I used to visit Little Green Footballs, an early “weblog” that was quite popular, a while back and back then was able to find some valuable info and interesting conversations with some relatively well informed people.

I stopped going (I was a very infrequent visitor anyway) and only returned to visit, for the first time in over a year, a couple of months ago. Now, I’m not sure how it happened but suddenly the general consensus on the site seems to be that they have this hate thing going on where they include “liberals,” “Kerry voters,” “pro-Arabs,” “pro-Palestinians,” antisemites, and Hamas all in one big soup of “others.”

The level of hatred and anger is hard to fathom, and is particularly disturbing in light of the fact that many of these people are staunch supporters of Israel and share that passion with me…except maybe we don’t always share the same ideas about how to fix Israel’s problems or how the War on Terror (TM) needs to be handled.

So why am I telling you all this? Tonight I stumbled across LGF Watch. Yup, a site dedicated to dissin’ LGF, which was probably started by some Libbie, Communist, Arab lovin’, terrorist lovin’, antisemitic Hamas supporter who speaks English really well.

Amazingly, LGF Watch, obviously led by this Libbie, Communist, Arab lovin’, terrorist lovin’, antisemitic Hamas supporter who speaks English really well has caused some concern with a Conservative, Capitalist, Arab-hatin’, terrorist-hatin’, philosemitic Hamas hater who loves LGF and who promptly launched LGF Watch Watch.

Needless to say, the hippies are right on top of it and have now launched LGF Watch Watch Watch.

I promise more updates as they happen.

EDIT on September 6, 2006: This post is now linked to the Wikipedia entry about LGF. Quite a bit of time has passed since my original post and the world has also changed somewhat with respect to the conflict developing between parts of the Muslim world and the West and my views have also evolved. In that regard, I want to provide a more balanced view of LGF.

While I still strongly disagree with some of the language and nature of attacks made in some of the discussions at LGF, and also do not side with many of the prevalent views on there (as examples, I’ll point to the Iraq war, Democrats or the quality of the Bush Administration), I have to admit that it is a site that I read not infrequently and that has captured the emerging threat to the West, including Israel, the US and Canada, from pockets of the Islamic world far more effectively than most other sites on the Internet and certainly with more honesty than the mainstream media.

I will also note LGF’s strong support of Israel is on target and no less welcome than some of their other coverage. LGF broke the floodgates to the various photo and news manipulation stories that came out during the Israel-Hizbullah war and in so doing provided an invaluable service to truth and to holding the feet of a biased media to the fire. I may still find the discussions redundant and boring (and sometimes untasteful to put it nicely) and rarely read them, but they serve as a repository and source for immediate and up-to-date information for Charles Johnson from across the Internet and the media and have become an invaluable part of the important information and analysis he is able to provide.

About the author



  • TM: “back then was able to find some valuable info and interesting conversations with some relatively well informed people.”

    Did you mean to say “back then I was able to find more like minded liberal at LFG. Now the site is dominated by people who don’t agree with me, obviously hate filled and uninformed.

  • Well, okay, you got me Jim. I guess there were more people whose values resembled mine.

    I’m not sure about the l word though, I’d have to give that some thought. What do you mean when you suggest that I’m a liberal?

    However, I didn’t mean that they are uninformed. On the contrary. many of the people there are obviously educated and well informed. They are simply tuning out those whom they perceive to be of the wrong ilk (I’ve provided a partial glossary). As a result, their conversation is extraordinarily one sided with the rare dissenting voice who is quickly trampled by a herd of thundering one-sided people. It’s boring. It’s lame. It’s also, by its nature, wrong. It also leads to boring conversations – the word “droning” comes to mind.

    Yes, the hateful part is also disturbing.

    It’s a little like E coming to this nice little site, Jewlicious, a bunch of times and leaving after only a couple of posts that disagree with his world view. Why debate? Why question your beliefs? Instantly, he and Velvel “knew” who I was and what my values are and began attacking.

    I quote,“This new guy brings the moldy complacence of exile thinking to a blog which had the sweet smell of liberate Jewish thinking – of a group of diverse individuals engaging the Jewish Project. CK, do not be fooled by the amount of comments TM has spurred – it is because fans of this blog want to nip this development in the bud….
    …bla bla bla, political arguments are not even the point. The nation of Israel is eternal, the Jewish project rolls forward – this blog can either be on the vanguard of lighting that great light or it can bask in the cheap neon lights of the buzz words cooked up for you by the pagan media.

    Sorry but that sounds like LGF to me. Heaven forbid that they should actually consider an alternative view. Oh no, they know EXACTLY how the world is! Kerry is a flip flopper! Those damn liberal coddle terrorists! Anybody who doesn’t want to kill Arabs is a fool intent on destroying the Jewish people! The War in Iraq is going fine! Etc., etc.

