Oh, how the mighty have fallen...

It's definitely strange in light of this.

I took it as satire.

i'm getting a 404...

I'm thinking/hoping, its an attempt at humor ???

If you follow the author's link to his blog, you'll find that it is full of similar writing. It is either very poorly, not very well written satire or the hate-screed of the left.

Love my double negative modifying phrases back to back!

I don't know who this Mike Larkin is, but his every screed drips with moonbattery

THere is a truly hilarious bit of "white supremacist fan fiction" on Vänguärd News Network right now. It sort of reminds me of Ayn Rand...if Ayn Rand had been a 300-pound alcoholic shut-in from West Virginia with a pathological fear of black people.

The writer was trying to be witty and clever and he flunked. You can hear similar 22 year old geniuses on college campuses

Oaky, I read Larkin's tripe, I retract my "satire" comment.

From dudes blog

Perhaps most importantly, a solid public majority is against the $87 billion aid package to Iraq, and has been ambivalent about the war from the beginning. It has been overruled. A fierce minority, meanwhile, to which I belong, opposes the entire venture and regards the U.S. government as illegitimate and oligarchic.

Go read his blog. There is'nt much there.

#6 AlexF is right, dudes a moleron

Ah, the left -- they're just so much more sophisticated than the rest of us.

...first they came for the porno...

mole+moron=moleron

(thank you thank you. are'nt I witty)

The guy writes like a bad case of Said intoxication.

Deathberg, it's really funny that you mentioned Ayn Rand-because she named one of her crappiest antiheroes Philip Larkin. :-)

First, I want to say that I was the one who called this story to Charles's attention. The reason I want that known is that I'm a friend of the Olsens and I don't want it to appear as though I'm sniping at Eric from the shadows.

Second, what Charles says about Eric is absolutely true. Eric is the best writer among a very good bunch at BC and he's consistently supported the War on Terror, including the war in Iraq. Overall he does a terrific job and I highly recommend his site. But there's a very nasty bunch of moonbats over there that takes advantage of his open forum approach to post some exceedingly vile shit.

I sympathize with him to the extent that it would be difficult and time-consuming to have to vet every submission (and there are many) for "acceptability." And I don't believe "acceptability" should turn on the author's politics: There's been a ton of anti-war stuff published on BC that's made me groan but has been fairly and honestly argued. Once you get into "Bush is rooting for Osama" territory, though, I think it's time to step back, tell the author thanks-but-no-thanks, and e-mail him the URL for Nazimedia. Pieces like that are a blight on an otherwise excellent website.

Well, one of Blogcritic's top referrers is Tom Tomorrow - which tells you something right there. Not the worst of the worst - I'd put Ted Rall in that category - but still a definite LLL.

It is confusing though - I thought Eric Olsen was one of the bloodthirsty warbloggers that used to make the kooks over at the late unlamented "Warbloggerwatch" site froth at the mouth. Or am I thinking of Asparagirl's boyfriend? It's lost in the mists of time, since my blog world has narrowed considerably since I became an LGF addict.

Donna--I think you're thinking of Scott Ganz. But as I said in #18, Eric is also a supporter of the WoT.

As I wrote in the comments there, that wouldn't even earn a C- in a Brown University creative writing class. I'm sure his ironic as all hell friends got inundated with IMs begging them to put down their copy of Chomsky's latest and read his latest 'article.' I'm sure his curriculum vitae will be on the way to Counterpunch any day now.

Nothing new, nothing original, nothing funny---recycled Democratic Underground. Sadly, Larkin appears to be a regular poster at BC.

Go to the guys >site and read his previous home post:

As democracy in the United States approaches its endgame, a question arises: how will the compressed rage of the excluded boil over?

Consider: On almost every issue facing the country, the majority of Americans is at odds with the rightist Revolutionary Power (as Paul Krugman calls it) that directs the national government. Although Bush remains popular, and will be easily re-elected, this fact is misleading. The Revolutionary Power rules by diverting popular discontent into military adventures abroad and, at home, by the racial and sexual scapegoating of minorities.

