Oh My... Charles Johnson is Now Doubling Down

Or maybe that is tripling down?  I mean you could argue that his defense in the comments of his own post constituted “doubling down,” so this would be arguably tripling down.  Still, however you count it, in a fresh new post entitled Yes, the Father of a Murdered Newtown Child Was Heckled by Gun Nuts Chuckie basically stands behind Lawrence O’Donnell’s ridiculous, idiosyncratic definition of “heckle.”  Yes, really.  After showing the clip I showed you in the last post, he says: “I’m not always a fan of Lawrence O’Donnell, but he gets it exactly right in this clip.”

Now, you might say, how does he process the fact that some leftward outlets, such as Piers Morgan, the Washington Post, The Week, Slate and now even David Frum have admitted it was not heckling?  Well, because they were bullied into it, not because they looked at the evidence and decided that “damn it, that Malkin chick is right.”*  Yes, really:

The right wing pro-gun cult swung into high gear yesterday to defend the hecklers at that Newtown hearing; practically every wingnut blogger was shouting in unison that there was no “heckling” — the people who interrupted Neil Heslin’s testimony were simply “answering his question.” They’ve actually managed to bully some media people into swallowing this line of BS[.]

And then he quotes from a tweet by Piers Morgan offering a schmucky apology:

AN APOLOGY: No, those gun supporters didn't 'heckle' Neil Heslin - they just shamed themselves with their disgusting behaviour. My mistake.
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 30, 2013

He goes on offering a second rationale for calling it heckling--because you aren’t supposed to talk at these things--which isn’t really part of the definition.  Interrupting is in google's definition, but it still has to be boorish in some way beyond merely interrupting.  But that doesn't dissuade Jazzy Ponytail:

But in a hearing like this, it’s common knowledge that the audience is not supposed to shout at speakers — and when the hecklers shouted “SECOND AMENDMENT” at Heslin, the chairperson admonished them not to interrupt. Watch the longer clip of Heslin’s statement above; he was asking rhetorical questions, not telling these loons it was OK to shout.

Which you know by now is deceptive.  Feel free to watch the whole long video if you don’t believe me.  The key exchange is at around the 15 minute mark.

If you watch the whole thing, you will see that over and over again Heslin addresses others in the room, more and more clearly addressing the audience behind him.  And each time he addresses them they are silent, until around the 15 minute mark when he says this:

I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.

And even then the audience remains silent, even though he is asking them a direct question and waiting a few minutes for their response.  And when he gets no response, he holds it against them.  He says, “Not one person can answer that question.”

Now I want to be clear.  I don’t think Heslin was attempting any deception.  I think he genuinely thought he had shamed his opponents into silence and wanted to make that point.  Frankly thoughout all of this, I have been impressed with Heslin’s character.  I might not agree with him, but he seems like a genuine, fair and understandably heartbroken guy.

But the point is, it was only when Mr. Heslin started to hold their silence against them did they finally speak up.  You can debate about whether they were shouting or not, you can even complain it was not a good answer, but it was not nasty, it was simply a reply.

But really, how pathetic does Chuckles have to be to continue to maintain that the man was heckled, when Heslin himself agreed with Piers Morgan that he was not?  Watch the video again:

Right toward the beginning Morgan says to Heslin that Heslin himself says he was not heckled and Heslin confirms this.  Isn’t that the end of the story?  Well, not to Chaz, but how about the rest of us?

But the story isn’t really about the non-heckling at this point.  Every reasonable person understands that no heckling occurred.  At this point the story is to see what it takes for the media to admit it and laughing as they contort themselves to ever greater degrees to make this argument.  For his part, Charlie is in going into full Dan Rather mode, doing his best to deny what is obvious to everyone.  Indeed you can see he is doing his best to purge his own ranks of anyone who dares to contradict that claim.  He’s going the full Dan Rather. Never go the full Dan Rather.

(It’s amazing how that line has stuck.)

Meanwhile, Buzzfeed is clinging bitterly to the story, and David Frum admitted to being wrong, but not before calling Michelle Malkin a sociopath... for pointing that out.  Does that make sense?  But I guess he was bullied into that admission, to, eh, Charles?

---------------------------------------

* Please note that I am imagining what they think of Malkin, not expressing my thoughts about her.  Although, come to think of it, “chick” is probably the least offensive word that flashes through their mind when they think of her.

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up to ten years.  I know that claim sounds fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these claims using documentary and video evidence.  If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right.  And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing, mostly for snark and site updates.  And you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent History here.  And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.