Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

166 Responses

  1. TheGodfather
    TheGodfather July 2, 2006 at 11:47 am |

    the american way of life rightwing style?

  2. Natalia
    Natalia July 2, 2006 at 11:52 am |

    I’m telling you, these people are takin us to a United States of Afghanistant type-future. And fast.

  3. StacyM
    StacyM July 2, 2006 at 12:06 pm |

    Essentially, this equates to using the threat of violence to silence others. It doesn’t matter if the person publishing the contact information is not committing an act of violence. There are plenty of anonymous crazies who are willing to do their dirty work for them, no questions asked.

    This is more than outing a person. Outing entails exposing someone as having a particular trait or identity that may prove to be socially detrimental should the knowledge become widely available. This is a step beyond that, for it also includes a means of finding the person (via personal contact information). Therefore, the prospect of physical retribution is heightened far beyond that of a mere outing.

    I agree. It’s pretty horrifying. It’s also an extremely cowardly act.

  4. TheGodfather
    TheGodfather July 2, 2006 at 12:14 pm |

    The Land of the Free – i guess it didn’t mean free to threaten others who hold differing views in order to make them shut up

  5. Erin M
    Erin M July 2, 2006 at 12:16 pm |

    Y’know, even if this goose/gander thing was a good idea, these bloggers aren’t the aggrieved party. If Cheney feels threatened by his summer house being written up in the Times, it’s his business to respond, not some wanker with a website and too much free time.

    When I put it that way – I realize this isn’t a new conclusion or anything – how does one get so devoted to a public figure that an inury or insult to said figure, perceived or otherwise, becomes an injury to the devotee? This has to be pathological.

  6. jah
    jah July 2, 2006 at 12:29 pm |

    Oh God.

  7. steved011
    steved011 July 2, 2006 at 12:46 pm |

    Come on people. Life is rough. This was bound to happen sooner or later. I have warned a lot of people to watch what they say or do lest they play in a bigger league than they are ready for. It ALWAYS goes on deaf ears. Be careful, be polite. This does not mean don’t speak, just be aware of consequences. The Government won’t penalize you for free speech, but others may. It’s a rough world and we want you all to come back alive.

  8. Amy J.
    Amy J. July 2, 2006 at 1:10 pm |

    More with the pot calling the kettle black? Can you not help yourself, or are you simply blind to your own hypocrisy? Wasn’t it you, just a few days ago, who informed all of your readers that I’m posting from Europe when there was absolutely no call to violate my privacy? OK, here’s where you insert your dodgey answer justifying your type or degree of hypocirsy and constrasting it to that of the wingnuts you mention, which I’m sure will boil down to “whatever Zuzu does is good and whatever wingnuts do is bad.”

    As for the NYT article, how responsible is it to publish details on the placement of security cameras, the location of the secret service detail protecting the families, and the travel routes used by the secret service?

  9. Antigone
    Antigone July 2, 2006 at 1:13 pm |

    Err, “Europe” is a pretty big place.

    Wheras “an address” is pretty fucking specific.

  10. cdj
    cdj July 2, 2006 at 1:15 pm |

    I never understood why all of you “hard-nosed” liberal bloggers are such wusses, and refuse to call a spade a spade. “Eliminationist”? Sheesh.

    It’s Murderous rhetoric you wusses. Call it for what it is.

    And yes, I know the history of the term “eliminationist”. My point still stands – it’s NOW a softer-sounding term than “murderous”, specifically because it is less specfic.

  11. res ipsa loquitur
    res ipsa loquitur July 2, 2006 at 1:19 pm |

    Rumsfeld’s summer home is a place of national interest: Frederick Douglass was beaten there at least 25 times.

  12. grh
    grh July 2, 2006 at 1:20 pm |

    Wasn’t it you, just a few days ago, who informed all of your readers that I’m posting from Europe when there was absolutely no call to violate my privacy?

    Surely this is a joke.

  13. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost July 2, 2006 at 1:21 pm |

    Not that I endorse a tight moderation policy, but I’m a bit surprised Amy J hadn’t been banned yet. I mean, she’s not even funny.

    That said, zuzu, you’re the legal expert. Is ‘incitement to stalk’ illegal?

  14. Little Brøther
    Little Brøther July 2, 2006 at 1:24 pm |

    hypocirsy and constrasting

    Physician, heal thyself! The British spellings for “hypocrisy” and “contrasting” are a dead giveaway…

  15. nerdlet
    nerdlet July 2, 2006 at 1:28 pm |

    She also said “not posting from the US,” not “posting from Europe,” which is even further from posting an address or, you know, finding out where someone’s kids go to school.

  16. Jane Hamsher
    Jane Hamsher July 2, 2006 at 1:28 pm |

    Arrgh….Jaysus…don’t make me do it….grrrr…..aaugh…..

    Must….defend….G*ldstein….it was one of his readers, not him, and G*ldstein deleted the information…..


  17. cleek
    cleek July 2, 2006 at 1:31 pm |

    now now, if you’re making a list of wingnut death-threats with addresses, it wouldn’t be fair to leave out “Misha’s” classic contribution to the cause.

  18. ql in ny
    ql in ny July 2, 2006 at 1:36 pm |

    Uhm, you can out that I’m posting from NY.

  19. Yasonyacky
    Yasonyacky July 2, 2006 at 1:37 pm |

    Amy J. –

    Umm, yeah, your privacy has definitely been violated! I mean, we didn’t know you were in Europe! That makes things SO MUCH EASIER!!!!!ONE111!!!

    Seriously, one has the right to not have the continent from which one is posting disclosed. That’s some pretty personal information. (“Personal information”, after all, being the operative concept in any formulation of “violation of privacy”.)

    But I see that you’ve effectively inoculated yourself against this particular criticism (“OK, here’s where you insert your dodgey answer justifying your type or degree of hypocirsy and constrasting it to that of the wingnuts you mention…”).

    Excellent work! The very model of intellectual honesty!

    Oh, and by the way, Zuzu – wasn’t it you who, just last week, told the world that I was posting from Earth, and not Mars or the moon? Shame on you. That is clearly equivalent to posting someone’s home address and instructions to “Hunt these people down and do America a favor!” Nope, no difference AT ALL.

  20. just john
    just john July 2, 2006 at 1:39 pm |

    I’m not joking when I ask: Has anybody called DHS on these guys?

    “Go hunt them down and do America a favor,” sounds like a call for jihad, as least close enough for Government work.

  21. Magnum
    Magnum July 2, 2006 at 1:41 pm |

    What happened to that pledge they all made a short while ago after a few sites published Michelle Malkin’s address online?

  22. just john
    just john July 2, 2006 at 1:42 pm |

    (cripes, that shoulda read “at least” instead of “as least”)

  23. Amy J.
    Amy J. July 2, 2006 at 1:45 pm |

    None of that matters, for it was up to me to release that information, not Zuzu. All you’re doing is arguing about degree not kind. She took it upon herself to release information about me that I didn’t consent to and she chose that tactic rather than engaging the points I raised in my arguments. She’s no different a beast than Goldstein or Malkin, she’s just not as severe in her unethical actions. I suppose she can take some comfort in that, for it’s like saying someone is only a little bit pregnant.

  24. Molly, NYC
    Molly, NYC July 2, 2006 at 1:45 pm |

    For anyone posting about rightwing lunacy and paranoia, it’s wonderful to have a living example.

    Amy J, we thank you.

  25. Stupid Wingnuts Suck
    Stupid Wingnuts Suck July 2, 2006 at 1:49 pm |

    I’m getting hay fever from all these strawmen.

  26. grh
    grh July 2, 2006 at 1:51 pm |

    Wait. Does this mean “Amy J” is not joking?

    I’m seriously asking.

  27. peter ramus
    peter ramus July 2, 2006 at 1:59 pm |

    I’m with Amy J.

    Would have assumed “not posting from Planet Earth” if not otherwise informed.


  28. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost July 2, 2006 at 2:02 pm |

    All you’re doing is arguing about degree not kind.

    And if you think neither ethical nor legal standards take degree into account when considering wrong-doing, you’re clearly insane.

  29. dragonsmilk
    dragonsmilk July 2, 2006 at 2:04 pm |

    Actually, KnifeGhost, she’s getting a little bit funny now.
    Not only does she pretend that handing the information on what continent she is or isn’t on to potential stalkers puts her at risk, but she just said that “not in Cleveland” and “at 88 Blah St., Atlanta, GA” are equivalent invasions of privacy, only different in degree (a difference which of course has no ethical relevence).

    I do seriously doubt she has much more entertainment value to add, though.

