Kos and the big bloggers are making money as well & they’re not “conservative.” I’d be a tad more careful with the labels…

As for Kos and Ledeen, I take them both to be ideologues who, on occasion say reprehensible things. We could go off into a whole discussion of my views on foreign policy (boils down to morals being something we should shoot for while realizing moral perfection is a childish myth), but why go off on a tangent. But don’t underestimate the impact of Kos’s ideas on people. Your post, while I would never dare to trace it back to Kos himself, is part and parcel of a disturbing attitude in modern American liberalism as practiced by Kos–a gleeful embrace and championing of political apartheid. But, my point is that, as distasteful as I find Kos, I don’t find my having been on the same radio show as him this evening to reflect on me personally any more than Ledeen and I receiving a check from the same company does.

As far as membership goes, from what I understand as someone whose contact with PJM has been more or less reading emailed updates and sending in forms as requested, the desire right now is to prove viability. As I mentioned before, no one sent me a personal invite and the initial members are to a great extent self-selected. As a somewhat conservative person (or someone who cares about making money) myself, I wouldn’t hold up the launch of my business until I achieved what those who despise my beliefs to be proper ideological balance.

I didn’t “selectively quote” you. I quoted an entire passage leaving nothing out. If you’re all lathered up about it maybe you should’ve thought first before you wrote such a gross and offensive “humorous” take on “exploding Arabs.”

I spend a lot of time doing satire…

Yes, the passage I quoted from you is “satire” all right. Satire that is patently offensive to the majority of human beings (though not to you because when you were born God must’ve forgotten to hand out seychel (“judgment”).

Oh & I guess calling me “Dick” is meant to be satire too when that is not the name I go by? Funny, funny. If I called you “Jeffie” or “Goldy” what would that prove other than that I hadn’t gotten emotionally much beyond the 6th grade and that I was an ass. Since you have attempted such assinine “satire”, what does that make you?

Richard, we’re not dancing, so there’s no need to prance around this way.

Geez, I hope I don’t “prance” when I “dance,” not a pretty sight.

You appear to have an academic background in central Asian studies while my own is in literature. So you’ll have to forgive my focus on language, words & their meaning. It’s important to me. I make no claim that I’m the most precise, thorough or brilliant thinker in the world. But those things [language, etc.] are important to me & you’ll have to bear with that.

I can only assume you are trying to get me to back off in the face of some sleight of tongue.

I don’t follow. You used the term “conspiracy” & made it appear as if I was accusing PJM of being one. I pointed out that I never used the term & then clarified what I did mean. I have no idea what you mean by “sleight of tongue.” If you mean that I want you to back off using the term “conspiracy,” I merely ask that you be more precise when you attribute ideas or attitudes to me. As far as I’m concerned, using the term “conspiracy” is not precise or “concise.” It may characterize your true feelings & that’s fine. But look for some other PJM critics who’s actually called it a conspiracy & vent your feelings at them or else vent your feelings at me based on what I actually said.

You further argue that I and a handful of others on the site were brought on as cover–that we are dupes

Again, I did not say you were a dupe. I said that Charles Johnson and his cronies were taking advantage of the participation of more serious bloggers as a sort of window dressing which allows them to say (as they have disingenuously) that their enterprise has no particular ideological slant and contains divergent views.

Forgive me for boiling this down to you thinking there’s a secret plot involving a few individuals in the offing.

Now you’re being too cute by half. I said nothing about a “secret plot.” Now, you’re implying that you were not off base in “boiling down” my thinking to that phrase. Again, if I want to “boil down” my thinking I’ll do it myself. I’d ask you not to do it for me especially if you distort my intent.

You clearly know very little about Michael Ledeen–who he is and what he’s done. Either that, or you don’t care about his egregious deeds. Just a smattering of his statements are available above. Do you mean to tell me you’d say there’s no difference between Kos & Ledeen? As far as I know, Kos has not advocated “beating up” on countries smaller than our own just for the hell of it (seems we were doing a bit of that at Abu Graibh now weren’t we?). Kos hasn’t been in the middle of negotiating sleazy international weapons deals for rogue nations. Kos hasn’t been an ardent advocate for one of Iraq’s sleaziest–Ahmad Chalabi. I could go on.

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business”

You probably chalk this brutish talk up to a guy who’s being overly dramatic. If this and Ledeen’s other depredations don’t disturb you, then I hate to say it but it sounds to me as if you have very little moral perspective on the suffering that ideas like this cause to real people. In that case, the two of you will be very happy together.

I generally don’t call people I disagree with “scum” either. But in this case, it’s a description Ledeen so richly deserves.