    LGF was a very good site once. That was when you could go in there and actually see a debate between opposing sets of well-informed people with a variety of views.

  • I visit LGF every once in a while, but I have to say I agree, the site certainly has changed a lot. I mean it’s still a great place to go for relevant stories etc., but the quality of the discussion has diminished significantly. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind a conservative perspective at all, especially when it comes to Israel. But LGF’s discussions have become booooring and repetitive. All that self congradulatory preaching to the choir, and the shrill self righteous tone that permeates it… well, imagine this… a blog on peanut butter sandwiches, in which each post about peanut butter sandwiches is followed by responses like “yup, peanut butter sandwiches rule,” or “peanut butter sandwiches are totally awesome,” and when one person chimes in “every once in a while I like to have a tuna sandwich” they get bombarded with the most insane criticism. It gets boring after a while.

  • What is most disturbing is that if you peruse many of the other conservative blogs, you see the same exact styling that is (I’m guessing) cribbed from LGF. It’s the language they use (i.e. putting ‘Palestinians’ in quotation marks, always referring to Islam as the ROP (Religion of Peace), etc, etc.) They have their own little cottage industry of hate spewing followers.

  • I agree with you, Josh, but I’m not sure LGF is the guidepost for the other Conservative sites. I think it’s the nature of the debate and primarily the divisive leadership of the current US Administration.

    For a while, they were insinuating that if you don’t support them, you are essentially a traitor. It’s this circular and divisive reasoning that “what we do is right and if you don’t agree, you are with ‘them’.” Of course, “them” would be the terrorists – the sworn enemies of truth and freedom and the American way. So anybody who disagrees, automatically becomes a destroyer of America and its values. Suddenly, because Kerry criticizes the Iraq war, he wants to “coddle” terrorists and dictators, while not supporting our troops. If he wants to move into wars with an international consensus like Bush Pere, he is giving away America to the global hordes who want to destroy it. That’s not LGF, that’s this Administration talking.

    If you add the ME conflict to the mix, as does LGF, “them” comes to include Israel’s enemies. So, if you say anything positive about them, you are a traitor to Israel, Jews, and the history of the Jewish people. If you want to find a compromise with the Palestinians, you are a terrorist coddler who doesn’t understand the nature of the Arab. And so on and so forth.

    Like CK, there are certain views I share about Israel and especially about the war on terror, but in my opinion both projects are in intense and compromising difficulty, and that isn’t because one side is completely right and the other is completely wrong. It is because the situations in which we find ourselves are very complex and solutions require nuance and very smart long term and short term strategic thinking – smashing with a hammer won’t work and neither will a velvet glove.

    Needless to say, strawberry jam needs to follow the peanut butter and anybody who disagrees is a terrorist lover.

  • Well TM. I can see you have a right to be incensed by the stupid personal comment made about you and your blog by some idiot.
    May I hold him while you hit him.

    I assumed you may have the liberal bent from the pig piling you say you got at LGF and the overall ‘tone’ of your post. But, I see you have good reason and so I putting you back on my “the middle’ list. :-}

    By definition of liberal is less defense, more gov’t, less morals, anti-religion, repetitive criticism of country and less personal responsiblity.

    But the most egregious behavior of liberals that is driving most of the ‘hateful’ comments, is failure to support their nation during war. From the personal memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant:
    “Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupies no enviable place in life or history. Better for him, individually, to advocate ‘war, pestilence, and famine’ than to act as obstructionist to a war already begun. The history of the defeated rebel will be honorable hereafter, compared with that of the Northern man who aided him by conspiring against his government while protected by it. The most favorable posthumous history the stay-at-home traitor can hope for is – oblivion.”

  • Cool, now we’re talking.

    Let me address the liberal comment first:

    “liberal is less defense, more gov’t, less morals, anti-religion, repetitive criticism of country and less personal responsiblity.”

    Less defense: I advocate smart defense. The military needs to be smart and capable, and its leadership needs to be smart and capable. If you’re attacked by Bin Laden, you go after Bin Laden and don’t get sidetracked by another war that forces you to lose your focus on your key enemy.

    If you’ve got the sympathy of the rest of the world, you could squander it and make them hate you, or you could harness it and strengthen your position of leadership.

    If you go to war in Iraq (a war I always thought was wrong), you listen to your top generals who are telling you to take 400,000 troops, not to some theoreticians who think they can win over Iraq because their ideology is smart. You also need a smart exit strategy and plan for contingencies – neither of which was done.

    Is any of that “liberal,” or is it just common-sensical? In my opinion, it’s the latter.