  30. dragonsmilk
    dragonsmilk July 2, 2006 at 2:05 pm |

    ah, bloody cross-posting

  31. MAJeff
    MAJeff July 2, 2006 at 2:12 pm |

    Who would have thought we’d get to a point where the 1950s John Birch Society would look sane? Reading the threat over at Greenwald’s place makes me realize today’s right has left the Birchers in the dust.

  32. Amy J.
    Amy J. July 2, 2006 at 2:35 pm |

    Not only does she pretend that handing the information on what continent she is or isn’t on to potential stalkers puts her at risk,

    I never stated that I objected to Zuzu’s ethical lapse on the grounds that her actions would increase my risk of being stalked. I objected on the grounds that she shouldn’t be claiming for herself the right to release information on other people, and that she shouldn’t set herself up to be the judge of whether the personal information she releases about others is inconsequential or not, for if she claims the right to release what she thinks is inconsequential personal information about others, then Goldstein and Malkin can make the same claim, and all three of them can then split hairs about whether the information that they release is considered to be inconsequential only by them or by their readers as well. As you can see here, all of you are defending Zuzu’s actions, being the good partisans that you are, and I’m sure that Goldstein’s supporters are defending his actions. When you cross the ethical line then it all can be justified in the eyes of the beholder.

    Zuzu’s hypocrisy only compounds the matter for she is condemning others of doing exactly what she practices.

  33. Ken C.
    Ken C. July 2, 2006 at 2:36 pm |

    Almost in this category: Dan Okrent (worst possible newspaper ombudsman, until Deborah Howell proved otherwise) published the name and home city of someone who sent critical email to Adam Nagourney. This was despite specific requests to him and to Nagourney not to do so.

  34. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne July 2, 2006 at 2:43 pm |

    Wow. The crazy really is breaking out all over today.

    Because, of course, telling one’s readers this:

    “Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous – grab for the golden ring.”

    … is EXACTLY the same as stating that someone is posting from outside the United States without so much as specifying a continent.

    You really don’t understand the difference between being potentially slightly embarrassed (assuming you think that being outside the United States is something to be ashamed of) and having your children followed home from school? Really?

    Wow. Are you sure you’re not posting from an insane asylum that happens to be outside of the United States?

  35. mercury
    mercury July 2, 2006 at 2:50 pm |

    The cowardly bedwetting Brownshirts of the Information Age.

  36. Auguste
    Auguste July 2, 2006 at 2:57 pm |

    I’m gonna really push the envelope here and reveal that at least 50% of Feministe commenters are posting from inside the United States.

    The line to complain about it forms at the left. Amy J, you’re excluded, cause we already know you’re not part of the at-least-50%.

  37. Amy J.
    Amy J. July 2, 2006 at 3:00 pm |

    I suppose you all think that shoplifting a $5 item is just fine so long as we condemn bank robberies. I suppose it’s also fine to engage in subway grabass so long as we are all clear that rape is to be condemned. I suppose kissing a coworker is ok so long as one doesn’t really cheat on one’s spouse by going to bed with the coworker.

    Zuzu, like Malkin and Goldstein crossed a line, and you’re excusing her transgression just like you would the shoplifting, grabass and kissing coworkers. You’re no better than the defenders of Malkin and Goldstein.

    You really don’t understand the difference between being potentially slightly embarrassed (assuming you think that being outside the United States is something to be ashamed of) and having your children followed home from school? Really?

    The point which you’re purposely ignoring is that it is not up to Zuzu, Goldstein or Malkin to decide what information is to be released about their commenters. It’s not up to the three of them to determine whether the information is embarrassing, inconvenient, threatening, etc.

  38. Comte de Rochambeau
    Comte de Rochambeau July 2, 2006 at 3:06 pm |

    The deflection of the public attention from the debacle that is
    modern politics has the scope of moronic dupes lathered up and raging. After all who would care if the US Treasury was being drained into the pockets of evil companies that benefit by cheating the very troops they pretend to cherish. The very lives of our children and the lives of many civilians in the combat zones are nothing more than fodder for the mill that
    grinds away the future of these unfortunates. Would that these
    angry minions of hate be put into those boots. In terrible times and for no end in sight and having to kill or be killed. Morons,
    without honor and baying like the hounds they resemble. They
    would continue this pretension and collect the spoils that fall their way from the pockets of the tax payers that are as prey to the evil warmongers. This diversion of anger and foppish ire at
    the news is only the duty of fools to show their masters they are attending the stables by shoveling the shit.

  39. Auguste
    Auguste July 2, 2006 at 3:07 pm |


    Stating that you’re outside the US is more like taking a second free sample when the sign says “take one, please.”

  40. grh
    grh July 2, 2006 at 3:08 pm |

    Cripes. Who is this Amy J person? Because she’s quite seriously insane.

  41. Amy J.
    Amy J. July 2, 2006 at 3:17 pm |

    Stating that you’re outside the US is more like taking a second free sample when the sign says “take one, please.”

    If you look back at that Wal-Mart post where Zuzu crossed the ethical line you’ll see that I didn’t make a big deal out of it. The reason I’m bringing it up today is I find her hypocrisy to be stomach turning.

    At the fundamental level it’s not up to her to decide, nor you, whether revealing my location is like “taking a second free sample” or not. If she justifies her ethical lapse by such reasoning then there is nothing preventing Malkin and Goldstein from justifying their actions by arguing that people should stand behind what they’ve written in public spheres, and if Thersites doesn’t want public scrutiny then Thersites shouldn’t be writing anything controversial in public. Sure, that’s a lame excuse that Goldstein could trot out, but it’s no more lame that Zuzu removing a decision from my control and usurping it onto herself. You, I and Zuzu could all agree that the severity of her transgression is no more than taking a second sample, and we’re still left with the fact that she took it upon herself to reveal information about me that I didn’t bring into the conversation.

  42. Joel
    Joel July 2, 2006 at 3:21 pm |

    “The reason I’m bringing it up today is I find her hypocrisy to be stomach turning.”

    Take a powder, then, Amy.

    You’ve become unhinged.

  43. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost July 2, 2006 at 3:26 pm |

    I suppose it’s also fine to engage in subway grabass so long as we are all clear that rape is to be condemned.

    Actually, that analogy occured to me earlier, but I think you got it wrong.

    You argument appears to be “yeah, that dude’s a serial date-rapist, but your friend once kissed a girl without verbal consent, which is the moral equivalent.”

  44. seabiscuit
    seabiscuit July 2, 2006 at 3:32 pm |

    michelle malkin: you’re not white, dear. one of these days the people who right now you think are your friends are gonna’ tell you that.

  45. Erin M
    Erin M July 2, 2006 at 3:33 pm |

    What is it this week? I’m not saying people got anything like “marching orders”, ’cause I don’t fancy a tin foil hat, but it seems like every blog I read (which admittedly tends toward the lefty side) has picked up a troll on this issue. Good grief.

  46. Sally
    Sally July 2, 2006 at 3:35 pm |

    Amy is either being deliberately obtuse or is profoundly stupid. It’s difficult to tell which it is, but either way, she’s not worth wasting time on. I suspect the rest of us are all clear on the difference between posting non-identifying information and inciting people to stalk reporters and their families and are aware that it’s a difference not of degree but of kind. So why are we letting Amy dominate the discussion?

    You know what’s funny? In D.C., the children of the media elite attend school with the children of the Republican political elite. If you sic the psychos on schools attended by the kids of high-ranking Post or D.C.-based NY Times reporters, you are also going to endanger the children of Republican politicians. Sidwell Friends, for instance, is generally thought of as a liberal school, attended by the kids of Democrats and media types, but Donald Rumsfeld’s daughter went there. Donald Graham, the publisher of the Post, sent his kids to the school to which Karen Hughes sent her son. (I’m not giving away any identifying details here: all kids mentioned are long gone.) Republican politicians may enjoy rhetorically attacking the media, but I suspect that this is going to hit a little too close to home for their comfort.

  47. geoduck2
    geoduck2 July 2, 2006 at 3:35 pm |

    It is horrifying & it’s a way of using the implcit threat of violence to silence people.

    You know, it is just plain scary. I was involved in the intentionalism debate that led to people on PW outing Thers.

    I’m concerned that when I post I will cause G**ldstein’s people to repost the information about Thers and NYMary.

    For example, on Pandagon today I posted on the “chickenhawk” thread. Out of the blue, Pablo (one of Jeff’s regulars), again brought up Thers & reposted a link to his deleated blog that he caught on google. (Thers deleated it because his family was getting threats and he had information on that blog such as family pictures.)

    I don’t know what to do. I don’t want to cause Thers & NYMary any more trouble. I’m even wondering if this post is a mistake.