I grade him 90 proof LLL moonbat on the Krugman attribution alone. he sounds like dialogue from Woody Allen's Bananas.

Hey, Mike, it's the American way, apparently. Surely you are not surprised by the crassness and cruelty of your unfortunate correspondents. You better shape up and say the pledge like everyone else, or expect to have your ass kicked.

Seriously, folks, you either laugh or weep. Personally, whether bombs go off in New York, Baghdad, the Gaza Strip, Bali, or anywhere, they've bombed my city. When Americans are killed in Iraq, Israelis are murdered in Jerusalem, Palestinians are slaughtered in the West Bank, or anyone is slain anywhere, my people have died. Whether the murderer is Osama bin Laden, George Dubya Bush, an al-Qaeda terrorist, Ariel Sharon, or a Hamas militant, the horror and tragedy -- and my bottomless grief -- are the same. If humor can alleviate the pain even momentarily, I welcome it.

Moonbat number nine enjoyed it (apparently momentarily albeit seriously laughing and weeping crassly).

The hardcore leftists seem to have this idea that they can get a piece of the terrorism issue by somehow linking Saudi Arabian oil to the Bush family and then just condemning Saudi Arabia and perhaps the oil industry by proxy. Michael Moore is currently working his flabby ass overtime to try and make a movie about it, and I've seen the idea propagate pretty quickly.

They seem to believe that this will legitimize them in the view of moderate Americans who are clearly extremely disgusted, alarmed and upset about Islamic supremacist terrorism.
But leftists are doomed on this issue.

For one, they trying to make it seem like they are going to handle the very large issue of Islamic supremacist terrorism by pursuing only a very limited target, and anyone with half a brain can see that the problem extends well-beyond Saudi Arabia.

For two, while I welcome the idea of condemning Saudi Arabia and the Bin Ladens, as most who oppose the left do, trying to limit the issue to them just pisses me off. Excluding Syria's sponsorship of terrorism, the palestinian violence-mongers and the mutant mullahs of Iran is offensive. The inability and lack of will to tackle the core movements and to stick it to the motherfucklers just tells me they aren't being serious, and it's merely a "pose" against terrorism.

For three, the fact that the left is literally hostile or afraid to admit to any kind feelings toward Israel or the values of Israel speaks volumes. It has nothing to do with "Jews", it has to do with values. To hate Israel is to hate the values of democracy, honesty and courage. Even those few leftists who think they may have a few values left are terrified to admit to them in the context of Israel-- because that gets them thrown instantly out of the LLL club. I'm pretty much as liberal as they get, or so I thought before 9-11. Within the space of about 4 or 5 hours, and after seeing leftards on the internet actually cheer at the destruction of the pentagon and the WTC, and chatter on about how "we deserve it because of, you know, Israel, and the real problem is racism against arabs.." I knew that something was up. And I'm not alone. I know that for a fact.

The democrats cannot win, not because they lost me, but because they lost nearly everyone like me.

BC is off my blog read list

Charles and friends, I certainly appreciate the attention and the introductory kind words, but we are and have always been a site not moderated as to whether or not I agree with a contributor's point of view, much as Charles's comments here. Think of it as one big comment section. As we have grown - now 370 members strong - and we have an extremely broad spectrum of opinion represented.

I try hard to express my own point of view on an ongoing basis - and to confront those perspective I do not agree with as I encounter them - but I am not always prompt. We had a funeral to attend this weekend, various preparations for the birth of a new child, blah, blah, blah. I will try to give my opinion on this specific matter today.

In general my political perspective is not unlike that of Charles, though I am sure we differ on some things - who doesn't? - but Blogcritics is very much a forum that has a life of its own apart from my editorship of it.

I have noticed of late that we have had an influx of a certain rather-far-left perspective - in the big picture it balances out, but the writers post on their own and I have no particular control over things beyond my own contributions.