The content will reflect the members’ content. If more people came in from the left, the content would reflect that.

Have you asked Charles & Roger who they’ve invited “from the left” besides Cooper & Corn? The only way the content can become diverse politically is if the founders decide they want it to be. I see no evidence that they’ve made a serious attempt to have any balance. They don’t have to–that’s their perjogative. But if their choice is to have the balance they currently have, then they can’t credibly argue that they have no ideological slant.

for my being “self-congratulatory” in my post. I think Jeff’s getting carried away with his rhetoric. The post doesn’t congratulate me or anyone else. It casts a critical eye at bloggers like Jeff and, poor boy, he doesn’t like that.

Actually, I could care less that you cast a “critical eye.” But that’s not what you’ve done. Instead, you’ve selectively quoted. Sure, I’m pro-Israel. But I spend very little time commenting on it. Instead, I spend a lot of time doing satire or linguistic / rhetorical analyses.

I suspect you looked at my name and figured I fit your sad little narrative.

Listen — you want to be critical of me, fine, do it. But do it honestly. Instead we get an ill-conceived post that likely won’t convince anyone other than those who are predisposed to thinking the world is made up of Jewish conspiracies — an who like to cite Jews saying such so that they can claim they’re not anti-semitic.

You’re a useful idiot, Dick. That’s it. And I just ask that if you want to engage me on on a particular issue, do so, rather than try to use me a piece of some grander conspiracy of which I am not a part.

Richard, we’re not dancing, so there’s no need to prance around this way. You strike me as a sharp guy, so I can only assume you are trying to get me to back off in the face of some sleight of tongue. I’m simply being concise in distililng down a series of your charges. You suggest that someone of a particular ideological bent is funding the site presumably to get out a particular message. You further argue that I and a handful of others on the site were brought on as cover–that we are dupes. Forgive me for boiling this down to you thinking there’s a secret plot involving a few individuals in the offing.

I’m certain that you know of Michael Ledeen & what scum he is. Can you honestly say you feel good about sharing a site with him?

As comfortable as I am sharing a country with being on the same radio show as Kos tonight. Or as comfortable as I am sharing the country with folks I disagree with. What I don’t go in for is treating people like lepers for their political beliefs. Ledeen, like many ideologues, is not my cup of tea. But I generally don’t call people I disagree with “scum.”

If you say Totten is to your left then you are considerably more than “slightly” conservative (though your conservatism is much more calibrated than some of yr other partners). The posts of his I’ve read are apologias for Bush Mideast policy (& I’m not talking about his Israeli-Palestinian policy which at times is cogent & creditable).

Like I said, I know him. When I say he’s to the left of me, I’m talking about the totality of our political opinions. You apparently only take into consideration one’s foreign policy views. I think you’re misreading Michael, but I’m not going to convince you otherwise.

Personally, I think Roger and Charles are looking to make some money. As I’ve already pointed out, this isn’t like HuffPo where we will be logging in and posting exclusive content (at least I’ve heard nothing of the sort). The content will reflect the members’ content. If more people came in from the left, the content would reflect that.

All of the talk of a big, evil conspiracy is just getting a little tired,

Nathan: I didn’t use the word “conspiracy,” you did–TWICE. Perhaps you’re thinking of someone else who’s raised some objections to PJM. But you should be more accurate before you sling criticisms at me.

I said that many of the PJM bloggers featured at its site were extreme right wing pro-Israel types. I quoted Sifry who said that he has a source claiming there is a sugar daddy who deliberately wants pro-Israel bloggers included as part of the project. That’s it.

That being said, I certainly think that Johnson has an agenda & wants to advance his strident right-wing anti-Muslim/pro-Israel views & he sees this project as an excellent way of doing so. It may be that there will be a few bloggers at the site worth reading. I’m not saying the site will be all-Sharon all-the-time. But it will have a distinct tilt in that direction deriving fr. those blogs I feature above.

If you say Totten is to your left then you are considerably more than “slightly” conservative (though your conservatism is much more calibrated than some of yr other partners). The posts of his I’ve read are apologias for Bush Mideast policy (& I’m not talking about his Israeli-Palestinian policy which at times is cogent & creditable).

I’m certain that you know of Michael Ledeen & what scum he is. Can you honestly say you feel good about sharing a site with him?

The only “out-of-date dreck” I am tired of is you, Silverstein.

Gee, Dave is back. Too bad all he has to offer is tired one-liners instead of substance & discussion of issues.

If you’re tired of me buddy no one made you come here. You can go back & play with your pajama partygoers over at yr place & never have to hear a word that dissents from your comfortable self-enclosed world view.