  48. Amy J.
    Amy J. July 2, 2006 at 3:38 pm |

    On the big issue I see that most of the commenters here are blinded by their ideology, so let’s bring this closer to home. We’re all very concerned about DV and the need to have secure women’s shelters, so would you all be so lackadaiscal if your local paper wrote a story about a minor elected official who fled her home because her husband was beating her and the newspaper then showed pcitures of the woman’s shelter, detailed the security arrangements around the shelter, profiled locales where the woman could take her children for an afternoon away from the shelter. Afterall, these shelters are owned by non-profit agencies and their tax records are available for everyone to check up on, and those tax records include address information, etc. It would be very easy for an abusive husband to track down his wife simply by checking public sources for information on local women’s shelters, so the newspaper that published this information would be doing no harm. Right?

  49. Ron Sullivan
    Ron Sullivan July 2, 2006 at 3:45 pm |

    Whew, you pick up some righteous loon trolls here. My hat would be off to you if I had a hat on.

    See, I guess I should be worried because now you all know what I’m wearing.

  50. Auguste
    Auguste July 2, 2006 at 3:45 pm |


    I think you’re missing the point. The most germane argument is not “did Goldstein, DiPippo, Malkin, etc. cross an ethical boundary safeguarding privacy”; the argument is “are they using intimidation and alluding to eliminationist rhetoric well-established by the right?” Um, yeah.

    Was zuzu committing a similar offense by narrowing down your location by 1.8% of the earth’s total land mass? Nope.

  51. Crooks and Liars » Horrifying
    Crooks and Liars » Horrifying July 2, 2006 at 3:46 pm |

    […] 2nd, 2006 at 1:44 PM – PDT

    I found zuzu link to one of my older posts and yes, it’s horrifying.  

    Filed Under:


  52. geoduck2
    geoduck2 July 2, 2006 at 3:46 pm |

    Hey, Amy,

    Thers got death threats, including threats of violence against his children. Yes, they were reported.

    The model of his car was posted, along with his place of employment, the town that he lives in and his wife’s private information.

  53. Auguste
    Auguste July 2, 2006 at 3:48 pm |

    And your DV shelter example actually proves our point. If the paper had said “the minor elected official is in hiding somewhere in the United States” I doubt if anyone would have a problem with it. Your example essentially nails down the fact that matters of degree are very important to privacy issues.

  54. KnifeGhost
    KnifeGhost July 2, 2006 at 3:55 pm |

    Man, the talking-points mill is getting clever these days.

  55. Otto Man
    Otto Man July 2, 2006 at 3:58 pm |

    I hope someone’s collecting all these “go hunt them down” posts. Sooner or later, someone’s going to act on the urgings and the bloggers will be held accountable.

    They busted Matthew Hale on the same sort of charge after his acolytes killed those judges, right?

  56. Auguste
    Auguste July 2, 2006 at 4:00 pm |

    Not that I blame you, zuzu, in the least, but I was looking forward to seeing her next salvo. But I’m a troll-feeder, so my opinion counts for less than nothing. :)

  57. Sally
    Sally July 2, 2006 at 4:06 pm |

    It’s really not a big secret that Cheney and Rumsfeld have weekend homes in St. Michaels. In fact, I haven’t seen any evidence that they’re trying to keep it a secret, and if so, the cat has long been out of the bag. It’s possible that, like Camp David and the president’s ranch in Crawford, the St. Michaels retreats are public knowledge, and the Secret Service relies on means other than secrecy to protect them. It’s actually possible that the Times got Secret Service authorization to print the story and photo. And I suspect that the right-wing nutcase didn’t make any effort to see whether there was any security threat before they published the photographer’s address and identifying information.

    If I were the Times, I’d have checked with someone to make sure the story wasn’t a security risk. I don’t think that a dumb travel story is of sufficient significance to justify endangering anyone. But for all we know, they did that.

    Did anyone else read the story and catch the bizarre detail about Rumsfeld’s holiday place being the site of the Mr. Covey’s farm, where Frederick Douglass was taken to be “broken”? It’s not at all significant, but I think if it were my weekend place, I’d find it vaguely creepy.

  58. Ted
    Ted July 2, 2006 at 4:08 pm |

    WE haven’t seen nothin yet.

    They’re breeding MUCH worse down on the home schooled farm. Wait’ll the kids playing the video games where they kill non Christians come of age. Wait’ll the “lawyers” Falwell is training come on board.

    This country is tubes. Conservatism is the tool of horror. They are getting the world they have been asking for – they just have no clue what it is they have been asking for.

    These people have been conditioned. They will rationalize anything away anything to protect the cult. Treason in the White House isn’t near as bad as taking photos for the travel section of a paper.

    They cannot see it, they are conditionbed by 25 years of propaganda nd they believe every word of it. They think Rush has been informing them for gosh sakes, like they have been getting the full picture. They have been conditioned to believe they are being persecuted, are patriotic and are personally doing the work of the Lord – all lies.

    Like the Moonies, they believe nothing is off limits to protect their cult, nothing.

    Kiss your nation good bye, it IS gone and it isn’t coming back. Conservatism, Rep[ublicans are taking the nation and the world to very, very dark place.

  59. geoduck2
    geoduck2 July 2, 2006 at 4:10 pm |

    Arrgh….Jaysus…don’t make me do it….grrrr…..aaugh…..

    Must….defend….G*ldstein….it was one of his readers, not him, and G*ldstein deleted the information…..


    But when G@ldstein got mad at some commenters from Eschaton comming to his blog he reposted the private information REPEATEDLY. About both Thers and his WIFE. Who, by the way, had nothing to do with the argument.

  60. Subway Serenade
    Subway Serenade July 2, 2006 at 4:11 pm |

    “Go hunt them down and do America a favor.” Something like that sounds kinda illegal,but what do I know. Violence is all they have left. It comes as no surprise that they would use it. It’s tragic the left is basicly pacifist, because the other side is well armed, and stupid enough to go for it.

    50 Ways To Dump The Dubya

  61. Fred
    Fred July 2, 2006 at 4:14 pm |

    Pardon my stumbling upon this conversation, but I feel compelled to say…

    How can anyone, with today’s technology, expect to maintain any form of anonymity on the web? Is that not the absurd center to all this?

    I agree what Goldstein and the like have done is deplorable, and I do not condone it in anyway, but still…what can you expect from the lowest of the low? Every time I post, I risk getting thrown out of the military if what I’m ranting about has the slightest negative connotations regarding His Excellencies Administration. The phrase, “Free speech is not free,” has more than one meaning, and the truth is always a costly thing.

  62. Cowicide
    Cowicide July 2, 2006 at 4:22 pm |

    I hope someone’s collecting all these “go hunt them down” posts. Sooner or later, someone’s going to act on the urgings and the bloggers will be held accountable.

    Oh, don’t worry… we collect them and keep track of any other new wing-nuts who think this utterly contentious “strategy” is cool… We also do our best to find their real identities in cases where the chickenhawks try to hide… we do all this for various reasons. And, they will CERTAINLY be “held accountable” in various ways. Not a threat, not a warning… it’s just the reality of their situation. Live by the gun, die by the gun… so to speak.

    The sad thing is… these cowardly chickenhawks only think they are pissing off a bunch of pacifist hippies. They have no idea how much further it goes beyond that and what that means for them.

    Too bad for them. Too bad. Keep it up, chickenhawks… Keep it up.

  63. markg
    markg July 2, 2006 at 4:27 pm |

    Why would Al Quaeda wnat to go after the two best recruiting agents they’ve ever had?

  64. Europsycho
    Europsycho July 2, 2006 at 4:31 pm |

    zuzu Says:
    July 2nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    Amy, this isn’t about you. This is about the photographer who was outed.

    You’re trolling, you’re not interesting, and you’ve been shilling for Wal-Mart. You’re banned.

    Ahwww….Why’dja go and do that? I almost had a fix on her.

  65. Katherine
    Katherine July 2, 2006 at 4:40 pm |

    So for Malkin et al, it’s always an eye for an eye, not do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    I swear to God, if someone wrote tomorrow that these idiotic assholes had been constructed out of sheet metal and latex in Area 51 as part of a Skull and Bones conspiracy, I’d believe it.

  66. Todd
    Todd July 2, 2006 at 5:23 pm |

    Hey America. Hurry up and have your next civil war already. The rest of the world is getting tired of this crap and we’d like it if you can make up your mind about who you are.

  67. c u n d gulag
    c u n d gulag July 2, 2006 at 5:31 pm |

    Back, it the US…
    Back in the US…
    Back in the USSR!
    God, the ’60’s were good to these people.
    If you don’t want to share, put down the crackpipe and let us know where YOUR children live!
    Hey, Conservative’s – Sharing is Caring!

