Patterico and The Other McCain notice McDumdum’s hypocrisy on the St. Pancake issuePosted: January 21, 2011
and they both mention this blog!
Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 8:53 am
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
Clip this away, folks, for this will prove once and for all that Johnson is actually a liar.
Just today The Other McCain noted how easy it is to ignore Charles Johnson. But since Patterico stirred things up, I came across this astonishing item from Johnson.
Apparently he has written at least one piece in the UK’s Guardian about the “haters” in America like Pam Geller. Yeah, you read that right, the Guardian, which he used to refer to as the al Guardian (although to his credit he owns up to that comment). So a few commenters with long memories brought up Johnson’s own use of the term “pancake” when mocking the death of Rachel Corrie. Bear in mind, back in the day he used to make jokes like that all the time. When I made some kind of joke about memorializing her with a breakfast at the International House of Pancakes, I was ripping off borrowing Johnson’s jokes. So a few people brought up those kinds of comments. For instance:
Charles used to refer to Rachel Corrie, a pro-Palestinian “activist” who was crushed by a bulldozer, as “Saint Pancake.” Google for “rachel corrie pancake breakfast.” For him to try to characterize the former tone of his site as the result of too-loose moderation is simply disingenuous.
But Johnson selectively chooses to respond only to Joey100’s comment:
Some of the rhetoric – al Guardian, St. Pancake – has been brought up in this thread to embarass CJ. Maybe he should speak to that.
To which Johnson responded:
First, about the term “St. Pancake” — the simple fact is that I never used this term at LGF, and in fact I have told people many times, when I saw them using it, that I didn’t like it. I even warned some people that continuing to use it would get their accounts blocked. This is a case in which the smear is absolutely, 100% due to the very people you see posting hateful comments directed me in this thread.
Which was appallingly deceptive. I didn’t personally remember the man ever saying those exact words, but to deny one insult and pretend he made no other Rachel Corrie/pancake references was just bull. It was pulling a Bill Clinton, making a statement so deceptive it is in practicality a lie. He apparently has vigorously scrubbed his site of these jokes that used to come all the time, but, um, he missed a spot:
(Note: the highlighting effect there is the result of me selecting words to copy and forgetting to turn that off when I made the screencap.)
Notice the wording: “Indymedia unwittingly imitates Little Green Footballs: Rachel Corrie Pancake Breakfast” (emphasis added). Now how could they be imitating anything, if LGF had never made Rachel Corrie “pancake” jokes in the first place? Johnson was challenged on this point and he responds:
I made an ironic reference to the use of the term by LGF readers. I didn’t use it myself.
Mmm, yeah, except he didn’t say “our readers.” He said “Little Green Footballs.” And further in the past when other bloggers tried to hold the behavior of his commenters against him, he regularly denied responsibility for his commenters—he claimed he was not responsible for what they say. To this day his site contains this disclaimer:
Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
So which is it, Chuckie boy? But it gets even worse. Let’s remember that he considered the phrase to be so offensive that he claimed that he threatened to ban accounts of people who used that term when he was aware of them. Oh, except he didn’t. For years there was a commenter on his site that went by the handle “St. Pancake.” And Johnson even gave him a hat tip in this post (don’t bother deleting, Chuckie, we have the screen shot). So the claim that he deleted that term was a lie.
R. S. McCain’s take on McDumdum’s (il)logic
Posted on | January 21, 2011 | View Comments
“I was such a small fish at the time. I realized I was basically committing blog suicide by going against him. But he was wrong.”
– Pamela Geller, January 2010
It’s interesting how easy it has become to ignore Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. A couple weeks ago, Diary of Daedalus or the Blogmocracy had a post with a graphic showing the decline in LGF’s traffic since Johnson began his mad purge of commenters who didn’t cooperate with his site’s leftward shift. And I would have blogged about that, but why bother? Nobody cares about LGF anymore.
Johnson has tried to re-invent LGF as an amateur Media Matters, and Patterico caught LGF doing a phony “gotcha” wherein Glenn Beck last June supposedly told his viewers to shoot people in the head.
Patterico links the transcript of the program which makes clear that Beck never said or intended any such thing. What Beck was talking about was a “civil war” within the Democratic Party between pragmatic, mainstream liberals and the revolutionary True Believers who are intent on radical change By Any Means Necessary:
You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.
You will recall that after the 9/12 March on Washington in 2009, Nancy Pelosi gave a press conference warning about rhetoric that “created a climate in which violence took place” in San Francisco in the late 1970s:
And what Beck was trying to say on his June 2010 program was that Democratic leaders, who believed they could co-opt and use the radicalism of the Left for their political advantage, should worry more about extremism from their own allies than from the conservative opposition. You don’t have to believe that assertion — or be a Beck fan — to see that what the LGF post did was to twist Beck’s meaning into the exact opposite of what Beck intended.
What’s stunning is how easily Johnson — or rather one of his second-banana henchpeople, “Conservative Moonbat” — was gulled into that error. The Beck transcript was available online the whole time. The transcript was located by the third commenter on the LGF post and the fourth commenter observed:
So he says that Dems will have to shoot left-wing radicals “in the head”
Charles Johnson has cut himself off from conservatives and made them his enemies, without actually bothering to declare himself a liberal. Liberals were happy to celebrate Johnson’s defection from the Right, but the one-time dividend of a New York Times profile hasn’t yielded any lasting benefit.
No blog is an island. If you aren’t linked by other blogs, you can’t increase your readership. That which does not grow will eventually begin to die. When Johnson decided to make war on erstwhile blog allies, he also cut himself off from their readers, and without a readership — beyond the dwindling cult of sycophants — he has become irrelevant.