If you have a blog and are interested in joining Blogcritics, please feel free to contact me. We welcome all more or less resonable points of view, including those that reflect my own (smile).

I hope that cleared some things up and I hope to hear from some of you. Thanks, Eric Olsen

I read the link and I thought big deal. People are too insecure in their positions to read something like that without complaining? Group think isn't good for any side.

My personal feelings on the matters at hand and on the workings of Blogcritics in general are here for those who are interested. Thanks.

#25 PeterS. My journey took a year and a half. I actually was one, on the morning of 9/11 who thought it recompense for every U.S. foreign policy misdeed of the previous two centuries. I certainly know better now. I thank all who give voice to their learned, reasoned, and experienced thoughts.

if Ayn Rand had been a 300-pound alcoholic shut-in from West Virginia with a pathological fear of black people.

Scary thought, right up there with Evariste's image of Howard Dean.

Eric: thanks for the comments. I hope I made it clear that I respect your editorial policy; but honestly, I think it's in extremely poor taste to allow mocking posts like that one, saying that "Bush was hoping Osama would launch another terror attack soon."

It's disrespectful to the people who died on 9/11. I just don't see anything funny about that -- and I doubt that I ever will. It's a measure of how cheap our culture is becoming that this subject is now considered fair game for infantile attempts at humor. And honestly -- posts like that would fit right in at Indymedia. Is that what you want Blogcritics to become?

Blogcritics is a democracy that allows its member writers to voice varying degrees of perspectives. Eric doesn't always agree with them, but like any public forum where people are not policed for their thoughts or views, some rather radical statements are made.

To take one post out of so many and state that as the "representitive" perspective is not only inaccurate, but disrespectful to all those who have opinions that differ.

Should we assume that every opinion posted here in the comments section are representative of the author's?

I am disgusted by the tone of this entire attack and beyond shocked that what one radical idiot's satire says is being stated as "representative."

I am a member of Blogcritics and I don't feel the Mike Larkin represents me - and to state as much is trollish bullshit.

No one would have thought twice about you attacking the post, but to attack the editor, now that is poor taste.

As administrator of Blogcritics.org, I can tell you that Charles' comment (#32) makes me feel good about what we've accomplished at Blogcritics. I've been trying to think of another site on the net with many contributors where people actually feel free to post what they're really thinking and the results bounce from one side of the political spectrum to the other. Metalfilter, maybe?

We've gotten similarly hysterical anti-Blogcritics screeds from Atrios and other left-wing sites, and those warm my heart as well.

If Blogcritics contains content that disturbs both left- and right-wing people, so much the better. I don't want to have what I write censored, and I'm certainly not going to censor anyone else's post either.

Charles, you have a blog, you could be a Blogcritics member yourself! Don't like Mike Larkin's piece? Post a rebuttal in the same column and see how it fares! That's how Blogcritics works, and it seems to work well.

Frankly, I prefer seeing the issues from both sides, rather than spending all of my time in an echo-chamber of people who share my views. A little challenge - or a chuckle at the idiocy - is good for the soul.

I suppose it comes down to where do I draw the line for censorship? I can see the post as being perceived as in poor taste. I do not agree with the position it takes and have stated very forcefully so on our site (link in comment #29).

I have only censored one post in the 14 months (8912 posts) of Blogcritics and that was one Blogcritic personally attacking another by name, in very demeaning terms, and at great length.

I always leave open the option of censoring for "hate speech" and perhaps reasonable people can view the post in question AS hate speech, though coming in the form of satire, I don't think it crosses that line.

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone expressing contempt, disagreement, etc for any given post on our site, nor even with me for my allowing it to be present on our site as long as people understand that writers on Blogcritics are essentially autonomous and I am only the "equalest" among equal.

That said, I again thank everyone for the kind personal words and wish Charles and all here well.