    Next on the Sci-Fi channel – Michelle Malkin has a rational thought! Don’t get worried, like Barney Fife has only one bullet, this is her only shot! So, stand by!!
    But, be prepared to duck!!!

  68. June
    June July 2, 2006 at 5:43 pm |

    The post says that the vacation homes had already been “featured” in Newsweek, etc. So, yeah, not secret and not the first time someone wrote about them.

  69. Joe
    Joe July 2, 2006 at 5:44 pm |

    “Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above.”

    The scariest part is “where their kids go to school.” These little Nazis like Dennis and Michelle Malkin are going to stalk the children of reporters they disagree with and hunt down their kids and publish where the kids go to school for other little Nazis to do what exactly? Would these little fascists like us hunting down their children and publishing where their kids go to school?

    This is what America has devolved into thanks to a morally bankrupt and law flouting administration and talk radio daily fueling the fires of bigotry, intolerance and thugishness.

  70. r4d20
    r4d20 July 2, 2006 at 6:06 pm |

    I think the only thing holding some of these guys back from murder is that “their” party has power and they hold out hope that the state will “handle” the problem.

    If Dems take back significant power they may lose this hope and then we will see violence.

  71. Mnemosyne
    Mnemosyne July 2, 2006 at 6:07 pm |

    So for Malkin et al, it’s always an eye for an eye, not do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

    Close, but not quite. It’s more like, “An eye for a piece of used chewing gum.”

  72. freD
    freD July 2, 2006 at 6:07 pm |

    America could always replace a crony VP or an aging SOD pretty quickly. But returning to the level of respect, general reputation, and influence this country had in the eyes of the world before these two will take much longer. You know al Qaeda loves these paranoid Bush cultist assholes, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they know full well that it’s been far more effidient, for their cause, to just sit back and enjoy the show.

  73. stevenwarran
    stevenwarran July 2, 2006 at 6:47 pm |

    Two things. Google Maps famously blanked out the Cheney/Rumsfeld vacation spot isthmus (and where else?), evidence perhaps of a higher level of fear on their side, to which a more empathetic response from our side might cool things down a bit.

    Two, My first blog was a statement of principles, and of course it included my contact information–what did I know?–including four telephone numbers and five email addresses. I must say, I’ve thought twice before taking on some targets, out of fear of their reaction. That turn out to be a wise choice, I think, and full disclosure needs to be the new authenticity paradigm here. I’m no longer interested in listening to anyone hiding behind anonymity. Things have gotten too intense for that.

  74. Shell5960v
    Shell5960v July 2, 2006 at 7:20 pm |

    The good part is: They know they are almost toast. Remember the saying, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” We are on FIGHTING now. Almost over.

    Hang in there, everyone.

  75. the bewilderness
    the bewilderness July 2, 2006 at 7:26 pm |

    We had rather a rash of assasinations in the ’60s when the rhetoric from what I laughingly refer to as our representatives was very similar to what I hear today. That was when the Dems took the White House after eight years of Repubs. The only difference I think is location. Then it was the bars and the grange halls. Now it’s the churches and the fabulous interwebs.

  76. sappy
    sappy July 2, 2006 at 7:28 pm |

    The article ran on October 1, 2004. Why are we discussing this now?

  77. Bas-O-Matic
    Bas-O-Matic July 2, 2006 at 8:16 pm |


    What Geoduck said. First, G***stein was very coy about removing he information from his comments in the first place, making it extremely easy for anyone to figure out who Thers and NYMary were just from what he said when he removed the information. He also didn’t really remove all of the information from his comments. While common courtesy probably called for G***stein to remove all of it, I couldn’t really fault him (other than the fact that when he did remove the info, it was half-assed) up to this point.

    Whether G***stein had an absolute obligation to remove the information at that point is, I think, debateable and depends just as much on how closely G***stein monitors his comments as anything else (that it was brought to his attention and he was asked to remove it certainly mitigates against him). For instance, I’m certain that I could scare up a comment thread on AmericaBlog or Eschaton that has a link to the famous “picture of Malkin’s house” that the right maumaued about in April (though the link is probably dead at this point). I don’t think, however, that in either instance Avarosis or Atrios bears any real fault.

    At any rate, whether the obligation to remove the information existed or not, G***stein did take it further, actually publishing the information on the front page of his blog.

  78. toast
    toast July 2, 2006 at 8:17 pm |

    I just want to thank Ms. Malkin for linking to that story in the NYT travsec. Had it not been for her (and others) I would never have known where Rummy and Big Time have their vacation homes.

    Thanks for the info, terrorist-abetting Wingnuts!

    Yours truly,


  79. xoites
    xoites July 2, 2006 at 8:31 pm |

    “grab for the golden ring.”

    There is some kind of great honor associated with exposing the children of journalists to hate crimes? Last I heard Cheney and Rumsfeld had the entire Penagon to defend them.

    Sometimes i just hang my head in shame knowing i am an American. God help us.

  80. Lindsay Beyestein
    Lindsay Beyestein July 2, 2006 at 9:04 pm |

    The United States is a superpower. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld are guarded by the Secret Service. There’s a year-round no-fly zone over Saint Michaels Maryland in case the Veep ever drops by on short notice.

    We all know that Dick Cheney lives at 1 Observatory Circle, just like the President lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and has that ranch in Crawford.

    In normal countries, it isn’t a state secret where elected leaders live. I’m sure the NYT got permission to do a travel story on Dick Cheney’s house. People have been arrested for operating cameras near Cheney without permission.

    The wingnuts are in appallingly bad faith, as usual. Surely, even they aren’t so scared of terrorists that they think that the residences of our national leaders should be as low-profile as the caves in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda’s leaders live.

    Besides, the NYT travel section didn’t publish any new information. NewsMax, International Herald Tribune, and tons of other papers last year when Cheney bought the house. His own real estate agent talked to the press.

    Right wing hysterics are dumber than douche water.

  81. Matt in Texas
    Matt in Texas July 2, 2006 at 9:11 pm |

    OK, then everyone, I’m gonna “out” an address: the 2 highest-ranking US officials work at …….1600 Pennsylvania Ave, in Washington, DC!!!! The #1 guy, er, wait the #1 puppet, actually LIVES there!!

    And his vacation home is in….Crawford, Texas!

    Go for it!


  82. Matt in Texas
    Matt in Texas July 2, 2006 at 9:13 pm |

    OK, but what does that mean? (I can’t post after my 3rd beer? I’d insert a smiley face, but I don’t know how – I’m fairly new to this stuff.)

  83. Vladi G
    Vladi G July 2, 2006 at 9:25 pm |

    Amy, I know you’re a total moron, and therefore you may need to read this a few times before you figure it out, so I’ll try to keep this short. That information you’re so upset about was released the moment you visited this blog. See that little rainbow thing on the bottom right? It tracks visitors. It even tells you what continent they’re in. Anyone at any time could click over there and find out where visitors are coming from. That means me, you, and anyone else. So nothing about you was “outed” that you hadn’t already made public.

    SPIIDERWEB™ July 2, 2006 at 9:26 pm |

    All this should come as no surprise. When they genuflect before Bushco, a completely degenerate cabal, they demonstrate they have no scruples, morals or sense of what’s proper.

    Rove has taught the wingers you can win by fighting dirty and they’ve learned their lessons well.

  85. Thers
    Thers July 2, 2006 at 9:27 pm |

    As I’m mentioned in the first paragraph and then subsequently, let me correct the record. JG made it clear he was in the market for my personal info, as well as my wife’s, and then it appeared in his comments. He retracted that comment to some degree, but then came up with a spurious pretext to *un*retract it several hours later, and anyway the info also appeared in other comments on thatn thread. He’s subsequently put it on the front page of his site and also published it in the comments to at least one liberal blog. His intent is to threaten.

    Jane Hamsher’s comment is thus correct, but highly misleading. No fault to her, of course. But these are the facts.

  86. Schroeder
    Schroeder July 2, 2006 at 10:25 pm |

    Both horrific and stupid on the part of these rightwingnuts. They are opening a Pandora’s Box that will come back to haunt them.

  87. kate
    kate July 2, 2006 at 10:54 pm |

    The wingnuts have been cultivated long and hard, as many posters here accurately allude to. I see very little humor in it.

    If it weren’t for the fact that most of these wingnuts represent a broad swath of average American cognitive ability, it would be a laughable twinge of the moment from an ignorable minority.

    The pot has been simmering for a long time and the Republicans and their far-right goons need only sit back and watch it boil over on its own.