    “More Government:” Fair enough, I believe that government is important so that society can be healthier. However, I believe in smarter government that functions efficiently and gets better value for each tax dollar. Now I know that Conservatives claim that they want smaller government, but we are now watching a Republican Administration, Republican-controlled Houses and even a reasonably conservative Supreme Court in action. Are you seeing smaller government or was that all lip service? Based upon the fact that the government is increasing its annual spending (beyond additional spending for the war); has saddled us with far more debt than we had 4 years ago, and a significantly larger deficit; has passed numerous pork spending bills; passed a number of tax cuts including a corporate giveaway two weeks ago that made absolutely no sense but will cost the treasury $140 billion in corporate taxes; and the fact that the NY Times comparison of the Kerry promises versus the Bush promises in this election costing approximately $1.3 trillion each (except that Kerry is going to raise taxes and Bush plans to lower them so the deficit grows more under Bush), it seems fair to say that conservatives are just as big spendthrifts (if not bigger) when it comes to government as liberals.

    “Less morals:” I guess one should define morality. Allegedly, Bill O’Reilly just sexually harrassed a colleague and seems to have a predilection for some fairly interesting sexual activities; Gingrich cheated on his wife and treated her like dirt while she was deathly sick in the hospital; Rush Limbaugh did drugs illegally and essentially made his employee a conspirator in order to facilitate his habit; former speaker of the House Livingstone was found to be a philanderer even as Clinton was being impeached; Tom DeLay who is the de facto controller of the House even if isn’t speaker was just reprimanded twice by a bilateral committee for unethical transgressions abusing the power of his office.

    The list goes on and on. Are the Dems any better? Hardly. But they are not worse. As to family oriented morals? Do you think the Bush twins are more moral than, say, Chelsea Clinton? Do you think that an Administration that seeks to undermine HUD and Section 8 housing programs for the poor at a time they are cutting taxes for the middle class and especially for the very rich is more ethical than a government that collects more taxes but enables the poor to live in dignity?

    Finally, do you think that you are more honest than me? Do you think you are kinder than me? Do you think you run your business with more integrity than I run mine? I would never presume that because you have a particular political bent, that you get a lower score than me in any of those areas. Why would you think that about me? And is it moral to think that way?

    “Less religion:” I’m not sure about this either. Kerry attends church regularly and has very strong faith. Bush rarely attends church and has very strong faith. Is one better than the other? It’s true that Kerry advocates for separation of church and state while Bush seems to feel the two can be co-joined. However, that’s not the premise upon which this country is based.

    Also, to be perfectly honest, I think one of the tragedies of modern day Israel is that certain aspects of society are controlled by religious authorities. The problem is that people might think their faith is superior to the faith of others and thereby decree laws that are unpalatable to many but since they are laws, must be obeyed.

    Imagine being an Ethiopian Jew with a Jewish tradition going back millenia. One day, you arrive in Israel, and a person wearing 16th Century Polish elite garb is telling you that you’ve been practicing wrong all this time and in order to enjoy basic rights in this Jewish country, like marrying a Jew, you must convert. Ouch! Sounds great for the Orthodox Jew but a really lousy bargain for the devout, Jewish Ethiopian. This is what happens when faith and government mix.

    My point is that there are many Democrats and liberals who are people of faith (Joe Lieberman) and many who aren’t, just as the same is true of Conservatives. How can you gauge which group is superior?

    “Repetitive criticism of the Country:” As long as it’s constructive, this is excellent! It shows signs of a healthy democracy! It may actually improve things. Besides, Conservatives do this all the time and especially when they are out of government power – challengers always have to attack the status quo.

    “Less personal responsibility:” I know many liberals and many conservatives. I know people who vote Republican and people who vote Democrat. I cannot think of a family that fits this idea of less personal responsibility based upon their ideology. If you are referring to the idea that Democrats and liberals believe in using government to assist people in need and some of the results include abuse of the system, then you are right, we have a difference of opinion. I think Canada is a much nicer place to live than the US precisely because it has a social compact that provides for people who need help, and to a much greater degree than in the US. Are there abuses of the system? Yes! And they are unconscionable. However, fixing this is a function of improving the efficiency and intelligence of government, not of removing these government services and allowing terrific hardship to control the lives of people.

    Your other important comment is about loyalty in wartime:

    I would have to say that it is a terrible mistake to support the mistakes of leadership that makes significant errors of judgement that end up costing dearly in lives, diplomatic capital, and essentially the power of the US. Was Kerry wrong to testify about the ills of the Vietnam War? Absolutely not. It is our task to hold our governments’ and our armies’ feet to the fire. Otherwise, morality is thrown out the door. Did those who leaked Abu Gharaib do the US a disservice or a service? Did those who WERE AT Abu Gharaib do the US a service or disservice? I think the answer is obvious. Did the Israeli soldiers who reported their commander who allegedly shot a 13 year old girl several times in close range after she was already down become traitors or heroes? I think the answer is obvious. There is room to criticize when a country is at war, and particularly after enough time has passed that the mistakes in planning and execution have become obvious. It is those mistakes that cost far more in lives than public criticism of those mistakes.

    Whew, that was long winded.