Phillip Winn: "hysterical?" Are you kidding? I'm glad you're proud of yourself for allowing stuff like that to be posted, but if you think what I wrote was "hysterical," your reading skills leave a bit to be desired.

Dawn: I don't think I could have made it any more clear that I was not attacking Eric. The piece in question is offensive to me, and I said so.

Charles,

I understand your point of view and that is reasonable. I was mad at the implied accusation on Eric - as it is a reflection on me on many levels.

But that said, I am not angry with you and I have posted my official response on my blog in a manner that I feel is fitting at this point.

[Link: www.dawnolsen.com...]

We love you Charles and hopefully the number of times that I have defended you against slander shows that.

Truce?

"I'm glad you're proud of yourself for allowing stuff like that to be posted."

I think the point is that if you find it offensive, that's fine. Criticizing the guy who set up the forum for not being a censor is unfair. The rules have been clearly stated over at BlogCritics. Basically there are no rules.

It's an open forum. I am a BlogCritic and definitely more on the right hand side and I think left-handed posts are completely necessary. What the hell would the world be if I didn't have anyone to argue with?

If you don't know what the opposition is thinking or the ridiculous lengths they are willing to go to to try and make their points, what do you really know about your own positions? Politics is a game of relative position on issues and opinions. You can't do it in a vacuum. Eric is trying to create the opposite of that vacuum.

Bullseye. Direct hit.

Eric: I thought the post was blatantly offensive and hateful, disrespectful of the 9/11 victims ... and also disrespectful of me, personally, because every time I read something like Mike Larkin's "piece" I lose a little more faith in our ability to keep our society alive. I only have so much of that, and every piece gone is irreplaceable. I hang onto the remaining chunks with great tenacity.

But a front page post with byline credit as a contributor seems more like an "associate" position than an essentially anonymous person commenting in a system open to the public.

As I said, if that fits with your vision of how you want Blogcritics to be, cool. It's your site. If I didn't have a lot of respect for you I wouldn't have written what I did. I don't pay any attention to 90% of the blog noise I see.

And I hope you'll give some thought to why I might feel that way. Believe me, I didn't post that entry without a lot of thought.

I am a relatively new Blog Critic and if you were to label me I would probably be considered a moderate. I have worked in law, the computer industry and journalism for more than 20 years. Needless to say I was taken aback when I read Mr. Larkin's post and was hard pressed to find the words to speak. I am finding it difficult to understand Mr. Larkin's motive for writing it. At first he seemed to be genuinely hurt by the harsh comments he had received which led me to believe that he really intended it to be humorous satire. It is unfortunate the topic he chose was in poor taste. Now that he has made comments like the one above I am at a loss as to what kind of person he is. Nevertheless it is not my right or the reason for writing this post to pass judgment on him. Rather, I wish to extend my support for Mr. Olsen's decision to not censor this post (or any other post for that matter) regardless of the fact this one in particular was in poor taste. For if he did that the question would beg to be asked - whose post would be the next to be censored. I certainly don't want to go back to the days of book burning and inquisitions and I hope that all of you agree. I would much rather have the extremists in my face than hiding in the shadows and wondering what they are up to. As in society, I believe that freedom of speech is important to a thriving democracy and the extremists will eventually be weeded out by the rest of the readers and blog critics.

"But a front page post with byline credit as a contributor seems more like an "associate" position than an essentially anonymous person commenting in a system open to the public."

It is more like an associate, but there are 370 "associates" and basically 95% of the time Eric acts like every other one of us, except that he has a lot more time to post than the rest of us. He just posts and contributes like everyone else. He is merely the site's most active member.

Sure he steps out of that role to make decisions, but he understands the dynamics of a true malleable online community that should be able to grow above and beyond it's "owner." That includes posts by authors that other authors will undoubtedly be offended by.

It's ok because nobody has any more power than anyone else. If you want to be critical, be critical of the fellow blogcritics who didn't flood the site with bylines on the front page denouncing his especially dark satire.