    Dinner’s ready! “Le fascisme avec de la sauce du républicain et le wingnut garnissent.” at L’Ristorante de le democrat

  88. roserock
    roserock July 3, 2006 at 12:18 am |

    Right-wing-nuts are all about good and evil as defined by Bush and Co. You are either with Bush and Co., or God help you, because you are against Bush and need to be eliminated by the soldiers of “God” for being an America-hating, Christian-persecuting, Flag-burning, Bush-bashing, Cheney vacation home-exposing terrorist. Photographers, journalists, and civilians aren’t really people to these so-called Christians; civilians are just inconvenient bumps their “Christian” Humvies run over on the road to Armagedon and their God-given, “Christian” place at the right hand of God. But I wouldn’t worry so much about Cheney anyway if I were a Right wing nut-job; he seems perfectly capable of shooting someone in the face all by himself.

  89. Jake
    Jake July 3, 2006 at 12:52 am |

    Oh man, where their kids go to school. I do believe that is the saddest thing I’ve ever heard. Whenever I have a ‘valid’ political disagreement with someone, I just, uh, put a hit out on their kids. It seems like they’ve stopped trying to convince people, and now they’re just coercing or threatening them. This might be a little overkill on the ‘Republicans get things done’ ticket. zeig heil.

  90. Bobdog
    Bobdog July 3, 2006 at 1:28 am |

    One these days one of these nut cases will really follow through on threats like this and actually off someone at the urging of these fanatics. Then what will the right have to say for itself? Echoes of Bob Dylan’s “Who Killed Davy Moore?” will be resounding through the right-wing bloviate-o-sphere for sure.

  91. B.D.
    B.D. July 3, 2006 at 6:20 am |

    This stuff kills me. The wingnuts think that these pieces magically appear in the paper in retaliation for alleged transgressions by the administration. These types of articles are prepared with weeks of planning and (usually) with the assistance of the people involved or their staffs. Cheney and Rumsfeld should come clean on that, but it’s unlikely as they are getting their base stirred up over yet another non-controversy. They should come clean, though, now that it’s gotten ugly.

    One of the contributers to Reason magazine said it took him all of 20 seconds on Google to locate Cheney’s place, complete with map and picture of the block Cheney lives on. Some privacy, eh?

  92. ginmar
    ginmar July 3, 2006 at 6:43 am |

    Then they’ll backpeddle like mad and whine that they’re not responsible for people taking it all so seriously—it was a joke, ha ha! Ann Coulter’s defenders have been doing this for years.

  93. StacyM
    StacyM July 3, 2006 at 7:40 am |

    Unfortunately, this kind of behavior has been around a while. Fringe anti-choice activists started publishing the home addresses of abortion clinic doctors a while ago.

    Just to be fair and realistic, I suspect that many extremists on many different sides of the political fence would lower themselves to these kinds of tactics. Really, we’re all human, so we’ve all got our own crazies to dress up in funny little sweaters and march off to the padded happy room. It just so happens that the largest, most dangerous group of crazies at this point in US history happens to be on the right.

    I say this as someone who is pretty far to the left, probably considered to be part of the “crazed fringe” by most folks here in the US. I do not advocate these kinds of behaviors, though. Exposing anyone to random violence at the hands of anonymous crazies is absolutely inexcusable.

  94. appletree  » Blog Archive   » What is Wrong with the Wingnuts?

    […] n, Jeff Goldstein, and Rocco DiPippo have become frustrated with their inability to effectively combat terrorism with their keyboards […]

  95. sphinx
    sphinx July 3, 2006 at 8:05 am |

    If Republicans did a similar thing (as Michelle Malkin already has but worse) this would be a non-issue. The hypocrisy is rank. The pettiness, just plain silly.

  96. Chicklet
    Chicklet July 3, 2006 at 8:55 am |

    We had something similar here in Cleveland recently. Ohio’s legislature decided that the public didn’t have a right to know who had a license to carry a concealed weapon and took the step to keep those records out of public view, but allowed media access. The Plain Dealer decided to publish the list of concealed-carry licensees in their readership area, because, hey, you might want to know if that ex-boyfriend/annoying neighbor/parent of your kid’s new chum has a license to pack heat wherever he goes.

    The gun nuts went ballistic, and, in retaliation, posted the home address (complete with map) and phone number of the editor.

  97. Pete
    Pete July 3, 2006 at 9:09 am |

    I can’t stop laughing at Amy J.
    What a moron – wow, so you’re in Europe, huh Amy J?

    Well, now that I know your first name (Amy, very uncommon – really, I’ve never heard that one before) and last initial J (also, I have never met anyone who has a last name starting with the letter J, certainly not a Johnson and never have I met a Jones) coupled with the fact that I know you are in Europe (Europe is like three square blocks, right?) it will hardly take me two seconds to find you.

    I look forward to being showered with flowers and chocolates as I liberate you from your insanity, paranoia and cowardice – and you will sing my praises as I give you that first sweet taste of Democracy that will blossom from you and spread all over the three city blocks known as Europe in a glorious bloom.

    By the way, I live in Seattle, which is much larger than Europe, or so I’ve heard.
    You are free to come look for me if you like.

  98. epistemology
    epistemology July 3, 2006 at 12:04 pm |

    People, PLEASE don’t make the mistake of following the paranoid right wing’s example and start publishing any personal info on private citizens.

  99. Natalia
    Natalia July 3, 2006 at 12:19 pm |

    I still can’t get over the fact that they’re going after the children.

    In lawless Ukraine of the early 90’s, my dad pissed some people off, and they went after me. I was seven years old! I remember not being able to go outside without my Doberman and an adult. I remember being terrified all the time. It was hell, and I was in therapy for a good deal after.

    The threat to my life was one of the main reasons my parents moved to the United States. Surely these things are ILLEGAL here. Right?

    Well, I guess my parents were just proven wrong. Wow.

  100. Natalia
    Natalia July 3, 2006 at 1:03 pm |

    Yeah, I posted my own perspective on this here

    As a child who was targeted because of her parents’ actions, I have a LOT to say on the subject.

  101. OhNoNotAgain
    OhNoNotAgain July 3, 2006 at 1:32 pm |

    Hey Amy J, sorry for bursting your bubble, but if you really are posting from “outside the US”, then every web site you visit knows more about you from your IP address then what was revealed by her saying “outside the US”. In fact, given just your IP address, any person can narrow you down to a pretty specific location. At least a lot more specific than an “outside the ” statement. So, you can hop down from your high horse now and go back to thinking of more creative, yet spectacularly stupid, ways that you can disrupt the comments section of someone’s blog.

  102. OhNoNotAgain
    OhNoNotAgain July 3, 2006 at 1:33 pm |

    Crap, that was supposed to say:

    than an “outside the *left arrow* insert country here *right arrow*”

    Damn HTML.

  103. Eric Paulsen
    Eric Paulsen July 3, 2006 at 1:43 pm |

    I have been thinking for some time now that another civil war is coming, one where the lines will be drawn in the churches against the heathen “other”. If you think that religious types either would never resort to violence or practice discrimination of others based on their religion you will be wrong. As the tension ratchets up and the rhetoric gets more shrill and abusive I will buy ammunition for my guns and prepare for the coming war. If I’m wrong I will breathe a sigh of relief and feel silly to be so well armed and I hope that is how this all ends, but one thing scouting taught me was to be prepared.

    I have always suspected my countrymen could be turned against their own but until this administration never thought it would happen.

  104. StealthBadger
    StealthBadger July 3, 2006 at 3:10 pm |

    Twain: Against the power of laughter, nothing can stand.

    And at least so far, loud, public, finger-pointing belly laughter won’t get you the jail sentence that the more obvious vicerally-rewarding response will.

    So just think of this little tune when you see a wingnut going off (yes, this means people who engage in moral absolutism ad absurdum as well).

  105. Hani
    Hani July 3, 2006 at 5:45 pm |

    This is so brilliant! I mean I never thought of using it for some personal revenge…

    I think privacy is no longer a right for any one in this world, one day we will all carry a bar code at the back of our nicks with a tracing chip!

  106. Natalia
    Natalia July 3, 2006 at 8:18 pm |

    Hani, the issue here is that of privacy. The issue is telling people, “hey! We don’t agree with these bastards! Let’s go hurt their kids!”

    What kind of crap is that???

  107. Feministe » Consequences
    Feministe » Consequences July 3, 2006 at 9:28 pm |


    One of the most disturbing things that has come out of the latest round of wingnut efforts to expose ideological enemies (and travel photographers) is their ta […]

  108. Anonymouse
    Anonymouse July 4, 2006 at 10:21 am |

    Goldstein called for any personal information available on another ideological enemy recently. The personal information appeared on his site a few days later.

