Why Are We Back In Iraq?

Folks, I'm not gonna stop blogging about this until things change.

Now it's time to pick on Atrios again.

On March 14th, Atrios wrote this post:

Will

"Media Matters notes George Will's latest Social Security hackery. While he didn't invent the "2011 is the crisis date!" spin point (the person I saw peddling that first was Luskin, I believe), I'm curious about something else. I didn't do this item, but I did spend a few minutes trying to track down the wingnut communications post from which he got his claim that "between 2011 and 2016, Social Security outlays will exceed revenue by $32 billion." Usually this kind of wingnuttery bubbles up from somewhere, but I couldn't find it anywhere except Will's column."

"But, hey, I'm just a silly blogger who doesn't have any editors. Will's editors appear to be asleep."

On March 16th, Atrios wrote this "follow-up" post:

Mystery of the Wingnuttery Solved!

"Bob Somerby tracks down the source of George Will's wingnuttery. It's really unbelievable, and it's extraordinary that Fred Hiatt lets this stuff get in print."

Atrios, don't you fucking read your own Haloscan comment threads? I'm pretty sure you fucking do. Because on March 15th, a smaller right-leaning blogger named Iconic Midwesterner left this comment on the first thread (link):

"Written by Judd Gregg, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. The second paragraph on the second page states - In the five-year period from 2011 to 2016, the contracting Social Security surplus will gouge $32 billion out of the rest of the budget and with each coming year remove an accelerating amount as the Social Security surplus continues to shrink."

"Now you know where he got it."

The link in Iconic Midwesterner's comment led to a post written by another right-leaning blogger named Doug Petch:

Look A Little Harder Next Time

"Over at Eschaton, This post by Atrios caught my attention. Specifically this observation - .....Never one to ignore an implied challenge, I spent even less than a few minutes on Google and was able to find this .pdf document (it was the fourth result listed, by the way) dated March 7 2005 and written by Judd Gregg, the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. The second paragraph on the second page states..."

"Maybe it's just me, but I didn't find it that hard to go from Judd's "...the contracting Social Security surplus will gouge $32 billion out of the rest of the budget...." to Will's "...Social Security outlays will exceed revenue by $32 billion.""

"I guess it wasn't Will's editors who were asleep..."

Right or left, I don't give a shit. I give credit where credit is fucking due. Not Atrios (link):

"There's still no better way to deligitimize a story in the mainstream press than to credit it to "some guy on the internet you've never heard of.""

It's not about some guy on the internet you've never heard of, it's about some guy or girl on the internet that Atrios has never heard of.

There's a word for this shit. Mr. Duncan "blog celebrity" Black, it's called plagiarism. It's too bad you bigger bloggers like to lecture us littler bloggers and write crap like "get the fuck over yourselves and ask yourselves why you're doing this."

If I lose readers because I'm not afraid to take on the big boys, I could care fucking less. I write with the same energy and passion that I had when I only had 30 readers a day (as opposed to a hundred plus which might be small potatoes to some but means a lot to me...though of course I want more...most bloggers would). But this shit has got to stop.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 3/17/2005 12:01:00 AM