Feet of Clay?

I personally think that being an ethical person who wants "the greatest good for the greatest number" automatically leads one to political beliefs that are left of the American center.

But to be a truly ethical lefty also requires a sense of personal honor that includes not being a petite-facist, a bully, someone who prefers making threats from the shadows over open debate. I am utterly opposed to people who use such tactics, no matter what their politics. So it upsets me greatly when I find that well-known figures on the Left - people who could be heroes to liberals, progressives and lefties - appear to have feet of clay.

With that in mind, can anyone explain the story being unfolded by one rightwing blogger? Seixon claims - in detail - to have been harrassed and threatened by people Seixon claims are associated to either ex-CIA analyst and prominent blogger Larry Johnson or journalist Jason Leopold.

Can anyone explain it in a way that reflects well on these people? Neither of whom appears to have made a public statement in rebuttal of Seixons claims - claims that have been burning up the vast majority of Right Blogistan.

In fact, as far as I can find, not one prominent liberal blogger has said a single word about all of this.

On a personal note, regular readers may recall this exchange in comments after I linked to a CJR Online article about Jason Leopold in the context of a book review of Helen Thomas' "Watchdogs of Democracy":

Unless you have documented proof that you are prepared to submit to a court of law you should immediately remove the reference of Jason Leopold as being a fabriciator. It is defamatory on its face and libelous. And we will take this very seriously should you choose to leave this reference in place
anonymous | 06.19.06 - 4:32 pm | #
----------------------------------

Hi anon,

My "documentation" is in the linked article from Columbia Journalism Review which has an account of Leopold's history. I suggest if you have a problem then you take it up with them.

However, should you still look for a retraction then an anonymous threat is not the way to go about these things. My email address is displayed on every page. Contact me with identifying details proving you have sufficient proximate interest to actually bring a case and state your position - then I will be glad to consider it.

Although I should note that you have already prejudiced said case for any court as anonymous threats of legal action on the internet are, I believe I am right in saying, illegal by federal law.

I cannot believe that any legal representative of Leopold (or indeed he himself) would be so hapless as to threaten anonymously and so am inclined to believe the threat is empty. However, I do take all such threats seriously as they could become threats to my safety all too easily. If you continue to make anonymous threats I shall consider asking your ISP, Broadwing Communications, to track and identify you so that legal action can be taken.

To date I have heard not a single thing further from any legal representative, nor do I expect to for the reasons I explained in my reply.

I wonder exactly how many bloggers got similiar comments when they followed up the utter non-happening of Rove's indictment?

Postscript It is common in such circumstances to get into a "but look what they say" counterargument. I've no patience with that. Liberals, correctly in my view, argue that torture of detainees is wrong even if Islamist terrorists are beheading and torturing others themselves. "We are better than them, we should hold ourselves to higher standards" is the argument. The same logic applies to situations like this or to threats against a writer's kids. We are better than them - the rightwing hate-machine bloggers - but only if and when we hold ourselves consistently to that higher standard and condemn all those who do not.