  109. Jeff G
    Jeff G July 4, 2006 at 1:13 pm |

    Recently, J*ff “Online Integrity” G*ldstein allowed a comment which outed Thersites and NYMary to remain on his site for some time, publishing personal information about their identities and workplaces, apparently because Thersities snarked at Online Integrity’s misattribution of a rather famous piece of artwork (as Jane Hamsher noted, at some cost to her well-being, J-G eventually took it down, though some of the wingnuts apparently have the screen cap and have used it in other contexts).

    Count the lies.

    1) I didn’t “allow” a comment. I have open commenting, and the comment appeared when I was asleep. I redacted personal information that wasn’t available on other websites, leaving the names of the two teachers and their school affiliation, which I believed was key to the debate, as the two people in question were pretending to be something they were not — namely, university professors.

    Second, I cleared this with Josh Trevino, who was administering the Online Integrity Pledge.

    Third, this “outing” had nothing to do with any snarking about a misattribution; the theory debate with Drs Haggerty and Donnelly long preceeded the notice of the footnote in question.

    So you should probably get your story straight before publishing this kind of garbage.

    In fact, one wonders why you are concerned with protecting the rights of those who threaten from behind anonymous handles moreso than you are addressing what it is they say. Here, from Pandagon:

    Wow. The misogynist venom oozing from Goldstein’s brain is actually frightening.

    You can feel the wave of hatred like heat emanating from his words.

    Exactly. You know he would be out raping people if he thought he could get away with it (or maybe he has). And many (most?) of his followers likewise.

    As to the recent call to “out” a commenter’s identity, I’ll note that the commenter, Lo Ping Wong, wrote this:

    Your son is going to grow up to be a cockslapping faggot just like you Jeff.

    Posted by Lo Ping Wong | permalink
    on 06/27 at 03:14 PM

    He subsequently apologized to me in a private email, so I was inclined to let the whole thing drop. Until he decided to keep on — at which point the outing of his identity in my comments didn’t much faze me. But the only info I revealed was his name, which he used when he emailed me.

    Hardly secret.

    I suppose if you wish to rewrite history for your own peanut gallery, that’s your choice. Just thought I’d add some necessary correctives.

    And really, you got your Atrios and Crooks and Liars hit, which was all you were really after. Pats on the backs from the big boys for studiously spreading the lies and distortions of which they approve.

    Congrats! You must be so very proud.

  110. Jeff G
    Jeff G July 4, 2006 at 2:17 pm |

    Incidentally, I see that Dr Haggerty / Thersites is here to play the victim again.

    It is a fact that asked him where he taught and what his specialty was, because I thought it was important to the “debate” we were having. I asked him on his site. Several times. I’d link to those requests, but he took his site down — step one in airbrushing inconvenient history.

    On my site, I similarly noted — publicly — that I was interested in his credentials. His name was unimportant to me.

    In fact, here’s the actual comment where I solicited info about Haggerty and Donnelly:

    Thersites has set him up as a university professor of English. I suspect he’s a community college instructor who I’m not even sure teaches literature courses.

    Not that it matters—after all, I’m not the one who has been suggesting that my not having finished my PhD because I decided to stay home and raise my son somehow marks me as a failed academic.

    But it would be nice to know if I’m wasting my time with someone who has a Masters and took maybe one required course in lit theory. Because that would explain a lot.

    Anybody know who this guy is in real life? I asked over there, but so far mum’s the word.

    I don’t even need to know his name. I’m just curious to know what he did his dissertation on, and what his area of expertise is.

    Me, I keep my info on the “about” page. And I use my name. And I take Klonopin and talk to powdered supplements.

    Because my life is an open book, baby!

    I highlighted the applicable section for your readers.

    That Haggerty and his wife starting playing the aggrieved role — their info was posted on other sites and was revealed when Haggerty went after Althouse, yet still they pretended I’d “outed” them by not being awake when someone found the info on the web and posted it — just made me care even less about their supposed plight.

    And by the way? Thersites emailed me on several occasions from an email address that contained his surname and the first initial to his name.

    Thersites made credentials part of the debate. He shouldn’t have expected his own would remain hidden.

  111. OHNOES
    OHNOES July 4, 2006 at 2:50 pm |

    Publishing someone’s workplace and name and saying that their toddler daughter — whose location is now known — has a fuckable mouth is a little bit higher on the threatening scale.

    Which is precisely what Jeff Goldstein did. Because it is TRUE BY ASSERTION. *Rolls eyes*

  112. B Moe
    B Moe July 4, 2006 at 2:53 pm |

    Jeff, saying that someone would rape women if he could get away is hardly a threat. Publishing someone’s workplace and name and saying that their toddler daughter — whose location is now known — has a fuckable mouth is a little bit higher on the threatening scale.

    That is fucking bullshit, zuzu. Haggerty went out of his fucking way to avoid finding out who posted that. Blaming it on Jeff or the PW regulars is cheap, slanderous fucking bullshit. You just lost a reader.

  113. OHNOES
    OHNOES July 4, 2006 at 2:53 pm |

    You know what, screw it. You aren’t interested in the truth.

  114. Natalia
    Natalia July 4, 2006 at 3:43 pm |

    “Fuckable little mouth,” eh? I just got a decade and a half rolled off the clock. There are a lot of sickos out there, and encouraging them in this manner is irresponsible and disgusting. Then again, I’m sure Jeff is privately getting a kick out of all this, and doesn’t want to admit it.

  115. Anonymouse
    Anonymouse July 4, 2006 at 3:45 pm |

    I am not defending protein wisdom but in fairness it was on Thersites site where the inflammatory comment about their daughter was posted and Thersites who failed to take it down.

  116. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 3:53 pm |

    uh, zuzu?

    failed to take down inflammatory comments about their daughter.

    The alleged comment was not on JG’s site. How could he take it down? Indeed, he offered to help Thirsty track down the perp.

    Excuse me if I find Thirsty’s refusal to back up his claim that it was a JG commenter who posted the threat less than credible when he refused to provide the IP address for research.

    Color me cynical when people make claims they refuse to source then eagerly repeat the story to unquestioning listeners.

  117. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 4:00 pm |

    BTW zuzu

    The “over reaction” to an article in the NYTimes did not happen in a vaccuum.

    and lots of criticism attributed that NYT fluff piece attributed it to stupidity, not malice.

    are we to assume the left side of the blogsphere never overreacts or posts retractable/correctable writings?

  118. B Moe
    B Moe July 4, 2006 at 4:02 pm |

    Actually, I’m really not interested in the minute details…

    You aren’t interested in the truth, you mean. I used to like this site, you even changed my feelings about gay marraige, zuzu, but this is way the hell out of bounds, and it saddens me you can’t see that. But if you want to preach to the choir and turn this place into another echo chamber, so be it. See Ya.

  119. Natalia
    Natalia July 4, 2006 at 4:06 pm |

    Darleen, people love to overreact in general. But I can’t believe the pleasure some have taken in this fiasco.

    Furthermore, correct me if I’m wrong, but I have never seen the bloggers on the left, and their commenters, post such things about their opponents’ children.

    I mean, I might have called some senators’ daughters “overprivileged sluts and manwhores” at various points in my life, and I have a very, VERY sharp tongue (as everyone, including zuzu, knows by now), but even I stopped dead in my tracks when I stumbled onto this mess.

  120. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 4:21 pm |


    First off, we still have NO idea who posted that comment on Thirsty’s own site. Heck, it could have even been one of Thirsty’s own commenters in a Moby move to “prove” how evil non-leftists really are.

    I stopped commenting at Atrios’ long ago, when I immediately was attacked and so were my daughters by the commenters…especially pretending to post under my name.

    I have seen few “take pleasure” in the NYTimes piece. I read a kind of “well, look what the Grey Lady is up to NOW” thing.


    Anyone at any time can get on the ‘net and create a blog in a heartbeat. I’m sorry to see a photographer have his/her personal info revealed, but let’s please not think that any nut that posts and has zilch in traffic until someone overreacts and points traffic to it, is indicative of all other bloggers.

  121. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 4:34 pm |


    Conservative readers have asked me to publish the private home addresses of NYTimes reporters, editors, and photographers.

    My response: NO.

    I refuse to do it. I strongly urge others not to do it. Your home is your castle. It should be, anyway. There are some legitimate, narrow circumstances under which publicizing a private home address makes sense (the Kelo case, for example, or the counterprotest at Justice David Souter’s New Hampshire home, or documenting the erosion of the California coastline). But “For The Hell Of It” is not one of those reasons, in my book.

