husband's business partner gate, whatever. The best that can happen is that we prove that she faked her last pregnancy to hide the shame of an illegitimate child or she was purposely trying to miscarriage by taking that incredibly long and dangerous plane trip. That's how my grandmother lost one of her kids. Perhaps that was the point. This goes to the heart of their lying hypocritical family values bullshit. Look, we bring knives to the knife party. We bring guns to the gun party. Nothing is off limits. The future of the planet is at stake. All tools must be used to defeat this Mullah in a Skirt. And if you want to discuss things without being censored or disemvoweled, go here. (Unless you spam...)

By the way, if you're still interested in this discussion, try "Scienceblogs" (which, unlike Markos, has figured out that all of these things are worthy of discussion.) Ed Brayton gets this correctly.

Many commenters seem to think that this has something to do with getting people to vote against McCain. Sorry, not true. This has no effect at all on my vote no matter what the truth turns out to be, nor do I think it should have any effect on anyone else's vote. As many have pointed out, there are far more important and relevant issues if we're talking about who to vote for. None of that has anything to do with why I posted on this subject. I just find the notion that someone would try to pull this off really fascinating and I want to know if, in fact, they did. I think there's some compelling evidence that has been offered. There have also been some false claims made about it on both sides (misdated pictures, for example). I'm quite curious to know what the truth is and that's why I'm writing about it and inviting new evidence that might debunk the allegations. I don't have any political stake in what the truth turns out to be at all, nor do I think anyone else should. I just think it's a really fascinating story.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2008 2:05 PM

Ed understands what online journalism is supposed to be about. But I do disagree with his determination that this wouldn't be a good reason to vote against somebody. It obviously would be a good reason to vote against someone, especially if your base is made up of puritanical, fundamentalist holy rollers.

Labels: ,

posted by Philip Shropshire at 12:36 PM
Post a Comment

Site Meter

Creative Commons License