  122. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 5:01 pm |

    Well, good for Malkin. Looks like she may have learned her lesson after all.

    JAYSUS on a Pony, Zuzu … you allow no thought that anything that happens you don’t like cannot be but the fault of the nefarious non-lefties, eh?

  123. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 5:40 pm |

    It was in a press release as contact info. It was phone # and email addresses.

    That is not private info. NOT home addresses and pics of home and childrens’ schools.

    But hey, it is the students who are the victims, right? Poor widdle students who were soliciting physical violence against military recruiters, but possibly too stupid to realize that some people might take offense.

    whodda thunk it.

  124. Mark
    Mark July 4, 2006 at 5:47 pm |

    Looks like you got yourself an infestation of Pasty Trolls here. This calls for a heavy dose of Troll Spray!

  125. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 5:48 pm |

    Let’s bring this down to something that takes the partisan politics out, ok?


    What do you think of press policies not to publish names of alleged rape victims? What would you think if a particular newspaper decided to drop that policy because the editor took a dislike to a particular victim or that victim’s family?

    What would you think of a city newspaper who wants the current mayor dumped from publishing the details of a legal and effective anti-gang program, including pics and names of the undercover cops involved?

    What would you think of an attorney who passed on to his/her client the personal information of victims and witnesses learned through discovery (illegal in CA but I don’t know about other states)?

  126. Big E
    Big E July 4, 2006 at 6:04 pm |

    You don’t really care if someone releases the Times staff home addresses? You can’t really think some crazed right winger is going to go after them do you? Why it’s as about as likely as Iran actually nuking Israel when they finish building a nuclear bomb. It’s just rhetoric, so calm down. Remember right wingers are the bedwetters.


  127. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 6:44 pm |


    I wasn’t equating anything. I’m putting up for you things that are judgment calls. The press never publishes everything. Sometimes omissions are for good reason, sometimes they are indicative of bias. People jumped on the NYTimes travel piece because of the previous pieces, particularly the Swift program one, in which the NYTimes “gotcha” motives were transparent.

    Generally, I think the agreed upon policy of newspapers to not publish rape victim names is laudable. In CA we even have statutes that allow any victim of rape or domestic violence to even opt out of being named in the filed complaint (which is public information). But a reporter is under no legal obligation, and neither is the paper, to not publish a rape victim’s name, town or picture. A reporter is under no legal obligation to not expose any police undercover program, including identifying cops. Wouldn’t you feel something was terribly wrong with a newspapers judgment if they did publish such information?

    As a CA native, I remember the Richard Ramirez “Night Stalker” case …and that then-Frisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein blabbed way too many case details that the investigators had wanted to remain secret ..thus allowing Ramirez to ditch some of his identifying clothes and move south to continue his predations.

    The Chicago Tribune only avoided being occupied by military troops by an incensed FDR after publishing an article that revealed that the US had broken Japanese codes because they learned the info inadvertently and it was a throwaway line in the article. It would have been a different scenario if they had headlined the article “US secretly listens to Japanese military transmissions”

    I think the NYTimes editors should be in front of a grand jury …yesterday…to reveal the sources of the Swift and NSA stories and THOSE people should on trial exposed to long prison sentences.

    Coverage of what happened at UC Santa Cruz

  128. Natalia
    Natalia July 4, 2006 at 7:23 pm |


    When I spoke of pleasure, I referred to the notion that people have enjoying stirring up hatred toward the journalists involved.

  129. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 9:26 pm |


    They unnecessarily published the home address of a photographer

    What “they” are you talking about? I didn’t, I don’t condone it. JG didn’t, Malkin didn’t.

    As I said before, the only “they” that has published it is one unknown blogger with nada traffic and all the hands-clapped-to-face-look-at-the-horror overreatction blogs that drove traffic to it.

    NO no no. I said before, I’ll say again. The photographer’s private info (home address, home phone, DOB, et al) should NOT be published.

    It is OK to name the photographer, examine his/her past work and to note where one can write, in praise or criticism, to the photographer in care of the photographer’s publisher.

    The students called for the “protest” and for any action to drive the recruiters from the campus. They later boasted they drove the recruiters away, while lying that they did it through intimidation. Do you think the police escort was just there for pretty pics?

  130. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 9:37 pm |


    No one has to “stir up hatred” towards [strike journalist] biased mouthpieces. They are responsible for their own actions, and when one decides to engage in behavior detrimental to the lives of people already in harm’s way, cloaking oneself as teh ultimate branch of government is not going to fly.

    I’m fortunate that I am the daughter of a man who started his career in the 50’s in the newspaper biz. He wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for any number of “journalists” that come from Schools of Journalism over the past 20 or so years…because they have eschewed the 5W+H hardnosed reporting for “advocacy journalism”. Not “all the news that’s fit to print” but “only the news we superior beings feel you great unwashed need to hear to serve our agenda.”

    I grew up schooled at the nightly dinner table in mass media, communications and the ethics of how real newspapers are run.

    I spent Sunday with my parents and the look on my dad’s face when I broached the NYTimes’ descent into sedition told me all I needed to know.

  131. Darleen
    Darleen July 4, 2006 at 9:43 pm |


    PS…and before you decide to go off in the “they are spying on American citizens!” sophistry, don’t you find it just a tad ODD that only four years ago the NYTimes was demanding the exact program that Swift was about .. you know, before the NYTimes rendered it DOA?

    And don’t think that one piece about FDR is a mere anecdote. Study a bit of WWII history and the Office of Censorship.

    And you are still avoiding addressing the specific scenarios I proposed.

    I find that telling.

  132. little light
    little light July 5, 2006 at 3:12 am |

    Wow. “Descent into sedition” and equating “protest” with “solicitation to violence,” all in one tidy package.
    Do you remember anything like the Bill of Rights, at all?

  133. Jill
    Jill July 5, 2006 at 9:31 am | *

    And really, you got your Atrios and Crooks and Liars hit, which was all you were really after. Pats on the backs from the big boys for studiously spreading the lies and distortions of which they approve.

    Congrats! You must be so very proud.

    That was a little unnecessary, eh?

  134. Magis
    Magis July 5, 2006 at 9:56 am |


    A: Y’know, I’ll bet a government big shot lives in that house.
    B: Why do you think that?
    A: Y’know, all those dudes in the dark glasses and suits and all those helicopters.
    B: Oh. I thought they were just tourists.

    Do you honestly think that anybody in whose town a Cabinet Secretary has a home doesn’t know it? And do you honestly think none of them have internet? And are you seriously going to equate this with a breach of cryptographic security?


  135. Thers
    Thers July 5, 2006 at 2:44 pm |

    I’m not much interested in the details either, but Jeff Goldstein is a liar. Sorry Zuzu, but I have to borrow your comments section to reply.

    1. My wife was not involved in the “debate.” She made a few comments in my old blog’s comments section. Asking for any of her personal information was irrelevant and disgusting.

    2. I never claimed to be a university professor. Feel free to use the Google cache of my old blog to find where I did. The accusation that I “made my credentials part of the debate” is ludicrous. I mentioned my credentials once before the bruhaha started on another blog, but made no claim to be a university professor. Anyway, I do have a PhD and have taken theory courses, though how this matters is still a mystery.

    3.Soliciting information I wished to remain private crosses the line; publicizing my dissertation topic would have revealed who I was to anyone who knows how to use an academic database. Anyway, it was and is irrelevant to the “debate.” The request was pretty coy, and the results, given the highly unstable nature of his commenters, predictable. That he asked me several times for information and I made no response should have ended it.

    4. I have no doubt Josh Trevino gave him a green light. But for what? To republish information already redacted because third parties over whom I have no control annoyed him? To redact only certain posts but to leave the information intact elsewhere in the thread? Some “redaction,” one that is incomplete and lasts all of a few hours.

    Anyway, this information that Josh Trevino can “clear” certain kinds of revelations of personal data is very interesting, but absurd, given his own statements about the nature of OI.

    5. This is just crazy: “Haggerty and his wife starting playing the aggrieved role — their info was posted on other sites and was revealed when Haggerty went after Althouse.” Our info was “available on other sites” in the sense that if you went actively looking for it with the intent to out us, you could figure it out. Incidentally, the path that led to my information was through my wife’s, which might explain the absurd contention that she was an equal party to “the debate.”

    That this information was “revealed when I went after Althouse” is news to me. I have no idea where this fantasy originates. The location of this revelation would be of interest to me.

    6. That my name appeared in a private email is not really a persuasive argument for publicizing this information. “Several times” is also a nice way to say “twice.”

    Publicizing the information and then maniacally repeating it on his own site’s main page after I left two very brief comments on an Alicublog thread, and then throwing it around in comments at BBustard’s very small blog, is extreme, and yes, an attempt to threaten. In the eyes of people who are not crazy.

    For the record, I’d also be interested in seeing the evidence that I’ve been “running around the internet playing the victim,” as I’ve seen the accusation framed.

    This comment here is my first detailed response anywhere, and I would not have made it were it not for the egregious lies above, that I was passing myself off as something I was not, and that there was any ground whatsoever for asking for my wife’s personal information.

    Also, just in passing, Blogger does not reveal commenter IPs, for legal reasons. Took me a few weeks to get a clear response on that. Their crummy support is one of the reasons I’ll be ditching Blogger pretty soon.

  136. Natalia
    Natalia July 5, 2006 at 5:30 pm |

    Hmmm… Darleen’s off the deep end…

  137. geoduck2
    geoduck2 July 5, 2006 at 11:14 pm |

    Oh – these lies are so frustrating. Being involved in the “lit theory” debate I saw all this unfold in real time.

    Jeff Goldstein himself reposted the private information about Thers and NY Mary several times. He did this repeatedly.

    He had at first deleated the information. However, a few hours later he reposted the private information after he was angered by OTHER commenters from Atrios posting on his site. (Not Thers or NYMary.) In fact, NY Mary wasn’t involved in the debate. She was not posting on Protein Wisdom.

  138. Veritas
    Veritas July 6, 2006 at 2:28 am |

    Upon reading both sides of this issue, I have a few questions (if you will indulge me).

    zuzu, you site Malkin’s posting of the UC protestors’ phone numbers and e-mail addresses as evidence of her blatant attempt to “out” them, then explain the maliciousness of this act by stating that because she is a professional journalist, she should have realized that these students were unaware of the fact that she could indeed publish all info given on that release.

    I am wondering how you were able to obtain proof of the student’s lack of knowledge in these matters. Did you contact them? If not, were you able to speak to a member of their families, or someone who could unimpeachably attest to their exact experience (or lack thereof) in publising press releases?

    2. zuzu,
    Upon reading your post, I read of your recounting of the fiasco that was the thirsty/ pasty debate, and found your opinion to be a little confusing. While you were sure to inject your outrage at Jeff for “outing” thirsty and his wife, (although both had links to their personal information on their blogs), and also express utter contempt at the annonymous comment regarding thirsty’s daughter on his own blog, (whom the identity is apparently only know to thirsty himself, as he was so quick to blame Jeff and PW, and refused to offer the IP of the commenter), you didn’t really seem to have a problem with someone like lo ping wong saying something equally derogitorry about Jeff’s kid. In effect, you are condemning Jeff for a comment NOT EVEN MADE ON HIS SITE, WHOSE OWNER IS STILL UNKNOWN, yet overlooking a comment made by someone with whom you are fimilar with whose content was just as malicious as that of the unknown commenter.

    Were you misspeaking when you gave weight to the evilness of the unknown comment, yet completely dismissed the verified comment of a known lefty blogger, or does your partisanhood preclude you from seeing that this double standard is a perfect example of the hypocrisy the right keeps accusing you of?

    3. Malkin posted information the student protestors felt comfortable enough relaying to any and all media outlets, and was, in your opinion, paid back by having personal information (again, including pics), posted about her. The times posted photos and information Rumsfield felt comfortable enough releasing to the NYT, and was, again in your opinion, greviously maligned by righty bloggers by having the personal info of the photographer for the pieces’ personal info being posted.

    Do you believe you are being consistent on the two above stated cases? If so, please explain.

    Thank you for your time,


  139. ahem
    ahem July 6, 2006 at 3:02 am |

    Zombie lies from Jeff Goldstein and his posse? How bloody predictable.

  140. Jill
    Jill July 6, 2006 at 3:04 am | *

    Another question, Zuzu: When did you stop beating your wife?

    Please have your answer prepared, four pages double-spaced, 12-pt font, Times New Roman, by 9am tomorrow morning.

    Thank you for your time,


  141. Mark
    Mark July 6, 2006 at 3:26 am |

    Another question, Zuzu: When did you stop beating your wife?


    *sniff… I don’t think I will ever be able to read your posts again now Zuzu… I feel so betrayed!

  142. geoduck2
    geoduck2 July 6, 2006 at 11:32 am |


    1) Thers and NY Mary did not display specific identifying information on their blogs about their names, workplace, or place of residence.

    2) The equivalent situation would be a commenter who claimed to have looked through to archives to find a picture of Jeff’s child on the web site and then said a sexualized comment about this child. Furthermore, the said private information about Jeff and his WIFE’s work information would be posted on the web. And, furthermore, the town in which they live would need to be posted.

    Can you now see why this would be a potentially dangerous situation?

    3) Would you like to explain what NY Mary posted, either on her blog or Jeff’s, that allows you to rationalize this behavior as being OK?

    What is your rationalization that it’s ok to reveal the information about the wife? Would you react the same way if the private information about Jeff’s wife was revealed? Discuss.

  143. Josh Trevino
    Josh Trevino July 7, 2006 at 7:58 pm |

    I have no doubt Josh Trevino gave him a green light.

    No doubt you have no doubt. Your knuckle-biting paranoid hysteria throughout this manufactured affair has been a discredit to English PhDs everywhere: and that’s a tough group to discredit.

    Goldstein’s statement that I “cleared” what he did is also a discredit — to wholesale accuracy. Here’s the truth:

    1) I took it upon myself to contact Goldstein about this affair when it began.

    2) Goldstein made his case that the information in question was no secret.

    3) I responded that I felt that his actions were probably a violation of OI nonetheless, if taken devoid of context; but that we do not live in a contextless world.

    This is not a “clearing” of what was done. I’d like to think I wouldn’t have done it in his shoes; but then, I wasn’t in full-contact mode with the tedious shrieking idiots in question. Haggerty, et al., will doubtless pound their sippy cups on the high chair and proclaim otherwise — that’s what I have “no doubt” about. Their ire doesn’t matter to me, except inasmuch as it affects OI: but as I truly am not synonymous with OI, nor even affiliated any longer, reasonable people won’t make the conflation.

  144. piny
    piny July 7, 2006 at 8:02 pm |

    Actually, yeah, it was: you argued that the context rendered these actions something other than a violation of OI. That qualifies as approval, albeit with a soupcon of asscovering. What you should have said was, “I don’t give a damn about OI, since I’m not even affiliated with it any longer. That’s a fucked-up thing to do regardless, hon, and I wish you wouldn’t.”

  145. Thers
    Thers July 7, 2006 at 10:03 pm |

    Now that’s the Tacitus I have grown to love so well. Big kiss!

  146. Josh Trevino
    Josh Trevino July 7, 2006 at 10:23 pm |

    Shorter Haggerty:

    I’ve been validated with the attention I’ve craved for so long. Wife, child, and advanced degree not having done the trick.

    Pathetic. Anyhow, pound away.

  147. ToodleLoo
    ToodleLoo July 7, 2006 at 10:30 pm |

    no wife, no child, and getting the boot from the military haven’t done the trick for ticky

  148. Phila
    Phila July 7, 2006 at 10:47 pm |

    I wasn’t in full-contact mode with the tedious shrieking idiots in question.

    No, you weren’t. In fact, I’d venture to say you don’t have the slightest fucking idea what you’re talking about.

    The “context” was that Goldstein couldn’t take the sort of abuse he regularly dishes out, and went completely around the bend.

    See, if someone is really a “tedious shrieking idiot,” you don’t need to do what Goldstein did. In fact, if you have a strong argument, you don’t need to do what Goldstein did. Outing Thers and his wife was weak and small and cowardly, and it’s pretty droll that you’re defending Goldstein’s right to overreact to criticism while accusing him of being a self-serving liar.

    BTW, what is “wholesale accuracy,” and how can a statement be “a discredit” to it?

  149. geoduck2
    geoduck2 July 8, 2006 at 1:29 am |

    Josh Trevino,

    I had been commenting on NY Mary’s blog, Thersites blog.

    I did not know the real names or place of employment or specific site of residence for Mary and Thers.

    Someone had to do some careful research to discover it. Of course, I was not trying to “out” the anonymity of someone who was attempting to preserve it.

  150. geoduck2
    geoduck2 July 8, 2006 at 1:34 am |

    By the way – I think the gender analysis of this affair is interesting.

    Why did both Jeff and Josh believe that they ought to beable to “out” the private information of the wife?

    And we should note – NY Mary did not advertise her marital status. A casual observer following the debate would not know that Thers was married to NY Mary.
    She was largely uninvolved with this “theory” debate.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.